The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Hall,

I meant it. But then Dawn had to come in and take a swipe at me. Why was that necessary? Mr. Doyle is a big boy. He can fight his own battles. What kind of club is this?

Ralph Cinque

[Charles Drago]

The kind that does not welcome fools, charlatans, and agents provocateur.

Please keep your word and go away.

[Kevin Hall]

Mr. Cinque

You are still here? Then it was a lie.

Yes is yes and no is no, if your word was any good you would not be here still - no ifs, ands, or buts.

How can you expect anyone to believe what you have to say when you demonstrate
that even in the simplest example your actions and your words do not match up?

[Vasilios Vazakas]

No, Mr. Vazakas, you spoke of "their continuous effort to induce cognitive dissonance."
If you were talking about me, you would have said, "your continuous effort to induce cognitive dissonance." Get it[/URL]

what i have said was that you propagate the cognitive dissonance. Unless you ve got something interesting to say, ther is no point to repeat ourselves and tire everybody.

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Hall, then why are you asking me questions? It is customary to answer questions that are asked. Or, was I supposed to assume that it was just a rhetorical question? Nevertheless, the best way to engender silence is to practice it. Give it a try. Ralph Cinque

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Vazakas,

Your initial use of the term "cogntive dissonance" was not in reference to me, but rather to others. It's true that later you said that I was adding to the cognitive dissonance, but still, my point stands: you raised the term in reference to others.

I have just spoken to Dr. Fetzer, and he, at this very moment, is reading through this thread to learn all the things you people have been saying about him and about me.

Now listen up: If you don't want me to respond, don't you respond. Just drop it. Walk away. Don't say another word! I'm not going to say another word to you if you don't say another word to me. You want silence? PRACTICE IT!

Ralph Cinque

[Charles Drago]

Everyone,

I respectfully ask that you all cease and desist from responding to Cinque. To do otherwise is to dignify his third-rate mind and his blatantly obvious agenda to disrupt and demean this forum and all who in good will and sound mind contribute positively to it.

I ask that you no longer address him directly. I ask that you appreciate his simple-minded and maliciously worded "analyses" for what they truly are: they amount to an invaluable primer best titled How to Recognize Agents Provocateur.

Thanks,

CD

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Charles

If all agents provocateurs are like that, then we eat them for breakfast!
They cannot achieve much, they just make a fool of themselves.

[Seamus Coogan]

Charles

If all agents provocateurs are like that, then we eat them for breakfast!
They cannot achieve much, they just make a fool of themselves.

He's Kitchen Cinque lol.

[Don Jeffries]

Okay, now to defend Ralph Cinque, whom I know very little about.

Reading through this thread, I'm reminded of the old Universal Horror movies, where the angry citizens are marching through the streets with torches. Cinque appears to be playing the hapless role of Frankenstein's monster, trying in vain to elude the mob.

I don't see what you all are objecting to here. Cinque didn't even start the thread, someone else did, and they attacked his work. Yet virtually every post on this thread (except for Cinque's) portrays things as if Cinque came onto this forum and started attacking others. He didn't. He was attacked and is defending himself.

And why is there so much desperate vitriol directed at the hypothesis that it was Oswald in the TSBD doorway, and not Lovelady? This is yet another of those "neo-con" type issues, wherein too many good researchers have simply given ground on a potentially explosive piece of evidence proving conspriacy. The early critics, especially Weisberg, made a very strong case that Lovelady was not the man in the doorway, and that it could very well have been Oswald. No convincing research has been done, in all the years since then (at least to my knowledge) to justify the kind of certainty I see, in so many posts on this subject, from my fellow CTers, that the figure has been proven to be Lovelady. There is no concrete evidence that it was Lovelady. At the very least, there is a great deal of reasonable doubt here.

Is this an important issue? Well, we all know the case for conspiracy certainly doesn't rest on Oswald being the figure in the doorway captured in the Altgens photograph. However, IF it can be established that it WAS Oswald, then it becomes the kind of "smoking gun" we've all yearned for over the decades. Even the most brainwashed member of the idiocracy cannot fail to see the significance of a photo showing the alleged assassin, standing gunless with other spectators, as the victim is being shot directly in front of him. What better evidence for conspiracy, or at least Oswald's innocence, could there be?

Again, I've never communicated with Mr. Cinque ever, and really know nothing about him. I just wanted to step in and defend him, because I don't think he's being treated fairly.