The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Charles Drago]

Please read this thread again, Don -- or at least my posts -- and you'll realize that my problem with Cinque was not his conclusion that LHO is visible in the doorway in Altgens 6. Rather, I found the reading of his simple-minded, self-righteous, arrogant rejection of deep political analysis of what by inescapable definition is a key piece of evidence in a deep political crime to be excruciating. In addition, he burst through the doors of DPF with guns blazing, he attempted to direct the tone of the conversation, and he repeatedly gave written orders to correspondents regarding the content and style of their posts.

Cinque would not listen to reason. Cinque attempted to provoke -- and not in a positive way -- those who disagreed with him.

Cinque had nothing to say of any value, and he insisted upon saying it ad nauseam and to the detriment of the mission of DPF.

Cinque is a snake oil salesman -- literally. Look it up.

Cinque can sell his snake oil somewhere else.

Finally, I'd suggest that sometimes monsters really are ... monsters.

Seriously, thanks for checking in.

[Charles Drago]

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?

One more point: Reread this thread and note that Cinque states -- I'm paraphrasing -- that the entire conspiracy cases does indeed rest on the identity of the mystery figure in Altgens 6.

The case for conspiracy is proven regardless of the identity of that figure. When Cinque and anyone else attempts to hang the LN/conspiracy argument on any piece of legitimately disputed evidence, they do the conspirators' work by severely and perhaps even fatally weakening our case. Do you really need me to explain this?

[Albert Doyle]

Anyone who defends Cinque is a bad judge of evidence in my opinion. I think most smart people would be able to see a crank when one shows up. I actually disagree that the issue of Oswald potentially being in the doorway should be ruled by a deep politics perspective. I think if there was any chance that it actually was Oswald it should be trumpeted on all Assassination sites. However anyone with even the most rudimentary analytical skills would see Cinque is woefully underqualified for the things he attempts to analyze. He's dangerous. His stubborn unwillingness to recognize even the most basic points about his so-called evidence is not based on any credible conviction or brave stand for difficultly-detected evidence, but is instead based on a willingness to push forth crank theory based on his own clearly bogus judgment. If there was real proof there I'd be leading the charge. However, people with a crush of other important conspiracy evidence to absorb don't need to be distracted by a clownish expert pointing-out ordinary dark spots in a picture and making grandiose claims based on strongly promoted sheer ignorance. The proof of Cinque's credulity is in the details that were being discouraged. Assassination investigation and research is difficult enough without unqualified internet experts jumping-in and making a mockery of valid efforts. I'm sorry but the Dr Ralph Cramden method of photographic analysis doesn't rise above the cut-off line. It shouldn't be defended on principle when it doesn't even deserve consideration. Even Horne gave ear to the Greer theory. He made a serious mistake doing that. He's attracted new bugs to that false light. As far as Cinque, even Fetzer doesn't defend him. - And Cinque doesn't have the sense to realize he's in serious trouble on that count alone...

[Charles Drago]

I actually disagree that the issue of Oswald potentially being in the doorway should be ruled by a deep politics perspective.

Ruled?

Do you seriously mean to write that analysis of Altgens 6 should not be informed by deep political studies and perspectives?

[Albert Doyle]

I actually disagree that the issue of Oswald potentially being in the doorway should be ruled by a deep politics perspective.

Ruled?

Do you seriously mean to write that analysis of Altgens 6 should not be informed by deep political studies and perspectives?

No. I mean deep politics can survive a discussion of Depository front steps forgery if it is real and valid.

[Ralph Cinque]

Doyle, You, apparently, are too stupid to realize that you don't say anything. You don't realize that substance is what matters, not rhetoric. You said that "The proof of Cinque's credulity is in the details that were being discouraged." Now, I'm not sure what that ridiculous statement means, but what I do know is that "proof" is completely lacking in it. What exactly did you prove? Do you even know the meaning of the word "proof"? I admit that it's rather breathtaking how many disparaging words you crammed into one small paragraph, as if piling up the disparagements adds strength to your argument. But, you have no argument. You have said nothing. I am now going to post the new intro to my video just to show you what an argument looks like. It says something. It makes a case. And as for Dr. Fetzer, and what you said about him not even defending me, those were fighting words, and I have forwarded them to him. And I have a feeling that he is going to come a-knockin'. Doyle, I have never met anybody who spouted as much vacuous, pseudo-intellectual, mindless gibberish as you. G to H. Ralph Cinque

In poker, you have to calculate the odds of a guy drawing a certain card. For instance, the odds of drawing an inside straight are 1 in 13. So, let's size up the odds in this case. The fact that both Oswald and Doorman look generally alike and are both wearing a loose-fitting outer shirt, that is unbuttoned, over a white t-shirt with a v-neck, creates, in itself, a strong likelihood that they are the same person.

Take the one issue of both shirts being unbuttoned. What percentage of men at work in the city go around with their shirt largely unbuttoned? Percentage-wise, it has got to be small. I don't know what it is exactly, but you'd have to agree that it could be no greater than 1 in 10. Right? If you don't agree, then walk down the street in downtown Dallas, Texas or any other big city and start observing men, and keep track of how many are buttoned vs unbuttoned, and come up with your own number. Take a representative sample. I think 1 in 10 is actually too big, but we'll go with it. The simple fact is that: MOST MEN BUTTON UP.

Now, there's no doubt that Oswald was unbuttoned- he was unbuttoned when he was arrested. Plus, we know that his buttons were missing, so he had to be unbuttoned. But nobody reported Lovelady being unbuttoned, and in the one picture we have of him from that day, he was NOT unbuttoned. Mathematically speaking, that one variable, by itself, creates strong odds that Doorman was Oswald and not Lovelady. But then, you keep going. Both Oswald's and Doorman's shirts were loose-fitting, somewhat over-sized, and I put the odds of that at around 1 in 3. But now we are talking about two variables which have to be multiplied together, so we are talking about a 1 in 30 chance that Doorman and Oswald would both be wearing shirts that were both unbuttoned and loose-fitting. (10 x 3 = 30) Then there is the v-neck t-shirt. Round-neck t-shirts, also called crew-neck, have always been more popular and still are, but v-neck users are gaining. Recent industry reports show that 67% of t-shirt sales have been crew-neck. Then came sleeveless tanks at 17%, and then v-necks at 16%. That last figure was probably much lower in 1963, but let's go with it. So, we'll say 1 in 6 odds of both wearing v-neck t-shirts. Multiplying that out, we are now at 1 in 180 (30 x 6). In other words, the odds that both Oswald and another man who was the Doorway Man both would have worn unbuttoned, loose-fitting outer shirts over v-neck t-shirts were no greater than 1 in 180. Note also that in every picture we have of Lovelady, he is wearing a crew-neck t-shirt.

So, at first glance we are looking at odds of 180 to 1 against the apparent likenesses in dress between Oswald and Doorway Man happening by chance. But then, when we factor in the matching collars and lapels, it takes it off the chart. The odds of that are too small to calculate. They are infinitesmal. The right collars of Oswald and Doorman match PERFECTLY, as I demonstrate in my videos. And although we cannot see the left collar of Doorman, (because they covered it up with that phony, ridiculous Black Tie Man) we can see the long left lapel on Doorman, which matches the one on Oswald. Again, that puts it off the chart. How many shirts even have lapels?

Note that all this would be true even if Doorman could be ANYBODY. It would be true even Doorman could be a random guy who just happened to be walking by and stopped. But, in this case, it's not that Doorman could be just anybody. If he's not Oswald, then he can only be one other person on the face of the Earth: Billy Lovelady. We would have to assume that one particular individual just happened to dress himself and arrange himself that day in the exact same manner as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mathematically speaking, the odds that Oswald and Doorman are the same person are extremely great. And if you don't think so, I sure wish you would sit down and play some poker with me. And let's make it high stakes.

The Doorman was Oswald, and the likenesses to Lovelady were faked. I'd go all-in on that bet.

A 48 year old state lie is dying. Let's put it out of its misery.

[Albert Doyle]

But nobody reported Lovelady being unbuttoned, and in the one picture we have of him from that day, he was NOT unbuttoned.

Go to Lancer and look at the picture somebody just posted of Lovelady standing on the front steps shortly after with his shirt widely unbuttoned and white tee-shirt clearly visible.

Game over Ralph.


Only fools rush in where angels dare to tread...

[Seamus Coogan]

I actually disagree that the issue of Oswald potentially being in the doorway should be ruled by a deep politics perspective.

Ruled?

Do you seriously mean to write that analysis of Altgens 6 should not be informed by deep political studies and perspectives?

No. I mean deep politics can survive a discussion of Depository front steps forgery if it is real and valid.

Al as far as I'm concerned that's Lovelady out the front not Oswald. He was on the 2nd floor jacking off over a Sears & Roebucks at the time. I have to go with CD Al. I mean we can discuss it for sure mate. But it's kinda pretty naff lol. I think you agree. It gets even worse buddy when we discover that Mr Fetzer thinks that the photo is a fake. Indeed that all Altgens films are fake. Indeed practically all images taken that day are. You see lad's Don, CD and Al. It renders this discussion null and void. JF wins man. Why? Because he's f##### Jehovah.

Get this guys, practically all the films and photographs taken that day were doctored to cover up NOT the murder. But the medical evidence. Wow. Thats profound. Kennedy's death in the matter was incidental. In fact Kennedy could still be alive. Nothing hit him he ducked and gapped it. Jackies marriage to Onasis, was merely a cover for her to go and meet him on the island of Lesbos in the Med.

How stupid we are? Sheeesh.
Regardless of all the images being doctored Mr Fetzer still see's Lansdale's and Bush's running around.:joystick: Now wait! For some 'odd' reason these images were not faked. They are authentic!!!!! Yes, well that makes perfect sense. Fake a picture of the motorcade, yet keep a picture purporting to have 3 suspects and Lansdale walking down the street. Ha ha ha, very, very smart these CIA guys are. How could Mr Fetzer take holiday snaps AFTER all the high powered conferences he tells us repeatedly he's been too?
Shit they may well have been altered as well. I mean hell lad's! That swell looking lady from Tacoma turned out to be a Lady Boy called Patrick in Bangkok.

[Ralph Cinque]

Buffoon! Are you blind? He's wearing a round-neck t-shirt! It makes my case, not yours! It proves that Lovelady can't be Doorway Man. I am going to post here the response I posted there to that:

NO,James. Doorway Man is Oswald, and you are making some mistakes which is keeping you from reaching the right conclusion.

First, if you are a serious student of the assassination, you should know enough to be skeptical about evidence. Do I really need to tell you that? So far, I have seen 3 different shirts that were claimed to be the one Oswald wore. And they were all different. I put no stock in any of them. The only time I recognize a shirt as being the one Oswald wore is if I see Oswald in it.

Now, why do I have to tell you that? Why didn't you come to that conclusion yourself? Do you want to see Oswald's shirt up close? Then watch this video on youtube, and it isn't mine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhLqaDt5l9Q

You could also search for it by going to Youtube and typing in: What Did Oswald See. And notice that Oswald IS in it, and that's what makes it legit.

That's his shirt, with the long lapel on the left side. You needn't point to any other.

And your pictures of Lovelady only strengthen my argument. Can't you see that he is wearing a crew-neck, that is, a round-neck t-shirt? Do you see a notch in the t-shirt like on Doorman's v-neck? Don't you realize that that clinches it by itself?

James, I'll tell you what I think. I think you were on to something years ago when you were thinking like me, but then you backed off. why? Because of the weight of offialdom, including the fact that most CTs had accepted the Lovelady hypothesis just like the lone-nutters. Well, I say f officialdom. Doorway Man is Oswald. And I am going to post again the introduction to my first video on youtube. Please read it, slowly and carefully. Do the Math. THERE IS NO WAY THAT ALL THOSE LIKENESSES COULD HAVE HAPPENED BY CHANCE BETWEEN OSWALD AND LOVELADY. And none of the pictures you posted of Lovelady are anywhere near close enough to match. Again, they only strengthen my argument.

[Charles Drago]

Why are you engaging this fool?