The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Don Jeffries]

I have been reading the replies since I posted on this thread (although, curiously, my own post seems not to be here, and neither is the one I wrote on the Fetzer thread). Nothing that Cinque or his opponents have said since then has changed my initial observation that he is being attacked, irrationally in my view.

Seamus, you really need to count to 100 before you hit "enter." You blatantly challenged Cinque to a physical fight. Is that the kind of forum you want here? Is that the kind of philosophy you espouse? I thought that civilized people everywhere had discarded the "might is right" credo a long time ago. If you have kids, is this what you teach them? That if you disagree with somebody, and can beat them up, that makes you right? Even someone who thought Cinque's views to be completely ridiculous, and that you were absolutely correct about everything, would have to give pause after that.

I take a back seat to no one in my hard core political beliefs, and most people would describe me as an "extremist." I believe we are ruled by hopelessly corrupt, evil plutocrats, and their mess is managed by largely incompetent stooges, who are often chosen because they have embarrassing aspects to their personal lives that can be subject to blackmail. I don't trust those who run our institutions, and I suspect most every significant political event is a conspiracy. Don't confuse civility with weakness. Just because I make my arguments without resorting to personal snipes or name calling doesn't make them any less effective.

I think Cinque has made a pretty strong case that the figure in the doorway is Oswald. But then again, I didn't need him to do that- I've always thought it was probably Oswald. As noted before, there is no logical reason for CTers to declare that the figure is Lovelady, as if anyone has ever proven that. They haven't. I would urge all of you to go back to Weisberg- I think he covered this extensively in "Whitewash II," and study what he had to say. Then try and find any researcher who has effectively countered his arguments. I'm not 100% sure that the figure is Oswald, and the case for conspiracy doesn't hinge upon it either way, but if it can be demonstrated that it is Oswald, then obviously that is a vitally important piece of evidence.

[Don Jeffries]

Note- now I can find my posts. Don't know how I missed them before.

Also, I do want to say that I enjoy Seamus Coogan's work with CTKA. I have great respect for Jim DiEugenio, and didn't want my comments to sound like I feel negatively towards Seamus. I must reiterate, however, that juvenile threats like that, and tough talking on the internet in general, will cause a lot of people to ignore anything else you're saying.

[Albert Doyle]

Why should it come as a surprise that Albert Doyle (once again) has shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about? But then, that appears to be the modus operandi on this forum. When some of you want to kick someone around because you can't cope with their arguments, just make up a position that no one would believe, attribute it to them, and then ridicule it! There are many past masters of this technique on this form, where The Education Forum looks like a paragon of rationality compared with the rubbish that is dominating the Deep Politics Forum. Let me add that a change of names might be in order, since there is nothing "deep" about the kinds of exchanges going on here.

Fetzer, like Cinque, once again using too many words to not answer the point.

Ralph Cinque has been standing up for himself completely admirably, by any reasonable standard. For CHARLES DRAGO to refer to him as "a fool" is now exactly what I would expect from the likes of him. He is THE preposterous, pompous and arrogant, petty-tyrant of the DPF! He is so impressed with himself that he cannot bother to take the time to do research about the actual positions of those whom he attacks here. WHEN CHARLES SPEAKS, THE FORUM SWOONS! Just as I have demonstrated with regard to the "mastermind" issue, the Zapruder film and video fakery on 9/11, he has no basis whatsoever for dismissing Ralph Cinque, much less calling him a "fool"! If ever there was a false idol of JFK research, it has to be Charles Drago! Let me demonstrate again why I can no longer respect the man, even though I once actually admired him. Shame on me!

Ah, Dr Fetzer, previously I assumed you had some credibility. However I cannot save you now for you just said in public "he (Drago) has no basis whatsoever for dismissing Ralph Cinque, much less calling him a "fool"! "

New eyes often see things that past students have missed. In this case, the subtleties of the shirt of Doorway Man have been missed by several generations of JFK students. But Ralph realized that it was a very distinctive shirt and that it had features that were not present on the checkered shirt that Lovelady was supposed to have worn that day. If that WAS the shirt that Lovelady wore that day, then he was not Doorway Man. Not only has Ralph done a brilliant job of making his case, but there is a complementary argument that I have made, namely: since the shirt that the man whose face was obliterated WAS ALSO OBLITERATED, there had to have been something about it that required concealment. When Lovelady subsequently demonstrated the shirt he was ACTUALLY WEARING--with its broad and bright strips--it became obvious why they had to obfuscate the shirt as well as the face.

Granted while Savant talents are possible, any credible professor would run from "Dr" Ralph Cinque. You have just promoted and endorsed one of the most outrageously incompetent attempters of serious publicly-presented conspiracy theory I've ever witnessed. You can't be serious.

You're existing in an open fantasy land. We've seen Dr Cinque's explanations of this evidence and they're ridiculous. Credulous. They are mostly based on himself insisting he sees things in photos so blurry they are almost non-visible.

I don't know what you're seeing but the pattern on Lovelady's shirt that I see looks the same. And it is as obscured as everyone else's clothing in the area. It's rather foolish of you to suggest Lovelady's shirt was purposefully obscured when it is simply as fuzzy as everything else at that range. This could be shown with high tech analysis.

Frankly I'm stunned that a professor of your reputation would refer to an obvious quack like Cinque as "brilliant" and then offer reasoning that is so obviously flawed that it cannot do anything other than bring serious question over your competency. This is a childish level of analysis for someone who has written books about this subject.

We've seen Dr Cinque's claimed features on the shirt. It's rubbish. In no way can he show the features he claims to be seeing in those fuzzy shots. Anyone can see he's trying to conflate the coincidental resemblance of Lovelady's open shirt into claims of subtle features like "lapels" and collar hook loops. Those features are not there and Cinque can't point them out. You can see his rambling diversions when forced to show this. He's trying to force Lovelady's loose and open shirt into becoming Oswald's. And Dr Fetzerstein is trying to help him.

To further his own skewering Dr Fetzer then says: " but there is a complementary argument that I have made, namely: since the shirt that the man whose face was obliterated WAS ALSO OBLITERATED, there had to have been something about it that required concealment. When Lovelady subsequently demonstrated the shirt he was ACTUALLY WEARING--with its broad and bright strips--it became obvious why they had to obfuscate the shirt as well as the face. "

- The only problem with this is the shirt seen on Doorway Man has broad and bright stripes. The wonderful thing about claims forgery is that once you make them you can just add anything you like as Dr Fetzer does here. Look at the plaid box pattern on Lovelady's shirt. It matches the dimensions of that seen in Altgens.

There's a very good chance Oswald would not risk getting docked by wearing a shirt with three buttons ripped-out and missing at the top to work. A smart detective would realize this pattern is the exact pattern you would see with police handling at the theater as illustrated by Oswald's face.

I'm sorry, where exactly did you point out where "I didn't know what I was talking about"?

Indeed, the argument also applies to the checkered shirt, because its presence, too, on this other figure--who now appears to have been the actual location of Lovelady--would similarly "have given the game away." So, I am sorry to say, the vicious attacks on Ralph are no more justified than the unfounded--and equally vicious--attacks on me. I have demonstrated that they have no foundation. It is only by fabricating evidence--by attributing to me a position that I provably do not hold--and by ignoring the different kinds of proof that the positions I have advanced on the Zapruder film (that it was fabricated) and video fakery in New York (that it took place) have gathered any traction at all. I let Charles attack stand as an IQ test of the research abilities of the members of this forum. No one bothered to ask if the position that Charles was attacking was the position I was defending, which it manifestly is not. Continuing these equally unwarranted attacks on Ralph only reaffirms that this forum is not serious about research on JFK.

Fetzer: " Indeed, the argument also applies to the checkered shirt, because its presence, too, on this other figure--who now appears to have been the actual location of Lovelady--would similarly "have given the game away." "

- What are you talking about and where exactly is this second forged person?

"Unwarranted attacks"??? This man did not know that the object that he was referring to as the "strange white stripes" was actually the shirt of the man standing behind Lovelady with a black tie dividing it.

I want Dr Fetzer to avoid the overly long and worded responses and simply answer what he thinks about Dr Cinque saying there were no examples of Lovelady with his shirt open. James Gordon on Lancer promptly posted a photograph taken after Altgens 6 showing Lovelady on the front steps with his shirt open and looking identical to "Doorway Man". This didn't affect Cinque in the least. Fetzer's paragon of research not only makes fatal gaffs but then ignores them when shown. Surely Dr Fetzer doesn't seriously offer Dr Cinque's input here as credible and worthy of his endorsement? Is this a joke??? If Dr Fetzer intends to chase Assassination forgery evidence windmills with this particular Pancho I suggest he bring some rain gear to deflect the rotten fruit he's going to have thrown at him.

In the end Dr Fetzer has managed to write a lot without really saying anything. Too much evasive digression and irrelevant appeals. This is the sign of somebody who isn't being honest. And as far as Cinque, now I understand where he gets his reckless abandon. If you look closely above Dr Fetzer won't say the person in Lovelady's spot is Oswald. He won't say it directly. At that point I think we need Freud rather than Jack White. Or maybe Rorschach. Or perhaps the good doctors should apply for Ghost Adventures - but, alas, they probably have a stricter standard of debunking than the Fetzer Assassination School.


I think the JFK Community needs to post a highly visible public notice that it disassociates itself from Dr Fetzer. More and more I'm starting to feel my blood boil...

[Seamus Coogan]

Note- now I can find my posts. Don't know how I missed them before.

Also, I do want to say that I enjoy Seamus Coogan's work with CTKA. I have great respect for Jim DiEugenio, and didn't want my comments to sound like I feel negatively towards Seamus. I must reiterate, however, that juvenile threats like that, and tough talking on the internet in general, will cause a lot of people to ignore anything else you're saying.

Don it was an invite into a ring. With gloves headgear the works. An invite is not a threat. I should have added a few Lols and taken the piss out of myself a little more admittedly. But it's nothing buddy and don't make a drama of it. Dude take a look at the Dr he's buff and despite his 'weaklng' stance he'd give me a bloody better go than he thinks so scroll down lol. http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=2418.

At least the doctor is a real person.

I'd issue the same to you too Mr Jefferies indeed anybody. Even Greg Burnham (though the guys a cop and I might be in some deeeep trouble there). Because, in reality if your having a beer with your mates and some one crashes in and insults the hosts namely, Jan and CD as badly as Mr Cinque has lets face it he would get checked somehow, someway and no one would offer to meet him in a gym with headgear, mouthpiece and a referee. Thus, my cajoling of mr tough guy, was damn well nothing in comparison to what he'd get in reality. Further that Don, I've long known you wouldn't be supportive of my work because you think people like Alex Jones and David Icke (unless I am mistaken on the latter have something of value) lol. It's all good if you do but I don't.

[Don Jeffries]

You definitely didn't break my heart, Seamus. I don't really know you, so it would be pretty much impossible for you to disappoint me to that extent. However, I am dismayed to see someone who wants to be taken seriously by the JFK assassination research community resort to such antics. Tough guy talking in general is usually reserved for sports or gaming forums, which are dominated by young, immature posters. While I've bemoaned many a nasty post on the Ed Forum and other forums, this was the first time I've seen a poster challenge another to an actual physical fight. And no, civilized Americans don't attempt to beat each other up when they have a disagreement. At least none that I associate with.

I think it's ironic that Jim Fetzer's personality-admittedly far too prone to beligerance-is criticized by those whose online personas are far more extreme than his at his worst. There's the old expression about not throwing stones when you live in a glass house....

[Seamus Coogan]

You definitely didn't break my heart, Seamus. I don't really know you, so it would be pretty much impossible for you to disappoint me to that extent. However, I am dismayed to see someone who wants to be taken seriously by the JFK assassination research community resort to such antics. Tough guy talking in general is usually reserved for sports or gaming forums, which are dominated by young, immature posters. While I've bemoaned many a nasty post on the Ed Forum and other forums, this was the first time I've seen a poster challenge another to an actual physical fight. And no, civilized Americans don't attempt to beat each other up when they have a disagreement. At least none that I associate with.

I think it's ironic that Jim Fetzer's personality-admittedly far too prone to beligerance-is criticized by those whose online personas are far more extreme than his at his worst. There's the old expression about not throwing stones when you live in a glass house....

I re-edited that post. But get it into context Don. The reality is Mr Cinque wandered in and insulted the hosts. In reality outside of safecyber world, if someone crashed your pad what would happen Don? What would you do. Tell me please? Because what I said was actually totally mild. People here can act real tough behind a screen and trut me this fellow has been extremely bullying and aggressive to others here. Now read the thread 'bucko' before jumping in to see how nasty and annoying Mr Cinque has ACTUALLY been. Then you can go pass judgement on myself. Until then I leave you in peace and respect. Speaking of peace I am enjoying watching Cinque get torn to pieces. Further Don, believe it or not I am mild in comparison to Mr Fetzer. I can actually apologise or admit fault. I see nothing here which engages these feelings.

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert, Were you any less incompetent, you would have known that I had simply inadvertently omitted the word "vertical" from the sentence. That's all. Jim

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert, Were you any less incompetent, you would have known that I had simply inadvertently omitted the word "vertical" from the sentence. That's all. Jim



The subtleties of the shirt of Doorway Man have been missed by several generations of JFK students. It was a very distinctive shirt and had features that were not present on the checkered shirt that Lovelady supposedly wore that day. If that WAS the shirt that Lovelady wore that day, then he was not Doorway Man. While there are two possible shirts that he may have been wearing, there is a complementary argument that can be made about both, namely: that, since the shirt that the man whose face was obliterated WAS ALSO OBLITERATED, there had to have been something about that shirt that required concealment. When Lovelady subsequently demonstrated the shirt he was ACTUALLY WEARING--with its broad and bright vertical stripes--it became obvious why they had to obfuscate the shirt as well as the face.

Indeed, this argument also applies to the checkered shirt, because its presence, too, on this other man--who now appears to have been the actual Lovelady--would similarly "have given the game away." That there is a real issue of importance here is also confirmed by what John McAdams, perhaps the nation's leading defender of the "lone nut" theory, currently posts on his site :

In a report to the Warren Commission on the man in the doorway, the FBI stated:

On February 29, 1964, Billy Nolan Lovelady was photographed by Special Agents of the FBI at Dallas, Texas. On this occasion, Lovelady advised that on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, November 22, 1963, at the time of the assassination, and shortly before, he was standing in the doorway of the front entrance to the TSBD where he is employed. He stated he was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue-jeans (CD 457, pp. 4-5).

The FBI photos show Lovelady in a red and white vertical striped, short sleeved shirt, but the man in the doorway is clearly wearing a long-sleeved, checkered shirt. The Commission never checked out the two photographs but simply believed Lovelady when he told the FBI he was in the doorway. This FBI report, along with the photographs of Lovelady, only fed the controversy.

This cuts to the core of the controversy, because the argument that the man in the doorway was Oswald is considerably strengthened and confirmed by a second argument affirming that the man whose image was obscured was Lovelady, as substantiated by this FBI report.

Originally Posted by Albert Doyle
Originally Posted by James H. Fetzer
Why should it come as a surprise that Albert Doyle (once again) has shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about? But then, that appears to be the modus operandi on this forum. When some of you want to kick someone around because you can't cope with their arguments, just make up a position that no one would believe, attribute it to them, and then ridicule it! There are many past masters of this technique on this form, where The Education Forum looks like a paragon of rationality compared with the rubbish that is dominating the Deep Politics Forum. Let me add that a change of names might be in order, since there is nothing "deep" about the kinds of exchanges going on here.

Fetzer, like Cinque, once again using too many words to not answer the point.

Originally Posted by James H. Fetzer
Ralph Cinque has been standing up for himself completely admirably, by any reasonable standard. For CHARLES DRAGO to refer to him as "a fool" is now exactly what I would expect from the likes of him. He is THE preposterous, pompous and arrogant, petty-tyrant of the DPF! He is so impressed with himself that he cannot bother to take the time to do research about the actual positions of those whom he attacks here. WHEN CHARLES SPEAKS, THE FORUM SWOONS! Just as I have demonstrated with regard to the "mastermind" issue, the Zapruder film and video fakery on 9/11, he has no basis whatsoever for dismissing Ralph Cinque, much less calling him a "fool"! If ever there was a false idol of JFK research, it has to be Charles Drago! Let me demonstrate again why I can no longer respect the man, even though I once actually admired him. Shame on me!

Ah, Dr Fetzer, previously I assumed you had some credibility. However I cannot save you now for you just said in public "he (Drago) has no basis whatsoever for dismissing Ralph Cinque, much less calling him a "fool"! "

Originally Posted by James H. Fetzer
New eyes often see things that past students have missed. In this case, the subtleties of the shirt of Doorway Man have been missed by several generations of JFK students. But Ralph realized that it was a very distinctive shirt and that it had features that were not present on the checkered shirt that Lovelady was supposed to have worn that day. If that WAS the shirt that Lovelady wore that day, then he was not Doorway Man. Not only has Ralph done a brilliant job of making his case, but there is a complementary argument that I have made, namely: since the shirt that the man whose face was obliterated WAS ALSO OBLITERATED, there had to have been something about it that required concealment. When Lovelady subsequently demonstrated the shirt he was ACTUALLY WEARING--with its broad and bright strips--it became obvious why they had to obfuscate the shirt as well as the face.

Granted while Savant talents are possible, any credible professor would run from "Dr" Ralph Cinque. You have just promoted and endorsed one of the most outrageously incompetent attempters of serious publicly-presented conspiracy theory I've ever witnessed. You can't be serious.

You're existing in an open fantasy land. We've seen Dr Cinque's explanations of this evidence and they're ridiculous. Credulous. They are mostly based on himself insisting he sees things in photos so blurry they are almost non-visible.

I don't know what you're seeing but the pattern on Lovelady's shirt that I see looks the same. And it is as obscured as everyone else's clothing in the area. It's rather foolish of you to suggest Lovelady's shirt was purposefully obscured when it is simply as fuzzy as everything else at that range. This could be shown with high tech analysis.

Frankly I'm stunned that a professor of your reputation would refer to an obvious quack like Cinque as "brilliant" and then offer reasoning that is so obviously flawed that it cannot do anything other than bring serious question over your competency. This is a childish level of analysis for someone who has written books about this subject.

We've seen Dr Cinque's claimed features on the shirt. It's rubbish. In no way can he show the features he claims to be seeing in those fuzzy shots. Anyone can see he's trying to conflate the coincidental resemblance of Lovelady's open shirt into claims of subtle features like "lapels" and collar hook loops. Those features are not there and Cinque can't point them out. You can see his rambling diversions when forced to show this. He's trying to force Lovelady's loose and open shirt into becoming Oswald's. And Dr Fetzerstein is trying to help him.

To further his own skewering Dr Fetzer then says: " but there is a complementary argument that I have made, namely: since the shirt that the man whose face was obliterated WAS ALSO OBLITERATED, there had to have been something about it that required concealment. When Lovelady subsequently demonstrated the shirt he was ACTUALLY WEARING--with its broad and bright strips--it became obvious why they had to obfuscate the shirt as well as the face. "

- The only problem with this is the shirt seen on Doorway Man has broad and bright stripes. The wonderful thing about claims forgery is that once you make them you can just add anything you like as Dr Fetzer does here. Look at the plaid box pattern on Lovelady's shirt. It matches the dimensions of that seen in Altgens.

There's a very good chance Oswald would not risk getting docked by wearing a shirt with three buttons ripped-out and missing at the top to work. A smart detective would realize this pattern is the exact pattern you would see with police handling at the theater as illustrated by Oswald's face.

I'm sorry, where exactly did you point out where "I didn't know what I was talking about"?

Originally Posted by James H. Fetzer
Indeed, the argument also applies to the checkered shirt, because its presence, too, on this other figure--who now appears to have been the actual location of Lovelady--would similarly "have given the game away." So, I am sorry to say, the vicious attacks on Ralph are no more justified than the unfounded--and equally vicious--attacks on me. I have demonstrated that they have no foundation. It is only by fabricating evidence--by attributing to me a position that I provably do not hold--and by ignoring the different kinds of proof that the positions I have advanced on the Zapruder film (that it was fabricated) and video fakery in New York (that it took place) have gathered any traction at all. I let Charles attack stand as an IQ test of the research abilities of the members of this forum. No one bothered to ask if the position that Charles was attacking was the position I was defending, which it manifestly is not. Continuing these equally unwarranted attacks on Ralph only reaffirms that this forum is not serious about research on JFK.

Fetzer: " Indeed, the argument also applies to the checkered shirt, because its presence, too, on this other figure--who now appears to have been the actual location of Lovelady--would similarly "have given the game away." "

- What are you talking about and where exactly is this second forged person?

"Unwarranted attacks"??? This man did not know that the object that he was referring to as the "strange white stripes" was actually the shirt of the man standing behind Lovelady with a black tie dividing it.

I want Dr Fetzer to avoid the overly long and worded responses and simply answer what he thinks about Dr Cinque saying there were no examples of Lovelady with his shirt open. James Gordon on Lancer promptly posted a photograph taken after Altgens 6 showing Lovelady on the front steps with his shirt open and looking identical to "Doorway Man". This didn't affect Cinque in the least. Fetzer's paragon of research not only makes fatal gaffs but then ignores them when shown. Surely Dr Fetzer doesn't seriously offer Dr Cinque's input here as credible and worthy of his endorsement? Is this a joke??? If Dr Fetzer intends to chase Assassination forgery evidence windmills with this particular Pancho I suggest he bring some rain gear to deflect the rotten fruit he's going to have thrown at him.

In the end Dr Fetzer has managed to write a lot without really saying anything. Too much evasive digression and irrelevant appeals. This is the sign of somebody who isn't being honest. And as far as Cinque, now I understand where he gets his reckless abandon. If you look closely above Dr Fetzer won't say the person in Lovelady's spot is Oswald. He won't say it directly. At that point I think we need Freud rather than Jack White. Or maybe Rorschach. Or perhaps the good doctors should apply for Ghost Adventures - but, alas, they probably have a stricter standard of debunking than the Fetzer Assassination School.

I think the JFK Community needs to post a highly visible public notice that it disassociates itself from Dr Fetzer. More and more I'm starting to feel my blood boil...

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Why are you engaging this fool?

Charles

welcome to the hamster's wheel

[Dawn Meredith]

Seamus and Doyle PLEASE stop. This forum is starting to look like EF. Let them both have the last word. I am so sick of Z film arguments. I do not read them. So there were frames taken out. I don't have a problem with that viewpoint. The problem I have it that it gets repeated over and over to the point of madness....Same with the Doorway man pic. The conspiracy does not rest on who is in that pic. Personally I have had over the years a problem with the LoveLady story, but then so many witnesses saw Harvey on the second floor. Regardless it is irrelevent because he was not on the damn SIXTH floor with a MC firing at JFK. Simarily re the Z film, frames removed to slow the car stopping or Connally turning more are equally irrelevent to me because the head shot is left in, showing that there is no doubt that the kill shot came from the front.

This sniping back and forth over personal and ego issues WILL stop or the parties engaging in it will be dealt with. Some people just have to have the last word. So let them.
No-one here "worships" CD. That is absurd. We, the founders of this forum, happen to agree with him on this issue. So please take your petty fights and overly inflated egos elsewhere.

Respectfully,

Dawn