Thanks for the thoughtful response, Charles. As you remember, I was always supportive of you in the past, too. Whatever caused you to leave the EF (I thought you left of your own volition), I was sorry to see you go.
You may have done impressive work analyzing the writings of Colby, but again what purpose is ultimately served by that? Let's say you uncover undeniable proof that Colby is some kind of collective psyop; even if you got rid of him/them, wouldn't others arise? I just don't think this is a productive area of research. How could you ever conclusively prove someone was a disinfo agent? We know that numerous '60s "counterculture" icons like Timothy Leary and Gloria Steinem were associated with the CIA. It's been acknowledged, and the few Americans who are aware of that don't really seem to care.
I'm glad you share my doubts about the figure in the doorway. That's all I was trying to argue in the EF thread started by Fetzer/Cinque. While Albert feels inexplicably positive that the figure is Lovelady, some of us disagree. Lovelady told the FBI he wore a short slieeved red and white striped shirt the day of the assassination, which clearly wasn't the one on the figure in the Altgens photo. He wore that and was photographed in it, because the FBI told him not to worry about wearing the same shirt he had on that day. Does that make any sense? The shirt was a vitally crucial piece of evidence, and the FBI says it really doesn't matter, just wear what you want?
Lovelady didn't want to be photographed, and he looked enough like Oswald to fool Marguerite and his own stepchildren. That's pretty impressive; have any of your co-workers ever looked enough like you to fool a close family member? Taken in conjunction with the fact Oswald was overtly being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination, I think the fact he just happened to have this lookalike co-worker is potentially very significant. Just because the case for conspiracy doesn't rely upon the figure being Oswald doesn't mean researchers should just allow neo-con types to force a group consensus that it wasn't when that just hasn't been established.
Albert, the reason I said Ralph Cinque made a good point about your timeline analysis of Fritz's notes is because he did. You attempted to take Fritz's notes in the order they were written in, and thus show that Oswald was referring to being "out front" with Shelley after the assassination. Ralph looked at the same information and correctly said that, if such was the case, then Oswald also ate his lunch after the encounter with Baker and Truly. Leave out any of his photographic claims; how is what he said there not logical?
I'm sorry, Albert, that my moderating skills are not up to your expectations. Are you even a member of the EF? If not, isn't it kind of absurd to be criticizing the way moderators on a forum you don't belong to do their job? I'm a hand's off guy, and tend to let everything go. I believe in censorship only in extremely rare instances. Thus, my inclination to defend someone's right to express their thoughts, even if they aren't doing a good job of proving their contentions. Maybe Cinque just really enjoys fighting with people. Do you not agree that the thread is as long as it is because people keep responding to the same claims with the same counterarguments? This is like one of Fetzer's threads- attracting more attention than anything else on the EF. Obviously, people are interested.
I recall clearly seeing either a color photo or film still of the TSBD doorway, taken from another angle, a few moments before the assassination. The figure in the doorway was seen to be wearing the same kind of shirt Oswald had on, with its distinctive rust/brown color. I thought the picture was in one of the numerous books in my personal library, but I have been unable to locate it. Years ago, on Rich Dellarosa's forum, poster Martin Barkely recalled it as well, but no one else seems to. Oh well, the search goes on....
Greg Burnham Wrote:Albert, I merely corrected your error regarding a simple definition. You could have just said: "Thanks, I stand corrected."
A tad arrogant there Greg considering you ignored my response showing you why you were wrong.
.
What the hell about this don't you get?
[size=12]You made a blunder. You misidentified Cinque's error as a logical fallacy called: The Straw Man.
The blunder is of no consequence. What you actually identified is Cinque's intellectual dishonesty.
At least call it what it is.
As for your other contentions regarding the issue...good for you. POST THEM YOURSELF.
I have other fucking fish to fry.
:banghead:
You'd be well advised to hop out of my pan. Pronto--[/SIZE]
I already explained to you that Cinque used the 'had lunch' issue to avoid answering the real issue in question. That is, the reason why Fritz wrote about the Baker encounter well before describing Oswald being out front with Shelley. I already explained that Cinque knew that Oswald hadn't eaten lunch after the Baker encounter because there wasn't enough time. The reason he shifted the argument to this impossible lunch time was because he was trying to avoid the main point of Fritz mentioning the Baker encounter long before Oswald's going out to the front steps. When you make one argument in order to avoid another that is, by definition, a strawman. Sorry, but I believe I'm correct on this.
And now James DiEugenio, of all people, is agreeing with Cinque's delusions. Unfortunately, James is wrong. Lovelady did not lose any weight in the Groden picture. He's as thin as he was in the FBI picture Cinque describes as "scrawny".
Albert,
You are incorrect. But, like I said, I have bigger fish to fry.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Don Jeffries Wrote:Thanks for the thoughtful response, Charles. As you remember, I was always supportive of you in the past, too. Whatever caused you to leave the EF (I thought you left of your own volition), I was sorry to see you go.
You're quite welcome. Let's move forward on the basis of our mutual recognition that we're on the same side.
Don Jeffries Wrote:You may have done impressive work analyzing the writings of Colby, but again what purpose is ultimately served by that? Let's say you uncover undeniable proof that Colby is some kind of collective psyop; even if you got rid of him/them, wouldn't others arise? I just don't think this is a productive area of research. How could you ever conclusively prove someone was a disinfo agent? We know that numerous '60s "counterculture" icons like Timothy Leary and Gloria Steinem were associated with the CIA. It's been acknowledged, and the few Americans who are aware of that don't really seem to care.
What "purpose is ultimately served by" exposing "Colby" and "his" comrades?
Oh, I don't know ... Exposing the truth? Educating the ignorant that we are at war and are considered targets? Teaching all who care and all who should care but don't about the enemy's strategies and tactics? Convincing the Simkin-esque cannon fodder that in allowing the illusion of a level playing field for the agents provocateur's lies and our truth is tantamount to our defeat?
Don Jeffries Wrote:I recall clearly seeing either a color photo or film still of the TSBD doorway, taken from another angle, a few moments before the assassination. The figure in the doorway was seen to be wearing the same kind of shirt Oswald had on, with its distinctive rust/brown color. I thought the picture was in one of the numerous books in my personal library, but I have been unable to locate it. Years ago, on Rich Dellarosa's forum, poster Martin Barkely recalled it as well, but no one else seems to. Oh well, the search goes on....
Is this the one? It appears to have been taken post-shooting.
22-05-2012, 05:13 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2012, 09:17 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Don Jeffries Wrote:While Albert feels inexplicably positive that the figure is Lovelady, some of us disagree. Lovelady told the FBI he wore a short slieeved red and white striped shirt the day of the assassination, which clearly wasn't the one on the figure in the Altgens photo. He wore that and was photographed in it, because the FBI told him not to worry about wearing the same shirt he had on that day. Does that make any sense? The shirt was a vitally crucial piece of evidence, and the FBI says it really doesn't matter, just wear what you want?
It's not "inexplicable" at all. In fact it's been explained by numerous EF members. There are numerous levels of corresponding evidence like the witness statements, other films and photos, and the logistical impossibility of Oswald being in doorway according to the timing. Lovelady is seen in Weigman within a second or two in the exact same spot in the plaid shirt. Until you can answer why he shows up in every other single piece of evidence in the right place and in the right shirt your position is what's inexplicable. Any objective person would see that no matter what shirt Lovelady said he wore he was obviously filmed wearing the plaid shirt. Why, if Altgens was forged, would they put the wrong shirt on Lovelady and draw attention to themselves? From what I'm seeing there's every sign intel may have wanted to create a "strawman" here and shot down the imposter conspiracy theories in order to publicly defame the suggestion of conspiracy. Or Lovelady could simply have remembered wrong. You have to look at what you're suggesting. You're suggesting Fetzer's roving forgery labs altered each and every filmed instance of Lovelady wearing that striped shirt and meticulously forged-in the plaid on top of it. You share the same weird Alice In Wonderland perspective and method as Cinque at that point. Good luck to you!
Don Jeffries Wrote:Lovelady didn't want to be photographed, and he looked enough like Oswald to fool Marguerite and his own stepchildren. That's pretty impressive; have any of your co-workers ever looked enough like you to fool a close family member? Taken in conjunction with the fact Oswald was overtly being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination, I think the fact he just happened to have this lookalike co-worker is potentially very significant. Just because the case for conspiracy doesn't rely upon the figure being Oswald doesn't mean researchers should just allow neo-con types to force a group consensus that it wasn't when that just hasn't been established.
"Neo-cons"??? WTH!
If Lovelady looked that much like Oswald others in the doorway would have mistaken him for Oswald. When I see photos of Lovelady and Oswald I'm quite capable of distinguishing between two, as were all the doorway witnesses who said Lovelady was there. I've never had trouble telling the difference. This is a good example of the power of suggestion triggered by means of the Doorway Man controversy. It's a complete coincidence kept alive by imaginary flights of fancy. Lovelady's existence in the Altgens photo has been established to the extent of reasonable proof. Objectivists' sole position is sophist doubt, in my opinion.
Don Jeffries Wrote:Albert, the reason I said Ralph Cinque made a good point about your timeline analysis of Fritz's notes is because he did. You attempted to take Fritz's notes in the order they were written in, and thus show that Oswald was referring to being "out front" with Shelley after the assassination. Ralph looked at the same information and correctly said that, if such was the case, then Oswald also ate his lunch after the encounter with Baker and Truly. Leave out any of his photographic claims; how is what he said there not logical?
No, he did not. As I've explained numerous times, Cinque seized upon the lunch issue solely to avoid explaining the chronology of Fritz's notes. Don't be fooled for a second that Cinque isn't fully aware there wasn't time for Oswald to eat lunch in the 1 minute the timeline allows for Oswald to go from the Baker encounter to the front door. As I explained to Greg, the reason Cinque seizes upon this is because he's fully aware that he cannot account for the timing in Fritz's statements. Once we recognize that Oswald couldn't have had lunch after the Baker encounter then we have to ask why would Fritz have written "had lunch" after this encounter? The answer is because Fritz was obviously condensing Oswald's having told him that he had already had lunch and was therefore exiting because he assumed there would be nothing to do. This makes sense. So, much sense in fact that those who try to float the objectivity position universally ignore it. Wise people would see both the objectivists and Cinque didn't make good points - they made no points vs what was really said and what it showed. Cinque takes great relief and endorsement in this objectivist backing. It literally keeps his crazy theories alive. You can see him thanking people for it. You just fed the troll while congratulating yourself for doing so and attacking people who oppose him on sound grounds.
Objective people would see that since we can't accept any eating of lunch after the Baker encounter then we have to ask why did Fritz write it in that order? Like a sleazy defense lawyer Cinque is trying to dismiss the entirety of Fritz's notes using this device. However he is doing it in order to escape the obvious conclusion that Fritz would not have written 'out in front with Shelley' well after the Baker encounter unless it had happened that way. THIS is the 'good point' here that Cinque is conspicuously dodging answering (with your help). Obviously Fritz wrote "had lunch" after the Baker encounter because Oswald had told him he had already had lunch in the lunchroom where Baker caught him washing it down with a Coke, so therefore he exited the building.
The EF has yet to recognize that Cinque is not a serious person deserving to be taken seriously. He's ignored too many real cases of evidence to be granted the right to continue his juvenile idiocy and contemptuous denial.
Don Jeffries Wrote:I recall clearly seeing either a color photo or film still of the TSBD doorway, taken from another angle, a few moments before the assassination. The figure in the doorway was seen to be wearing the same kind of shirt Oswald had on, with its distinctive rust/brown color. I thought the picture was in one of the numerous books in my personal library, but I have been unable to locate it. Years ago, on Rich Dellarosa's forum, poster Martin Barkely recalled it as well, but no one else seems to. Oh well, the search goes on....
Forgive me if I have my doubts. Again, well within the known range of CIA psy-ops.
Maybe Mockingbirds should be attached to the Shock Therapy machine, with the dial turned up to 11.
Then we'd hear some chirping...
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
For anyone desiring an entry level diploma in deep political anthropology, casual study of the Swamp Cinque/Fetzer thread is all that's needed.
The Emeritus Professor of Logic opines to Michael Hogan, who has just destroyed his evidence:
Quote:Michael, this is embarrassing. We are all STUDENTS OF JFK!
Do you care about evidence or speculation? The photo was altered. Therefore, there had to be
time to alter it. This is not rocket science. You ought to be able to draw the inference.
Snake Oil Cinque to Lee Farley, who again has just destroyed his evidence:
Quote:Don't change the subject, Lee. We're talking about these necks, and it's Lovelady vs. DeNiro. Two different guys with two different necks, and that's from a qualified authority. One has an extended neck with good head balance while the other is compressing his neck with his head back, shortening his neck, and it's much like compressing the spring in a jack-in-the-box when you close the cover. That's a perfect analogy.
So, you want to talk to me? Then you talk about these necks. They're not going away. They're the news as of today. And they show two different necks on two different men. Don't try to change the subject. Stop with the dissembling and the distracting. You answer to what's below. It's what we're talking about.
I spend a few moments speed reading the thread for one purpose only: to observe a Sunsteinian psyop in action.
PS I note the Military Censor performed his task, and is now AWOL.
Like Simkin.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
