TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Charles Drago]

God, this is too easy.

Going to school in "little ass" buses.

Start at 1:50 --



Sweet dreams, Miss Manners.

[James H. Fetzer]

David,

You really need to read WHITEWASH II (1966) by Harold Weisberg, in particular, "The Lovelady Diversion" and "The Lovelady Caper". Billy was not simply THINKING he had worn that red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt but WAS ALSO TELLING OTHERS ALL ABOUT IT. I find your work embarrassing, but I am trying to do you a favor. Read Weisberg.

And I can't believe the elementary blunders involved in your arguments, when we know that they overlaid features of Billy's face over Oswald's face. We have compared the right ear, the left eye, the cranium, the hairline, the shirt and the tee shirt, on and on and on. If you can't understand it, perhaps you need some kind of tutorial. OF COURSE there are features of them both.

When they are messing with evidence, as in this case, the very idea of a 100% match is simply preposterous. We are going to have to go with the weight of the evidence. You have never even rebutted the obfuscated man, the missing shoulder, the man both in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, or the profile of the black man. You are not even remotely in the ball park.

The further we have gone, the more confirmation we have found. It's like looking at the moon with your naked eye and seeing that it appears to be irregular and pockmarked. Then when you look again with a telescope, you find further confirmation. In this case, we are finding more and more anomalies in this small section of the larger photograph. Here's the latest on Bill Shelley:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4168[/ATTACH]

[Don Jeffries]

Another brilliant rebuttal, Charles. So you agree with the intellectual giant Chris Rock that those with developmental difficulties are "crazy?"

I wish Eunice Kennedy Shriver was alive to read your posts.

[James H. Fetzer]

When are the Magdas and the Jans and the Alberts going to come clean that this is unacceptable conduct? For this guy to be "the guru" of the DPF is simply stunning. How can any self-respecting human being continue to tolerate such indecency? What would he have to do to earn your condemnation? Call Obama a "nigger"? Would that do it? Or would you let that pass, too?

Another brilliant rebuttal, Charles. So you agree with the intellectual giant Chris Rock that those with developmental difficulties are "crazy?"

I wish Eunice Kennedy Shriver was alive to read your posts.

[James H. Fetzer]

Aren't there supposed to be moderators here? This is clearly a threat to assassinate me. Is that the new standard of acceptable behavior here? What a forum!

I've been waiting for you, James. In the tall grass. Keep it up.

For a guy I used to like, you are committing one blunder after another. That you cannot see the obvious about Oswald as Doorman is bad enough. That you cannot bring yourself to condemn Charles Drago for his juvenile conduct is worse. And when you attack a find man like Don Jeffries in a childish, immature fashion, which is simply and clearly deplorable, I know that you, like Charles, have lost your way. That's a pity. You used to be an honorable man.

Wow. So just because Charles is not ridiculing someone who is challenged, that makes his belittling references to "short bus" and "Special Olympics" okay? It's easy to aim humor at vulnerable targets. I guess some people think it's funny to laugh behind the backs of the hearing impaired. "Short bus" is an offensive term, period.

Monk is different from me. I recoil every time I hear the word "retard" or the obvious inferences in "humor" such as we've seen from Charles on this thread. And unlike your relatives, my niece instinctively knows what a bad word "retard" is and understands when someone is mimicking her.

Just as black people feel offended by the use of the "n" word, even when it's not directed at them, most of us who have loved ones with developmental difficulties (Monk being a very rare exception) feel offended by the very words "retard," or "short bus," regardless of the context. And even if I was being overly sensitive, any halfway decent person would respect someone's feelings and not want to offend them. Charles, however, clearly enjoys offending people.

Again, I am simply astounded that none of you have the courage to call this man out on his juvenile, offensive posts.

Perhaps...NOT!

I DO HAVE THE COURAGE TO CALL YOU OUT ON YOUR IDIOTIC APPLICATION OF ETIQUETTE ON A FORUM WHERE THOSE WHO ARE SO IMPAIRED COULD NOT EVEN COMPREHEND WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE OFFENDED BY IT!

Anyone riding the short bus due to the type of impairment sarcastically implied by Charles would not be offended. My nephew would not be offended for two reasons: The comment is not aimed at him and he cannot comprehend it even if it was. Same as you.

[Greg Burnham]

Aren't there supposed to be moderators here? This is clearly a threat to assassinate me. Is that the new standard of acceptable behavior here? What a forum!

That was not a threat of assassination and you know it. It was a PROMISE to EXPOSE you! You have already assassinated your own character, your own credibility, and now your own sense of "critical thinking" has been compromised beyond repair by your own doing.

On the off chance that your perfidy is of an innocuous nature, spawned by mental atrophy, then I hope you get help and you and your family have my sympathy. However, in the more probable likelihood that we have all been duped for a very long time by your apparent False Flag Operation--I do not wish you well. As I said to your whore, Ralph Cinque: I will do everything in my power to stop you both.

[Greg Burnham]

When are the Magdas and the Jans and the Alberts going to come clean that this is unacceptable conduct? For this guy to be "the guru" of the DPF is simply stunning. How can any self-respecting human being continue to tolerate such indecency? What would he have to do to earn your condemnation? Call Obama a "nigger"? Would that do it? Or would you let that pass, too?

Another brilliant rebuttal, Charles. So you agree with the intellectual giant Chris Rock that those with developmental difficulties are "crazy?"

I wish Eunice Kennedy Shriver was alive to read your posts.

And the Alberts? (and plural to boot!) Nice diversionary tactic, but nobody's buying that one, Jim. A Freudian slip, par excellence!

[Greg Burnham]

If I was the Sargeant-at-Arms of this forum I would recommend the immediate and permanent banning, with extreme prejudice, of the "entity" formerly known as: James Fetzer.

[LR Trotter]

If I was the Sargeant-at-Arms of this forum I would recommend the immediate and permanent banning, with extreme prejudice, of the "entity" formerly known as: James Fetzer.

What has intrigued me is the "Absolut Lee Not" reliability of a small background area of a black and white photograph that has caused so much verbal controversy. And, I admit, I have repeated myself far too often, but there are times when it seemed each of my posts were totally justified in order, at least to me, as to not let silence be a form of perceived agreement with the "LHO is Doorway Man" argument. I am satisfied that BNL is indeed DM, but if not, so what? The evidence has been presented, quite recenly on this forum, much better than I can present it, and I thank the posters for that.
:thumbsup:

[Vasilios Vazakas]

I cannot believe that you are still talking about the Doorway man. You have now reached page 41 of this
irrelevant, unimportant and disinformation thread. I wish you could spend 41 pages in more important threads. For example Vince Salandria's lunch with Specter is a very thought provoking subject that we
should have been discussing the moment that it appeared.
http://www.ctka.net/2012/salandria_Specter_meet.html
I don't blame Fetzer. Fetzer believes what he believes, i blame the rest of you who know better and yet you keep alive his dead subject in ER. In other words you have made what he says important, even if it is not. If there was a chance that you could make him realize his errors, i would say it is worthwhile. But he will not listen so you are wasting your words, time and effort. Fetzer's role has been exposed so he'll soon fade into the background since he has ceased to be useful.