Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Fetzer and Cinque never answered for Scott Tame's photo on Lancer of Oswald with a ripped back of his T-shirt at the police station. This shows both the T-shirt and shirt were almost certainly ripped at the theater. Since all this happened well after the Altgens photo it precludes all of their doorway hallucinations.
I have a feeling Fetzer's claimed famous "shirt-tugging" by Oswald is as true as Oswald's underwear tugging designed to pull his underwear out of his (ah, Bernice might not like this). Just like Fetzer and Cinque are doing...
May Arthur live to see the conspiracy exposed in public.
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Albert Doyle Wrote:May Arthur live to see the conspiracy exposed in public.
You are most kind, Albert, and I thank you most sincerely.
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Please refrain from posting "Cinque's" disinformation on DPF.
For whom will you be fronting next? The known disinformation entity "Colby" on the EF?
Such surrogate behavior will not be tolerated.
You have been advised.
Posts: 1,141
Threads: 86
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
Charles,
In case you are unaware of the meaning of the concept, disinformation is information that a
party knows to be false but asserts anyway in an attempt to mislead his audience. Since he
and I both BELIEVE what we are defending is TRUE, we cannot be engaged in disinformation.
I have actually published on this subject in an international, peer-reviewed journal, MINDS
AND MACHINES. I can provide the cites if you would like. Banishing Ralph from this forum
is simply begging the question by taking for granted that you are right and we are wrong.
My impression has been that forums like this one were intended to focus on the complex and
controversial aspects of subjects, in this case, the assassination of JFK. I cannot imagine how
you could possibly fulfill that mission if you are going to ban those with whom you disagree.
Indeed, given the centrality of the question under consideration to a JFK assassination forum,
I am truly incredulous that you have taken that step. Ralph is aggressive in arguing his case,
but based upon my experience in this very forum, that does not ordinarily lead to banishment.
Jim
References:
"Information: Does it Have to be True?", Minds and Machines 14/2 (May 2004),
pp. 223-229.
"Disinformation: The Use of False Information", Minds and Machines 14/2 (May
2004), pp. 231-240.
QUOTE=Charles Drago;50808]Please refrain from posting "Cinque's" disinformation on DPF.
For whom will you be fronting next? The known disinformation entity "Colby" on the EF?
Such surrogate behavior will not be tolerated.
You have been advised.[/QUOTE]
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Jim,
In case you are unaware, "Cinque" was banned not because I or any other owner of DPF "disagree" with "his" conclusions.
In case you are unaware, I am of the opinion that Altgens 6 has been weaponized to support the cover-up.
In case you are unaware, I and others have concluded that "Cinque," wittingly or otherwise, is wielding that weapon.
In case you are unaware, arguments from authority are recognized as such at DPF and treated accordingly.
Charles
Posts: 1,141
Threads: 86
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
Charles,
This sounds bizarre. "Weaponizing a photograph"? He and I and many others are convinced that the image to the right/front of Doorway Man has had its face and shirt obfuscated. Everything Ralph has been arguing of which I am aware has a foundation in the evidence. I really think this is a travesty for a forum like this.
Moreover, I don't get the reference to "appeals to authority". Are you unaware that there are both fallacious and non-fallacious appeals to authority? It is when someone who is cited as an authority in one area is being cited as an authority in another area in which he is not an expert that is fallacious. Do you know that?
Citing me on philosophy, logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning is non-fallacious because I am an expert in those areas. To cite me in relation to polio vaccines would be fallacious, because I am not expert on that subject. Ralph is an expert on bodies and has been making excellent non-fallacious contributions.
I no longer understand you, even remotely. It appears to me that you and the forum have lost your way, which is acutely disappointing.
Jim
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim,
In case you are unaware, "Cinque" was banned not because I or any other owner of DPF "disagree" with "his" conclusions.
In case you are unaware, I am of the opinion that Altgens 6 has been weaponized to support the cover-up.
In case you are unaware, I and others have concluded that "Cinque," wittingly or otherwise, is wielding that weapon.
In case you are unaware, arguments from authority are recognized as such at DPF and treated accordingly.
Charles
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
There is much you don't understand.
That aside, I reiterate: You have been advised.
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
To avoid confusion, please know that Jim Fetzer earlier today posted material written by "Ralph Cinque," a "person" banned from DPF not because of "his" messages, but rather because the manner in which "he" delivers them is indicative of enemy action.
Jim's post has been rendered invisible. Neither he nor anyone else will be allowed to act as a surrogate for banned individuals.
Posts: 906
Threads: 67
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2010
19-02-2012, 08:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 20-02-2012, 02:58 AM by Greg Burnham.)
Deleted post
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Posts: 1,473
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Greg
What an earnest expression. The photo is vague, unconvincingdespite the bombast and intimidation, the jury is not convinced.
And so it goes, despite settled consensussupported by witnesses to Oswald in the lunchroomthe entry Oswald ex machina fraud is pushed with greater arrogance and belligerence.
At this time we invite Joseph Welch to respond to the Finque-Fetzer Committee on Double-Plus Ungoodthinking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqQD4dzVkwk
As for myself, I've been content with the testimony that Oswald was in the lunchroom, not in the entry.
Lovelady was in the entry, wearing his shirt, sporting his unique hair.
I don't need a false flagor false shirtto keep Oswald out of the sixth floor windowthe Dallas Police paraffin test does that, in concert with those who saw him in the lunchroom, eating his lunch, Baker and Truly who saw him with a Coke washing down his lunch, the lady on the stair who did not see him there.
What we have now is two chaps with their hair on fire who want to be arsonists.
Pyrotechnics are the tools of disruptors, not those fusing the strands into a telling tapestry.
Bad show.
|
