TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Greg Burnham]

A signature of those who would serve no other purpose than to derail what we do here resides in the certainty with which they make new claims; or old claims that are firmly based on new "yet to be tested" theories. Rarely do the disingenuous present their case from a non-absolutist position. It is signature because it is predictably a part of human nature that veteran researchers will take exception to such a presentation if for no other reason than the offensiveness of that initial introduction.

While it is true that "offensiveness" has no bearing on truth, still, if the purpose of making a presentation at all includes persuading others of that truth, then it would seem reasonable that the presenter would allow for human attributes that are clearly to be expected. When one does not make such allowances they are either hopelessly socially impaired or their intent is not to share their findings in discovery of the truth, but rather their intent is something else entirely.

What would that intent be? It is evident in the fruits of their labor.

[Don Jeffries]

Monk,

I didn't say Cinque and Fetzer had definitively solved anything. However, I think their arguments are as valid as the arguments against them. As I stated before, I didn't need Cinque's study to sway me, because I already suspected Oswald was the figure in the doorway.

My primary point is that there seems to be an incomprehensible consensus, on this forum and others, declaring that the issue has been settled, and that no sensible person doubts the figure is Lovelady. As is the case with the hole in the windshield, the identity of the Umbrella Man and several other issues, I don't believe the matter has been settled at all, and think that doubts clearly remain.

And even if I thought they were right, there is no reason to ever use the "f" word on a forum dedicated to researching important issues like this. It's not like we're arguing verbally with each other; in the heat of the moment, anyone can slip up and curse. However, there is no excuse for this when you have the time to calm down and proofread before hitting enter.

[Albert Doyle]

I didn't say Cinque and Fetzer had definitively solved anything. However, I think their arguments are as valid as the arguments against them. As I stated before, I didn't need Cinque's study to sway me, because I already suspected Oswald was the figure in the doorway.

Like I said originally, you can't deal with this in a superficial manner and then claim equal opinion, in my opinion. Their arguments were categorically disproven, no, destroyed, really. If you were following it, Dr Cinque was reduced to lying about a critical piece of evidence seen in the Marsh scan. That evidence proved what Fetzer and Cinque were claiming was Oswald's "V-neck" undershirt collar was actually the dark shadow coming off Lovelady's chin. If you were paying attention my arguments forced the person you are crediting with making valid arguments (whew!) into admitting it was a shadow from the chin, and then when he realized what it entailed he then tried to childishly claim it to be a V-neck as well. (It can't be both)

The only reason this particular party got this far with this theory in the first place is because there's too many main conspiracy research personalities who refrain from the nuts and bolts analyses required to disprove them, in my opinion. I participated in the "debate" with those two gentlemen. Do you realize they lost each and every point they made? The debate ended with Dr Cinque desperately trying to claim a non-existent buttoned flap on Lovelady's shirt.

"Valid arguments"???

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

I didn't say Cinque and Fetzer had definitively solved anything. However, I think their arguments are as valid as the arguments against them. As I stated before, I didn't need Cinque's study to sway me, because I already suspected Oswald was the figure in the doorway.

My primary point is that there seems to be an incomprehensible consensus, on this forum and others, declaring that the issue has been settled, and that no sensible person doubts the figure is Lovelady. As is the case with the hole in the windshield, the identity of the Umbrella Man and several other issues, I don't believe the matter has been settled at all, and think that doubts clearly remain.

And even if I thought they were right, there is no reason to ever use the "f" word on a forum dedicated to researching important issues like this. It's not like we're arguing verbally with each other; in the heat of the moment, anyone can slip up and curse. However, there is no excuse for this when you have the time to calm down and proofread before hitting enter.

Don,

I know that isn't what you said. It is what THEY said. Given the tiny amount of data that can be studied from that section of the Altgens, I can no more determine if it's Lovelady or if it's Oswald or if it's a third "yet to be identified" individual in the doorway. I am with you up to there. But, that wasn't the point. Cinque categorically claimed--without any room for doubt or error--that the figure in the doorway was DEFINITELY Oswald because he claimed he had absolutely PROVED it. Well, that is just false. I am willing to consider a person's claims and weigh their arguments against the evidence. If the evidence supports their argument, so be it. If not, so be it. In this case, the conclusion being drawn was far too wide sweeping, absolute, and frankly, INADEQUATE to the evidence. My objection wasn't to the exploration of the topic, it was to the gross inadequacy of the argument being offered in support of the conclusion reached and--what was, in my opinion--the improper analysis of the evidence being studied.

[Greg Burnham]

A word about profanity: Fuck. Thank you.

You see this forum, (like JFKresearch Assassination Forum), is a serious research forum. It is not sensitive to "words" --just to content. So every once in a while tempers flare--even in the written word. It is neither here nor there. There was no censorship of profanity on Rich's site either. It was the right decision. We are adults. However, excessive profanity becomes disruptive at some stage and should not be allowed, but not because it is profane, but because it is disruptive after a point. I don't think early intervention is appropriate. I think the administrators of this forum do a fine job of balancing freedom of speech with prevention of disruptive behavior.

[Albert Doyle]

Fetzer fails to realize that Fritz's notes were written quickly and used shorthand abbreviation of both script and context for purposes of expediency. As usual Fetzer tries to exploit this as much as possible to support his theories.

There's a simple thing that needs to be said. Fritz entered Oswald's description of the encounter with Baker in the lunchroom before he entered this information about the front steps. What Fetzer is clearly dodging and needs to answer for is, if this front steps business occurred before the Baker incident then why didn't Fritz enter it before Oswald's lunchroom account? What Fetzer needs to answer for is why everything else is in correct chronological order in Fritz's notes except this claimed front steps business?

What's more is if you interpolate Fritz's abbreviated script correctly, the true context is: [Oswald experiences Baker encounter] [Then] [Oswald went] out, with Bill Shelley [present] on [the] front steps [while he did so].


.

[Seamus Coogan]

A word about profanity: Fuck. Thank you.

You see this forum, (like JFKresearch Assassination Forum), is a serious research forum. It is not sensitive to "words" --just to content. So every once in a while tempers flare--even in the written word. It is neither here nor there. There was no censorship of profanity on Rich's site either. It was the right decision. We are adults. However, excessive profanity becomes disruptive at some stage and should not be allowed, but not because it is profane, but because it is disruptive after a point. I don't think early intervention is appropriate. I think the administrators of this forum do a fine job of balancing freedom of speech with prevention of disruptive behavior.

GB I agree with you. It's a shame Albert used the language his argument is good without it. It takes a hell of a lot to piss AD off like this however. I've disagreed plenty with AD in the past. But I have also agreed. I have never had that kind of reaction from him. To be honest after seeing the utter rubbish and flat out lies and distortions he is up against I cannot say I blame him one iota. I think Charles told me to get f***** the first disastrous exhange we had lol!!!!

[Greg Burnham]

As far as I could tell, Seamus, the only reason that Albert did that was to blow off some steam and I can't fault him for that either. I find Cinque's entire approach designed to raise just that kind of ire in those with whom he is engaged in debate. Cinque's abandonment of reason was palpable. Sure, his argument was almost sound provided one accepted premises that had yet to be proved! In this case, the argument was begging the question in the extreme. Several of the "givens" upon which the arguments were built had yet to be proved, yet we were expected to ignore the weakness of the premises and continue along the line of the argument as though the foundation was intact, which it was not.

[Charles Drago]

A signature of those who would serve no other purpose than to derail what we do here resides in the certainty with which they make new claims; or old claims that are firmly based on new "yet to be tested" theories. Rarely do the disingenuous present their case from a non-absolutist position. It is signature because it is predictably a part of human nature that veteran researchers will take exception to such a presentation if for no other reason than the offensiveness of that initial introduction.

While it is true that "offensiveness" has no bearing on truth, still, if the purpose of making a presentation at all includes persuading others of that truth, then it would seem reasonable that the presenter would allow for human attributes that are clearly to be expected. When one does not make such allowances they are either hopelessly socially impaired or their intent is not to share their findings in discovery of the truth, but rather their intent is something else entirely.

What would that intent be? It is evident in the fruits of their labor.

Precisely, Greg.

When I created a thread to discuss what I knew would be my highly controversial thoughts about the so-called Chicago assassination scenario, I titled it, "The Chicago Plot: A Hypothesis."

That's "Hypothesis."

My introductory post:

RESOLVED: The alleged Chicago plot to assassinate JFK never was meant to result in an actual attack.

Rather, it was a fictive construct designed as the Dallas conspiracy's doppelganger.

The objectives of its planners -- the highest level Facilitators of the Dallas plot -- were to:

A. Explain the anticipated pre-assassination leaks of Dallas plot info as cases of mistaken identify;

B. Foil the Chicago "plot" at the last minute -- close to the timed Dallas attack -- and thus provide a plausible excuse for planned enhanced Dallas security to be relaxed;*

C. Support the Dallas cover-up by misdirecting honest investigations of the real assassination through the imposition of the confusion, complexity, and cognitive dissonance associated with the classic doppelganger gambit.
____________________________

Jim Di Eugenio strongly disagreed with me, and we went 'round and 'round. In a good way.

Albert Doyle strongly disagreed with me, and we went 'round and 'round. And at times, I lost my cool.

FWIW, I've used the "hypothesis" construction for the creation of more than one thread.

Neither "Cinque" nor Fetzer displayed the intellectual courage to define their work as anything other than the presentation of established fact.

I might add that I have been and remain a committed proponent of separating the factual from the hypothetical in this case. Conspiracy in the death of JFK is fact.

LHO as Doorway Man is hypothesis.

As is -- for now -- my Chicago scenario.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert Doyle strongly disagreed with me, and we went 'round and 'round. And at times, I lost my cool.

Ah, but that disagreement needs to be more precisely defined. The point I disagreed on was the suggestion that the Chicago plot could not have been pulled-off. I speculate that if a bat of bricks somehow fell on Oswald by chance the Chicago plot would have been executed. There was nothing to stop the Chicago plot prior to it being exposed. The full Northwoods patsy scenario was in place with a brain-damaged patsy whose personal profile could accommodate any slew of CIA false accusations and defamation just like Oswald. Otherwise, if you read carefully, everything you write is true and doesn't necessarily conflict with this. It's a very complicated room full of mirrors that can adopt many different possibilities. Though admittedly somewhat far-fetched, Vallee could have been used to tie Oswald to the Assassination underground in order for Oswald to be painted as a co-conspirator. This association would then be used to get him into Cuba with the Baker virus. I believe someone said intel always has at least two objectives to its black operations. The problem with this scenario, as Mark Lane shows, is that Oswald seemed to be set-up in Mexico for purposes favorable to making him a patsy rather than Vallee.

There's too many possibilities to make such firm conclusions. For instance Oswald could have been told he was going to be part of a plot where Vallee took shots at Kennedy but missed while Cuban agents were exposed to information showing Oswald was part of this plot. You have Lee Harvey Oswald associations with the Chicago plot like NY driver's licenses etc, that could have been part of this Oswald sheep-dipping in which Oswald was also being deceived. Oswald could then be swung cooperatively into the Depository on the 22nd thinking he was part of this important plot and still remaining operational all the way up until his death.


Oh yeah, I would add the "Oswald in Doorway" claim is provenly false for those who bother to follow the evidence.