TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Don Jeffries]

Again, the term "short bus" has no other connotation than to mock the fact that some unfortunate children have to ride on them to school. Monk, I'm astonished that you're making excuses for Charles' outrageous conduct. You replied to my bullying and social hierarchy in schools thread on the EF, and sounded like you understood the extent of the problem our society faces.

Bullies graduate from schools to jobs. Bullying on the internet is widespread. Inventing childish names for those you are arguing with, like "Miss Manners," is the oldest trick in every bully's book. Bullies, whether they are on the playground or an internet forum, can only exist because of the enabling of others. Once someone calls them out on their behavior, and no one is laughing any more at their mean spirited "humor," they no longer have any power over their victims. It's depressing to see so many otherwise reputable researchers into this subject resorting to classic internet bullying tactics.

I have received several personal messages of encouragement for my taking Charles to task on this forum, from members who are rather inexplicably reluctant to support me in public. Stop being enablers, and let Charles know it isn't acceptable to disparage those with disabilities in such a smug, arrogant manner and then claim you're not actually disparaging them at all. How can you respect anything he says, when his trademark replies to criticism are either an infantile "yawn" or a knee jerk, ad hoc personal attack on the messenger? After reading his replies on this thread alone, how does he have any credibility with reasonable people?

I'm sorry to have sidetracked the Doorway issue to such an extent, but I really gave Charles a lot more credit than he deserved. I thought he'd perhaps at least acknowledge that his "short bus" and "Special Olympics" references were in bad taste. Instead, he dug his feet in like a third grader and repeated the same kind of insults. But then again, I thought he (and certainly Monk) would have at least considered my comments regarding the reckless allegations against Albert Doyle and Jim Fetzer. Instead, they produced "evidence" which was meaningless and again refused to backtrack from their public accusations that are unprovable.

I would never suggest that Charles, or anyone else on a public forum, should seek professional help. But the fact someone as nasty and belligerent as Charles would have the audacity to throw stones at Jim Fetzer from his own glass house is just unbelievable. Jim Fetzer, at his most objectionable, couldn't hold a candle to any of Charles Drago's posts on this thread.

To those of you who respect the Kennedy family (which I would imagine would be just about everyone visiting a JFK assassination forum), I implore you to consider how offensive Charles' remarks have been, especially in light of the fact Eunice Kennedy Shriver founded the Special Olympics. Let him know you don't approve of this kind of "humor."

[Greg Burnham]

I have received 37 private messages stating that you, Don Jeffries, belong on a "short bus" -- but that does not mean that you do! Private messages are in shadows. Bring them into the sunshine and maybe, just maybe, they will mean something!

[Don Jeffries]

That's interesting, Monk. People believe I belong on a "short bus;" in other words, that I am mentally retarded in some way, because I object to the term "short bus" itself. That's almost at the level of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Maybe I am mentally impaired, because my mind can't grasp the fact that people here approve of Charles using terms that demean an unfortunate group that, until the Kennedy family came along with their money and influence, were third class citizens in our society. I blanch whenever I hear "short bus" or "retard." Not everyone handles it the way you do.

You're bigger than this, Monk. Your emperor is wearing no clothes.

[Greg Burnham]

Don,

Please get off your high horse. Stop acting out as a petty person who is caught up in the semantics of verbal battle. You are bigger than that--or so I thought.

This is NOT about semantics or pettiness. It is about real issues.

Get over yourself, please.

If Charles or I have offended your sensibilities I am not sorry, but no harm to you or your loved ones was intended. AND YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT. That is NOT what this is about AND YOU KNOW THAT, TOO.

Stop acting like a petulant child. We are adults and sometimes adults bicker. That's it. Grow up. This is not a playground, it is a war.

In a war: rounds are fired, words are said, and hopefully "friendly fire" does not result in injury. However, the easiest way to insure safety is to not stand in front of a fellow soldier's weapon!

As Rich would say: A word to the wise.

[Don Jeffries]

Okay, it appears you have signed on completely with Charles. Calling me "petulant" and a "child?" Talk about projection! It's "childish" to object to name calling, but not to call names?

What "war" requires the combatants to use terms that can only demean a vulnerable group of people? How does flinging about terms like "short bus" and making jokes about the "Special Olympics" help us expose the truth about the JFK assassination? I'm sure any Kennedy family members or friends reading this thread would be thrilled to know how some in the research community feel about a subject that is quite important to them. They might even act "petulant" about it.

This is about common decency. If you are concerned about the "credibility" of those like Jim Fetzer, how can you continue to excuse the juvenile antics of Charles Drago? If it seems I'm on a high horse, it's because the rest of you apparently are content to wallow in the gutter, where ad homs and "retard" jokes are perfectly acceptable.

There is no point in continuing to beat this dead horse. Clearly, it appears that no one here except the out of favor Jim Fetzer is willing to call out Charles Drago on his behavior. I'm sorry I went this far- this is obviously a sensitive subject with me, and it irks me to see others not realize the power that words can have.

[Greg Burnham]

Don,

I tried to warn you. Really I did. You are in way over your head.

So, let's see:

You're right, Don. I agree with everything you have written here. I am sorry. Really I am.

[Don, you know me well--in your own mind--for a decade on JFKresearch. Is this a battle you think you will win?]

I concede.

[Don Jeffries]

And I concede I've spent way too much time on this subject.

[Greg Burnham]

Just as I predicted a week ago...

[Phil Dragoo]

First things first: The thesis of this exercise has been rendered null and void: i.e., Doorman is Lovelady, not Oswald as alleged.

I append David Josephs at 392 for the summation of the winning argument:



As I tried to explained to Jim... you can have 10,000 points of self realized MATCHING going on in those PHOTOS... One 100% MISMATCH and the shirts CANNOT be the same...
You know Jim... On false statement in a series of truths still renders the statement false... even though PARTS are true...

1) Doorman's hair is more abundant, like Oswald's, and you can clearly see it going up from the top center of his head in Altgens6 and coming around from the left side of his temple; Doorman's hair is not real short and fuzzy like Lovelady's FBI photo. Lovelady's round dome topped head does not match the flat topped cranium of Doorman (Lee Oswald).

Please see posted image... Lovelady and Doorman's heads MATCH... 99%

2) The picture shown, of Oswald in the elevator, has his left cuff pushed up because he is in handcuffs. The photo of the bogus Lovelady at the Dallas PD is not legit. How can anyone take you seriously when you can't even distinguish between Billy Lovelady and this guy who looks like a gorilla? It's pretty embarrassing, since we have emphasized it so many places.

Lovelady is sitting at the desk arms completely bent and the sleeve STILL reaches his hand... PLUS fromthe notes YOU JIM USED to determine he was OUT FRONT, also tells us he changed his shirt...

Why do you ignore this repeatedly? Talk about playing games and misleading an audience.... FRITZ'S notes supplied you with this lead
FRITZ's notes destroys your analysis from the start... he changed his shirt... Altgens 6, even if it was Oswald, CANNOT be MATCHED using a shirt that had not yet been worn that day...
DEAL with it Jim... without the insults.


3) Doorman's (Oswald) T-shirt is a thumb-tugged V-neck, which we have shown in many photos and collages, which was confirmed not to be a shadow by Ralph Cinque during the Dallas photo shoot, which no one here is discussing.

My 6 points plainly shows how this shirt has a perfectly round collar... not until AFTER HIS ARREST does this shirt exhibit any PULLED collar...
MAYBE one of the 6 cops that wrestled him stretched his shirt... possible?

4) The bone structure of Doorman's head and face match Oswald; the Lovelady FBI photo was altered, where the bone structure was softened to look like Oswald.

BullSh!t Jim... Lovelady has cheekbones that almost cover his ears.... the right side face SHADOW is evident and MATCHES in BOTH Lovelady and Doorman...

5) Doorman's left cheek bone and ear are not clearly visible because the area is a mess of sloppy touch-up applied to Doorman's left cheek all the way over into Black Tie Man's neck.

uh... right... Cart - meet horse... Again Jim, you sound like Specter. "The headshot couldn't be from the front since the killer was shooting from behind"

6) Doorman's nose is crooked because it was altered; there are cut marks, in the shape of a cresent, across his nose bridge to his right ear and back under his nose to his left ear. The crescent cut-out was not centered correctly.

Now you're just grasping for ANYTHING... and it's pretty pathetic Jim. You were WRONG about the math, WRONG about the probability and WRONG about the MATCHES
You Dont' seem to want to address YOUR reliability with YOUR 50 matches to arrive an a reliable probability
not do you even consider the myraid of items that completely REFUTE your findings...

Did you recently attend a class given by Bugliosi on how to obscure reasonbing when supporting evidence is impossible to produce?

Jim - you have ESTABLISHED no such thing. YOU HAVE guessed and decided unilaterally what does and doesn't MATCH... and from what I saw you were not even CLOSE to 50/50 on the probability of a MATCH being real or imagined...
What's 50 to the 50th power Jim? [TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD] 1,125,899,906,842,620 to 1.... and that's if you got it 50% right ![/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]









Deciding on your own what is and isn't a MATCH is like letting the CIA tell us their role in the assassination.... it's BS.

Jim... the fact you are well known and others look to you for some direction in this case has now become a running joke.
You've used this position to promote a terribley poor excuse for an argument and photographic proof...

Even Lamson sees you for what you and Ralph are....

So if indeed there is a special place for those that expose supposed CONSPIRACY RESEARCHERS (one of our "own") for offering a misguided and ultimately incorrect assessment of the images and events from that day,
while glossing over all of the evidence AGAINST such a conclusion... I'm ready for my name tag...

HELLO, My name is DJ and I exposed Jim Fetzer's misrepresentations about Doorman in the Altgen 6 photo for the nonsense it is.

Now he's all defensive about it and behaving like a disgruntled 5 year old instead of the learned professor, author, & researcher he supposedly is...
One gets the impression that Jim Fetzer thinks he's never been wrong about ANYTHING....

When and if you attempt to rebutt the argument I put forth instead of tap dancing around with veiled ad homs and little girl tactics... let us know.

Jim... you sir have become one of the GREAT disappointments and laughing stocks of the JFK research community...
That you choose this worthless area to make a stand, belittle the JFK community and ruin a career is YOUR call.... just know that I will now think of you in the same breath as Posner, Myers and Bugliosi
Men who have used their positions to promote completely undefensible arguments all for self promotion...

Sad... just sad.


The persistent attempt to use the Bark-Like-A-Dog-At-The-Out-Of-Bounds-Line is noted, the reliable bleating of Our Lady of Perpetual Offense the counterpoint to Oz peeing on our leg, roaring that it's raining.

The true offense is at the murder, and all those who obscure its accessories.

All else is bathos, insincere or overdone pathos.

Oswald's in the lunchroom; Lovelady's in the doorway.

Watch the first step: it's a killer:

[James H. Fetzer]

Phil,

I will get back to David Josephs, but I am rather puzzled by your position.

What is your response to the evidence we have adduced re the following:

(1) the face of a man in the Altgens6 has been obfuscated: YES or NO

(2) the shoulder of Doorman is missing, completely gone: YES or NO

(3) the Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind him: YES or NO

(4) the profile of a black man appears around mid-torso: YES or NO

(5) Lee told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front": YES or NO

(6) Billy told the FBI he was wearing a different shirt: YES or NO

(7) Billy showed the FBI the shirt he had been wearing: YES or NO

(8) It was a red-and-white, vertically striped shirt: YES or NO

(9) It is not the shirt that Doorman is wearing: YES or NO

I thought that I was joking when I said the inmates are running the DPF.

Now, I'm not so sure.

Jim

[quote=Phil Dragoo]First things first: The thesis of this exercise has been rendered null and void: i.e., Doorman is Lovelady, not Oswald as alleged.

I append David Josephs at 392 for the summation of the winning argument: