Dr Fetzer is re-entering old claims as if weeks hadn't already been spent on it showing how uncredible they are.
I believe the Altgens photo has been proven within reasonability to be Billy Lovelady standing in the Depository portal. Only sophist digression supports the contention that it is Oswald on the thinnest of theoretical grounds. Meanwhile there is good proof Oswald was in the lunch room at the time of the shooting.
Don't any of you "get it"? Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966) had already figured this out. Billy even went to the FBI to show them the shirt he was wearing. It was a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. We are confirming what Weisberg had already figured out in 1966 by studies of the photograph that could not have been done then! It was Lee in the doorway, not Lovelady. Lovelady also told Jones Harris that he was wearing the red-and-white shirt. He was emphatic about it. This must be the most incompetent research forum in history. The evidence is blatant. There is no doubt about it. Yet we have one denial after another! Denials are not proof. This forum has turned into a nut house. Even Phil Dragoo endorses obscure arguments when he cannot cope with the basic, obvious evidence. It is appalling.
albert doyle Wrote:dr fetzer is re-entering old claims as if weeks hadn't already been spent on it showing how uncredible they are.
I believe the altgens photo has been proven within reasonability to be billy lovelady standing in the depository portal. Only sophist digression supports the contention that it is oswald on the thinnest of theoretical grounds. Meanwhile there is good proof oswald was in the lunch room at the time of the shooting.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Don't any of you "get it"? Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966) had already figured this out. Billy even went to the FBI to show them the shirt he was wearing. It was a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. We are confirming what Weisberg had already figured out in 1966 by studies of the photograph that could not have been done then! It was Lee in the doorway, not Lovelady. Lovelady also told Jones Harris that he was wearing the red-and-white shirt. He was emphatic about it. This must be the most incompetent research forum in history. The evidence is blatant. There is no doubt about it. Yet we have one denial after another! Denials are not proof. This forum has turned into a nut house. Even Phil Dragoo endorses obscure arguments when he cannot cope with the basic, obvious evidence. It is appalling.
Nope. You're just taking advantage of the fact Lovelady showed-up in that striped shirt for the the FBI pictures.
Dr Fetzer, you can't be relying on Cinque-esque claims that the subtle features of the shirt prove it was Oswald's shirt and then turn around and insist it was the striped shirt.
We have proven BOTH that it was Oswald's shirt AND that it was not Lovelady's. Have you read any of our studies about this? I am stunned at the gross incompetence displayed on this forum. We have done study after study, but none of you has paid any attention because your minds are ALREADY MADE UP. You are not even up-to-speed with HAROLD WEISBERG IN 1966! This turns out to be a collection of clowns.
Jim
Albert Doyle Wrote:
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Don't any of you "get it"? Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966) had already figured this out. Billy even went to the FBI to show them the shirt he was wearing. It was a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. We are confirming what Weisberg had already figured out in 1966 by studies of the photograph that could not have been done then! It was Lee in the doorway, not Lovelady. Lovelady also told Jones Harris that he was wearing the red-and-white shirt. He was emphatic about it. This must be the most incompetent research forum in history. The evidence is blatant. There is no doubt about it. Yet we have one denial after another! Denials are not proof. This forum has turned into a nut house. Even Phil Dragoo endorses obscure arguments when he cannot cope with the basic, obvious evidence. It is appalling.
Nope. You're just taking advantage of the fact Lovelady showed-up in that striped shirt for the the FBI pictures.
Dr Fetzer, you can't be relying on Cinque-esque claims that the subtle features of the shirt prove it was Oswald's shirt and then turn around and insist it was the striped shirt.
Why is what Fritz writes on one page any less or more reliable than on another page - especially since the SHELLEY comment is on this first page ?
On the same page as the SHELLEY comment... we have him changing his britches
On the NEXT PAGE, recounting the questioning from 11/23 at 10:30 in the morning...
it gets even more specific about his changing his shirt.
I give a sh!t what YOU think others are saying Jim... your powers of analysis and reasoning appears to be gone.
Why is one set of information on the same page as YOUR HOLY GRAIL any less a meaningful insight into the events of the day? Especially since it was corroborated by a number of witnesses?
As a TEACHER - you should know what a tautological argument is....
When you ASSUME the photo is altered and then make your arguments based onthat conclusion... your argument is rendered moot and meaningless. TAUTOLOGY
We do NOT know, nor have you proven with any reliability that ANYTHING was changed in Altgens...
You've put forth a theory... you've tried your hand at probability with a dismal failure and dont even realize how misleading your presentation REMAINS.
And I placed my MATCH at 99% unlike you believing you are 100% correct on 50 out of 50 MATCHES from a PHOTO to another PHOTO.
You disregard CONTEXT and corroborating evidence to the contrary...
AND can't even deal with the SOURCE OF YOUR IDEA also telling us that your conclusion is NOT POSSIBLE given the SAME EVIDENCE from which you began this journey....
Be the same thing as someone reading Specter's BS SBT question, "is an exit wound an exit wound", the Drs agreeing with that tautological question and then concluding the SBT a sound theory.
You've done no better Jim... so it's Posner, Myers, VB and Specter now you pattern your debating style around? If someone disagrees it is NOT worth looking at one's work again but rather attack the messenger...
Is this Jim Fetzer or David Von Pein?
Finally Jim... my last is an image of KNEELING BOY who is hiding in front of the retaining wall in plain sight... I can find a number of MATCHING POINTS to a REAL PERSON IN ANOTHER PHOTO to prove this is really a photo of a person....
Prove he was NOT there.... it's plain as day he is... so Moorman and all other images was altered to remove him... obviously.
:lol:
James H. Fetzer Wrote: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:
I don't think you've answered the point that you can't have Oswald's "distinctive loop" and the striped shirt in the same place as you are trying to do.
Whether you realize it you've made two separate strong claims. You can't just "disappear" that highly visible striped shirt in all the other pictures of Lovelady at the Depository that day. Meanwhile we have another photo of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt that matches many other pictures of him from that day. "Gross incompetence"? No. Just seeing what's plainly there.
The skin patches Cinque refuses to admit are what prove it is Lovelady. Ask your photographer to come on here and talk to me about those skin patches.
The problem with your theory is that you are contending CIA did some very complex forgery that day but decided to place the wrong shirt on Oswald when attempting to make him look like Lovelady.
Cinque's attempts to reason around this are totally uncredible (to be kind) and don't even merit basic recognition.
Vasilios Vazakas Wrote: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.
Sir,
First off... from what I understand you are entitled to your opinion and to "switch channels" anytime the show is not to your liking.
What Jim is doing is no better than Bugliosi's book or DVP's online tactics. If Jim is not to blame for his own inability to be objective and DISCUSS the situation without believing he 50 for 50 with 100% certainty,
who is responsible?
DVP nor McAdams nor VB listens to anyone words... but the words still must be spoken.... WE conclude conspiracy and look into why and who... HE is making a mockery of every aspect of the research community...
He is offerring BAD analysis, with BAD analogies supported by even worse math to contrast what is PROBABLE to what is POSSIBLE.
That Jim Fetzer have become a public face of the JFK Conspiracy Research Community is VERY RELEVENT...
The WORDS Vasilio are NOT for Fetzer... but for all the unsuspecting interested parties out there that think anything he says is golden, factual and supportable.
Much like the Piper discussion, I now am done with this unless Jim finally addresses the issue and not the poster.
If he cannot show that Oswald did NOT change shirts or pants... he has no leg to stand on
If he cannot seperate one Fritz/Oswald comment from the next... and they render his conclusion impossible..... what does that say about the possiblity this type of "analysis and conclusion" technique is not used in all the other areas of "research and presentation" Jim partakes in?
What I don't understand is why THIS ISSUE is so terribly important in the overall picture.... enough so that Jim feels the need to stretch his already worn out neck so far out on it....
Movie deal?
TV special?
What's the motivation?... which of course brings us back around to DEEP POLITICS..... who is asking Jim to make a mockery of JFK assassination research?
Fetzer drops the bait and you all bite it. Ignoring him and treating him with contempt are better in my opinion. He is trying to make this forum look bad, taht its members are incompetent and that noone should listen to them.
