TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Charles Drago]

The Special Olympics is funny. Rape is funny, too.

Of course, it all depends on how you structure the joke ... where the exaggeration is ... and most significantly, the nature of the larger issues at hand.

Is there more rape at the equator or at the North Pole?

Wait a minute ... Miss Manner's family member who rides the short bus ... could he or she be a rape victim, too?

I better not post this. I hope, in trying to delete it, I don't hit the SEND button. Shouldn't be a problem, though. I've deleted hundreds of posts. PHEW, that was close! Here goes ...

[David Josephs]

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.

I didn't realize we were calling POOR RESEARCH and deliberately deceiving his audience "BAIT"....

So by putting forth an intelligent rebuttal - we don't do service to ourselves, the community, the public and Jim Fetzer?

If we do nothing, he succeeds at making us look bad...

Anyone reading thru this thread, with any level of intelligence... should be able to seperate wheat from SHAFT....
Those that can't will never see clearly....

Do you always ignore bullies VV?
Do you always steer clear of confrontation when your sensibilities have been attacked?
In the same breath, let's just ignore the WCR... the ULTIMATE DROPPING OF BAIT... and minimize the work of the 1st generation of researchers...
That JF can envoke Weisberg in his defense is disgusting....

I have found standing up to them and saying "Boo!" usually gets them running....
JF resorting to ad homs and refusing to acknowledge his own fallibility, the PROBABILIITY that JF is that correct is astronomical....

Silence doesn't work for me in the face of such BS VV.
If you feel burying your head in the sand is the way to deal with JF... we/I will gladly take up the cause in your sted.

DJ

[Dawn Meredith]

There is nothing funny about rape.

Period

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

There is nothing funny about rape.

Period

Dawn

Get off the pulpit and watch the video.

[Greg Burnham]

There is nothing funny about rape.

Period

Dawn

Its the jokes that are funny. As Carlin said: "Every joke has an exaggeration...a part those goes way over the top."

That's what makes anything potentially funny.

[Charles Drago]

I wonder if I AM a bully?

I enjoy access to a bully pulpit.

I've read books about T.R.

At times I affect a British accent and shout praise as a Brit might.

I know the work of comedian B.S. Pully, which sounds like bully.

I like The X-Files, and Muller's sidekick was Scully, which is sorta spelled like bully.

The absurdity of Miss Manners' positions is something about which I'm fully -- again, sounds like bully -- aware.

And I love the way Miss Manners, via his cover-up defending, literal, simple-minded posts, continues to sully his own reputation -- although sully, while spelled almost just like bully, doesn't sound like bully.

Maybe I can make a few bulimia jokes, but spell it "bullymia."

Do you think Miss Manners' short bus relative suffers from bullymia? Could I be so lucky?

Enough of this bullyshit.

[Charles Drago]

There is nothing funny about rape.

Period

Dawn

Its the jokes that are funny.

Precisely the point, distilled to its essence.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

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.

I didn't realize we were calling POOR RESEARCH and deliberately deceiving his audience "BAIT"....

So by putting forth an intelligent rebuttal - we don't do service to ourselves, the community, the public and Jim Fetzer?

If we do nothing, he succeeds at making us look bad...

Anyone reading thru this thread, with any level of intelligence... should be able to seperate wheat from SHAFT....
Those that can't will never see clearly....

Do you always ignore bullies VV?
Do you always steer clear of confrontation when your sensibilities have been attacked?
In the same breath, let's just ignore the WCR... the ULTIMATE DROPPING OF BAIT... and minimize the work of the 1st generation of researchers...
That JF can envoke Weisberg in his defense is disgusting....

I have found standing up to them and saying "Boo!" usually gets them running....
JF resorting to ad homs and refusing to acknowledge his own fallibility, the PROBABILIITY that JF is that correct is astronomical....

Silence doesn't work for me in the face of such BS VV.
If you feel burying your head in the sand is the way to deal with JF... we/I will gladly take up the cause in your sted.

DJ

You are wrong. I have confronted Fetzer in the past and i have made public my conclusions about him. But after so much talking it becomes tiring
and i feel that we have said everything we had to say. We have exposed him and it is time to move on to more serious matters.
In my opinion he is an agent provocateur for reasons i have explained in older posts

[James H. Fetzer]

Even the Warren Commission concluded that Lee had not changed his shirt. There are so many points of similarity (in a photograph that has OBVIOUSLY been altered (the obfuscated face, the missing shoulder, BTM in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, the black man's profile) that I am INCREDULOUS that you are pursuing this line of malarky in defense of Doorman being Lovelady! EVEN HE DENIED IT! In addition, you commit THE GROSS BLUNDER of identifying the man in the checkered shirt in the DPD as Lovelady, when they don't look even remotely alike: Billy has a relatively ordinary face, while that guy looks like a gorilla; Billy has a medium to slender build, that guy has a heavy build and is bursting out of his shirt. We have done so much detailed research on this that you cannot be defending the position you are defending and understand the evidence! You even appear to conflate verification and falsification, assuming that, IF THERE ARE ANY POINTS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOORMAN'S SHIRT AND OSWALD'S, THEN IT CAN'T BE OSWALD'S! How dumb is that? They made many efforts to confound their identity. You even claim that having a shirt higher-up on the sleeve--when that is a transitory state--is supposed to be decisive, when its actually meaningless. You have given a pseudo-sophisticated argument to make a relatively simple situation look as if it were incredibly complex. Until you come to grips with the obvious signs of fakery, you are obviously faking it yourself. This is ridiculous.

Cmon buddy....

Answer this one question...

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:

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]

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert,

You are embarrassing yourself. Why would anyone go to the FBI and claim to have been wearing a red-and-white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt if they WERE NOT wearing a red-and-white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt? WOULD YOU DO THAT? He also told Jones Harris that he had been wearing a red-and-white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. WOULD YOU DO THAT IF IT WERE NOT TRUE?

I suggest you read Weisberg, WHITEWASH II. You are abysmally ignorant of the facts in this case. You are also ignorant of logic. It is a argument by elimination: It was Oswald or it was Lovelady. Oswald was wearing an old, expensive shirt. Lovelady was wearing a red-and-white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. Doorman's shirt matches Oswald's; Lovelady's does not. It was not Lovelady. Therefore, it was Oswald.

We have done so much on this--proving BOTH that it was Oswald's shirt AND that it was not Lovelady's that I have to infer you have read none of our studies about this. Either get up to speed--start with "JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" or cease and desist. You are displaying an appalling absence of understanding of the issues. I am not surprised, but why advertise it? Everyone knows it.

Jim

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.


Do you see the mistake you've made there?