TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[James H. Fetzer]

You have really deteriorated from the man I used to know. You were once at least respectable. That is now lost. You are repulsive.

I submit that the questions asked in post #495 -- https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post62113: -- as poorly constructed as they are, can not possibly have been authored by my formerly brilliant friend, James Fetzer, Ph.D. because he is much too bright to make such elementary errors in reasoning.

I think I get it now: Jim is being held hostage in some fashion and he has finally found a way to communicate that to us. What can we do to help free you from your captors, Jim?

DEFCON 1

[James H. Fetzer]

I explained that even the Warren Commission concluded that he had NOT changed his clothes, where their finding, in this case, is of great evidential weight because it is "an admission contrary to interest". I explained this before, but you are apparently either so careless or so slovenly that you repeat the blunder even after I have corrected you.

he changed his clothes... hurdle #1 trips Fetzer out of the gates [/B]

[Greg Burnham]

Among the most common practices of those who cannot cope with arguments on the basis of logic and evidence is that they resort to ad hominems and attack the person rather than his position, which you can find this Gregory Burnham guy doing repeatedly in this thread. He has threatened me before (about his lurking in the long grass) and now he is boasting about "our counter-strike operation", which certainly has the aura of violence or of threats of violence about it. I cannot believe that the members of this forum tolerate this kind of rubbish from him or from Charles. And Don Jeffries is one of the most reasonable and decent human beings I have encountered in JFK research. It is a disgrace and further confirmation of their corrupt character that mediocrities like Burnham and Drago belittle him, which is quite disgusting.

But Charles we have exposed him, long time ago. If someone is wrong but screams loudly enough he 'll get something out of nothing even if he is wrong. It is better if everybody is talking negative about someone than never talking about him, because then he does not exist.
He becomes oblivious. They prefer negative critism than being oblivious. I think by continuing this exchange only gives the excuse to people like Don Jeffries to smear the forum. By the way who he is and waht is his claim to fame. I have never heard anyone by that name having contributed anything of value to the JFK research.

No, he wasn't exposed a long time ago. There is more to our counter-strike operation than meets the eye, Vasilios. Patience, my friend.

Jim,

You are being very whiny. My references to "tall grass and counter-strike" are (physically) figurative, but (rhetorically) accurate. This is a non-violent counter-strike operation. Get a grip.

[James H. Fetzer]

I am stunned that I had not seen through you in the past. You are one of the bona fide phonies of JFK research.

Among the most common practices of those who cannot cope with arguments on the basis of logic and evidence is that they resort to ad hominems and attack the person rather than his position, which you can find this Gregory Burnham guy doing repeatedly in this thread. He has threatened me before (about his lurking in the long grass) and now he is boasting about "our counter-strike operation", which certainly has the aura of violence or of threats of violence about it. I cannot believe that the members of this forum tolerate this kind of rubbish from him or from Charles. And Don Jeffries is one of the most reasonable and decent human beings I have encountered in JFK research. It is a disgrace and further confirmation of their corrupt character that mediocrities like Burnham and Drago belittle him, which is quite disgusting.

But Charles we have exposed him, long time ago. If someone is wrong but screams loudly enough he 'll get something out of nothing even if he is wrong. It is better if everybody is talking negative about someone than never talking about him, because then he does not exist.
He becomes oblivious. They prefer negative critism than being oblivious. I think by continuing this exchange only gives the excuse to people like Don Jeffries to smear the forum. By the way who he is and waht is his claim to fame. I have never heard anyone by that name having contributed anything of value to the JFK research.

No, he wasn't exposed a long time ago. There is more to our counter-strike operation than meets the eye, Vasilios. Patience, my friend.

Jim,

You are being very whiny. My references to "tall grass and counter-strike" are (physically) figurative, but (rhetorically) accurate. This is a non-violent counter-strike operation. Get a grip.

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

What started out as a friendship and a very fine relationship between two brothers-in-arms committed to a common goal has now deteriorated into name calling. A pity.

When I did not agree with your Doorman thesis, your reaction to that disagreement was caustic...from the beginning. This is not conducive to discovering the truth. None
of us have a monopoly on the truth. I am at a loss to explain, with certainty, why you had and are having such a reaction. I have allowed myself to speculate, simply due
to the fact that you are still continuing to sell this thesis without following your own rules of critical thinking--the same rules you taught for 35 years. I know that you have
been very angry with me for having expressed that to you, first privately, and then publicly. But, is that not what friends are for? If you never respected my mind, my intellect,
my integrity, and my honesty then I would not be surprised at your rejection of my evaluation of this matter. However, how is it that you justify silencing me and so many around
you that you once trusted because you will not accept that we disagree with you? You won't even agree to disagree. Worse, you won't even acknowledge legitimate arguments.
I am not saying: You should concede--I am saying you don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of the arguments.

For instance, I am not asking you to abandon your belief in LHO as Doorman. However, I think you should not use Fritz' notes. Why? Because they cancel themselves out!
Even if the notes unambiguously indicated Oswald was out front--they also indicate he changed his shirt between the time of Altgens 6 and the time LHO was photographed in
the shirt that resembles Doorman's shirt. Can you not at the very least acknowledge that those of us who have brought this to your attention might still remain honorable men?

[Seamus Coogan]

Sorry I screwed this up and had it re-posted doh!

[Albert Doyle]

Albert, take a look at this official letter from the FBI to the Warren Commission stating that Lovelady claimed to have worn the red and white striped shirt.

While this is probably accurate, you can't take anything written in an FBI document as credible. The reasons for Lovelady's allegedly saying he wore that shirt are unknown. Maybe he simply misremembered. That happens in witness cases you know. What is more bearing here is the fact all the other photographs show Lovelady in the plaid shirt. If Lovelady did wear that striped shirt there's no reason for the alleged CIA forgers to show him in the plaid shirt and you still haven't answered for it. Your explanation for the aspect ratio is credulous in my opinon. Since the change of breadth seen in the "gorilla" shot is technically a change in size your rather weak explanation fails to serve the purpose you assume. Not to mention there are other matching photographs showing Lovelady in the plaid shirt and they all match. You try to bypass this conflict by saying gorilla man is the sign of a forgery however you fail to account for the question of why they would show Lovelady in a plaid shirt if he was wearing the striped shirt that day? Nor do you account for the matching photographs of Lovelady in the plaid shirt. There are none showing him in any striped shirt. None.


Since you flagrantly ignore and dodge the issues of why they would forge Lovelady in a plaid shirt if he was wearing the striped shirt that day, and also flagrantly ignore the fact you claimed Oswald had a button-less shirt in the doorway in Altgens, as well as ignoring my call to bring your test photographer here to talk about the skin patches, I can assume you have defaulted and therefore I no longer have to respond to your posts seeing how they are now proven uncredible and not sincerely or genuinely offered. Again, what you flagrantly dodge says more than the bullcrap you offer in its place...

[Greg Burnham]

And if you can acknowledge that we remain honorable men even though we brought this to your attention, then is it also possible that even if your
rebuttal to our argument is still less than persuasive to us, we are still honorable men?

In other words: What if we are all honorable men? Intelligent men. Honest men. (by "men" I mean humans, including females). What if we are all
still seeking the truth?

Why does such an issue that has been studied for 50 years need to divide us so severely? Trust your friends, Jim. We're on the same side.

This is my final plea.

I feel like an idiot here. Once again your lone supporter. I hope you come back, but I doubt you can.

[Greg Burnham]

I am stunned that I had not seen through you in the past. You are one of the bona fide phonies of JFK research.

Projection.

[Seamus Coogan]

Part I: My old mate 'Arry'

My writings are in blue and 'Ron' Fetzer's are in Black

"Why, then, is Harold Weisberg ON OUR SIDE? You show up every now and then to demonstrate your incompetence, which is beyond measure. In this case, if you had only bothered to read WHITEWASH II (1966), "The Lovelady Diversion" and "The Lovelady Caper", you would discover that you are completely and totally wrong."

No Mr Fetzer, Mr Weisberg is not on anyones side. He can't be, sadly he died in 2002, I guess you didn't know that.

That's not surprising as there are a number of things you don't know about this case.

While it is well known HW voiced concerns with Lovelady in the photo. I doubt he would (A) Support you endorsing his opinions-not to mention your crazed ideas of Altgen's and photo alteration. I hasten to add unless I am very much mistaken nowhere in any of Weisberg's writings on Lovelady did he go that far. (B) You lie once more about Weisbergs tone, Weisberg actually wrote about the Lovelady subject in at least two books 'Whitewash II' your new 'bible' is only one of them, the other being 'Photographic Whitewash; Suppressed Kennedy Assassination pictures' circa 1967. While HW felt it could have been Oswald standing there (note the term 'could') anybody who looks at Weisberg would see that he did not stake his reputation on the photo (you do not have a reputation to lose at all-it went a very long time ago). While I disagreed with his stance on the photo, he presented a far more measured series of complaints about it than your crazed ramblings, indeed you desecrate HW's musings.

What makes me laugh even more is that HW appears to have dropped the Lovelady angle all together in his later years.

Hence let us return to your famed misappropriation of individuals and their works.

On the 'Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer?' [size=12]thread[/SIZE], Charles Drago once wrote the following to you Mr Fetzer. I have highlighted in red the questions CD asked of you. Questions which you never bothered to address, questions both CD and I have discussed and asked you about before.

"Let me try to be charitable: The above is the product of a naif.

To rely upon the criminal and professional prevaricator Estes, the unsubstantiated and apparently disturbed McClelland, and the master propagandist, professional intelligence officer, serial liar and JFK assassination accessory Hunt for corroboration of any postulate up to and including "the eastern horizon lightens at dawn because the sun rises in the east" is to surrender all claims to possession of rational thought processes.

And Turner's "The Guilty Men" does not "support" Brown's story; rather, it REPORTS BROWN'S STORY. Thus Jim resorts to the sort of sophomoric circular argument that he would laugh out of his Logic 101 course.

Are you fooling yourself, Jim? Or are you trying to fool us?

And if the latter ... then why?

As for Nelson: As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this forum and elsewhere, he is nothing more than the latest in a line of cheapjack touts who, wittingly or otherwise, serve to preserve the JFK cover-up and protect the assassination's true Sponsors by nominating a false Sponsor -- in this case, LBJ.

So here's an idea for the prolific Professor Fetzer: Why don't you ask every contributor to Assassination Science, Murder in Dealey Plaza, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax to address these simple questions:


"In your informed opinion, was Lyndon Baines Johnson the prime mover and architect of the conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy?"

"Did LBJ possess the power and authority to order the JFK assassination and to have his order implemented by powerful assets within U.S. civilian and military intelligence agencies and other areas of the national/international power structure?"

"Was LBJ capable of crafting the JFK assassination conspiracy in all its complexity -- including the cover-up?"

"Do you agree with Phillip Nelson's assessment of LBJ as the 'mastermind' of the JFK assassination?"

"Do you accept the so-called 'confession' of E. Howard Hunt as a completely truthful statement made without hidden agendas to deceive and disinform?"

Don't screw around with the wording of the questions, Jim.

Don't be selective; ask each and every one of your contributors, Jim.

Don't back down from publishing their responses in full, Jim.

I am in the process of asking my partners at DPF if they will agree to publish responses in unedited form on these cyber-pages. We operate as a democracy, so the majority decision will rule. I'll keep everyone posted.

Many of your contributors may find themselves in the terribly uncomfortable position of having to disagree, publicly and most significantly, with a cherished colleague. They may be deeply troubled by the knowledge that their public confirmation of said disagreement likely would raise serious questions about their colleague's critical thinking skills -- for starters.

But I'm certain that they realize that what's at stake here far transcends preservation of the reputation of one philosopher.

So what will it be?

Are you game?

Now Charles and I suspect you will likely now turn this into some buffoon ridden 'LBJ organized it' bollocks counter argument.
So let's warn you off that angle before you try and take us both on another sad irrelevant tangent.

I have used CD's post merely as a good example of your using anyone to endorse your crud overall thesis. Let's ask Jim Douglas if he agrees that Phil Nelson is the companion piece to his great work? You won't will you JF because Douglas (as I have said before) would probably laugh in your face. As would Jerry McKnight a very close friend of HW. If you seriously think you stand side to side with veritable giants like Douglas & Weisberg, you probably thought Ventura's stupefying use of 'Ron' and his CIA documents naming Nixon and the CIA was a very good idea.

Ironically, you bloody well did didn't you?

Thus, let us go on another interesting little detour. Your crackpot career is full of them.

Part II: Assholes and Elbows

"Which means you aren't even competent to cite sources when you disgrace yourself. Someone is displaying himself as a despicable crank, but that ain't me. Citing Monk or Phil about this confirms you don't know your ahole from your elbow."

Phil is a very intelligent and diligent researcher. While I have my differences with Monk, I find him to be a decent and fair minded bloke. Extremely loyal once you get too know him. Oh that's funny isn't it? I mean you used to know him rather well. I had a beef way back with Greg, basically because he was extremely loyal to you. I was perhaps a little immature and I really should have tried to distinguish him from yourself. I have to admit that the difference in quality of person is a chasm. Your treatment of him (after his wiping your butt after your numerous screw ups) was quite frankly disgusting.

Yet while we are on the topic of butts...

The fact I associate with either man, is an indication in most peoples eyes (at least on the DPF), that I generally know where my elbow is-not to mention who the real 'assholes' are. I shudder thinking about you Cinque and Hankey fisting one another, but that's the reality when individuals of like minds begin experimenting in your orgies of ignorance. Unlike your merry trio of fools, I am very glad that Monk, PD and I can distinguish our elbow joints from each others anus's.

Part III: Fetzer's Praise for Flagrant Dishonesty

Anyhow, as I have stated 'I do not fully believe that 'Ron' in the Ventura show was you Mr Fetzer'. Indeed Mr Fetzer you have stated that you were no producer merely a participant. We all know how good a participant you were...cocking up the Commissions shooting time. Anyhow here's your fawning reply to Ventura's son as seen on the EF.

20/11/2010Tyrel,

You can tell Jesse this was the best television program ever produced about JFK. In one hour, more people learned more about JFK than ever before. My admiration for having fingered Nixon, Ford, Bush, and LBJ knows no bounds.

Now what kind of moron ties up Nixon, Ford, Bush and LBJ in a plot? A naive amateur or some deluded crank you might say?

Well, Mr Fetzer is no spring chicken, hence the latter is the only alternative. Further, in a later post on the Education Forum circa 27/10/10 Fetzer endorses those pathetic CIA documents as authentic or indeed a good part of the show...

"Jim and Dawn,

I don't think he has even watched the show. He says
Jesse didn't deal with the real issues, such as who
was behind the assassination. He seems to believe
that Judyth was a part of it, too. Here's a test of
his understanding. How many of these issues were in
the show, Bill? Who did Jesse suggest was responsible
for the assassination or the cover-up? How much time
was devoted to Len Osanic? to Jim Fetzer? to Jim Marrs?
to Judyth Vary Baker? to Fletcher Prouty? to Jimmy Di?
A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice for the following:

CIA documents"

Part IV Questions: Which like many others before I doubt Mr Fetzer will give a straight answer.

-Mr Fetzer do you endorse the use of Ron and do you think he was genuinely scared for his life?

-Mr Fetzer do you believe that taking on Lone Gunmen nuts with fabricated individuals like Ron hawking faux secret documents strengthens our cause?

-Mr Fetzer have you ever asked out about Rons identity? If some bloke as kooky as this just 'popped up' Mr Fetzer we all know that you would be all over him like a rash and thus he would likely appear on your less than inspiring show. Why hasn't 'Ron' been on your kook fest broadcast Mr Fetzer? I mean he presented Ventura with those 'secret' CIA documents and gave him the caveat of Nixon and the CIA. He should be a hero of yours right? Yet oddly we hear nothing from you Mr Fetzer about Ron. Bar the odd denial that you and he are the same person. Why this sudden loss of zealotry for a fellow crank? It leads one to ask did you know about the Ron 'hoax' previously? Was it your suggestion? Was it indeed you in that chair?

-Mr Fetzer you only denied being Ron after having been asked point blank on the Education Forum some three times. Mr Fetzer you did not make any negative comments on the accusation, until it was clear that people commenting on the show had become critical of the programs banal opening sequence (a sequence as I have said you heartily endorsed). Why did you take so long to reply, when merely the smallest ripple seems to get your attention?

-Mr Fetzer if you really wanted to clear your name from this travesty, as said why have you not tried to find out who 'Ron' was? Ron is a fraud and a cheap stunt...Thus Mr Fetzer are you distressed that numerous well respected researchers, believe you capable of doing such a pathetic act? How does having the nickname 'Ron' make you feel?

-Mr Fetzer do you seriously think that Harold Weisberg, Jim Douglas and Fletcher Prouty would have endorsed 'Ron' and his secret documents? I have a sneaking suspicion were Weisberg and Prouty alive, they would think you more than capable of being Ron. I hasten to add Weisberg would have likely have despised you, I'll write to Gerald McKnight and get his expert opinion on that point if you like. Mr McKnight is a huge fan of yours...not.

Either way one looks at this travesty, even if Ron was not you. It is well noted you that A) You associated yourself with and endorsed one of the biggest and most embarrassing frauds in JFK research seen in recent years. Ron is as embarrassing as you are, hence B) It does not trouble me in any way that people mistakenly think of you as Ron. He may as well have been you. Ron was simply a plot device to put your second rate view points in there.