Think of this thread as a last-ditch effort to make lemonade from the foul and bitter lemon that has been the Doorway Man/Altgens 6 "discussion" here on DPF.
On another forum, Jim Fetzer posed the following question: "What is the probability that the Altgens [6] would have been altered UNLESS IT INCLUDED SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED?" [emphasis in the original]
Based upon my decades-long study of deep political science, my response is, "Very high."
Thus the following syllogism:
The Facilitators of the JFK assassination cover-up place the highest values on tactics that confuse, misdirect, and create cognitive dissonance and internecine conflict within the JFK critical community.
Obvious, designed-to-be-discovered alterations of evidence that neither supports nor refutes the pro-conspiracy argument is likely to engender confusion, misdirection, cognitive dissonance and internecine conflict within the JFK critical community.
Therefore there is a very high probability that Facilitators of the JFK assassination cover-up have altered evidence that neither supports nor refutes the pro-conspiracy argument.
I think this Altgens film alteration stuff is total baloney. If it was Lee Oswald or someone resembling Oswald wouldn't they want to rub Lovelady out of the picture? There is a massive disconnect here with the logic of JF. I cannot see any evidence of fakery in that photo. Yet when it suits Mr Fetzer he claims that the photograph supposedly depicting George Bush outside the book depository as authentic, the photo's of the three tramps were also legitimate and had not been tampered with. Thus I feel Mr Fetzer is cutting his cloth to suit the lack of logic and cherry picking of the evidence is amateurish in the extreme.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
This thread is NOT "about" Altgens 6 or Jim Fetzer.
I will not allow this thread to be corrupted by those who, intentionally or otherwise, derive some form(s) of profit from the spread of cognitive dissonance, misdirection, and/or disinformation.
Please respond to the hypothesis presented within the syllogism.
All who would use this thread to attack Jim Fetzer should take their business elsewhere.
So too all who would attempt to restate the nonsense and bile from the aforementioned Altgens 6 thread.
I'd say those who give credence to obviously false claims of forgery by 'laundering' them into philosophical principles also unwittingly commit the same violation of prolonging the confusion and controversy. The claim is obviously false and the forgeries obviously don't exist. To remove the issue from the direct abstract evidence and arguments into philosophical concepts is to create a venue in which the proponents will be led to believe their claims have some merit. If people were paying attention the doorway forgery claims were completely destroyed in the direct arguments against them using scientific and factual argument. So while some may perhaps correctly argue that the actual argument for any forgeries, like those claimed by doorway theorists, violates the deep political principle of prolonging the debate, in my opinion the shortest route is dismissing the doorway claim completely because it has already proven to be false. No offense intended, but those who didn't participate in the actual abstract material arguments of why the claim is false tend to be the same people who show up later with sophist approaches that make the terrible mistake of permitting the possibility the doorway claim is valid. It isn't and it shouldn't be given any chance for validity no matter how honorably-intended or indirect. I'm sorry but the doorway proponents can't be saved from this.
Too many worthy men have been defeated Jan's 'sword' of truth to defile it on Cinque. I'd say a dirty sock and gag is more appropriate for him.
You know that i am a big proponent of the cognitive dissonance strategy employed by the facilitators in photos and the Zfilm.
I have explained my thoughts in previous posts, more than once, so i would not repeat them to tire you.
As you have said in the past, their purpose is not to solve the issue, but to preserve doubt.
Their purpose is to confuse and frustrate our efforts. To have us wasted 27 pages discussing shirts...
I reiterate: This thread is NOT "about" Altgens 6 or Fetzer or "Cinque."
It is intended to spur discussions of deep political science and the lessons gleaned from deep political inquiry.
The JFK assassination is a deep political phenomenon. The creation and manipulation of disinformation, misinformation, and cognitive dissonance are well-established, frequently observed tactics in the JFK assassination.
Do you grasp, for instance, the function and forms of the doppelganger phenomena in this case?
Further, I am not aware of any "deep political principle of prolonging the debate."
When you write, "No offense intended, but those who didn't participate in the actual abstract material arguments of why the claim is false tend to be the same people who show up later with sophist approaches that make the terrible mistake of permitting the possibility the doorway claim is valid," you are spouting nonsense. Where is this "sophistry" you claim to have detected? Where is your understanding and discussion of deep political strategies and tactics?
What the hell is an "abstract material" argument?
"Abstract material"???
Who is trying to "save" "doorway proponents?"
Why can't you see the distinction between "permitting the possibility the doorway claims is valid" and my hypothesis as expressed in the syllogism?
Why can't you understand that, when you write, "I'd say a dirty sock and gag is more appropriate for ["Cinque"]," you give no indication that in fact there are valuable lessons from allowing "them" to expose their methods.
Albert, I'm sincerely grateful to you for your kind words here and on Amazon.com, but your post above is, to be polite, off-point, rife with self-contradiction and straw men, and in all other respects rather shoddy work.
And as far as your rhetoric is concerned, at your level of development, less is more.
I say it is questionable whether the Doorway Man forgery issue was designed to be a source of conflict. I think its existence is due to a certain crackpot professor who won't argue honestly or admit when he's wrong. While it could be true that it has now become a useful tool of the conspirators by which to cause disruption and disagreement in the JFK Assassination community, my view is that the shortest route to resolving this is not to ignore it but to disprove it using the best abilities of that research community.
I don't think this was a purposely "designed to be discovered" forgery. Most likely it is now an issue because a certain professor wants to be known as the person who proved the conspiracy once and for all. In this particular case I don't think this photo was designed to mislead for purposes of causing confusion. I don't think the Doorway area was altered at all and the only reason it is being suggested is because of some overactive imaginations in the JFK research community.
In the end the deep politics position of not engaging in this debate may be the wisest route. What I can't stand is how those making this false claim take the lack of any functional opposition to their claims as consent or even proof.
Resolved: There is a very high probability that Facilitators of the JFK assassination cover-up have altered evidence that neither supports nor refutes the pro-conspiracy argument.
Nothing would please the ghosts of James Jesus Angleton, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms and others more than to see us continuously mired in debate regarding the precise characteristics of the black cat not in the dark closet.
I had occasion to revisit the two-paragraph quote of Vincent Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi from The Last Investigation by way of Spartacus:
(3) Vincent J. Salandria was interviewed by Gaeton Fonzi in 1975. It was quoted by Fonzi in The Last Investigation (1993)
I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.
The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down.
I find the above two paragraphs on page 29 in Chapter Three: The Right Place, The Right Time, First trade paperback edition, 1994. Thunder's Mouth Press. Fonzi refers to the warning again on the pages 52 and 391.
Anomalies abound. The non-Oswald photo of Oswald. The non-Oswald tape of Oswald. Mark Lane stipulates Oswald was not in Mexico City. Others insist he was.
The 26 volumes of the Warren Commission contain ten million words invariably lies or trivia.
When we have photos and film, the chain of custody suggest it has been washed through official filters. Charles hypothesizes attention need not alter when alteration findeth.
The perennial question meant to underwrite the Zapruder film authenticity is, "if they altered it why did they leave in evidence of a shot from the front."
The answer may be to leave the audience wrangling with a tangle of such knots.
The Fiskars Solution is to cut to the chase: it was a coup; the rest is encyclopedic credits rolling at warp speed.
Phil Dragoo Wrote:The perennial question meant to underwrite the Zapruder film authenticity is, "if they altered it why did they leave in evidence of a shot from the front."
Another Altgens photo that follows the same pattern of the wilderness of mirrors is the one that shows the jolly team of alleged CIA agents in the corner of Main and Houston.
