Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

The three (at least) of you should get a room, because the only people you're screwing with your bullshit are each other.

I'm sure you'll be welcome at Hotel EF, where charlatans are always treated like kings, and where Concierge Burton and Maintenance Director "Colby" will make your stay comfortable and memorable.

[Albert Doyle]

I have to comment that I agree Fetzer should be warned against because of the threat his bogus doorman theory represents to the research community. I'm forced to point-out that some websites enforce a judgment on posters and are not shy about it, and they do so by objective standards. By the same rule I feel that Piper has not been proven to have failed that standard except in his sponsorship claim.

[Mark Stapleton]

I don't see how Fetzer's belief represents a threat to the research community.

So what if he thinks LHO was standing in the doorway? Maybe he was.

He was innocent, that much is certain.

[Greg Burnham]

He was innocent that much is certain.

-- The Fetzer signature.

The "Deep Operation" now unfolding here (and being dismantled shortly from behind the scenes) has all of the elements required to declare a breech in security is being attempted. It has not and will not ultimately succeed. It demonstrates the magnitude of the failure to launch experienced by the impotent rapist who: "huffs and puffs his hour on the bed and than is felt no more. It is a gesture in futility, full of sweat and motion, penetrating no one." -- Dick Shakespeare

[Charles Drago]

"Doyle" and Stapleton -- Who knew the Special Olympics fields a Debating Team?

[Mark Stapleton]

He was innocent that much is certain.

-- The Fetzer signature.

What are you talking about?

[Mark Stapleton]

"Doyle" and Stapleton -- Who knew the Special Olympics fields a Debating Team?

You have issues.

[Don Jeffries]

So now Mark Stapleton is a part of the phony "Albert Doyle" persona? And you have determined that because he thinks Oswald may well have been in the doorway? I think he might have been in the doorway, too. Am I part of the "Albert" team? Is saying so the "Fetzer signature?"

Exactly what kind of disagreement with Charles Drago is allowed on this forum? From what I can see, anyone who goes against Charles' views is labeled as being at the very least, not credible, and at worst, someone posting under an assumed name. Charles is guilty of everything he's ever accused Fetzer of; bombastic egotism, nastiness, and a total inability to accept opposition to his opinions.

We are awaiting the results of the "forensic" evidence Charles has spoken about. Is Charles going to present Albert's posts to a team of handwriting experts? Or will he just pontificate again that he "knows" Albert is more than one person? Does forensic evidence therefore=Charles' assessment? And how childish is it to bring up "Special Olympics" in a disparaging way? Are you going to call those who disagree with you "retards" next?

It is not Albert Doyle, Mark Stapleton or David Josephs who are making this thread ridiculous.

[Greg Burnham]

So now Mark Stapleton is a part of the phony "Albert Doyle" persona? And you have determined that because he thinks Oswald may well have been in the doorway? I think he might have been in the doorway, too. Am I part of the "Albert" team? Is saying so the "Fetzer signature?"

Sorry, but I am going to jump in here.

Don, there is a big difference. You have not offered a "theory lacking in critical thinking elements" in order to advance the possibility (or probability) that LHO was in the doorway. I personally have no objection to anyone logically approaching all elements of this case in a responsible manner. Although I understand that a prudent amount of "speculation" is unavoidable, I also believe that supposition run amok is destructive. Furthermore, I do not think that I am qualified to be any sort of ultimate judge of what is or is not suitable. If you recall, I do not claim that LHO either was or was not in the doorway. I simply do not know. However, I do not believe that the case in favor of that proposition has been made by Fetzer & Cinque, indeed it has been damaged by their presentation.

Exactly what kind of disagreement with Charles Drago is allowed on this forum? From what I can see, anyone who goes against Charles' views is labeled as being at the very least, not credible, and at worst, someone posting under an assumed name. Charles is guilty of everything he's ever accused Fetzer of; bombastic egotism, nastiness, and a total inability to accept opposition to his opinions.

In my opinion, Charles is protecting the integrity of this forum.

We are awaiting the results of the "forensic" evidence Charles has spoken about. Is Charles going to present Albert's posts to a team of handwriting experts?

If only we had a "handwriting" sample from which to work your attempted sarcasm would make sense.

Or will he just pontificate again that he "knows" Albert is more than one person? Does forensic evidence therefore=Charles' assessment? And how childish is it to bring up "Special Olympics" in a disparaging way? Are you going to call those who disagree with you "retards" next?

Perhaps that was a poor choice of words.

It is not Albert Doyle, Mark Stapleton or David Josephs who are making this thread ridiculous.

We shall see.

[Don Jeffries]

Monk,

I didn't say that Oswald was in the doorway. I've said repeatedly that I don't accept the question has been settled that it definitely was Lovelady. I've also stated that I have always thought this, long before Fetzer and Cinque came along, and that their study had no impact whatsoever on my views. That being said, both Mark and I, and you and Charles, and everyone else, has a right to their opinion.

Of course, Charles has a right to protect the integrity of the forum. However, he seems to equate honest debate with disinformation. I find Piper's thesis interesting, if only for the fact he is the first one who postulated it. As I've noted, I don't think Israel pulled off the assassination by itself, or even was a primary mover. But that doesn't mean that JFK's arguments with them didn't contribute to the myriad of motivating factors that eventually culminated in Dallas.

I wonder if Charles has any idea how most of his posts sound, at least to me. I used to send private messages to Jim Fetzer, trying gingerly to tell him basically the same thing. Charles obviously knows a lot about this case, and I agree with him philosophically on most issues. But he just sounds so damn full of himself virtually every time he posts. Try a little self-deprecation. A little humility injected here or there. None of us know everything. Unless we were part of the conspirator's team, we just look ridiculous to act so cryptically, to infer that we alone have some secret knowledge.

I apologize if it looks like I'm just being overly critical. This is Charles' forum, and he has the right to run it the way he wants. But just as I believe many people didn't even bother to read the content of Jim Fetzer's post on the EF, because of their offensive style, I think that people here are going to miss the content in Charles' posts, because of a similar offensive style.