Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Phil Dragoo]

The photoanalysis alleging Lee was in the doorway was not convincing. Its proponents disdained those too stupid to grasp its genius.

That pattern of love me/love my brilliance is replicated in the extant frame of Israel for Kennedy's murder.

Here the circle is unbroken: Echevarria is repeated as a magical chant, syncopated with Ben-Gurion, Mossad, Ruby proving Jews have guts.

Dimona my house

It's so obvious--can't you see--of course not--you're too stupid

Ben Gurion's so involved--except it predated Ben Gurion

And that door, too, slams

In the booth the confessor is admonished to say seventy Echevarias and seven kosher nostrums

In the doorway the women come and go
chasing Ben-Gurion to and fro

[Greg Burnham]

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.

I really don't get you these days, Don. First of all, go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say that you believe LHO was is the doorway. I understand--and, in fact, agree with you that--the matter has not been settled. Didn't you even READ what I wrote? Furthermore, I never said, implied, suggested or remotely hinted that their study influenced your view one iota, did I? I don't believe that anyone here has argued that anyone else has no right to their own opinion. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand this entire section of your post.

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.

That is your opinion and I have no argument with it irrespective of whether or not I agree with it.

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.

I'll leave the rest for Charles to reply if he so chooses.

[Mark Stapleton]

He was innocent that much is certain.

-- The Fetzer signature.

So Greg,

What are you talking about?

[Albert Doyle]

Mark,


There's no possible way Altgens shows Oswald in the doorway. I have to say Fetzer damages both himself and the community with his ridiculous defense of this. You should be very careful because such defense of Rago and Fetzer will only threaten your credibility towards Piper.

[Charles Drago]

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.

Try minding your own business. My "style" is my business. Your observations relevant to it are neither insightful nor helpful to me or anyone else whose reading comprehension skills are above the third grade level.

Why do you and your short bus comrades insist upon arguing that the ignorance in which you dwell so blissfully is universally shared?

Offensive enough for you? If not, I can ratchet it up a few notches.

For the second time -- at least -- the DPF is NOT "Charles' forum." I am one of four owners. I do NOT have "the right to run it the way want." I'm not sure how I can state these facts more clearly so as to penetrate your bliss. Perhaps a different post for each word would do the trick.

Finally (would that it were so), you might want to spend a few weeks studying the definitions of "imply" and "infer."

Sorry if I'm being overly critical ...

[Charles Drago]

Of course, Charles has a right to protect the integrity of the forum. However, he seems to equate honest debate with disinformation.

This one deserves its own post.

For if you contend that the "Albert Doyle" posts on this thread -- at least -- represent components of an "honest debate," then you, Don, you are now to be thought of as the Sarah Palin of the research community.

[Jan Klimkowski]

This thread is entitled "JFK thread worth reading", which could not be further from the truth.

We have page after mind numbing page reminiscent of the EF at its worst, high on vitriol, low on content, lacking in insight and illumination.

I'm tempted to rename it "JFK thread worth ignoring".

[Greg Burnham]

Mark,


There's no possible way Altgens shows Oswald in the doorway.

First off "Albert(s) Doyle", there is no possible way that you or anyone can be THAT certain of the statement you just made. The Altgens is inconclusive at best.

I have to say Fetzer damages both himself and the community with his ridiculous defense of this. You should be very careful because such defense of Rago and Fetzer will only threaten your credibility towards Piper.

Second, Fetzer did not damage himself or anyone else by having investigated the possibility that there exists credible evidence of LHO being in the doorway. The damage ocurred when he committed multiple fallacies in support of a single-minded pursuit, especially "Special Pleading" among others. I think this post by "the Albert(s) Doyle" is a weak attempt at further subterfuge in which "they" disguise themselves as rational and "come across" as if "they" are the organic Albert Doyle.

The issue isn't that Fetzer defended the concept of the possibility that LHO was in the doorway. The issue is that in a nearly feeble minded methodology he abused logic and language in order to promote a single minded pursuiit, namely: exonnerating LHO and proving his innocence. If indeed Oswald is innocent (and I personally do believe that is the case) then allow the evidence to lead where it may. One need not arbitrarily claim that photographic alteration was performed when that photographic evidence is in reality neutral with respect to the hypothesis being advanced. The Altgens can neither conclusively rule in or rule out the possibility of Oswald on the steps. Fetzer claims it is tainted evidence by virtue of his belief that it has been altered to obscure the LHO presence...when, in reality, the images in Altgens are simply organically obscure. "Albert Doyle" wants to claim that the organically obscure Altgens is clear enough to prove LHO was NOT in the doorway.

Both are committing fallacies.

[Jim DiEugenio]

For what its worth.

Cinque was in Dallas over the weekend.

He popped into Lancer. He told me they had completed their reenactment.

God knows what will happen next.

Again, I have never been 100 percent certain one way or the other. But the problem with Altgens definitively demonstrating anything in our favor is that the supplementary evidence is pretty strong that it's not LHO.

[Seamus Coogan]

For what its worth.

Cinque was in Dallas over the weekend.

He popped into Lancer. He told me they had completed their reenactment.

God knows what will happen next.

Again, I have never been 100 percent certain one way or the other. But the problem with Altgens definitively demonstrating anything in our favor is that the supplementary evidence is pretty strong that it's not LHO.

Every single photographic piece of evidence was tampered with. Did you know all of the Altgens pics are fakes. That is of course when Fetzer bizarrely says he can see some asshole assassin in the picture. How lame and trite Fetzer is, he is just totally bizarre. He was having a good old laugh with Hankey the other night over Romney lol.