"The Oswald Innocence Project" = the Greatest Threat to Truth and Justice for JFK

[Charles Drago]

How did David handle the coercion?

[Dawn Meredith]

I am wondering if this is even true. That Janney in fact contacted the snake oil salesman. It might have been the other way around and he may have just been added to the group the same way Frank just adds people. I never see Janney post. Or even respond to posts asking him questions.

Curious.

Yes Jim, I did post this for you. :rofl:

Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

That's what I was thinking. That Janney saw "Oswald Innocent" and, typical of his research practices, didn't read the fine print or realize Ralph Cinque was a crowning ass and buffoon.

[Seamus Coogan]

Have some sympathy for having me re-listen to this joke again for a brief run down.

Okay JF sounded bloody awful by the way and perpetually out of breath. Lee Harvey Oswald was apparently seen by Caroline Arnold, who Fetzer tells us was the assistant to the Vice President. Hmmmmmmmmmmm anyway, he's essentially saying the Oswald Innocence Project is the great be all and end all.

- Phil Nelson's book deeply important...apparently
- Once rational folks like Charles Drago, Peter Lemkin and one Gregory Burnham off of 'The Deep End'.
- Rabbits on about the Doorway. Fritz notes apparently

His Innocence Project rant goes on for some 25 minutes. Mantik joins after the break. Peter Janney is discussed with Mantik. Mantik is a true believer in Janney's Bollocks. Mantik say's "It reads like a novel" "It'll make for a great movie one day." Me thinks Dave should have stuck to the medical evidence. It's about 46 minutes in.

I'm not going to say anymore. It's pretty depressing in all honesty. I mean he believes in Meyer and JFK taking acid and Leary being credible. Who want's to listen to this shite?
I'm not doing it a third time. Nor am I explaining it folks, go and listen for yourselves.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Janney's book reads like a novel because it is.

[Magda Hassan]

Janney's book reads like a novel because it is.

Touche! You beat me to it Jim :cheer:

[Albert Doyle]

Janney's book reads like a novel because it is.

The trouble I have with this cheerleading is, in its zeal to disprove Janney, it takes the risk of not responsibly following-through and investigating the break-ins which may be very real and may bear significant meaning in relation to what happened to Mary Meyer.

A good point was made in the Amazon review comments section. If indeed Mitchell has been located as an academic in California why hasn't he responded to Janney? Janney has made some pretty drastic claims about him in a popular book. Is it normal for such a man being attributed innocence to not respond or make any public comment in such a situation? This is the problem. In their zeal to knock-down questionable authors like Janney some people forget that they're not asking the important questions that need to be answered. Even with Janney begging for it like he does.

[A.J. Blocker]

From Charles previously posted excert:

"However, 3 Parkland physicians believed in 1963 that they had seen a left temporal wound: McClelland, Jenkins, and Puerto. (See Chapters 7 and 9.) Father Oscar Huber, who administered the last rites to President Kennedy, said he saw a terrible wound over his left eye."

Just a small observational point here...


If you were to have someone lay down on a table facing the ceiling(flat on their backs) and you asked 10 people to stand at the foot of the table and point to the persons left eye......or to lean over that person and touch just above the left eye....


How many do you think would correctly point to the person laying on the tables left eye, and not to the left hand side of the person laying there from where it is they stand and view that person?

[DK Wilson]

"By way of introduction, I'll say the following: though I've been a member of this forum for some time now, I have never posted a single thread here. Though I've been a JFK assassination researcher from age nine forward (I am now 39), and studied assassinations as they pertain to the maintenance of the perception of America, I've published exactly zero writings on the subject (I was commissioned to once, in 2008, but when I failed to portray JFK assassination researchers as some sort of fanatical fringe group, my work was tossed into a virtual waste bin). However, I follow the research community very closely and have shared thoughts and observations of various elements of the JFK assassination, and the community, with many researchers.


From this vantage point it is apparent that those of you who are at odds with Professor Fetzer and by extension, Ralph Cinque, are missing the core of Prof. Fetzer's assertion (and yes, the proper mention of, or salutation for a former professor is, "Professor", or alternatively you may refer to him as "Dr. Fetzer").

All of you ascribe to the notion that there are myriad pieces of evidence exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. What you ascribe to is true...

...and yet.

None of you - you who are truly innocent in your failure - seem to comprehend that all of the evidence you present, or allege that can be presented, is only circumstantial. What Prof. Fetzer and Cinque - there also exist researchers who privately agree with them - are offering is the opportunity to present clear and convincing evidence using documentary material (in this case the Altgens TSBD Doorway Photo) to present relevant and most importantly, real evidence for LHO's innocence

Though we all agree that LHO is completely innocent of the killing of JFK, the evidence for his innocence has, for 49 years, been circumstantial. So-and-so saw him drinking a coke (Dr. Pepper, actually, as Dr. Pepper - created in Texas - was LHO's favorite and was/is the soda of Texas), so-and-so saw him in the lunchroom. He could not make it across the 6th floor and down the steps to the 2nd floor soda machine in "X" amount of time or without passing so-and-so. There were no powder burns on LHO associated with firing a rifle. Why would LHO mail order purchase a rifle when he could go to his local Woolworth's and purchase a rifle - and a better rifle than the M-C? And on it goes.
None of the aforementioned pieces of evidence, or any other evidence so far conjured, are any more than circumstantial; most, as a result, can - are by the naysayers and the disinformationists - be dismissed.

However, if it can be proven that Lee Harvey Oswald was the man photographed accidentally by Ike Altgens in the TSBD doorway, we have the only piece of evidence we need to exonerate Oswald of murdering the 35th President of the United States. It is, therefore, worth the time and effort to deal with the Prof. Fetzer/Cinque hypothesis; to argue its merit, prove or disprove it ---- or, leave it to be determined at a later time, if necessary.

But to dismiss it out of hand, and to do so with such petty vehemence, is unconscionable, and beneath a community of people who seek the truth about an event that impacts, not only all of us in the JFK assassination field, but every American - and likely every human on Earth."


So, is this a "litmus test" for JFK researchers? Yes, very much so. It is a litmus test of the community's collective openness to taking existing information and re-examining it. It reveals a pecking order of who in the JFK assassination community acts as "authoritarians" (or feels that they can, at least) - and who is willing to acquiesce to the so-called authorities, even if it comes in the form of special pleading (and those who perceive themselves as, or who seek being perceived as authorities would, and perhaps will, turn this sentence around and aver that it is Prof. Fetzer who is engaging in special pleading, when, in fact, he has drawn conclusions based on the very real premise that the responses to his LHO in the Doorway work has largely been devoid of critical thought). It reveals "group-think" within the community - a negative for any research community, to be sure.


No matter how uncomfortable it may be for some, because of the manner in which people have responded to Prof. Fetzer's and Ralph Cinque's efforts to find one piece of concrete evidence to exonerate LHO ---------- this is a litmus test.

I hope this response is received with the sincerity with which it was written. Thank you for your time.


-DK Wilson

[Albert Doyle]

That's absolute crap and the true litmus test here is persons who are able to quickly see the feeble minded shit Ralph Cinque dares insult people's intelligence with vs credible evidence. I'm more than convinced that the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt that Billy Lovelady is the man standing in the doorway in Altgens.