Greg Burnham
-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
I would like to point out: Fetzer went back to Special Pleading immediately in his reply just as I predicted. In his first sentence he paraphrased
Fritz' notes and relied upon them as accurate because "Fritz must have asked where LHO was during the shooting"-- just as I said he would. He
avoided the "changed his shirt" portion, as predicted.
But, instead of cherry picking the evidence, what If we were to take ALL of Fritz' notes at face value? Well, IF Oswald was in fact doorman "out
front with Shelly", then it would also mean Oswald went back home and changed his shirt into a shirt identical (according to Ralph Cinque) to the
shirt HE WAS ALREADY WEARING as doorman! But...why? Why the need to change into an exactly identical shirt? This "obviously" makes no sense
and is absurd on its face. If that is true, and Fetzer has agreed that "even the WC didn't think Oswald changed his shirt" then that makes Fritz' notes
UNRELIABLE as evidence due to their ambiguity.
Do you realize that in a court of law, unless given a foundation that was allowed by the court to accept only one portion of the notes while rejecting
the remainder, Fritz note, in its entirety, would not be allowed to stand as evidence in the manner in which Fetzer is attempting? The note would
cancel itself out and be treated as though it did not even exist. Or it could be treated similar to perjurious testimony, whereby the jury is advised that
it is free to reject the testimony (notes) in its entirety.
Without that portion of the Fritz' note the only "evidence" of LHO in the doorway resides in Mr. Potato Head-ish drawings! All eye witnesses place
Lovelady as Doorman...even Lovelady! Indeed every scintilla of evidence places Oswald elsewhere. It is no more difficult to place Oswald in the
sniper's lair than it is to place him in the doorway...and since we KNOW he wasn't the assassin he also wasn't doorman. On the other hand, it is
very easy to place him in the lunchroom.
...
-
And it's a bloody shame that you don't speak up and oppose the dissemination of falsehoods on this forum.
That is unforgivable. You have seen the other film. You know what I am claiming is true. Yet you are silent.
Jim,
I have far and away greater "proof" than you of the limousine stop and therefore of alteration. Yet, even I do not demand that Robin Unger or anyone else accept it as fact. They owe it to themselves and to
future generations to "prove it" in a manner consistent with what they know to be true and then build on that. They don't wish to end up in the uncomfortable predicament of requesting that others accept
what they say as true simply because they said so. That is not good enough. So long as the person doing the study on the Zapruder film is honest and is of an open mind to where the evidence leads, then I
support their efforts to find out the truth. Notice I did not say I support their efforts to prove that my belief or my argument or my position is right. I said I support their journey toward the truth--even if they must
go the long way around the block to get there. So far, very few, if any, anti-alterationists have ever called me a xxxx as to what I saw. None, including Robin Unger have challenged me on what I saw. Many simply
want to "see for themselves" in order to remove any doubt. It is my belief that their skepticism will ultimately pay off... where an honest broker among them attempts to discover why it cannot be true, but, somewhat
serendipitously, ends up discovering why it MUST be true.
There is no shame in allowing people to find their own way, Jim. There is a tremendous difference between Lamson and Unger, and therefore a tremendous difference in my response, be it harsh or congenial, respectively,
to each of them. But, this is not about me being right; my claims; or my "poster-boy" position as the 50th approaches...and it shouldn't be about yours either.
-
Jim,
I have far and away greater "proof" than you of the limousine stop and therefore of alteration. Yet, even I do not demand that Robin Unger or anyone else accept it as fact. They owe it to themselves and to
future generations to "prove it" in a manner consistent with what they know to be true and then build on that. They don't wish to end up in the uncomfortable predicament of requesting that others accept
what they say as true simply because they said so. That is not good enough. So long as the person doing the study on the Zapruder film is honest and is of an open mind to where the evidence leads, then I
support their efforts to find out the truth. Notice I did not say I support their efforts to prove that my belief or my argument or my position is right. I said I support their journey toward the truth--even if they must
go the long way around the block to get there. So far, very few, if any, anti-alterationists have ever called me a xxxx as to what I saw. None, including Robin Unger have challenged me on what I saw. Many simply
want to "see for themselves" in order to remove any doubt. It is my belief that their skepticism will ultimately pay off... where an honest broker among them attempts to discover why it cannot be true, but, somewhat
serendipitously, ends up discovering why it MUST be true.
-
-
[...]
I still hold to my wider premise; that some of the anomalies with the image may result from bright sunlight and over-exposure rather than alteration and that the image is of sufficiently poor quality that it lends itself to many questions but few conclusions.
That has been my position from the start of this debate.
-
Lovelady said he was in front of the TSBD at the time JFK passed by. Several of his coworkers said he was as well. Were they all lying? If not where is he in the images? If they were lying where was he? And why haven't any witnesses turned up who said they saw him somewhere else? Why would they all have lied?
By contrast no one said LHO was there, not even even Oswald himself. Rather he said he was in the lunch room where he was seen moments after the shooting by a couple of witnesses. If LHO had been in front of the building why did he place himself closer to sniper's nest? Why would some go to the lunch room if they had just seen the President getting shot?
And please don't try to derail this thread with talk of chins and shirt patterns etc.
Fetzer has a habit of relying on Captain Fritz' notes, but only when it suits his predetermined conclusion, aka, Special Pleading.
He will argue that Oswald told Fritz he was out front with Shelly. Although Oswald is not specific as to "when" that was, Fetzer
has argued that it is "obvious" that Fritz must have asked Oswald where he was "at the time of the shooting" and thus LHO must
have meant at the time of Altgens 6. However, relying on those same notes, Oswald said he changed his shirt after going home
after Altgens 6 and before being arrested and photographed. It is here that Fetzer then rejects the reliability of Fritz' notes on the
grounds that: "Not even the Warren Commission believed Oswald changed clothes." Fetzer fails to realize that the WC rejected
that notion for the same reason he himself does: It runs counter to both of their pre-determined conclusions.
-
It appears that the ignorance falls on you for not realizing that the doorman subject is still being argued, and you're most blatantly oblivious to the fact that the case has not been solved.
Thank you for confirming the conversations being said about you. It's always good to separate fact from fiction.
I certainly know the subject is still being argued and that it has not been settled. I've been in this debate since it began. I do not claim to know who is standing in the doorway, Oswald or
Lovelady or other. However, I object to the pseudo science that is being employed to conclude Doorman is Oswald. Is Oswald doorman? I don't know. What I do know is that the arguments
being put forth to advance that notion do not persuade.
-
Burnham,
Your swarmy comments with directions to dead end references are not helpful in the least.
Didn't you recently release a JFK impersonation video? Nice.
Randy
Gunter,
My satirical video was made for a purpose and contained a meaning that was apparently either lost on you or was over your head.
However, that you come here, at this late date, supposedly ignorant of the existence of the exact claim being peddled--coincidentally
in this specific thread--is hard to sell.
-
What if it is LHO in the doorway and Loveladys face has been superimposed over Oswalds? I have never heard this option proposed previously.
If the bad guys can alter other films and photos, why not this one?
Randy
To find the answer, research: "Mr. Potato Head in Dealey Plaza" (available under a different name) at Veterans Today.
In my view, this is the danger with The School of Random Claims of Alteration: It breeds red herrings and dopplegangers.
It also tends to damage honest research into the film alteration that DID occur, encouraging the general public and the main
stream media to confuse it with irresponsible supposition.
-
Jim,
You're still making this about "the people who disagree with you" instead of keeping it about the evidence. I neither endorsed nor disputed Robin's findings.
I simply voiced my support for his approach.
-
Thanks Greg
You may not remember but i used to post on Rich's Forum when he was still alive.
Rich was always respectfull to, me even though he knew i wasn't an alterationist
Yes, I remember that, Robin. It was never about "agreeing" for its own sake for Rich. He just wanted to get closer to the truth.
-
Robin,
Thanks loads for staying on point, continuing to research, and acting like an adult even when you are repeatedly attacked.
Your focus is always on the evidence and never on those with whom you disagree. KUTGW
-
You can't bring yourself to answer simple questions. This is beyond belief!
But then, I know, you are doing the best that you can. It is dumbfounding.
The degree of disregard for logic and evidence on this forum staggers the
mind. So few are willing to even acknowledge the most elementary proof:
(1) Doorman's was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.
Oswald was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.
Therefore, Oswald's shirt makes him a strong candidate for Doorman.
(2) Doorman was not wearing a short-sleeved shirt.
Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt.
Therefore, Lovelady was not Doorman.
(3) Doorman had a shirt that was splayed open.
Checkered Shirt Man was not splayed open.
Therefore, Checkered Shirt Man is not Doorman.
(4) Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.
But Doorman was not Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.
Therefore, Doorman was Oswald.
Why are so many here AFRAID OF THE TRUTH? Logic and evidence
establish that Oswald was Doorman, that he was out with Bill Shelley
in front, just as he told Will Fritz, and that desperate measures were
taken to conceal that fact, which blows the cover-up out of the water.
---OR---
5. Doorman was none of the above (logically)
---------->
But, a few steps further are in order...
6. Oswald was not wearing the same shirt during the assassination because he changed it before questioning by the police (as he told Captain Fritz) and was later photographed in it
7. The shirt doorman is wearing is not the same shirt Oswald was wearing after his arrest
8. Therefore, Oswald is not doorman
Signs of life. Even the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald had not changed his shirt.
And if you want to believe what Lee told Fritz, then it is certainly more reasonable to accept
his statement that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front". Plus what is the probability that, had
he changed his shirt, it would correspond in so many respects with Doorman's shirt? ZERO.
Now you said that you would answer my two simple questions after I had answered yours.
I have answered yours. So I would appreciate (less speculative) answers to these of mine:
(1) Is Doorman wearing a short-sleeved shirt?
(2) Is Doorman's shirt buttoned up to the top?
They are very simple questions and the answers are obvious. So what are your answers?
I already answered in post #110.
-
You can't bring yourself to answer simple questions. This is beyond belief!
But then, I know, you are doing the best that you can. It is dumbfounding.
The degree of disregard for logic and evidence on this forum staggers the
mind. So few are willing to even acknowledge the most elementary proof:
(1) Doorman's was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.
Oswald was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.
Therefore, Oswald's xxxx makes him a strong candidate for Doorman.
(2) Doorman was not wearing a short-sleeved shirt.
Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt.
Therefore, Lovelady was not Doorman.
(3) Doorman had a shirt that was splayed open.
Checkered Shirt Man was not splayed open.
Therefore, Checkered Shirt Man is not Doorman.
(4) Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.
But Doorman was not Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.
Therefore, Doorman was Oswald.
Why are so many here AFRAID OF THE TRUTH? Logic and evidence
establish that Oswald was Doorman, that he was out with Bill Shelley
in front, just as he told Will Fritz, and that desperate measures were
taken to conceal that fact, which blows the cover-up out of the water.
---OR---
5. Doorman was none of the above (logically)
---------->
But, a few steps further are in order...
6. Oswald was not wearing the same shirt during the assassination because he changed it before questioning by the police (as he told Captain Fritz) and was later photographed in it
7. The shirt doorman is wearing is not the same shirt Oswald was wearing after his arrest
8. Therefore, Oswald is not doorman
--
.
-
Not so fast, Jim. You owe me a straight answer first.
-
I will answer first, but then I expect a straight answer from you to my question asked above.
Is Doorman wearing a red-and-white short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO -- No, it is not short sleeved. However, it is a black & white photo so I don't know what color the shirt is. It is too grainy for me to tell the pattern.
Is the shirt Doorman is wearing buttoned up to the top? YES or NO -- No
-
Answer the question minus the blunder please. Yes, I caught my own error but was too exhausted from my recent surgery to correct it. You KNOW what I meant. So, what's the answer? YES or NO
-
Jim,
I will gladly answer those questions, but first you must answer mine. Is my illustration regarding "Elbow Man" at least equally as plausible as your
theory that the area (which I am calling an elbow) is evidence of alteration? YES or NO
-
-
As I said, the comments were NOT supposed to be taken as a joke. They were allegorical.
-
Jim,
IMO: You failed to see that this was not a joke by Parker. Indeed, the same "type" of logic and form of argumentation in which you and your cohorts have been engaged is very similar in form to that which was offered by Greg Parker as an allegory. Both yours and his are grossly absurd. However, while you can identify the absurdity in his allegorical example, you fail to see it in your own.
-
Although I've had my differences with Groden over the years, I applaud his effort and his courage to stand up against the censorship machine run amok. He is clearly being harassed by someone(s) for some reason. That Mr. Baker refuses to admit the obviousness of the situation, even if he disagrees with larger argument, speaks volumes. As the old saying goes: [at least] "Give the Devil his due." I know I have...
-
Actually, Tommy, I said it to Hemming. He said I was on the right track. I don't know if JFK was aware, but I highly doubt it. RFK--very possibly. LHO, yes.
You mention Weberman with such contempt. I was relying on him about something he knew about, namely the Assassination. I figured he's Jewish and would have no reason to lie. I didn't read his book, but I knew he taught the Assassination at Columbia. I asked him, "Did the Catholic Church have anything to do with Kennedy's death?" He answered, "No."
I remember back to his following Bob Dylan and Dylan turned around and punched him. We all laughed.
The Baptists think the Catholics killed Kennedy. Something about Cardinal Spellman. Spellman, I've read, was jealous of Fulton Sheen and caused him a lot of trouble and moved him to Rochester. Sheen made no friends there. I want to read more about this. The Baptists think Kennedy was killed because the Catholic Church didn't like his politics. Supposedly the Black Pope ordered the hit.
I only know of one connection: David Ferrie was an ex-Jesuit and wanted to kill Kennedy.
Kathy C
I did NOT express contempt for Weberman! I accurately relayed Hemming's conversation with me. Take it or leave it.
-
Actually, Tommy, I said it to Hemming. He said I was on the right track. I don't know if JFK was aware, but I highly doubt it. RFK--very possibly. LHO, yes.
Greg,
Works for me.
Did Gerry give you any hints or clues after that to keep you heading in the right direction?
--Tommy
I'll call you tomorrow.
A Few Questions for Fetzer about Ozzie and Lovelady
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Greg Burnham
Since I predicted accurately that you would not answer the simple questions posed to you in this thread, thus going OFF TOPIC, let's ask again. Although I find "Len Colby" rather
annoying, to say the least, he has observed, accurately, that some of us were asked to answer a few simple questions by you, which we did. Now...
Simple questions, Jim:
1) Was Lovelady lying?
2) Were all the people who said that Lovelady was in front of the TSBD all lying?
3) If they were not lying, can you find him somewhere in Altgens 6 or in other images?
4) If they all were lying, where do you think he really was since he was not out front?
5) Why have no witnesses ever turned up stating where Lovelady actually was?
Using your own standard, I ask you:
6) So, according to James Fetzer and Ralph Cinque, when these eyewitnesses--who, unlike Fetzer and Cinque, WERE ACTUALLY THERE--
reported that Lovelady was Doorman, they (according to Fetzer and Cinque) must have been lying their eyes off. How absurd can this get?
...