Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ralph Cinque

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    95

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Ralph Cinque

  1. Ralph Cinque
    Hogan, Tink trashed Robert Morrow. He said he was the most mocked and least respected person on this forum. To me, that is trashing.
  2. Ralph Cinque
    Pat? He wouldn't even be standing there with a towel. Towels are for the beach. This was a downtown city street. The President was driving by. You don't need a towel for that. Grown men do not wave towels at Presidents. You are sounding increasingly like a small child.
  3. Ralph Cinque
    No! Pat! Grown men do not wave towels at parades! Do you? What a stupid thing to say. You see, that's what this comes down: grasping at straws, shovelling sand against the tide. And when you say that it's "quite likely" a towel, what you mean is that it doesn't look anything like a towel, but we'll go with that anyway. Childish. That's what you are.
  4. Ralph Cinque
    And the hypocrisy is, Lee, that you know very well that there are lone-nutters here, people who espouse that Oswald picked off Kennedy, shot him through the back with a bullet that came out his neck and then traversed the body of Connally, shattering two bones, and then surfacing in perfect condition at Parkland Hospital, and you have never once clamored to have their nonsense disallowed. But, they never violated your integrity, did they? They're not crackpots, or if they are, they're respectable crackpots whom you can tolerate comfortably. What a farce!
  5. Ralph Cinque
    Here you go again, Lee, clamoring to silence me. Just like on Lancer, lock the thread, lock the thread, lock the thread. That's not how to beat me, Lee. You can only beat me directly by disproving what I say. And by the way- to all of you- I keep getting responses to my article on Lew Rockwell. I told you: Lew is very well read. That site is widely followed, and not just by like-minded people, but by enemies as well. I guarantee you that people in high places keep their eye on it. Anyway, I just heard from a guy, and I quote: "On 11/23/63, I took the Altgens photo off the AP wire in an altered state while working in the composition department at the Dayton Daily News."
  6. Ralph Cinque
  7. Ralph Cinque
    You didn't respond to what I said, MacRae. It must be because you can't respond. Hey! You hate me. I hate you. But, we already knew that. So quit wasting my time SAYING NOTHING.
  8. Ralph Cinque
    MacRae, we are not seeing the point of his shoulder. Just because, like a child, you are capable of coloring, doesn't mean a thing. That is not the ine of his shoulder. You go back and put an X where you think the point of his shoulder is. In fact, go in and see if you can take Black Tie Man out completely. Let's just look at Doorman by himself. Let's see how that line looks then. You can't see the point of his shoulder, and you can't even see the upper part of his arm.
  9. Ralph Cinque
    You crack me up, Hogan. You remind me of a character from Cuckoo's Nest who kept walking around saying the same thing over and over.
  10. Ralph Cinque
    Mitcham, you don't know what you are talking about. Oswald's shoulders are most certainly not leaning at a 45 degree angle. He is simply rotated a little to his right. Why would he have to lean? What good would it do him? He's turned a little; rotatedl that's all. And he's turned in the direction of Kennedy's limo which had already passed. And Hogan, why do you assume Oswald's handlers had complete control of him. You asked why they would permit him to step outside. How could they stop him? Tackle him? Tie him to a chair? Hit him over the head with a lead pipe? And speaking to Dunne, I have to say that I wish to God you could be a little smarter. It would be pointless to take a poll among members here. The whole idea is to canvas people who are UNAWARE OF THE CONTROVERSIES, who have no biases whatsoever, who would not look at the image with preconceived thoughts in their head, such as, "it couldn't be this because Oswald would have said something" or "it couldn't be that because of what's seen in another photo" or "this couldn't have been altered because of the timeline." All of that is BIAS, Dunne. Are you smart enough to realize that or not? What's needed is to assemble people who have no such biases, who will simply look at the picture and see what it contains. It requres people who have no attitude. Just eyes and brains. And that's it!
  11. Ralph Cinque
    First, I was contacted privately and warned that I am not supposed to speak badly of other members, and I believe it was in reference to what I said about Tink Thompson. Well, I was responding to the way Tink Thompson summarily trashed another member, Robert Morrow. Thompson didn't even state what his beef was with Robert; he just trashed him generally. I have had contact with Robert, mainly on Amazon forum, and I am also on his mailing list. I know that his main focus has been LBJ's involvement in the assassination, and it is a perfectly valid focus to have. Robert also sponsored me to become a member of EF. So, I didn't like it that Tink tanked Robert, and I went to his defense. That's what it was about. But, if we're going to call people out for mistreating other members, what about Parker? He's mining the Internet looking for dirt on me. He's accusing me of being involved in cult churches. I guess he figures I'm the reincarnation of David Koresh. After all, I only live down the road from Waco. The fact is that others here have attacked and degraded me, and I have responded. I have been on the defensive. I have not initiated any attacks on anyone. My interest is in discussing the facts of the case. I think Don Jeffries was right on the mark concerning Oswald. Lee was an intelligence agent, and he was being tight-lipped. 13 hours of interrogation of Oswald was never released. And the fact that it was never released makes you think he said some things that were exonerating, perhaps including the doorway. Look: if he was clamoring for a lawyer in public, what do you think he was saying privately? How many times during those 13 hours do you think he requested a lawyer? They didn't give him one! It was a violation of his constitutional rights! But, for David Lifton to call what I am doing "balderwash, a total crock, a waste of everyone's time" just because Oswald didn't tell reporters he was outside is totally irrational. Will Fritz wrote down that Oswald told him that he was "out in front with Bill Shelley." But, that isn't the main thing. The main thing is that we can clearly see Oswald standing outside. We can see his distinctive outer shirt with the loose fit and the missing buttons and the distinctive collar. We can see the worn t-shirt which was stretched into a vee. We can see his slender frame. It's a ringer for Oswald. And that trumps anything that anybody said- including Oswald. And what Duncan MacRae is saying is, well, I can't say it without fear of being kicked out. But this is not a towel. It does not have the shape of a towel- or any other known object. What does it look like? It looks like noise! WHO STANDS AROUND OUTSIDE WITH A TOWEL OVER HIS SHOULDER? WHO WAVES TOWELS AT MOTORCADES?
  12. Ralph Cinque
    I hope you're smart enough to realize that I am not the least bit intimidated. So Hogan glibly calls me "confused." And you think that reflects badly on me? An intelligent person would have said what I was confused about; he would have explained the basis for saying it. He would know that just declaring it doesn't count. That's just being pompous. Who do you think you are, Moses? But. the mail keeps arriving in response to my article on Lew Rockwell, and it's overwhelmingly positive. Here's an interesting comment: "My wife and I noticed something else about the two "Lovelady's". If you look at the visible left arm of the two men, you'll note that one is considerably more buffed than the other. Much bigger arm, much bigger muscles." Well, of course that's true. It's one of those things that normal people notice, and as I've been saying, not only are they not the same guy, they don't even look enough alike to be related. Then just tonight there was this interesting letter: Dear Dr. Cinque, I have just read your excellent piece of research on the two Billy Loveladys. As a student of the JFK assassination since it happened (I was 23), I never get tired of seeing new facts and people exposed. Well familiar with the FBI's placement of Lovelady in the front door in attempt to cover up the fact that it was actually Oswald, I now have to wonder (as do you) just what was Lovelady doing at DPD at the early hour of 2:00pm? Considering that the shooting occurred 12:30, and he professed to do a great deal afterwards, how did he get seated at desk deep within the Dallas Police Department by 2:00 PM? He certainly could not have been nearly as pertinent a witness as, say, the Newmans or Mary Moorman or a hundred others who were much closer to the crime's final shot. So, how did he get so entrenched by 2 PM? Was he an informant who had been placed at TSBD in recent weeks to watch over LHO? (It would be interesting to discover how long Lovelady worked there and where he was previously. Do you know? I would like to talk to you. Can you give me a phone number and a time that I might call? Or are you on Skype? Thanks for stimulating my thinking. I will have to be sure tell him, in case he doesn't know, that the Texas School Book Depository only started operating from that location that very summer.
  13. Ralph Cinque
    Josiah, how could you be so dense? Have you been joining Lenny drinking that Amazon water? They most certainly did not make the fabricated photo of DeNiro Lovelady on 11/22/63. Are you nuts? Is that what you think I thought? What, do you think that it was just a lazy day with nothing but time to spare to sit around playing with the camera at the police station on 11/22/63? Of course, they didn't make it on that day They made it after that and perhaps quite a bit after that. But, I tell you what I told Robert, start to THINK!
  14. Ralph Cinque
    Jim Fetzer, o-pal-o-mine, maybe you should change the title of this thread to something like "Photographic Fakery in the JFK Assassination" just to appease this Greg Parker. Note that so far he has contributed absolutely nothing of substance. Nada. Zip. Apparently, he is not interested in discussing the JFK assassination. He is only interested in smearing you and me, but especially me. And frankly, I make the same complaint about Greg Burnham. I don't say that, like Parker, Burnham is obsessed with mining the internet looking for dirt about Ralph Cinque. Apparently, Burnham has got better things to do with his time. And maybe he's just less fascinated with me. But, I still say that he ought to talk about the things we are discussing instead of droning on and on about methodology and behavior and blah, blah, blah. Note to Burnham: you don't say anything. Roll up your sleeves and start examining and talking about the evidence, as Jim and I are doing. We don't need any speeches from you on methodology. Hey, at least Lamson responds directly to what we present. Too bad he falls flat on his face every time. But on a basic level, he is participating. You are not.
  15. Ralph Cinque
    Parker, I told you: as an adult, I have never been a member of any church. Now, if that's not good enough for you, you can kiss my ass. Now, to the others, would you at least admit that the existence of that alternate image of Lovelady at the Dallas PD is a curiosity? Where did it come from? Who took it? Was it always a photograph or is it from some other movie? It's definitely not from the movie that we saw. There is another curiosity, so compare the pictures again. Do you notice that Dallas PD Lovelady has a glow? He looks like someone from a Dino DiLaurentis movie. You don't see it on DeNiro. And you can't blame it on lighting because it's supposed to be the same guy in the same spot at the same moment. So, how could the lighting be any different? Notice the difference in lighting and tone between DallasPD Lovelady and the others in his picture, and notice that DeNiro has the same tone and lighting as the others in his picture. But now look at this photograph which was made from a frame from the movie. Notice that whomever made the print did away with Lovelady's glow. He has the same tone and lighting as everyone else in the picture. But why would someone do that? The photo didn't exist; there was just the movie. So why not leave it the way it is? And the glow most certainly stood out in the movie throughout the time that Lovelady was in view. So why get rid of it when converting it to a photograph? That's tampering with the evidence. It should have been converted to print as accurately as possible. Maybe instead of fighting me others should get on board and try to find out about the origin of the DeNiro picture. Aren't you curious? I say that if you are not curious about it, you're just not interested in the JFK assassination. Either that or you have some ulterior motive that has nothing to do with finding JFK truth. And I wouldn't mind talking to the guy who made the photo above to find out why he darkened Lovelady and obliterated the distintions that existed in the movie. I'm sure that some of you, such as Robin Unger, would know better than I do how to go about tracing the origin of these pictures. But one thing I know for certain: the DeNiro photo is not from that movie. No way is it from that movie. So where is it from?
  16. Ralph Cinque
    Parker, I am an avowed athiest. Add that to your collection of goodies on me. And as an avowed athiest, since my teenage years, I don't belong to any church. And, I have never belonged to any church- at least not since I was a small boy and dragged to church by my parents. That's the problem with internet-mining. There's a lot of misinformation out there. So yes, you posted things that were factually untrue, but the worst thing is that you sought to smear me that way, personally, and in response to the things I'm saying here. Would you please attack me directly? And I mean: attack what I'm saying. You don't have to go for fishing for dirt about me, personally or professionally. The worst revenge would be for you to just show how wrong I am. Parker, the existence of that duplicate photo of the scene at the police station, which has all the appearance of being a re-enactment from the movie, but it is most certainly not from the movie, is very troubling. You act as though I have some ulterior motive. I don't! JFK truth for the sake of JFK truth is my only motive. Now, if there is an innocent explanation for the existence of that photo, it is yet to be provided by anyone here. And what bugs the heck out of me is that nobody else seems to be concerned about it. I know darn well that you're not all lone-nutters. Of course, I expect every lone-nutter to fight me tooth and nail. But some of you, like Lee Farley for instance, are conspiracy advocates. So, why are you fighting me? Even if you're not sure about it, why not be open-minded about it? Why be so venomously hostile to it?
  17. Ralph Cinque
    Parker, you are vicious. What you are doing is the kind of character assassination that Tom Scully says is expressly forbidden here, and I am calling on him to put a stop to it. And I will not respond to one word of it. You go straight to Hell, Parker. The subject of this thread is photographic fakery in the JFK assassination. The fact that you respond with such dispicable character attacks only proves that you've got nothing. Look at you, all of you! Ganging up on me, resorting to dirty tricks. I've got news for you: I can beat the crap out of all you.
  18. Ralph Cinque
    Farley, EDIT. You said there was no problem with there being 4 men in one lineup and only 3 in the other because in the other, the 4th man eventually pops into view. Well, this isn't just a head count for the sake of taking roll. You're smart enough to know that, aren't you? The mere popping up of another head does not synchronize the images. Notice that when the 4th man finally pops into view, and only marginally,. that we can no longer even see Lovelady's face! We can see the bald spot on the back of his head, and that's about it So how, in good conscience, can you imply that that image confirms the other one in which you can see 4 men in almost perfect alignment and with a clear unobstructed view of DeNiro's face? You see, this is what comes from people who just talk about images without posting them. You said not to worry because the 4th man appears later, implying that it was either the DeNiro image or something close to it. But, it's nothing close to it. And you know that darn well. EDIT So, why don't you just admit that you were wrong? I admitted I was wrong about the location of the 6 second film of Lovelady. It's good for you. It' purging. Everybody is wrong sometimes. But don't compound it by denying it or making excuses. That is not to your advantage.
  19. Ralph Cinque
    Lee Farley said that I was misleading when I pointed to their being 4 men in the lineup with DeNiro but not in the one from the movie. He correctly pointed out that a 4th man does come into view in the movie later in the frames. That's true, but here is how it looks. Look closely on the left and you'll see the small image of a 4th man. Why didn't I wait until he came into better view? It's because he doesn't come into better view. He actually goes out of view again after that. This is about the best you get of him. So, let's look at the two images: Lee Farley implied that there was no inconsistency between the two pics, that each had 4 men, and therefore, I was dishonest, that I was a xxxx. I was never a xxxx. But, who is the xxxx now, Lee?
  20. Ralph Cinque
    Lee, the reviews are coming in for my article on Lew Rockwell. I'm getting swarmed with e-mail, and to my surprise, nothing negative so far, which is surprising. And here's an example just so you know that not everyone shares your sentiments: I don't know this guy. Ralph, I have just read your article on Lew Rockwell. Thanks for hammering away at this. Many Americans thirst for justice and as long as this lie stands out in our history, there will never be a trust in those that rule over us. Unfortunately, there are many who prefer the easy way out and just accept the lies. Great job, keep up the good work. Michael Cammiso Now, in regard to me having lied about what you said, I did not. And you know, Lee, to lie about a thing like that would be a very childish thing to do. That's because as you were lying, you would know that you were lying, and you would know that the other person is going to call you on it, and that any gains from the lie would soon be lost and then some. And therefore, it really does not pay to do it. That's something that I understand, but perhaps you do not since you are attributing the behavior to me. I said that you said that he was sitting on the desk, or leaning on the desk, because that is what I recall. And that is still my contention. I still have the recollection that you said that. But, when you corrected me, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But keep in mind, Lee, that at the time we were discussing it, we weren't looking at the picture. It eventually was posted, and it's been posted here, but at that time you were speaking from memory. So, it is not the case that I ever said that, looking at the picture, you thought he was sitting on the desk. It was when you first brought it up- from memory- that I thought you said that. And that is still what I recall. And that is the honest truth. Lying had nothing to do with it. Now, regarding this frame below, it is NOT from the film. And if you say it is from the film, you need to prove it. Wagging your lips doesn't cut it. You're not Solomon. You're not the King of Siam... "So let it be written, so let it be done." I state adamantly that the image below does not occur in the film, and I declare, here and now, that if you OR ANYONE can watch that movie and lift from it the frame in which that image occurs and post it here, I will pay that person $1000. If you print it from Youtube, it will have the markings of a youtube video, so we'll know it's legit. Here's the link: The relevant segment entail 4 seconds: from 1 minute 4 seconds to 1 minute 8 seconds. Find the image below in that 4 second span and collect an easy grand. This is your chance to make a fast $1000 and humiliate the hell out of Ralph Cinque at the same time. What are you waiting for?
  21. Ralph Cinque
    Farley, I have never been dishonest. I have been mistaken at times, and when I have, I have admitted it, such as in regard to the location of the shooting of the 6 second film of Lovelady. My interest is in discerning the truth, and I know very well that that is not served by me or anyone else lying. But, you are being dense about this issue of the body count. For one thing, that 220 pound cop in uniform isn't even in the other pic. It's supposed to be 2:00 sharp in both pictures! Both clocks say so. In one, you can see the big cop, and in the other, you can't. He isn't there. Now, before you say that the cop is in the other pic but he happens to be lined up with the other men such that you just can't see him, forget about it. If you watch the movie, you'll see that the cop was ALWAYS veered to the right; he was never lined up with the other men; and he was never out of view. Not for a nanosecond. And he was so tall! Even if he was in line with the other men, you'd see the top of him. And the fact that the 4th man comes into view in a later frame doesn't matter either because IT'S A LATER FRAME. Besides, he only barely comes into view. At NO time do you see all 4 men lined up in single file as you do in the other pic and as you see directly above. That does not happen in the movie. Never. You think it does? Then watch the movie, freeze the frame where you see it, print it, scan it, and post it. Come on, Farley, make a fool out of me. I've made a fool out of you, so at least you could return the favor. Come on; I dare you. I'm calling you out, Farley. Put up or shut up. Show me where the above frame occurs in the movie. Here's your chance to show the world how much smarter you are than Ralph Cinque. And of course the other big and insurmountable problem is that THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT LOVELADYS between the pics. Here, look at them together side by side. These were not, and could not, be the same human being. They are obviously not the same guy. Why would anyone in their right mind want to argue that they are? If we were discussing this in any other context, and I asked you, or anyone, whether they were even related, you would say no. It isn't even debatable.
  22. Ralph Cinque
    Farley, that was absolutely rotten, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with me. I've never even heard of it. Yes, I am a vegetarian and have been since the age of 19, and I'm now 61. Does that make me responsible to everything that goes wrong among vegetarians? What you did is despicable, and the mere the fact that you would go to such great lengths to smear me attests to your character. I request that Tom Scully remove your pathetic attempt to smear me, as it surely has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the thread, and it's sole purpose is to malign me. But if Tom doesn't remove it, I really don't care. Let it remain. It reflects badly on you, not me. Just the fact that you would resort to such a thing only shows how vile and contemptible you are. But, getting back to the case, I pointed out that Lovelady's own testimony to the Warren Commission of his actions and whereabouts after the assassination rule out any possibility that he was standing around outside the TSBD, and your response was just to say that he lied. Here's his testimony. He said he walked down to the railroad tracks with Bill Shelley and that they re-entered the building through the back door.You said he lied, but does that mean he worked out his story with Bill Shelley ahead of time (?) because he had to know that they were talking to Shelley as well. And why bother saying that he re-entered through the back door? Seems like a rather petty thing to lie about. Mr. BALL. First of all, let's get you to tell us whom you left the steps with. Mr. LOVELADY. Mr. Shelley. Mr. BALL. Shelley and you went down how far? Mr. LOVELADY. Well, I would say a good 75, between 75 to 100 yards to the first tracks. Mr. BALL. You went down the dead end on Elm? Mr. LOVELADY. Yes. Mr. BALL. And down to the first tracks? Mr. LOVELADY. Yes. Mr. BALL. Did you see anything there? Mr. LOVELADY. No, sir; well, just people running. Mr. BALL. That's all? Mr. LOVELADY. And hollerin'. Mr. BALL. How did you happen to go down there? Mr. LOVELADY. I don't know, because everybody was running from that way and naturally, I guess--- Mr. BALL. They were running from that way or toward that way? Mr. LOVELADY. Toward that way; everybody thought it was coming from that direction. Mr. BALL. By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building? Mr. LOVELADY. As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building. Mr. BALL. How many steps? Mr. LOVELADY. Twenty, 25. Mr. BALL. Steps away and you looked back and saw him enter the building? Mr. LOVELADY. Yes. Mr. BALL. Then you came back. How long did you stay around the railroad tracks? Mr. LOVELADY. Oh, just a minute, maybe minute and a half. Mr. BALL. Then what did you do? Mr. LOVELADY. Came back right through that part where Mr. Campbell, Mr. Truly, and Mr. Shelley park their cars and I came back inside the building. Mr. BALL. And enter from the rear? Mr. LOVELADY. Yes, sir; sure did. Mr. BALL. On the way to the tracks, did you run or walk? Mr. LOVELADY. Medium trot or fast walk. Mr. BALL. A fast walk? Mr. LOVELADY. Yes. Mr. BALL. How did you happen to turn around and see Truly and the policeman go into the building? Mr. LOVELADY. Somebody hollered and I looked. Mr. BALL. You turned around and looked? Mr. LOVELADY. Yes. Mr. BALL. After you ran to the railroad tracks you came back and went in the back door of the building? Mr. LOVELADY. Right. Mr. BALL. Did you go in through the docks, the wide open door or did you go in the ordinary Small door? Mr. LOVELADY. You know where we park our trucks--that door; we have a little door. Mr. BALL. That is where you went in, that little door? Mr. LOVELADY. That's right. Mr. BALL That would be the north end of the building? Mr. LOVELADY. That would be the west end, wouldn't it? Mr. BALL. Is it the one right off Houston Street? Mr. LOVELADY. No; you are thinking about another dock. Mr. BALL. I am? Mr. LOVELADY. Yes; we have two. Mr. BALL.. YOU came into the building from the west side? Mr. LOVELADY. Right. Mr. BALL. You came in through the first floor? Mr. LOVELADY. Right. Mr. BALL. Who did you see in the first floor? Mr. LOVELADY. I saw a girl Vickie. Mr. BALL. Who is Vickie? Mr. LOVELADY. The girl that works for Scott, Foresman. Mr. BALL. What is her full name? Mr. LOVELADY. I wouldn't know. Mr. BALL. Vickie Adams? Mr. LOVELADY. I believe so.
  23. Ralph Cinque
    Jerry, you are so biased that you don't even know how biased you are. You let that jerk Albert Doyle trash me with complete abandon while you kept editing me, warning me, locking me. You want samples? This is what the great moderator Jerry Dealey allows, but only if Ralph Cinque is the target. "You're a dishonest person. .. you're a clinical moron. . . You're a pure lunatic. . .what an incompetent ignoramus you are. . . your cross-eyed incompetence. . you delusional quack. . . you dead wrong fool . . . ,your moronic inability to comprehend. . your hair-brained buffoonish offerings (of course, he meant hare). . . The above is just brief sampling of what spewed from him over just 2 or 3 days recently. Hey, I went back in and looked this stuff up. It's still on there. You allowed it all, and you know very well that it's been going on for months. And who is this brilliant guy who gets to trash-talk me with complete abandon? He's a guy who can't even see a clock on a pole. He was also tearing into me, left, right, and down the middle over that clock. And just when I was about to post an image showing very clearly that the clock truly is on the pole, and you can even see the shadow of it on the wall, you locked the thread. Well, here it is again, Jerry. Make sure Albert gets a good look at it. And by the way, be sure to catch my latest article on lewrockwell.com. http://lewrockwell.c...cinque10.1.html It's the most widely read libertarian website in the world. Pat Buchanon, Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, Professor Thomas Woods, Professor Thomas Sowell, economist Peter Schiff, Jacob Hornberger ( the head of the Future of Freedom Foundation), Professor Walter Williams . . these are the kind of people who write for Lew. Of course, there is also Lew himself who is the head of the Ludwig von Mises Institute at Auburn University. He is also the former chief congressional assistant to Congressman and Presidential contender Ron Paul- who also writes for Lew. And the fact is that I have no sway with Lew... other than offering him ideas and writing that impress him. If he considers something truthful and valuable, he publishes it. That's it! And, my analysis in this case is rock-solid, so I suggest you read it. Whether you like it or not, there exists two conflicting images of Oswald being led by Lovelady at the Dallas PD, and there is no way on God's Green Earth to reconcile them. For goodness sake, there is a different guy playing Lovelady! Camera, lights, sound, action. . they staged the effffing thing! Now look at the shadow on the wall, Jerry. What does it tell you about the object that's making it? Get the word to that idiot Doyle.
  24. Ralph Cinque
    OK, this is my official complaint to Tom Scully. The last post of Len Colby did nothing but degrade and ridicule Dr. Fetzer. It did nothing to advance the progress of the thread. It was petty and childish. I am asking you to make him stop. Ralph Cinque
  25. Ralph Cinque
    Len, I don't understand your question. And I am not sure who you are referring to as "Ozzie." Can you rephrase?
×
×
  • Create New...