Jump to content
The Education Forum

What's the EF all about? Doesn't anyone care about truth?


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Tom Scully has LOCKED the Cinque/Lovelady thread and alleged that I have committed some dire offense by posting on his behalf when we all know that new admissions to the forum are virtually non-existent. I have not been spending a lot of time on this thread other than posting on behalf of Ralph, which I had not realized was supposed to be some kind of gross breach of forum policy.

Until just now, I had not seen Scully's post #38 admonishing me for posting on his behalf. Egad! How serious an offense is that supposed to be, when Ralph is advancing our understanding of how the fakery was pulled off? I am all for the forum having rules, but I submit that my posting is a nice test of the question, "Which is more important: exposing the cover-up or following the rules?"

I would prefer that Ralph post for himself and so would he. So why didn't Scully suggest he would look into it? I have in the past found John Simkin to be difficult to reach. But for Scully, I assume, it would be a "piece of cake". Here is another example of why I believe he has been doing brilliant work, where everyone who cares about exposing falsehoods and revealing truths is in his debt.

This is what he has now written to me, which I believe ought to be shared with every EF member:

Both of these are purported to be images of Billy Lovelady sitting at the Dallas police station on 11/22/63. The one on the left is from the film of Oswald being led through the Dallas PD. The second is unsourced.

rk553b.jpg

To capture the first image, I stopped the film, printed the image, then scanned the image, and that's how it came to be. The one on the right is just a widely circulated image of Lovelady at the Dallas PD, and I don't know where it came from.

But, the scenes are the same! Exactly the same! It's the exact same set up! Lovelady sitting at a desk with his back to the desk on some kind of stool, and a column of men walking by. File cabinets at the top of the scene, topped with files and books. And look at that clock! It's on a pole, and it says 2:00. You can see it much better on the right, but you can also see it on the left. It's in both pictures! That unusual clock! How often do you see a clock on a pole?

Look at the objects on the desk, including two sheets of paper neatly lying there, caddy-corner to each other. Move your eyes back and forth. It's the exact same scene.

They staged it .. . twice! Using two different men. Those two men, both purported to be Lovelady, are definitely not the same individual. The man on the right is at least 30 pounds heavier. He's got his hair combed differently, straight back, whereas the other guy has it combed over. Also, his outer shirt seems to be more open, more unbuttoned.

It's the exact same scene, except for a few minor details, such as the lineup of men being different. And the most important difference, of course, is that there are different Loveladys.

Please, we need to put our differences aside and reckon with this. This can be no accident and no coincidence. This was staged, twice, using two different men. I believe the man on the left was the real Lovelady, and I don't know who the man on the right is.

These are obviously the same situation, the same location, the same circumstance, but they are definitely different shoots, different versions. I shouldn't have to tell you what this means. They staged it, twice! Ralph

Here is a closer comparison, which, in my opinion, supports Ralph's belief that the man on the left (above) was the real Billy Lovelady and on the right (above) the imposter. How many discoveries of this caliber could we expect to have after nearly fifty years of JFK research? And it is coming from a man who has a different background, which gives him a distinctive point of view and a fresh approach:

33tnlvd.jpg

Now it seems to me that discoveries of this magnitude should be published and discussed on this forum. I still do not quite grasp what offense I am supposed to have committed in posting on behalf of Ralph, when gaining membership has been so difficult and time-consuming in the past. I believe that moderators ought to be assisting in research on JFK, not thwarting it. I am very disappointed.

Ralph has also been participating in threads on the Lancer forum, where Jerry Dealey has been about as welcoming of him there as Scully and others are being receptive to him here. If Scully can assist in making Ralph a member, it would be sensational. I willing apologize for any transgressions of forum rules, but I really think locking a thread over formalities in this case is simply inexcusable.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

So I wrote to John Simkin and--guess what?

Does anyone think Scully was unaware of this?

oapy8m.jpg

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim.

I care. Why don't you take chill pill and have a good lie down. You'll feel a whole lot better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Why am I not surprised? Doesn't ANYONE HERE care about the truth? Disgusting.

Jim.

I care. Why don't you take chill pill and have a good lie down. You'll feel a whole lot better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit, Lee, that I, too, am speechless. Or nearly so. One of the major complaints about CTs is that when presented with evidence running counter to their theory they immediately cry "It's fake!" In this case, at least, that complaint is more than justified.

The two images in question are obviously images of the same man, Billy Lovelady.

As far as Tom's action, while it's not an action I would have taken, I support it. It would be one thing if Ralph was respectful, but he's not. Why should Forum members be exposed to insulting and insult-filled diatribes from someone who's not even a member? Don't we have enough of this already?

Now, that doesn't mean Ralph's research can't be discussed, or presented on the forum. It just means it should be discussed by an active member, speaking for himself.

As far as membership, all membership applications must go through John Simkin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

There is no doubt in my mind that Education Forum needs "new blood" in its membership. We need to be actively recruiting more posters and credible JFK researchers.

I support having Ralph Cinque as a member of Education Forum. And, no, I do not agree with his theory that Oswald is standing in the doorway of TSBD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim: The TRUTH that matters is that LHO shot no one. Many witnesses saw him on the second floor drinking a coke. Are they all lying? That is the only truth that matters, at least to me: where LHO was NOT. And that is the 6th floor shooting the president. A long time ago I too thought it was LHO in the photo, I have since become convinced that it was Lovelady. Aren't there way more important issues in this case that you could spend your time on? To disagree with you and Cinque is your equal to not caring about the truth? Beyond absurd. Beyond sad. Is this where we really are after almost forty nine years?

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

You and I were friends for many, many years. And while I agree with you, in principle, that when friendship compromises truth then only friendship remains--STILL--it is incumbent upon an honest broker to weigh the track record of those with whom he has had a long and PROVEN relationship of trust against those relationships acquired more recently. It is unfortunate that you seem to now be convinced that some of those whom you once sought out for their critical thinking skills are suddenly deemed hostile. The allure of novelty is tempting. It seduces of its own power. But, there was a time when you sought the counsel of trusted fellow researchers. Those days seem to be a thing of the past.

All of the rather caustic exchanges that this topic evokes is caused by a premature publication of findings, IMO. When you spread your pearls among the swine you should expect nothing less. Moreover, a bright guy like you should AVOID a pigsty while carrying precious pearls. But, I suspect that you KNOW that this pen is NOT full of pigs else you wouldn't post here. Perhaps there is more to this dynamic than you first thought.

There is another truth, Jim. It is a human truth. When a person becomes publicly abrasive to a trusted colleague; accuses him of perpetuating a fraud on his own wife; and stubbornly rejects the counsel that is offered--then one must ask: "Why did Fetzer ask what I thought of this study to begin with? He obviously cares not what I believe. He has already made up his mind."

If you are looking for automatic agreement from those you have trusted in the past...count me out. You see, I value the truth too much to humor any man.

I do not know who was in the doorway. I do not think it has been proved that LHO was the man. I do not think it has been proved that it was Lovelady either.

On a final note: I observe a curious doppelganger, of sorts. It reminds me of the early days between Jack White and Gary Mack. One of them always spelled him Badgeman, while the other insisted it was Badge Man. We know what happened there...

Now, one of you spells him Doorway Man and the other Doorman. Coincidence of cognitive dissonance? Me thinks not.

Please do not reply to this post. I do not care what you have to say.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Fetzer:

Fifteen years (or so) ago at the late Rich D.'s site, I attempted to broker a detente between you and Tink Thompson, because the vitriol between you two was counter-productive and increasingly supplanted all else of worth. Your modus operandi hasn't changed, even if your sparring partners have.

You now presumptuously assert that those who disagree with whatever you're unsuccessfully attempting to sell - to an audience too wise to buy it - must mean that WE do not value "the truth." The arrogance is intolerable.

"The truth" is precisely what the majority of us are here to ascertain, and if you're repeatedly striking out - be it with Baker, Witt or Cinque - perhaps it's time for YOU to reexamine what YOU are doing wrong. If you cannot sell "the truth" to the choir, perhaps it's because you don't have it to sell.

If even those who KNOW that conspiracy is a fact balk at accepting what you're offering, the fault does NOT lie with them. Accept personal responsibility for your failure to convince and let that govern your actions accordingly.

This is simply the latest symptom of a grandiose self-regard that you share with David Lifton and others whose baseless and unwarranted certitude clouds any and all self-awareness of how each of you appear to the audience you seek to convert. If appearing un-hinged to those who should be your comrades is bad, it is worse to the general populace for it only brings disdain to us all.

That you and Lifton and others of your ilk drip contempt for those who don't fawn over your every utterance is no way to win friends or influence people. You do us all a disservice with this, and at a certain point it will be wondered aloud if that is random, accidental, or your very intent.

Grow up.

(And thanks to Tom Scully for trying to preserve whatever dignity this site still enjoys. In the past, I've often been peevish at the LACK of action from the mods here, so let me at least acknowledge it when ONE demonstrates the courage to enforce the rules.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's seen by some as a search for the truth, is seen by others as trolling the forums.

Repeating the same thing over and over, in thread after thread, will not make it the TRUTH

It is just your point of view, ( Pure Speculation ) nothing more.

So stop getting so hot under the collar about it.

We are in no way obliged to accept your Speculation as undeniable proof , if you wan't to believe it, good for you.

For the record,

I participated in most of Ralph's locked threads on Lancer forum.

towards the end i tried to keep it dignified, and not turn it into a shouting match, as did Ralph.

Bottom line, if your theories are not accepted by the majority of the forum members, administrators , and moderators.

THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin said: "Bottom line, if your theories are not accepted by the majority of the forum members, administrators , and moderators.

THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING !

As a point of logic...that is fallacious...HOWEVER, your sentiment is very well taken, I'm sure. (I just don't want to give the good professor an easy target).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being rather new here I do not seek to rock the boat.I observed this forum for a couple of years.I found most of the discussions to be challenging and enjoyed the debates that I read.I would say most members here are courteous and respectful of each other,while quite rightly not suffering fools gladly.In my observations as once a outsider looking in,it becomes apparent that some people reach a conclusion that they think is right and will not look at other points of view because their view is fixed,rigid.

This is sad,because if those with fixed,rigid views would listen,rather than take the bull in a china shop stance it might lead to a greater understanding of their own point of view,its merits and wrong conclusions.

I have my own view on the assassination,which I have posted a couple of ideas in my thought train.I do not state I am right,rather I am posing a hypothesis.Which if through debate,was proven to be wrong I would gladly accept.

We learn a lot through listening to others rather than trying to ram our ideas down others throats.The Mods on here are very tolerant in my opinion.It takes a lot for them to get heavy.And when and if they do,it is usually well justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to thank Robert Morrow for facilitating my membership in EF. And of course I thank John SImkin for approving it. And I thank my comrade-in-arms, Jim Fetzer.

To those who are challenging me, I wish that you would. What I mean is that I wish you would address the specific issues that I am raising instead of wasting time disparaging me personally. The following made general disparagments of me or Jim Fetzer but said absolutely nothing about the case: John Dolva, Lee Farley,Greg Burnham, and Robin Unger.

Pat Speer addressed one point of contention when he said: "The two images are obviously of the same man, Billy Lovelady." But, look at them up close. Would someone explain to me how these two could be the same person when there seems to be about 30 pounds difference in weight?

And even if you think that camera angles or lighting differences could, erroneously, produce such an impression, who is the burden on? Is it on me? Do I have to accept that by default? Or is the burden on the one making the claim?

Dawn made an interesting point that we don't really need this to know that Oswald was innocent. I couldn't agree more. Still, it's nice to have it. A picture is worth a thousand words. Isn't that what they say? Nearly 49 years have passed, and so far, the other side has retained control of the major organs of information and education concerning JFK. This new piece of evidence (and that's what it is) shakes things up. It rattles the boat, and that boat is going to sink. So, it is immensely important.

And to Greg Burnham, for you to hurl ridicule at me because I alternate between "Doorway Man" and "Doorman" is extremely petty. The latter is short, concise, and efficient, and that's why I sometimes use it. I presume that people are intelligent enough to realize that I am referring to the same person.

But, there is something you should all realize: it's futile and pointless to attack me over petty stuff like that or to issue general disparagements of me. If you want to beat me, you have to fight me- over the issues. Go mano-a-mano with me over the points that are in dispute. Delve into the concrete facts of the case with me. But, don't do as Lee Farley does and copy over the whole length of a long discussion just to add the meager comment, "Wow, I really am speechless." Hey! If you're going to be speechless, withhold speech! But, don't waste bandwidth just to stick your nose in the air. When you do that, you're just admitting that you can't refute me. And if you can refute me, then do it!

So, where do we stand now? What we have now are two "takes" on a specific moment in space and time: the moment that Lee Oswald and a line of policemen pass Billy Lovelady in the hall at the Dallas Police Department at 2 PM on 11/22/63. The two images are, at the same time, strikingly similar but also strikingly different. And the most glaring and significant difference involves Lovelady himself- he is a different guy in each picture, which you can readily see in the attached collage.

So, can we talk about that and how it came about? If there's a plausible explanation, I'd like to hear it. If you can reconcile the two images, please do so. But please, don't waste time with general disparagements and ridicule. That rolls off me like water off a duck's back. I don't care what you think of me. I only want to examine the nuts and bolts of the case. Tackle it with me. Let's get under the hood and take this thing apart. And if you don't want to do that, then just stay out of it. OK?

post-6414-0-55207900-1336832567_thumb.jpg

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...