Jump to content

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


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr Cinque,

After what happened recently in the DPF, you should have some credit for trying the same thing in this forum. I followed the debate there, the reasons you were given there should prevent most people from doing the same thing all over again. Your interpretation of the clothes, how the shadows work, the faces involved and more, were decisively buried in that discussion.

And so they were long before your study of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Ralph has it exactly right. The predominance of ad hominem attacks here is simply staggering. I have no doubt that any newbie who were to visit would be appalled. But what they do not understand is that ALMOST NO ONE HERE IS DEALING WITH THE EVIDENCE.

Let me offer an illustration. I am willing to bet that none of those Ralph lists -- John Dolva, Lee Farley, Greg Burnham, and Robin Unger -- has even bothered to "JFK Special 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" http://www.veteranst...rway-after-all/ How many of you have actually read it, even though it provides the background to this debate?

Dawn is a dear, but some of us want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We all know Lee was not the shooter and was in the lunchroom before and after. But exposing how he was framed and the techniques that were used can enable us to be on our guard against them being used again, and again, and again!

And, have no doubt, that is indeed the case, as those who may have devoted themselves to the study of 9/11 or even the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone will have discovered for themselves. For a recent presentation on 9/11, see "False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State" (9 September 2011),

As for Greg Burnham, who was once my dear friend, I did not mean to come between him and his wife, Julie, whom I also like. But he introduced her into a discussion where she was unaware of the context, which I regard as inexcusable. This is not the first and no doubt will not be the last time that I lose a friend related to research on these complex and controversial issues.

With regard to Charles, who faults me on the ground that, "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", where I agree that the word "evidence" would have been more appropriate than "truth". So I agree with you at least to that extent.

Let me close by complimenting Pat Speer, with whom I have had strenuous disagreements over any number of issues in the past. Even though I come on too strong, insist that logic and evidence have to prevail, and fault those who are not persuaded by arguments that, in my opinion, ought to be decisive, Pat has remained even tempered and dispassionate, a quality I do not possess.

So I want to congratulate Pat for coming across as the most rational of the lot. I do not mean that some of you don't have grounds to fault me (which has motivated your--sometimes severe--ad hominem attacks), but that Pat (who has equally good reasons to fault me on that ground) has stood up for Ralph's right to be heard and taken seriously here. For that, Pat, I thank you! Well done.

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

Lee, you should know that Jerry reopened my thread on Lancer. I have nothing to say about your put-down except that I wish you would point to the error of my ways, specifically. To say that I have no idea about this and that, and then to walk away without providing an explanation, makes you look bad, not me. You can banter terms like "aspect ratios" and "levels of compression": but that's just lip-flapping. And please reread your post and then tell me who is stomping his feet. It's you, not me. And your suggestion to reread another post that tore into me and Dr. Fetzer fell on deaf ears. I'm not interested! I only want to discuss the case. Does anyone here want to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let me close by complimenting Pat Speer, with whom I have had strenuous disagreements over any number of issues in the past. Even though I come on too strong, insist that logic and evidence have to prevail, and fault those who are not persuaded by arguments that, in my opinion, ought to be decisive, Pat has remained even tempered and dispassionate, a quality I do not possess.

So I want to congratulate Pat for coming across as the most rational of the lot. I do not mean that some of you don't have grounds to fault me (which has motivated your--sometimes severe--ad hominem attacks), but that Pat (who has equally good reasons to fault me on that ground) has stood up for Ralph's right to be heard and taken seriously here. For that, Pat, I thank you! Well done."

Well put. Pat Speer is given far too little credit for his studies of this case.He has, beyond the logics of his presentations, also injected a certain amount of reality to events in Dallas that day. Nice to see you giving Pat credit.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, you are going to have to be more specific than that. I was never buried by anybody on any forum. This analysis is rock-solid, evinced by the fact that nobody wants to challenge it. And I mean challenge it specifically, on a technical, factual basis. Harking back to DP? Is that all you can do, Glenn? Sad, sad. Pathetic actually.

And what did Pat Speer say that was so brilliant? He had the audacity to say that these two individvuals are the same person at the same moment in time.

post-6414-0-30538900-1336842944_thumb.jpg

post-6414-0-93476200-1336842998_thumb.jpg

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ralph,

Being thrown out - would literally be the same as buried, right?

And for the same reason that happened over there, you are now coming up with yet another claim "this photo shows two different persons".

May I ask when you came up with this theory, last Wednesday? You are a moving target, which is probably the only reason you still get this attention for all of your unsubstantiated claims.

It seems to me that you are finding arguments as you go along, whenever overwhelmed you have this tendency to add something new. This shooting from the hip that you displayed in that DPF discussion is continuing here?

No bets, Ralph.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Greg Burnham, who was once my dear friend, I did not mean to come between him and his wife, Julie, whom I also like. But he introduced her into a discussion where she was unaware of the context, which I regard as inexcusable. This is not the first and no doubt will not be the last time that I lose a friend related to research on these complex and controversial issues.

You did not come between us. You insulted me. You insulted my family. You disrespected my relationship and THAT is inexcusable. Indeed, them is fighting words. Remember it, Jim. I will never forget.

Next: You are misrepresenting the facts. You've been here, Jim. I have a GIGANTIC monitor. I had six versions of the Altgens 5 photo displayed of varying sizes--close ups as well as original size and everything in between. The only thing I asked Julie to do was to "describe the details" as she saw them in the Altgens photo. That was it. There need not be any more "context" beyond that. David Mantik agreed with me. After seeing her video, which I am re-posting below, David said: "Good for Julie!"

http://http://www.yo...h?v=uS1-AM6e-Gg

Greg,

Sorry for asking, but is there a particular reason for this being displayed in public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, that link you posted does not work. So alas, you gave us nothing. I mean putting aside the bad blood between you and Jim, which I don't consider to be of value. You have his email, so if you are determined to rile at him, write to him personally. Here on the forum, can we stick to discussing the facts of the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Greg Burnham, who was once my dear friend, I did not mean to come between him and his wife, Julie, whom I also like. But he introduced her into a discussion where she was unaware of the context, which I regard as inexcusable. This is not the first and no doubt will not be the last time that I lose a friend related to research on these complex and controversial issues.

You did not come between us. You insulted me. You insulted my family. You disrespected my relationship and THAT is inexcusable. Indeed, them is fighting words. Remember it, Jim. I will never forget.

Next: You are misrepresenting the facts. You've been here, Jim. I have a GIGANTIC monitor. I had six versions of the Altgens 5 photo displayed of varying sizes--close ups as well as original size and everything in between. The only thing I asked Julie to do was to "describe the details" as she saw them in the Altgens photo. That was it. There need not be any more "context" beyond that. David Mantik agreed with me. After seeing her video, which I am re-posting below, David said: "Good for Julie!"

http://http://www.yo...h?v=uS1-AM6e-Gg

Greg,

Sorry for asking, but is there a particular reason for this being displayed in public?

Yes. Jim's offense was done here--publicly. He has yet to apologize privately or publicly. He needs to do that, but that would require an admission of error. Although I am not convinced he is wrong about the person in the doorway, I am convinced that his methodology is faulty. However, that is just my opinion. But, his breach of ettiquette is not just my opinion.

I apologize to the members and moderators and to John Simklin for airing this publicly. It will be my last post on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, now with all personal bickerings put aside, can we get back to the business at hand and analyze these photos? Here is the footage of Oswald being led through the Dallas PD.

The relevant segment is only 4 seconds long: from 1 minute 4 seconds to 1 minute 8 seconds. The first of the two images below occurs right about the middle of the 4 second span.

I don't know where the image below that, at the bottom, came from, but I can guarantee you that it is not a frame from the movie. At no split-second does that bottom image occur within the movie. So, where did it come from?

post-6414-0-79348600-1336856752_thumb.jpg

post-6414-0-56726800-1336856770_thumb.jpg

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel partly responsible for this latest installment of Ralph Cinque's Angel Dust Half-Hour. It was me who supplied him with a link to the YouTube video that he is currently using to develop his newest anthropological study of Billy Lovelady's pixelated head.

But I wrongly assumed that it would stop some of the madness - instead of creating more. I underestimated how utterly bonkers this man is.

My sincerest apologies to all who are having to read this garbage.

Hahaha...a good one.. :hotorwot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, Lee, point out where I'm wrong because I am not so bonkers as to be unpersuadable by reason and logic. I say those two images, which of the same brief moment in time and space, don't match. Consider these observations:

In the first image on the left, the middle man has got neat, straight, tapered hair. In the second image on the right, his hair is longer and somewhat curly.

Now, is there some angular or lighting or equipment issue that would cause that effect? I dare say it's a different man.

I might add that there are 3 men in the first lineup and 4 men in the second.

post-6414-0-81960000-1336860796_thumb.jpg

post-6414-0-91991200-1336860809_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...