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

[Len Colby]

Jim,

You and I were friends for many, many years. ...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. ...

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...

[...]

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

Fetzer could be a poster boy for How to Lose Friends and Alienate People the list of those who used to admire/like him his quite long

[Len Colby]

Anyway, Len, I asked my doctor friends because they are used to looking at the human body and they know human anatomy, and I consider that helpful when it comes to determining whether two images are of the same person. Comparing anatomical features is what it's all about. So, that is how I justify it.

That’s a real stretch there is no reason why a chiropractor is any more qualified than a plumber in making such a determination, you’d have been better off asking portrait photographers. Get back to us with the opinions of people with demonstrable expertise/experience in facial recognition or photo-analysis.

And yes, of course, it had to be BIlly or Lee. My goodness, Len! Nobody suggests otherwise. Nobody but nobody is saying that it might have been some stranger off the street, some anonymous person. That's way out there, Man!

LOL you telling me my idea is “way out there, Man!” That reminds me of the time GG Allin told me I was crazy! Why couldn’t someone with no association with the TSBD have been standing by the entrance?

And I'm afraid you misunderstood. I never said or thought that Lovelady in the other picture was a midget. I simply said that, to me, it didn't look like he was sitting. That image was taken from the film footage at the Dallas PD, and in the movie, you can easily see that he is sitting. But, it's a little confusing in the picture, and I hadn't seen the movie, and I didn't know about it at the time.

No YOU misunderstood, I was being sarcastic. Obviously Lovelady was not a midget and you never suggested he was but he would had to have been one if he was standing, so much for chiropractors etc. being “used to looking at the human body and…know[ing] human anatomy” thus helping them “determining whether two images are of the same person.” You wrote:

I have been studying human kinesiology for just about my entire adult life, and I dare he is not leaning back on anything. When someone perches their elbows on a desk, they transfer their weight to that surface. Why do you think they do it? That is the whole purpose, to take support from it. But, he is not doing that, and I can tell from his postural tone that he is not doing that. He is supporting his weight through the length of his spine as a person does when standing.

Famous last words, eh? So much for your self-proclaimed expertise!

Edited May 12, 2012 by Len Colby

[Guest Tom Scully]

L........ I only want to discuss the case. Does anyone here want to do that?

Len, I realize Ralph could have made a better first impression here, instead choosing to call out four names, but aren't you

primarily provocative, vs. discussing the case?

Lee Farley took Ralph's bait, and so I disapproved Lee's post. I can keep the moderation to making posts invisible if what is displayed breaks the rules, but when replies display quotes of the rule breaking posts, it will become necessary to lock the thread. I am not going to edit posts to bring them into conformance.

Please do not bait and taunt each other, just discuss, debate the points in contention.

[Ralph Cinque]

Thank you, Tom, and I will certainly abide by what you said.

I have a question for Lee Farley. Lee, you have repeatedly said that Martin shot his film of the motorcade and then later on, he did some more filming of the post-assassination in Dealey Plaza. How do you know this?

I have to ask because it doesn't add up to me. HIs filming of the motorcade took 25 seconds. So, if he turned his camera off and then turned it on later, it presumably would have been the same film. I don't know how much capacity the film had but surely it was a lot longer than 25 seconds. He would have had no reason to change the film. So, it should have been continuous with his earlier filming, and it should be part of that same film.

But none of the extant versions of the Martin film show anything but the motorcade. So, how and why did his post-assassination footage get separated from it? And why isn't it available? Nobody seems to have it. I asked Gary Mack, and he doesn't have it. And he said that it's not contained in the archives of the 6th floor museum.

And as far as I know, the 6 second clip of Lovelady outside the TSBD is the only post-assassination footage that has been attributed to Martin. But, if that's true, then why did he turn his camera back on for only 6 seconds? And why those particular 6 seconds? As you know, it shows a man being led into the TSBD by police, and the bystanders outside, including Billy Lovelady, seem very interested in this, where they are peering through the glass, trying to see what's going on. But, the man obviously wasn't Oswald since we know what happened to him. So, what importance did this have, and why did Martin film this particular 6 seconds? And why did he stop? Was there nothing else worth shooting in Dealey Plaza? Who turns on their camera for just 6 seconds?

And the other big problem, and dare I say insurmountable one, is that, qualitatively, the film is so much better than the Martin film that it's impossible to think that he used the same camera to shoot both. How practical is it to assume that he had two cameras with him?

As a result of the above, your friend Robin Unger has decided to refrain from claiming that the images of Lovelady outside the TSBD were from Martin- at least until it can be proven.

So, that's why I am asking you because you have repeatedly said that Martin shot post-assassination footage and that it was separate from his motorcade footage. I want to know how you know that. What is the evidence for it? Do you have this footage? Have you seen it?

I hope you don't think it's too much to ask.

[Greg Wagner]

The significance of this being two different individuals (IF in fact it is two different individuals) is obvious. There are elements of the comparison photos that are suggestive, but in my opinion the comparison is ultimately inconclusive. That's my opinion on the photos.

There are many past and present members of this forum who have made valuable contributions to the body of knowledge around this case. And there are some of us who read, learn and only post occasionally. For all you've shared, I am in your debt and I am grateful for your time and effort.

But what seems to occupy the foreground more often these days are threads where members allow emotion, agenda and ego to drive them. This is a trap and a mistake. It is a human weakness that should be guarded against and avoided. It wastes time. It interferes with the objective. It undermines this community's credibility.

I certainly don't mean to chastise anyone. On the contrary, I have great admiration and respect for the work and opinions - of both dedicated and casual researchers - being shared here. I certainly don't agree with all of it. But there must be an effort made to navigate this quagmire with an approach that leaves emotion, agenda and ego out of it. This case deserves that.

[Ralph Cinque]

So, Greg, you think it's inconclusive that they are different individuals. I take it that means you think they may be different individuals, that you are open to the idea. But please let me point out that the size difference is quite substantial. It does jump out at you. One man does look quite a bit bigger than the other. Not necessarily taller, but beefier, stockier. And his shirt seems to be open more too; the other man seems more buttoned up. And let me point out that on the other man, we are not limited to the one image. We have 4 seconds of footage of him in which the camera is moving and the angle is changing. And at no time during that 4 seconds, do we see a glimpse of an open shirt and exposed t-shirt. And the lay of the hair definitely seems different. I call the one guy DeNiro because of the way his hair is swept back like Robert DeNiro in The Deer Hunter.The other guy just seems to have a comb-over.

So, you say inconclusive, but would you say it leans more towards same guy or different guys? If you had to bet, and God was going to judge, how would you bet?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Ralph Cinque

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson, just because the sizes are wrong (and I am only saying that because you said it) does not mean that the details and the content of the images are wrong. There is no way on God's green earth that a thing like that is going to give a man who has short, neat, tapered hair longer, curlier, scruffier hair. There is just no way. There is too much disparity between these two images to account for them by technical trivia. Would you look how different they are? You really want to attribute all that to aspect ratios? For goodness sake, you can see the big giant policeman astride Oswald in the Groden scan that Robin just posted. Do you see him in the DeNiro scan?

If you had even the smallest bit of technical expertise you MIGHT be able to understand WHY you are failing.

You claim this can't be "technical triva" but how in the world would you even begin to know? You don't UNDERSTAND the technical you dismiss out of hand.

As it stands we are left with your OPINION the hair is somehow different? So much for your "case".

[Ralph Cinque]

Craig, you are not contributing. Did you read what Tom Scully wrote above? You should not be submitting posts just to degrade me. Try it again, and I will complain to him about it. Offer substance. It's all that matters.

[Ralph Cinque]

Lee, I never disputed that that footage you posted was real. I am disputing that the image that I posted above, which is a tandem version of it with a different guy playing Lovelady, is real. How can you have two disparate images of the exact same scene? We're talking about real life, not a movie. There can only be one "take" of every moment in real life, and there are too many contradictions between those pictures.

And why do you guys keep pining for the thread to be locked? It's so cowardly! If you don't like being here, no one's holding a gun to your head. You can leave. You do not have to participate. You don't have to do battle with me. If you're not up for it, fine, go. Let those who want to do so. What gives you the right to censor other people's conversations?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Ralph Cinque

[Ralph Cinque]

Lee, you think Tom should act like Jerry Dealey over on Lancer? But you know that Jerry Dealey is in league with Gary Mack. You know that Jerry Dealey defends the official theory of the assassination. And you do not. So why would you applaud anything that Jerry Dealey does? Why would you cite him as an example of reasonableness when he reasons that Oswald shot Kennedy? How can you give any credibility whatsoever to someone who believes that?

And no, Lee. How many times do I have to tell you? The footage of Oswald being processed at the Dallas PD is real. It's the other image, of DeNiro Lovelady, that is not real. I don't know if it came from film footage, or if it was always and only a photograph. But, I do know that it is a renactment of the scene from the footage. It is obviously not from the footage. It does not occur in the footage. The man playing Lovelady is different. The men in the procession of cops are different. But the location is the same. And I mean the exact same spot. And of course the day is the same. And the time is the same. To the minute! The clocks say so! It's the exact same scene! It's Oswald being processed! It's just different players.

The very existence of that picture is damning evidence that somebody tried to manipulate. For what purpose? You have to ask? Where have you been? It was to show Lovelady wearing that long-sleeved plaid shirt. They had to get him out of the short-sleeved, striped shirt that he first said he wore on the day of the assassination. That was crucial to keeping alive the claim that he was the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo.

Here it is again. The existence of this photograph proves wickedness in the production of false evidence in the JFK case.

Where did this come from? Does anyone know?

http://i46.tinypic.com/n70acy.jpg[/i

Edited May 13, 2012 by Ralph Cinque

[Robert Howard]

I more than realize my viewpoint about discordant elements on the Forum is not going to be welcome

by anybody in particular. But I have been posting here for five years, some people might say I don't

tend to be strident, but at this point I really don't care.

I respect everyone here, even though there is a growing sentiment on my part, and others too, that

the Education Forum has seen better days.

It is a fact that people have left the Forum recently, and not all of them fall into the category

of "just not interested in the JFK assassination anymore."

Whether anyone on this Forum wants to acknowledge the validity of what I am saying, it is truth

and deserves,at least to be read, I do not really care if it is taken as offensive, too personal

or bowing down to anyone's ego.

An issue such as Oswald in the doorway, has been dissected, analyzed and even popeil sliced

for almost 50 years, the idea that Messrs. Fetzer and Dr. Cinque have discovered the secret

that has baffled the "rest of us," which, and I have read the pertinent material available,

it doesent "not just fly," it doesen't even walk, is an insult to the rest of the Forum and the rest of the research community.

If I seem a tad bit more annoyed than most folks, it is because, as has been stated inmeasurable

times before, there has never been an "issue" on the Forum, that couldn't be settled by checking

your ego at the door.

Ultimately, things like this are no longer thread killers, as they once were, they are Forum killers, and as with the topic of the mysteries of the JFK assassination becoming, mainstream wise, anachronistic; the time is approaching, if indeed it is not already here that this sort of ego game is ultimately a death knell for any research at all regarding the JFK assassination to be taken seriously if our own house cant keep it's ugly side limited to emails within the Forum, instead of, in effect broadcasting it over the airwaves.

I would hate to have it on my conscience, that my own ego was so large, that I couldn't just walk away, but was more than glad to be antithetical to the common purpose we all at one time shared.

If this post doesen't strike a chord with Mr. Fetzer, I think it is obvious that what we have is not a failure to communicate, but is, in effect the fact that there is nothing one can say, that causes any sort of "maybe you have a point," line of thinking.

[Ralph Cinque]

Is this the Twilight Zone? Are you people out of your minds?

A photographic image exists which duplicates a scene from the aftermath of the JFK assassination.

I'll say it again . . .

A photographic image exists which duplicates a scene from the aftermath of the JFK assassination.

THERE IS NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THAT IMAGE. Somebody tried to create false evidence.

Mr Hogan, you wrote that long treatise, and you addressed a great many people and things. But, you didn't address this thing, this picture. And it is what we are talking about. This is getting to be like the Wizard of Oz . . "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Then, Burnham, you pipe-in singing the praises of Hogan, and saying how our "methodology is flawed." But, you didn't address the picture! Not a peep about the picture! Zippo! Zilch! Nada! Nunca!

Then, Howard, you join in experssing your outrage, how incensed you are, but not a word about the picture!

Address the issue! Look at the picture. Talk about the picture. It's important. It's damning to the whole official story of the assassination.

It's bizarre that it exists, but it does exist. And it's even more bizarre that none of you people want to talk about it. What are you afraid of? Talk about the picture!

Edited May 13, 2012 by Ralph Cinque

[Len Colby]

L........ I only want to discuss the case. Does anyone here want to do that?

Len, I realize Ralph could have made a better first impression here, instead choosing to call out four names, but aren't you

primarily provocative, vs. discussing the case?

Lee Farley took Ralph's bait, and so I disapproved Lee's post. I can keep the moderation to making posts invisible if what is displayed breaks the rules, but when replies display quotes of the rule breaking posts, it will become necessary to lock the thread. I am not going to edit posts to bring them into conformance.

Please do not bait and taunt each other, just discuss, debate the points in contention.

Why single me out Tom? There are enough insults, sacrcasm and antognism on this thread for 10 others. The tone of my 2nd post, while it could have been more respectful, was mild compared to my others here. Cinque even wrote, "Thank you, Len. At least you are talking about something of substance" in response to my 1st one.

[Ralph Cinque]

Len, I don't understand your question. And I am not sure who you are referring to as "Ozzie." Can you rephrase?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Ralph Cinque

[Len Colby]

Which is why I said it is completely futile trying to discuss things with you. You are most certainly doing this on purpose, with the backing of your mentor. There is no other explanation for it.

He must be laughing his backside off at this unholy show he's created. Beats his Judy Baker nonsense hands down.

Don't underestimate the power of cognative disonance. Fetzer's DNA programed him to be drawn to the most crackpot position of any polemic issue he exmines, Wellstone's plane was downed with an land based energy beam, the WTC was destroyed by one based in space or perhaps plasmoids or nukes, they switched JFK's brain, there were 10 (?) shooters in Dallas, Baker is credible etc. etc. He completely invests his ego in these beliefs and sees any disagreement as an intellectual and/or moral failing of the other party. Cinque is not mutch better.

The verb 'fetzer' has entered the lexicon, I coined the 1st definition but to certain degree prefer the 2nd.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fetzer