Jump to content

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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

I'll give you 3 choices:

a) Harriet's husband i.e. Ricky Nelson's father

B) the former lead singer of Black Sabbath

c) Lee Harvey Ozwald

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank-You Robert Howard for saying what I am sure many of us feel, but are really too disgusted to take the time to write. I have been a member of this forum for almost seven years, most of it lurking. (Anyone wonder why?). I know my evidence. I have read many of the posters here and on other forums for a long time and like everyone I form opinions on their personality and assassination knowledge and opinion. I do understand that this is all formed over the Internet but you get my gest.

I miss many a good researcher, and fellow students of the assassination, who used to post here. This, with all respect to the forum itself is trash. I think many a good man and woman feel a little dirty after posting here so they just do not bother any more. I have a feeling that even moderators hate having to read the garbage that has become discourse on this site. The debate overall has suffered

because of threads and members who obviously are quite deficient in certain capacities. People just do not want to participate here anymore. It ain't what it used to be. Think of all the names you do not see. Think of all the great discourse that used to be here everyday. Man I'm just a rambelin' but this is nothing but sad---big time sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really peeves me to have to EVER admit that Lamson might be correct. But, one must give the devil his due. Fetzer, please stop providing this guy with an easy target.

The title of this thread and its originator virtually assured that there would be a carnival-like atmosphere. Members knew it. Moderators knew it.

Fortunately Ralph Cinque joined the EF and those who had grown weary of Fetzer as intermediator got their wish.

From that point on it almost seemed preordained that Cinque and Lamson would become embroiled in squabbles over certain digital photographic enlargements.

To the surprise of no one, they did.

There does seem to be some sort of poetic justice at play. They might actually have more in common than one would expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


I really doubt you’ll find many who’ll disagree with me Fetzer has a long track record of adopting absurd positions and lashing out at those who dare disagree the list of those he has alienated in the “’Truth’ movement” and assassination community is quite extensive. Do you dispute that Fetzer backs (or backed) the positions I attributed to him? Do you dispute they are considered fringe even in CT circles? Do you dispute he lashes out at those who disagree with him?

How is my opinion that Fetzer and you really believe the nonsense you spout more offensive then Lee’s that the two are troublemakers?

Oh and still waiting for you to reply to my questions.

And I’m a bit confused do think the guy on the right is LHO?


PS - If you want to report a post you click the "Report" button

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say goodbye, Ralph Cinque. You are done. IMO only--free speech: You are a charlatan and an impostor. You are a snake oil salesman at best. Your "proofs" are a sham. You have been exposed.

I regret that you have taken down Jim Fetzer with you, who once was my friend.

A pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Well, well.... I don't get out here often, but do on occasion. I assume Ralph that everyone trusts you as the source of what I believe, much more than trusting me! Another of your fantasies?

I put my reputation up against anyone in the Research "Community" based on what I have written and done over the years. Naturally, I assume that since YOU are the source of what I believe, everyone knows how reliable you are.

But since you know me better than I know myself, you no longer have to listen to me on Lancer. I normally do not ban people just because of their opinion of me, but everyone out there would be thrilled to have seen you gone long ago. Instead, I gave you plenty of opportunity to post, explain your opinion, support it and interact with the other. Since you know EVERYTHING, you no longer need to be on Lancer, where we try to discuss and debate like adults.

My apologies to the EF, and its Moderators..... but he is ALL yours.

Not Respectfully (since you do not deserve Respect),

Jerry Dealey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the most widely read libertarian website in the world.

There it is. Not the most popular website in history. Not the most popular research site in existence. The Most Widely Read Libertarian website. That's the only important thing. That it's Libertarian.

That is the basis of the friendship between Fetzer and Cinque. A shared philosophical and political outlook that colors nearly everything. If it did not, I suspect their would be less nonsense spouted by both.

If it did not, it would not matter what political hue they are. I have worked with those on the extreme left; with Cold Warriors; with Vietnam Vets; republicans and democrats. They all have one thing in common. "Let the facts fall where they may".

Fetzer asks, "does anyone care about the truth"?

Here's a secondary question: should we consider the source of that "truth"?

Here, I think we most definitely should.

Ralph, would you care to explain about those land deals from the late '70s and early '80s?

Would you care to explain about the "Church" which sold degrees and, according to one member, practiced "mind control"?

Are you still selling HGH online and accepting credit card payments without proper verification and no privacy provisions?

Do you often attract the support of White Supremicists - as you have in the past? If so, why is that? What is it about you/your philosophies that attracts them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Your debating style on this thread mirrors the way you debated David Lifton regarding the Mary Bledsoe/Oswald on the bus issue. As you recall, I strongly agreed with you about the credibility of Bledsoe and the likelihood Oswald was on that bus. It's one thing to passionately argue your points- it's another to refuse to accept that you can't persuade your opponent to change his mind. You have an extreme sense of your own perspective's inviolate truth- you remind me of the people who insist "This song IS better than that one." Ralph Cinque's theories may very well be "crap." But what is the point of saying they are, over and over again? You've been persuasive here, as you usually are. But you are simply not going to influence Cinque to bow his head and proclaim that you've proven him wrong.

You also make the thinly veiled inference that Cinque (and Fetzer) are "disinfo" agents. This is a charge thrown around recklessly by too many researchers, against those they disagree with. I understand how intelligence agencies work, and have no doubts that the research community has seen more than its share of undercover operatives. Cass Sunstein literally admitted this last year. But you can't just accuse people of something like that. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I don"t agree with the lone nutters like Lamson and DVP here, but I don't therefore charge them with working for the government in order to undermine discussions on internet forums. I also wouldn't work myself up into a lather over why they won't accept the impossibility of the SBT, or some other ridiculous part of the official story. Seek to influence those you can, with solid arguments and information. You're quite capable of doing that very well.

What is with the tragic story about the child being starved to death? Unless I missed something, how does that connect to Cinque? Also, what is Greg Parker talking about in his last post? Land deals? The "Church?" HGH? This sure seems like an attack on Cinque's character. I know nothing about Cinque, other than his posts about the man in the doorway, but he certainly seems to attract an inordinate amount of abuse. Others have posted much kookier stuff, without this kind of vitriol directed against them, by good, intelligent researchers. I value the input of Greg Parker and Lee Farley, and Greg "Monk" Burnham has been one of the favorite posters for many years. However, I simply don't understand why this is such a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. BALL. And down to the first tracks?


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. 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. 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. 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.

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Abusive language
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Lee Farley, three of your posts in this thread have been disapproved because you've accused another member in direct violation of a key rule prohibiting such an accusation. all moderators can still view your unapproved posts. since you've persisted and feign ignorance, it is appropriate to put you on moderation. It is not your perogative for you to elect to post in an inflammatory, rule breaking manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


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?


Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...