Jump to content

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


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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:

33jh4xy.jpg

ossi9v.jpg

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?

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

When someone says "you don't know who you're dealing with", it can and should be taken as a threat. As such, it's also an open invitation to find out who you're "dealing with".

When a thread is started that insinuates that no one but Fetzer and Cinque cares about the truth... and one of those two keeps trying to link "the truth" to Libertarian beliefs, demagogues and institutes, then it is time to expose them as the snake oil salesmen they are.

Cinque and the Church of Human Life Science

http://news.google.c...pg=4887,5956730

http://www.getwellst...FRYTimeLine.htm

Cinque and the letter sent to him via the above church for a "Whiter Better World"

http://www26.us.arch...81/kl2_djvu.txt

Cinque and HGH:

Internet Magazine easily bought some from a US-based site. It cost $NZ211 for a 30ml bottle to be freighted in. Fronted by Dr Ralph Cinque, who may or may not be a doctor, the site promised an independent laboratory confirmation of HGH’s potency and content.

Buying the hormone was simply a matter of sending credit-card details, no questions asked. However our order didn’t go through and, shockingly, Dr Cinque asked us to email our credit-card details to his hotmail address. The credit card used by the reporter wasn’t in her name; Dr Cinque was willing to accept it once someone had emailed ownership, without verification. Internet Magazine believes this is an extremely shonky and an unethical way to operate.

There was no HON symbol on the site, no code of conduct, no privacy policyand no way of knowing if we’d get the product or, if indeed, the product was what the site said it would be.

The doctor reached new lows in our eyes when he agreed to package the product so it would slip through New Zealand customs. “Yes, we can wrap it innocuously. We have shipped a few times to New Zealand, and so far it has always gotten through … Dr. C.”

http://pcworld.co.nz...to/heal-thyself

I'm not surprised that Ralph chose to ignore my previous post, nor that Don chose to portray it as a mere character attack.

Both Cinque and Don highlight the reasons why I left here and why I'm not staying.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ralph, "character assassination" involves telling half truths and other forms of disinformation.

Can you show where I have done that?

Like I said, you invited being checked out with what you said to Greg Burnham. All I did in my original post was invite you to give your side of various stories about you and the church you belonged to and your online businesses. As expected, you chose to ignore the invitation. I then provided links to prompt you, and for the sake of Don, who questioned what my post was about.

You are now simply playing the "character attack" card. I think anyone who reads the information provided can make their own minds up whether to believe it or not. You would be better served by giving your side of the issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, this is rather silly. Although I regard Ron Paul as the best of the current lot, I am not a libertarian but an old time, FDR/JFK liberal! And what possible difference could one's political inclinations make to issues like these? Stunning.

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?

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

Why be so venomously hostile to it?

Ralph, there is no more hostility involved on my part than there is when I take out the trash.

Mr. Ralph C. Cinque

Church of Human Life Science

Yorktown, Texas

January 15, 1980

Dear Mr. Cinque:

Recently I subscribed to HEALTH CRUSADER and also TOTAL

WELLBEING, as well as ordering several groups of books from your

church, including the Basic Library. I have read the magazines from

cover to cover and agreed with your approach to health even before

I had heard of your organization. Your material has considerably

enhanced and strengthened my education in the field of health.

I, too, have a church whose philosophy is completely based on

the eternal Laws of Nature and I believe it covers a very essential

spectrum of human life that your doctrine does not cover, but I believe

our philosophies or creeds nicely support and dovetail with each

other. 1 have written a comprehensive book on the subject. It is call-

ed NATURE'S ETERNAL RELIGION. Enclosed herewith is a copy

of our book.

My object in writing you is to explore if we might collaborate

in promoting each others books and philosophy, since I feel neither

is complete without the other, just as a male and female need each

other to complete a unit.

Whereas my subject embraces race, religion, eugenics, politics

and the whole spectrum of living, all based on Natural Laws, it is

all designed to uplift and greatly improve the wellbeing and happiness

of the human race. True, it is highly controversial, but then so is

your hygienic philosophy as you have stated repeatedly. However,

I don't think that a group of people (such as at Life Science) who

are objectively seeking the truth can be too much in disagreement

with the controversial (but logical) position we take. In fact reading

your article on "Human Dignity through Hygiene" (Vol. 1, No. 4) page

89, 1 find you stating, "Jettisoning the shackles of morbid Christianity

as then practiced, Renaissance man freed himself to study, to ex-

plore — to create — . (more)"

This is where we come in. Renaissance man never did completely

free himself from the powerful monopolies of superstition, fear and

gullibility, and these same forces still shackle hundreds of millions

including some of our best minds. The results have been disastrous

for our whole race and civilization.

It is my conclusion that our respective philosophies each alone

only tell half the story. Certainly you can see that no matter how

healthy you and your family might be, you could not survive in the

middle of Harlem. If the Harlem environment engulfs the whole coun-

try, none of us can survive. You would, in short order, be repeatedly

robbed, mugged and eventually murdered.

However, read the book. It speaks for itself.

My suggestion is that if your Board of Directors and staff is recep-

tive to our work, we will be glad to send a further carton of eight

copies, gratis, for each to read and study at leisure. Pending the

results of such study we could then consult as to what steps we could

then take for further collaboration and mutual benefit not only to our

organizations but future mankind itself.

May the CREATIVE FORCE be with you!

For a Whiter and Brighter World,

Creatively yours,

B. Klassen, P.M.

http://www26.us.arch...81/kl2_djvu.txt

Klassen may have been a lot of other things, but he wasn't a total idiot. Klassen was under the distinct impression

that you were (heavily) involved with this "church". He also had the distinct impression that your philosophies and his were simpatico.

The founder of the "church" sold it to you (as a member at that time), and resumed his little snake oil sales elsewhere. Meanwhile you converted the "church" into a "health spa" Is that not correct?

You're surely not trying to claim that this was a different "Ralph Cinque"?

Now the woman who shot Fry and sued the "church" because she had been allegedly brainwashed - if I am reading the story correctly, you (or this other "Ralph Cinque") bypassed her lawyer and gave her a parcel of land as settlement of her claims. The lawyer then sought an order for the land to be sold so he could get his cut. But hey, I may be misinterpreting it. Maybe someone could set me straight if I am.

http://news.google.c...pg=4887,5956730

Snake oil salesmen and lawyers. There's Hell right there. Listening to either. :ice

No comment at all, re the HGH sales, Ralph?

​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?

Because you give the rest of us a bad name and your sales MO is no different than TC Fry's:

"The Fry Rhetoric" is well-received because the materials are not only low-cost, but
they are written on a simple level, and they are short and highly sensationalized! They promise panaceas with an abundance of exclamation marks!
This is in contrast to Dr. Shelton's formidable and somewhat scientific and technical books of small print and straight copy and sophisticated vocabulary and complex sentence structure, wherein Dr. Shelton's rhetoric teaches the possibility of "superior health with strict Hygienic living" through "The Message & Promise of Natural Hygiene," and wherein Dr. Shelton avoids Fry-like sensationalizing and panacean promises. The Fry books are also well-received because he has picked up The Torch of Revolution against the medicine men and SAD food profiteers and
has written his works in an exciting, incendiary spirit that calls for the high ideals of "self-education, self-mastery, and self-healing!" The Fry works, therefore, speak to the simple hearts of countless sick and desperate and frightened Americans throughout The Land who are in need of not only "The Truth" but who long for inspiration to take "The Hygienic Road Less Travelled," and who want to travel that road with a leader who is within their humble, grassroots grasp. T.C. Fry and his publications thus serve to prime The Health Seeker for the more formidable Shelton books and for those of their many off-spring writers.

http://www.getwellst...FRYTimeLine.htm

Fetzer and Rockwell are to you what Shelton was to Fry.

More from the above website:

Late 1970s to 1994... T.C. starts in Yorktown, Texas, in a big, old, broken-down, former hospital built in the 1930s. He starts with "non-profit" status under the auspices of The Church of Human Life Science. He sells the old building to Cinque and moves to Austin to create
Better Life Journal
,
Healthful Living
, and subsequent, short-lived newsletters.
Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Ralph, I am simply astounded at the juvenile and ad hominem responses you are receiving. Some of those whom I have regarded as on the up-and-up are posting without having even a vague idea of the evidence and the arguments that we have presented elsewhere. That may excuse some of these posts, but most of the rest are ridiculous, irrelevant and thoughtless.

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.

Ralph, "character assassination" involves telling half truths and other forms of disinformation.

Can you show where I have done that?

Like I said, you invited being checked out with what you said to Greg Burnham. All I did in my original post was invite you to give your side of various stories about you and the church you belonged to and your online businesses. As expected, you chose to ignore the invitation. I then provided links to prompt you, and for the sake of Don, who questioned what my post was about.

You are now simply playing the "character attack" card. I think anyone who reads the information provided can make their own minds up whether to believe it or not. You would be better served by giving your side of the issues.

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

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?

29bkhes.jpg

ossi9v.jpg

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.

1zf351s.jpg

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?

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

You are WAY over the line here. Cinque's alleged past associations have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. What else are you doing, other than trying to assassinate his character?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

You are WAY over the line here. Cinque's alleged past associations have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. What else are you doing, other than trying to assassinate his character?

Don, as I have explained, I am doing what Ralph invited posters to do when he said "you don't know who you're dealing with." If you don't see that as an invitation to find out, then I have a used "church" for sale in Texas.

"Character assassination" is akin to slander and libel - the defense to those charges is that what is stated is true. Ralph has chosen to deny involvement with the The Church of the Phallic Rat or whatever the hell it's name was. That means many many independent sources have got it awfully wrong, or "Ralph Cinque" has a twin brother named "Ralph Cinque". As this is not (yet) the Twilight Zone, I have to say, I find Ralph's denial lacking plausibility.

Major corporations fight tooth and nail to protect their brand name. If CT can be likened to a brand, then this is a similar fight. I am simply protecting that "brand" from shysters.

I will also remind you, Don that this thread is titled "What's the EF all about? Doesn't anyone care about truth?" Nothing about Lovelady in that title. I put it to you that I am perfectly on topic.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

I've locked this thread. It became a disaster, a billboard on display to answer the question, why would anyone want to risk posting anything on the JFK Debate forum? Warning, background check and results of said check will be displayed! Sorry, no member has the right to destroy this forum on a personal whim or as an acting out of an emotional reaction to what is displayed in the posts of other members.......

I moved most of the posts from this thread to a thread Jim Fetzer started on the Ralph Cinque's contentions, with a misspelled title, back on May 9. The "new" thread is intended for civil, on topic discussion/ debate :

http://educationforu...opic=19083&st=0

Consider this now locked thread as an example of what went wrong; the way things look after the tide has gone out.... I made quick decisions on whether 240 posts would fit better remaining here or moved to the new thread.

If you think your post, still here, is a better fit on the new thread, consider context, how it relates to the posts before it on this thread, and whether it might still be here because it displays complaints that would properly have been dealt with by clicking on the "report" button instead of posting a public complaint about another member, or a public criticism of a moderator.

Please make the effort to focus on the message and not on the messenger. It is a forum rule!

I moved the post directly following this one, from the "new" thread because it seems Greg Parker and I agree it belongs in this thread,

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...