Jump to content
The Education Forum

Posts Moved Out of (On Topic Only!) Ralph Cinque on Lovelady and Oswald in the Doorway - Thread


Recommended Posts

And the hypocrisy is, Lee, that you know very well that there are lone-nutters here, people who espouse that Oswald picked off Kennedy, shot him through the back with a bullet that came out his neck and then traversed the body of Connally, shattering two bones, and then surfacing in perfect condition at Parkland Hospital, and you have never once clamored to have their nonsense disallowed. But, they never violated your integrity, did they? They're not crackpots, or if they are, they're respectable crackpots whom you can tolerate comfortably. What a farce!

Edited by Ralph Cinque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No! Pat! Grown men do not wave towels at parades! Do you? What a stupid thing to say. You see, that's what this comes down: grasping at straws, shovelling sand against the tide.

And when you say that it's "quite likely" a towel, what you mean is that it doesn't look anything like a towel, but we'll go with that anyway. Childish. That's what you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat? He wouldn't even be standing there with a towel. Towels are for the beach. This was a downtown city street. The President was driving by. You don't need a towel for that. Grown men do not wave towels at Presidents. You are sounding increasingly like a small child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Please do not repost your moved post, verbatim, into the other thread. Consider why your post was moved here.

Yet Another Attempt to keep the controversial discussion civil and on topic. In case it isn't clear what is and isn't acceptable when the intent is to further discourse in a civil and constructive spirit, the examples ending up in this thread can serve as an educational resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Sorry, Lee. I took a 24 hour "time out" from reading the posts in the other thread.

I posted my opinion, only.:

http://educationforu...=60#entry252062

Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:39 PM

....it is appropriate to put you on moderation.

There is no proposal for a vote on whether or not to put you on moderation. I have not proposed any vote.

On Edit.... Lee, I just read your response to my post on the "on topic" thread, of yesterday. I have not received a PM from you. There are 70 discussions in my PM inbox. The last PM I received was on March 30. I suspect now that the forum format conversion may have changed things. If this is the case, I've misled you by posting that I can receive PMs. I will clear enough space in the PM inbox to get the discussion count below 50.

I think your participation makes this forum a MUCH better place than when you are not participating. You and Ed LeDoux both withdrew on about the same day, at the end of January. Maybe you and I are being tougher on each other because we both remember when we were not butting heads, but co-operating in sifting through the research details that interest us both enough to be here in the first place.

I don't feel like I'm disrupting this thread by posting in it, as I am reluctant to do, multiple times, off-topic, in a real thread.

Do you agree that there are topics and posters we would rather not endure here, if it we had the power to stop them from posting, or from creating new threads, but that the narrowing and restricting would make this forum indistinguishable from the deeppoliticsforum?

Is it a better place for its narrowness, than this is, for its openness? Is the opinion of the establishment and the mainstream media supporting it, really of a consequence valuable, relevant, or of a high enough integrity to drive the self-consciousness over "what must it think of the CT community" that seems to self limit the enforcers at deeppoliticsforum and authors such as Mr. Thompson and Mr. Lifton, but not Dr. Fetzer?

To believe on the one hand that the establishment is a malignant, criminal, oligarchy, but on the other, that there is risk of a major setback related to their regard for you if you "go too far" seems to me, a contradiction.

I'm going to risk being minimally concerned whether or not I seem less absurd to the establishment and its media than Fetzer, Cinque, Judyth Baker, etc., do, compared to the much more serious, Thompson and Lifton. Despite the reaction here to Linda Minor's touring last summer with Judyth Baker, I have the same respect and admiration for Linda than I did before that. I continue to read everything she posts at her blog, quixoticjoust, and here.

Fetzer and Cinque do not make me look worse because the space I post and moderate at, overlaps theirs, just as Thompson and Lifton do not make me look better. I don't observe people beating down the doors to achieve the privilege of posting at deeppoliticsforum. The adjectives they use on their forum to describe this one, (swamp, cesspool, putrid....) and their preoccupation with what goes on here, seems deeper than just a love of popcorn and something to watch while eating it.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you're smart enough to realize that I am not the least bit intimidated. So Hogan glibly calls me "confused." And you think that reflects badly on me? An intelligent person would have said what I was confused about; he would have explained the basis for saying it. He would know that just declaring it doesn't count. That's just being pompous. Who do you think you are, Moses?

I was under no obligation to explain anything to Cinque, especially something that should have been self-evident.

He had just finished calling me a coward and throwing in a taunt about my masculinity.

I included Cinque's post with his false claim that Tink trashed Robert Morrow. I knew readers would be intelligent enough to get it.

Fetzer wasn't. All he could do is insult me.

So I included the quote from Robert Charles-Dunne in my next post.

As far as I can tell, Cinque still hasn't figured it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would happen if every member who has a sense of self-respect, right after reading this, goes into their settings and put Cinque and Fetzer on ignore for one week?

After a week, take ignore off and see what happened?

I'll go first. If I'm the only one at least I'll get some respite from this lunacy.

Lee, it's possible that something constructive will come out of all this. Consider these members that are on the same side of the fence of the same issue:

Len Colby, Craig Lamson, David von Pein, Robin Unger, Greg Burnham, David Andrews, Robert Charles-Dunne, Pat Speer, David Joseph, Greg Parker,

Dawn Meredith, Glenn Viklund, Josiah Thompson, Duncan MacRae, David Lifton, Ray Mitcham, Jerry Dealey, Robert Howard. Just to name some.

What do they have in common? They have posted opposition to Cinque/Fetzer and/or their theories about Billy Lovelady

Never have such disparate EF members been so united on an issue. It has never happened before and likely will never happen again.

Somewhat remarkable when one thinks about it.

Just as remarkable (as you noticed and commented on), Cinque and Fetzer have yet to provide the name of even one person on

the three JFK forums that supported their "discoveries."

Not one lurker among the hundreds on this Forum has come forward to say, "maybe you've got something there."

From what I read, the welcome mat has been pulled at two other JFK forums.

There is no possibility that, in its present form, Cinque and Fetzer's efforts will have any lasting effect on the state of affairs of JFK research.

At some point in time in the not too distant future, they will be an afterthought here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Michael, you've reinforced what John Simkin has done through his decision to admit Mr. Cinque to membership on this forum. Dr. Fetzer attempted to accuse this forum and me specifically, from "suppressing the truth".

There was no intent to do that, only to maintain the rules of the forum, since it is no secret this is a moderated forum.

This is a place where opinions can be presented, within the confines of the rules of the forum and observance of the spirit of the rules. Whether I or anyone else here agrees with this, or not, it is the way it is.

If all members would refrain from standing in the way of this concept, and just let it happen, I expect no thread of Cinque or Fetzer, or of anyone else with a view in the minority would be more than a few posts long.

Three choices, silence these voices, attempt to deny them a voice by shouting them down, or providing a forum and thus removing the weapon that was briefly introduced; the false accusation that this forum is suppressing the truth. John Simkin is providing the forum, and the moderators are discouraging the shouting down of these voices "of truth".

You become part of the controversy and you further fan the flames of it when you attempt to keep it from being presented. I suggest leaving them to argue with themselves, just find the self control to walk away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, if we're going to call people out for mistreating other members, what about Parker? He's mining the Internet looking for dirt on me. He's accusing me of being involved in cult churches. I guess he figures I'm the reincarnation of David Koresh. After all, I only live down the road from Waco.

Ralph, once again, you invited what you got when you challenged another member that they didn't know who they were dealing with. I mean, you waved a red flag at a bull, and now you want to cry and complain that the bull charged at you.

You may or may not have been a member of the Church of Human Life Science, but that is a mere technicality. You were very closely associated with its founder, TC Fry on both a personal and professional level - so close that the arch-racist, Ben Klassen wrote to you believing it was YOUR church ("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... etc etc For a Whiter and Brighter World, Creatively yours, B. Klassen")

But it was only a "church" when it suited, wasn't it, Ralph -- like when certain exemptions were being sought? In the main, it was just storage space for all the Life Science / Natural Hygienics literature. Isn't that true? Isn't it also true that you gave a parcel of land as final settlement to a former Fry employee who was suing him? I wish I had friends that generous.

Happy Leif Erikson Day! (I know I'm a bit early, but who knows, we may no longer be in contact come October...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Lee. I took a 24 hour "time out" from reading the posts in the other thread.

I posted my opinion, only.:

http://educationforu...=60#entry252062

Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:39 PM

....it is appropriate to put you on moderation.

There is no proposal for a vote on whether or not to put you on moderation. I have not proposed any vote.

On Edit.... Lee, I just read your response to my post on the "on topic" thread, of yesterday. I have not received a PM from you. There are 70 discussions in my PM inbox. The last PM I received was on March 30. I suspect now that the forum format conversion may have changed things. If this is the case, I've misled you by posting that I can receive PMs. I will clear enough space in the PM inbox to get the discussion count below 50.

I think your participation makes this forum a MUCH better place than when you are not participating. You and Ed LeDoux both withdrew on about the same day, at the end of January.

I could be wrong, but I believe that's sheer coincidence. Ed's enjoying the sun and having the time of his life by the look of the photos I've seen. I have admonished him that he is needed "back at work", but for for some reason, he seems to prefer swimming with giant turtles...

Maybe you and I are being tougher on each other because we both remember when we were not butting heads, but co-operating in sifting through the research details that interest us both enough to be here in the first place.

I don't feel like I'm disrupting this thread by posting in it, as I am reluctant to do, multiple times, off-topic, in a real thread.

Do you agree that there are topics and posters we would rather not endure here, if it we had the power to stop them from posting, or from creating new threads, but that the narrowing and restricting would make this forum indistinguishable from the deeppoliticsforum?

Is it a better place for its narrowness, than this is, for its openness?

Narrowness vs openness is not the issue, no matter how much you want it to be. It's sanity vs insanity and perceptions of legitimacy and the lunatic fringe.

Is the opinion of the establishment and the mainstream media supporting it, really of a consequence valuable, relevant, or of a high enough integrity to drive the self-consciousness over "what must it think of the CT community" that seems to self limit the enforcers at deeppoliticsforum and authors such as Mr. Thompson and Mr. Lifton, but not Dr. Fetzer?

To believe on the one hand that the establishment is a malignant, criminal, oligarchy, but on the other, that there is risk of a major setback related to their regard for you if you "go too far" seems to me, a contradiction.

It's not about personal regard, either. I would roller skate down Pennsylvania Ave dressed in a tutu if it helped get this case reopened, There is no contradiction except in your own mind. The media shapes public perception. The will of the people can change the course of a nation. The will of the people regarding JFK is blunted by the perception that those of us researching the case are all UFO seeing, Nessie spotting believers in Lizard People. You want to sacrifice this case on the warped altar of "democracy". But I can assure you, the ancient Greeks did not have internet forums in mind when they came up with this form of governance.

Whiilst I try to change perception, you are xxxx scared of it -- that is exactly what you're admitting to when you admit caving in to cries of "suppressing the truth". Who - apart from other paleolibertarians like Ralph and Jimbo, are going to believe they hold the truth -- about anything -- let alone Billy bloody Lovelady?

Meanwhile, you just give the media more reason to cast the community as "fringe". Maybe worst of all, you've helped create an environment that forces out the best and brightest (and no - I am not talking about myself). Congratulations. Job well done. Cleisthenes bows to you.

I'm going to risk being minimally concerned whether or not I seem less absurd to the establishment and its media than Fetzer, Cinque, Judyth Baker, etc., do, compared to the much more serious, Thompson and Lifton. Despite the reaction here to Linda Minor's touring last summer with Judyth Baker, I have the same respect and admiration for Linda than I did before that. I continue to read everything she posts at her blog, quixoticjoust, and here.

Fetzer and Cinque do not make me look worse because the space I post and moderate at, overlaps theirs, just as Thompson and Lifton do not make me look better. I don't observe people beating down the doors to achieve the privilege of posting at deeppoliticsforum. The adjectives they use on their forum to describe this one, (swamp, cesspool, putrid....) and their preoccupation with what goes on here, seems deeper than just a love of popcorn and something to watch while eating it.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee - I enjoyed your findings on Vaganov very much, and am interested in them in regard to my researches into Richard Case Nagell and the KGB. Sorry, but with two jobs, I haven't made headway into that fast enough to post anything beyond this encouragement. Don't take your good work out of this Forum, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

You got it all off your chest, Lee. You cannot grasp, much less accept that John Simkin sincerely supports free speech, within a framework of rules intended to promote civil discussion. You want to be a decider, and that is what John wants to avoid. You cannot accept that, so you elect to be a disrupter, a choice you make, or restrain yourself from making, and you admit you could not.

We don't manufacture widgets, we support free speech here, even when it personally makes us wince. If the content of a post does not violate a forum rule and is not profane or intensely sexual it can be posted. Even then, we err on the side of permissiveness.

There are plenty of internet destinations where they do it your way, and what we stress here is civil discourse. If that is not your way, I cannot help with that, except to point you to places that may be more to your liking.

That is an excuse, Lee. This forum could be a mirror of deeppoliticsforum, a place with a narrow set of strictures prohibiting as much outside of those narrow strictures from appearing on the pages of that forum as..... the corporate media establishment.

They at deeppoliticsforum have created the narrowness and the locking out that is so similar to what the corporate media practices, that they have much more in common with that narrowness and censorship.

Maybe they don't make lists on that forum of what they will block from appearing and who they will bar from membershipt, but by golly, they know it when they see it, and it doesn't appear in posts, and if it does, only very briefly.

Isn't it ironic that Jerry Dealey had posted only five times on this forum, over a number or years, aside from his bio post, but then posted twice here after he blocked Ralph Cinque from posting on the forum Jerry moderates?

You know what is verboten when you see it, Lee, even when it does not violate the posting rules of this forum. your reaction is to break the cardinal rule here..... do not challenge the truthfulness of other posters, only challenge the reliability fo what they offer in support of their opions. When I stopped Jim Fetzer from posting as Ralph, two threads ago, it was because Jim quoted Ralph as accusing the arguments posted by another member of being dishonest.

You did that one better, Lee, in at least two instances, the last being after I implored you to stop.

You demand for yourself a right that John Simkin and his team of moderators do not reserve for themselves, the perogative to determine what is suitable for discussion here, even when it does not violate a forum rule, and you are not above interfering with the restraint we practice here, by you breaking the most important rule, with the excuse that you just can't help yourself.

Then,instead of apologizing or thanking me for my service, you criticize how I moderate, how I post, and then me, personally. The results of my work here speaks for itself, good luck to you, and good day to you.

ANNE MACDONALD PROSPECTIVE BRIDE; Sophomore at ...

New York Times - Nov 1, 1946

Mr. and Mrs. Ranald Hugh Macdonald Jr. of 911 Park Avenue have announced the engagement of their daughter, Anne Walton, to James Augustus Thomas, son of Mrs. James Augustus Thomas of ... Miss Eleanor Lansing Thomas is his sister.

StuartJohnsonObitMarch30_1969NYTImes%2520Crop.jpg

EleanorLansingThomasDebutDulles_1943NYTimes.jpg

Clover Todd Dulles Wed to Jens H. Jebsen In Chaped of Fifth...

New York Times - Apr 22, 1951

Miss Eleanor Lansing Thomas of New York, cousin of the bride, was maid of honor. The other bridal attendants were Mrs. Richard Bompard Veit, Miss Gregor .

Inventory of the James Augustus Thomas Papers, circa 1900-1985 ...

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/thomasjamesaug/

Interview topics include her life in China and Petrograd (now St. Petersburg, Russia) where she .... In 1922, he married Dorothy Quincy Hancock Read on Nov.... largely responsible for introducing American cigarettes to China and other countries.

http://www.nytimes.c...iott.html?fta=y

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: December 6, 2006

Eleanor Thomas Elliott, an advocate for women’s rights who successfully fought Columbia University’s attempt to take over Barnard College in the early 1970s, died Sunday in Valhalla, N.Y. She was 80 and lived in Cross River, N.Y....

....

http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/pmcmil1.htm

HSCA Testimony

From Priscilla Johnson McMillan's HSCA testimony - p. 1-31:

Mr. Goldsmith: At that time,
were you contacted by anyone whom you knew to be affiliated with the CIA for the purpose of giving the CIA information?

Ms. McMillan: I do not recall any such contact being made.

Mr. Goldsmith: Was any such contact made after you returned from your second visit to the Soviet Union?

Ms. McMillan: No, no such contact was made, that I know of.

Mr. Goldsmith: What about after your third trip?

M. McMillan:
Yes. After my third trip.

Mr. Goldsmith: When, specifically, did you return from

[At this point 9 pages in a row are missing, with a sheet saying "Access Restricted" - Authority CIA (said HSCA but that was crossed out and "CIA" substituted.) Info withheld becuase of not Security-Classified Information, but "Otherwise Restricted Information" is checked (those were the only two options.) Her testimony has over 40 still classified

pages. But it's clear she met with the CIA.]

p. 1-45:

Mr. Goldsmith: When was the first time that you saw it?

Ms. McMillan. When I read my file of documents from the CIA which reached me on February 1st, 1978.

Mr. Goldsmith. This, then, is a copy of a letter that was in your file that you received from the CIA, is that correct?

Ms. McMillan. Yes, Mr. Goldsmith.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you recall having written this letter?

Ms. McMillan. No, but now that I see it, I think that I wrote it.

[This woman recalls next to nothing in this whole 100+ page interview. She says "I do not recall" more times than Oliver North!! Funny how she can recall everything Marina told her though - right? She was also one of the few to testify before the HSCA with her lawyer at her side, interfering now and then throughout.]

.................

http://books.google....uit me"&f=false

Oswald and the CIA: the documented truth about the unknown ... - Page 64

John Newman - 2008 - 669 pages - Preview

... the man what she could remember about her stay in Moscow. That man, who had known her since she was a small child, was F. Trubee Davidson. He worked for the CIA.9 Looking back on her experience now, Priscilla believes it is possible...

Hmmm...a one branch Long Island bank. Look who is on the bank's board....two friends since boyhood, Stuart H. Johnson, Priscilla's father...and...CIA director of personnel, F. Trubee Davison!

Annual report of the Superintendent of the Banking Department of ...: Part 1

New York (State). Banking Dept - 1967 - Snippet view

LOCUST VALLEY — Nassau County MATINECOCK BANK 63 Forest Avenue [Organized 1923] FREDERICK E. WILLITS, Chm. of Bd. THOMAS BELLINGHAM, President GEORGE A. HAWKSHAW, Vice-President W. Shelby Coates Stuart H. Johnson F. Trubee Davison ...

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got it all off your chest, Lee. You cannot grasp, much less accept that John Simkin sincerely supports free speech, within a framework of rules intended to promote civil discussion. You want to be a decider, and that is what John wants to avoid. You cannot accept that, so you elect to be a disrupter, a choice you make, or restrain yourself from making, and you admit you could not.

We don't manufacture widgets, we support free speech here, even when it personally makes us wince. If the content of a post does not violate a forum rule and is not profane or intensely sexual it can be posted. Even then, we err on the side of permissiveness.

There are plenty of internet destinations where they do it your way, and what we stress here is civil discourse. If that is not your way, I cannot help with that, except to point you to places that may be more to your liking.

That is an excuse, Lee. This forum could be a mirror of deeppoliticsforum, a place with a narrow set of strictures prohibiting as much outside of those narrow strictures from appearing on the pages of that forum as..... the corporate media establishment.

They at deeppoliticsforum have created the narrowness and the locking out that is so similar to what the corporate media practices, that they have much more in common with that narrowness and censorship.

"Freedom of speech within a framework of rules" "censorship"

"Freedom of speech within a framework of rules" "censorship"

"Freedom of speech within a framework of rules" "censorship"

"Freedom of speech within a framework of rules" "censorship"

"Freedom of speech within a framework of rules" "censorship"

Nope. Sorry, Tom. I can't tell them apart. Your semantical argument fails on its merits. It's no different than calling your enemy a "terrorist" while calling an ally doing exactly the same thing, a "freedom fighter".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I think you're doing a great job. Don't let the criticism bother you.

Lee,

It's a good thing I checked this thread. Whether your realize it or not, you share much in common with Jim Fetzer, David Lifton, Ralph Cinque, etc. You ruin the good research and sound reasoning you often share with a combative, take no prisoners type of attitude. Most posters here have a "voice" that is recognizable. Yours is usually nasty, almost bullying.

I know my "Can't we all just get along" posts probably sound corny and sanctimonious to you. Maybe they sound that way to others. However, you are way off base in accusing me of ever commiting the same offenses I lament in others. When have I ever called another poster a name, or even snidely referred to them by their last name or a childish nickname (Glennie, Jimbo, etc.)? When have I ever attacked any other poster personally? I try to practice what I preach. I'm not perfect, but I pride myself on posting in a civil manner at all times.

Tom and I, along with the rest of the moderators, are inundated with complaints, and demands that others be moderated or banned, on an almost daily basis. Too many posters here have an impulse to censor those they disagree with. We could be censored far more heavily, like Lancer, or be like DPF, and allow a restricted level of debate. If you prefer that, those forums provide a different experience. I'm not criticizing them, as I've been a long time member of Lancer and belong to DPF as well.

I have never demanded that any member of any form be moderated or banned, with the sole exception of John Bevilaqua, when I discovered he was posting untrue information about me on another forum, and had posted untrue personal information about Bill Kelly as well. I don't understand this kind of mindset. I will probably never agree with Craig Lamson, David Von Pein or Tom Purvis about much of anything, but I have no desire to see them banned or moderated (unless they go way over the line, in either personally attacking someone or using especially awful language). If you notice, I don't spend much time debating someone if I realize from past experience that there is no way I'm going to convert them to my point of view. You might want to think about doing that.

Why are you associating me with Lew Rockwell? I have some libertarian impulses, but I'm primarily a populist. I merely complimented Ralph on getting his article published there- it is a big web site. I have never claimed to be persuaded by his photo interpretations. I suspected Oswald was the figure in the doorway long before I heard of Ralph Cinque (or Jim Fetzer for that matter). There are numerous reasons to doubt that Lovelady was the figure in the doorway, as I've stated, outside of any of Ralph's arguments. However, unlike Ralph or Jim, I am not going to definitively declare it IS Oswald.

You are interpreting Oswald's "I work in the building" comment literally. When taken in context, he was being grilled by reporters as if his presence there immediately implicated him in the murder. I think he was responding in that way; "hey, i WORK there," and not establishing that he was IN the building, as opposed to standing in the doorway (which, of course, could also reasonably be said to be IN the building as well). If he was trying to give reporters his exact location at the time of the shooting, why didn't he just say, "Hey, I was in the lunchroom?"

I have been saying the same thing for years, regarding most of the "evidence" in this entire case. We don't know for certainty what Oswald was saying in all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. There is no reason to trust anything about the official timeline regarding his post (or even pre) assassination movements. His few public statements belie a calm but confused young man, who was steadfast in maintaining his innocence, but other than that was primarily concerned with getting a lawyer.

We've established with certainty that you think Ralph Cinque is ridiculous. Okay. How many times can you say that, in how many different posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...