Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Dolly Parton Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer power_s3 power_s3 power_s3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports STEM
Customer Discussions > JFK forum

Oswald definitely was the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 54 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2012 10:14:00 PM PDT
Well Linda has been well trained by Cinque. She has already started cutting and posting the exact same post and cluttering up more than one site with her nonsense.

Simple question Linda.

Why didn't OSWALD ever say he was standing in the doorway at the time of the assassination?

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2012 10:24:51 PM PDT
He did. He told Detective Will Fritz he was "out in front with Bill Shelley." And Fritz wrote it down.

In reply to an earlier post on May 26, 2012 7:50:29 PM PDT
Linda you are off on some key points here. His statement to Fritz was concerning his whereabouts AFTER the shooting NOT during the shooting. And secondl,y William Shelley was questioned about Oswald's alleged conversation and Shelley emphatically stated that he NEVER spoke with Oswald immediateoly before, during, or after the assassination and furthermore of ALL the employees standing in the front of the building before, during, and after the assassinaiton there is not ONE that saw Oswald there at ANY time. So clearly Oswald's statement about talking with Shelley was a lie in a desperate attempt to explain why he fled the building so soon after the assassination. This was just one of SEVERAL provable lies Oswald told during questioning. That single fact totally destroys Cinque and Fetzer's theory all by itself.

Posted on May 26, 2012 8:39:41 PM PDT
You are whacked in the head because Shelley left immediately with Lovelady to look around down at the railroad tracks and when they returned, they re-entered the Depository through the back door and were in there for a long time. So, Shelley was not milling around out front after the assassination, and Oswald was not claiming to have seen him then. And rest assurred that if someone had reported seeing Oswald out in front during the shooting, they never would have put it in the Warren Report. Just as they left out the testimony of Sylvia Styles and corrupted the testimony of Carolyn Arnold and Vickie Adams, they would have neutralized anyone who claimed that Oswald was on the steps. So who knows, maybe someone did say so. But regardless, Doorman is wearing Oswald's unique clothing. Do you have any idea how unique it was. Hey, if the Doorman had been dressed like Ronald McDonald and we said it was Ronald McDonald, would you bicker? Well, Oswald's clothes were about as unique as Ronald McDonald's, and the Doorman was wearing them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 8:11:05 AM PDT
Linda wrote: Xthey would have neutralized anyone who claimed that Oswald was on the steps."

SVA: But this claim doesn't make sense does it? Why then was Jean hill allowed to talk of a gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll? Why didn't the invisible team of conspirators you choose to believe in neutralize her damning testimony that would point to a conspiracy? And why didn't they neutralize those witnesses who thought they heard four shots or those witnesses that said the shots came from the right-front? All of these witnesses were allowed to testify before the Warren Commissioin and their testimonies were never neutralized?

You are not very consistent with this half-baked theory you've hitched your wagon to.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 8:34:55 AM PDT
I'm glad you asked, SV, but you're good at walking into traps, and it's because you don't sufficiently THINK.

They had to allow some contradictory testimony into the Warren Report or else it would have appeared to be the blatant whitewash and show trial that it was. So, for the sake of their credibility, the Warren Commission allowed in some of that testimony. But, they were very careful about what they allowed in. Anybody could be wrong about which direction shots came from. But could anyone be wrong about a person standing two feet away from them? What could they say in response? That you only thought it was Oswald; it was really Lovelady? But, then the person could have responded, "No, because I also saw Lovelady, and he was standing over there."

So, that was one piece of testimony that they would have squashed and may have squashed. Hey, they left out or altered lots of crucial testimony, such as this one:

Carolyn Arnold, who worked at the book depository as a secretary, was certain she had seen Oswald on the first floor at 12:25 p.m. Arnold told FBI agent Richard E. Harrison that as she was leaving the building to watch the presidential motorcade, she spotted Oswald "between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse on the first floor." When Harrison wrote up her statement he changed the time on the FD-302 form from 12:25 to "a few minutes before 12:15 p.m." The FBI tweaked her statement to provide the necessary plausible interval to allow Oswald to get into position at the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor. The Commission never called Arnold as a witness. It also failed to call any of her five co-workers who had joined her on the front steps of the building to catch a view of President Kennedy and the First Lady and who might have corroborated her sighting of Oswald on the first floor at 12:25 p.m.

Fifteen years later an investigative reporter for the Dallas Morning News, Earl Golz, sought out Carolyn Arnold to ask her about what she had told the FBI in 1963. She had remarried (she was then Carolyn Johnson) and had become secretary to the vice-president of the TSBD. According to Golz's story, she was shocked when he pointed out to her that the FBI had not mentioned her sighting of Oswald at 12:25, five minutes before President Kennedy was shot.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 3:26:24 PM PDT
Clearly you are ingoring all of the illogical problems I pointed out with the theft of Altgens photo, the mysterious photograph of Billoy Lovelady they happen to have on hand, the return of Altgens photo etc... so to avoid addressing these problems you now shift the focus of your post to Carolyn Arnold. This tactic might work with other conspiracy kooks but it doesn't fool me. You've failed 100% to account for the steps needed to forge the Altgens therefore the theory falls under its own illogical weight.

If you want to concede defeat on that point I will gladly destroy Carolyn Arnold's credibility--but I don't just chase conspiracy nuts as they leap from one unrelated topic to another to avoid addressing problems.

Posted on May 27, 2012 3:33:44 PM PDT
Dr. Fetzer is on a tear. This is his latest forum commentary, and Ralph is working on a new article for Lew Rockwell. But since you mentioned Carolyn Arnold, busy yourself with this, Op.

Jim Fetzer:
Paul, thank you for posting the following:

Carolyn Arnold, who worked at the book depository as a secretary, was certain she had seen Oswald on the first floor at 12:25 p.m. Arnold told FBI agent Richard E. Harrison that as she was leaving the building to watch the presidential motorcade, she spotted Oswald "between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse on the first floor." When Harrison wrote up her statement he changed the time on the FD-302 form from 12:25 to "a few minutes before 12:15 p.m." The FBI tweaked her statement to provide the necessary plausible interval to allow Oswald to get into position at the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor. The Commission never called Arnold as a witness. It also failed to call any of her five co-workers who had joined her on the front steps of the building to catch a view of President Kennedy and the First Lady and who might have corroborated her sighting of Oswald on the first floor at 12:25 p.m.
Fifteen years later an investigative reporter for the Dallas Morning News, Earl Golz, sought out Carolyn Arnold to ask her about what she had told the FBI in 1963. She had remarried (she was then Carolyn Johnson) and had become secretary to the vice-president of the TSBD. According to Golz's story, she was shocked when he pointed out to her that the FBI had not mentioned her sighting of Oswald at 12:25, five minutes before President Kennedy was shot.

Note first that this is an example of the Warren Commission altering testimony to conform with the lone gunman theory. If they altered Carolyn's testimony, who is to say they didn't hide or alter the testimony of someone who saw Oswald outside?

And note how close Carolyn places Oswald to the front door. Just 5 minutes before the shooting, Oswald was "between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse on the first floor". Knowing that he was so close to the entrance just 5 minutes before the shooting, is it far-fetched to think that he would have stepped outside?

And why wouldn't he have? What's the alternative? He had already eaten lunch. I can even provide the evidence for that from none other than Vince Bugliosi in Reclaiming History:

"I ate with two colored boys I work with," Oswald says. "What are their names," Fritz asked. "One is called Junior" says Oswald. Fritz: "What did you have for lunch?" Oswald: "I had a cheese sandwich and an apple."

So, Oswald had already had lunch. And he was standing close to the front door. The show was about to start. So why wouldn't he go outside?

Some say that he claimed to be in the lunchroom during the shooting. But note that that is not what Fritz wrote down. Fritz wrote down that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front".

And think about it: what would he have been doing in the lunchroom? HE HAD ALREADY HAD LUNCH! Was he induling his voracious reading habit by plowing through War and Peace? The man had already eaten lunch! And get this: he didn't go there to drink a Coke either. We know that because that came later, after the assassination, in association with his encounter with Truly and Baker. So, unless you think he was a insatiable Coke fiend who had to have two within a period of several minutes, you can't go that route either. Instead, what you are left with is: absolutely nothing. You've got Oswald in the lunchroom twiddling his thumbs during the assassination.

The above is very compelling, but when you add further that you can see Oswald's clothes on Doorman, it settles it. Do you understand how distinctive Oswald's clothing were, with the loose-fitting, long-sleeved outer shirt over the notched, descending t-shirt, where the outer shirt was unbuttoned, and not just a little, but most all the way down? You should think of that whole ensemble as a costume or a uniform, and both Oswald and Doorman were wearing it.

If instead of Oswald we were talking about Ronald McDonald, and we could see that the man in the doorway was wearing the costume of Ronald McDonald, would you ignore that too? Well, we might as well be talking about Ronald McDonald because Oswald's clothing were every bit as distinctive. You have to look a little closer, but it's very easy to see that the very specific and unique characteristics of Oswald's clothing can be seen on Doorman, and they are a perfect match. Oswald was the Doorman, and there is simply no doubt about it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 4:22:32 PM PDT
Your ignoring of the timeline problems with the Altgens photography alteration cloaim admits you don't have an answer.

1. I am well aware of Ralph Cinque latest "discovery" the kook fromn Dayton. Wait and see. This story will go NOWHERE. It isn't hard for one nut to dig deep enough to find another nut. Fetzer and Cinque found YOU didn't they Linda? Tracing the time the Altgens photograph went out to the world is a non-issue to sane researchers. It was eaasily proven back in 1963. The time stamp on the photograph says 1:03 November 22, 1963. The fact that some Zapruder alterationist nut from Dayton claims that HE didn't receive it until the following day doesn't prove anything other thatn Fetzer and Cinque are not the only nuts in the world.

2. Now let's talk about Carolyn Arnold shall we? Even thought revealing facts to you are a total waste of time, OTHER readers will benefit to see Arnold's TOTAL lcak of consistency and thus credibility.
a. You are correct when you wrote that in 1978 Carolyn Arnold told Earl Golz that she saw Oswald. But you are incorrect as to WHAT she told him. In 1978 she said she saw Oswald IN THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCHROOM (remember that when Oswald was asked where he was during the assassinaiton he said he was in the first floor lunchroom he NEVER said he was out front with Bill Shelley DURING the assassinaiton. This is CInque's erroneous interpretation of Fritz's notes. And remember Shelley denied Oswald was out front with him. You keep ignoring this inconvenient fact.) So right out of the blocks Arnold's version doesn't agree with what the accused assassin said himself. Oswald NEVER said he was in the second floor breakroom. Arnold's version is already falling apart. Here is her exact statement to Golz: "I do not recall that he was doing anything. I just recall that he was sitting there...in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch...I recognized him clearly."
b. Then, listen to this, Arnold spoke with conspiracy author Anthony Summers only a month after she spoke with Golz and she CHANGED HER STORY significantly. NOW instead of the 12:25 time she told Golz, she changed her story and she said that she saw Oswald at 12:15 (matching her original statment to the FBI).
c. Now for her 1963 FBI statement. In 1963, just four days after the assassination, Arnold told the FBI that she saw Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 and it wasn't in the second-floor lunchroom at all. The FBI reports states the following: "As she was standing in front of the building she THOUGHT she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the FIRST floor. She could not be sure this was Oswald, but she FELT it was."
So...in 1963 she THINKS she saw Oswald on the first floor and then in 1978 she KNOWS she saw him on the SECOND floor. Furthermore, in 1963 Oswald was standing, whereas in 1978 he was sitting AND having lunch. It seems clear that Carolyn Arnold doesn't know who or where in the hell she saw someone or whether they werew standing, sitting eating lunch or not.

But wait....it gets better...

d. In March of 1964 she gave two FBI agents a SIGNED statement that made NO REFERENCE to seeing Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom at all, and in fact her 1964 statement doesnt mention seeing Oswald AT ALL. The only reference to Oswald in her 1964 SIGNED statement was that she said "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time President Kennedy was shot." And two of the women that accompanied Arnold outside to watch the motorcade (standing in front of the building) said that they did not see Oswald at all that day (Virgie Rackley and Judy Johnson).
e. So it appears Arnold's earlier signed statement (which contradicts Gerald McNight's claim that her original testimony stating seeing oswald at 12:25) proves that she did NOT see Oswald at any time on the day of the assassination. Added to that her shifting memory and floating details it becomes to serious researchers that Arnold's "recollections" are more fabrication than reality.

Additionally, Oswald claim that he lunch with two colored boys is flatly refuted by their statements since BOTH denied seeing Oswald when they ate their lunch. So it appears that in every instance loinda you choose to believe the words of Oswald (who we know was a proven liar) and ignore the testimony of his co-workiers none of whom had any motive to lie about Oswald on the day of the assassination.

lastly, your ridiculous explanaiton for the WC allowing SOME pro-conspiracy testimony in and editing otherout is jst too stupid to even respond to. Sorry.

Posted on May 27, 2012 9:20:13 PM PDT
Op, I won't discuss the Altgens timeline with you. The Altgens photo was altered, which is certain, and the presence of the alterations is proof that the time existed to accomplish them. That is true by logical necessity, so just cram it, Op.

And regarding Carolyn Arnold: she had no reason to lie, none whatoever. She wasn't Oswald's girlfriend or cousin or anything else. She had no reason to create an alibi for him. And she is just one of many witnesses who had their testimony corruped by the Warren Commission, another being Vickie Adams.

And likewise, Oswald had no reason to lie about his lunch. He wasn't using it as an alibi for the assassination. His alibi for that was the he was "out with Bill Shelley in front". So again, he had no reason to lie. And you're wrong: Junior did not deny having lunch with him. Like all ops, you lie and make things up, whatever you think you can get away with. Fetzer and Cinque are on the move, and you can't stop them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:45:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 8:16:17 AM PDT
I have to chuckle whenever a paranoid conspiracy kook calls me an Op. My students laugh their heads off when I tell them that.

Linda (Cinque), I honestly dont blame you for avoiding the timeline issue. That is the same reason why Jim Fetzer fled this forum, I wouldn't let him wiggle out of the impossibility of his claim. I expect you too will soon leave, because the timeline proves to a 100% certainly that Dumb and Dumber's theory is flawed right out of the gate.

Since that is the lynchpin of their whole charade I have no need to address your other claims. My timeline still stands unchallenged.

But I DO agree with you on one point: Fetzer and Cinque DO have a movement going--a BOWEL movement. I hope they soon finish so serious scholars can get back to work.

I have to assume that you got booted off this forum for a variety of reasons and now you've created the fake name of Linda hadley so you can sneak back in. Is there anything more hilarious than you calling me John McAdams or David Von Pein (both of which are lies) and yet here you are Cinque back again in drag posing as a woman. Your tactics have gone from just annoying to totally pathetic.

All over the Internet you are being locked out of discussion boards because people are simploy tiring of your dishonest posts, annoying repetition, and groundless claims. Here is what one moderator had to say about Linda "Ralph Cinque" Hadley over at the Educaiton Forum:

"I have restricted Ralph Cinque from posting for 72 hours whilst moderators discuss his future. They are having too much time reviewing his posts, asking for changes, and even then unacceptable behaviour has snuck through. Ralph will be able to view the forum but not post. Any member posting on his behalf will also be suspended from posting for 72 hours."

And this commentary by Josiah Thompson, arguably the most respected conspiracy theorists alive today, sums up much of America's thoughts:

"Given Robert Charles-Dunne's latest put down of the Fetzer/Cinque theater of the absurd, can this complete waste of time finally be given the burial it deserves? At the next explosion of gaseous fever, why doesn't everyone just turn away? If we don't continue replying to this thread, it will die a gentle death of old age with wilder and wilder conspiracy theories rattling around until blessed silence reigns. Not everything said has to be replied to."

And another humorous (and rather embarrassing revelation on Linda K. Hadley [Ralph Cinque]) Here is yet one MORe forum he has been banished from. Here are Raolph's own words telling his sad tale of censorship:

"Thank you, Len. At least you are talking about something of substance. But before I answer you, I wonder if somebody would get the word to Albert Doyle who participates on Lancer that he's dead wrong about the clock and where it was located, which we were discussing over there. Jerry Dealey, who runs Lancer suddenly locked the thread on me, so I can't do it myself."

Cinque, the walls are tumbling down around you. I can hear the cheering even here in the mountains of Idaho.

Posted on May 28, 2012 8:26:52 AM PDT
I am Linda Hadley, and I am a real person. I work with Ralph. But as long as you are quoting from Education Forum, let's take a look at Jim Fetzer's latest post. It explains why there was nowhere else for Oswald to be but outside during the shooting.

Jim Fetzer:
It seems to me that this post is another example of "researchers", some of whom are rather prominent, conveniently interpreting, in this case, Fritz shorthand, but in other cases, reports, records and documents from multiple sources, according to their own wishes. In this case, Parker is letting his bias prevail and not even pretending to be objective. But he is not only one doing that here. The worst offended--the champion in this category par excellence--is David S. Lifton, whose methodology here I am going to address when I have completed my trip. It's a case study in itself.

It would have made no sense for Oswald to say that he was out front with Shelley AFTER the assassination. That's because Shelley was not out front after the assassination. After the assassination, Shelley immediately left with Lovelady for the railroad tracks to look around. They were down the block before Truly and Baker entered the building. When they returned, Shelley and Lovelady didn't go in through the front; they went around to the back door and re-entered the building that way. And after that, they were inside the building for a good long while and certainly beyond the time that Oswald was there. They were certainly still inside the building when Oswald left.

So, since Shelley DEFINITELY wasn't outside in front afterwards to encounter Oswald, it would have meant, according to your interpretation, that Oswald was LYING. But, it made no sense for Oswald to lie about that. Oswald was not a stupid man. He would have known that if he made up a lie like that, that Fritz could have checked with Shelley and found out he was lying. If someone was lying, it was far more likely to have been Bill Shelley to undercut Lee's alabi. There are reasons to think he was even in the Altgens. And there is more about Shelley to which I am going to return.

And what reason was there for Lee to have lied about that? He didn't commit any crimes in his activities at the TSBD post-assassination. You (Parker) may believe that Lee committed a crime during the assassination, which is completely indefensible on multiple grouns. We know he was in and around the lunchroom before and after. We know his weapon was planted and that he was framed using the backyard photographs. But what reason do you or anyone else have to think that he needed to lie about who he saw or did at the TSBD AFTER THE ASSASSINATION?

Another indefensible element of your analysis is that it makes Fritz appear to have had no interest at all in Oswald's whereabouts DURING the assassination. Wouldn't he have had to have asked about WHERE HE WAS DURING THE SHOOTING and write down what the suspect told him? Was he only interested in what Oswald did AFTERWARDS? Fritz was interrogating a suspect in the assassination, was he not? How could Fritz not ask the ovious question or not write down his answer? And if that wasn't Lee's response to the obvious question, where else was it anwered?

This is an illustration of line of reasoning that just wasn't thought through very well. You're trying too hard, Parker. You are offring an ad hoc explanation to "explain away" obvious evidence that supports Lee's having been "out with Billy Shelley in front" during the shooring sequence. But it's hopeless. Oswald was innocent. He passed his nitrate test. He was clearly being framed. And we now know that he was actually outside standing in the doorway. You may have personal reasons for wanting to deny it, but the evidence supporting our position is overwheliming and is growing.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:11:15 AM PDT
Hey Norman Bates, no one is fooled. This post doesn't even address the issues I raised this is a cut and paste response Jim Fetzer gave to someone named Parker at the Ed Forum. Why post this nonsense on this thread? Geez Cinque you are clearly cracking posting these totally irrelevant responses of other kooks that deal with nothing being discussed.

Posted on Jun 1, 2012 6:07:48 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 1, 2012 8:57:54 AM PDT
The topic of this thread is: Oswald definitely was the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo. So anything that pertains to that is legit. And if you don't like it, Anderson, you know where you can go, and you know what you can do when you get there.

Now, here is Ralph's latest post on EF with accompanying graphic:

That left shoulder of Doorman really is missing. And just because people have the ability to trace a line around the margin of Doorman's shirt does not mean the dimension of his shoulder has been identified. I have seen those coloring experiments done by Duncan MacRae and others, and what they imply is that Doorman just dropped his shoulder way down low on that side. That is impossible, and I mean that it is anatomically impossible.

http://tinypic.com/r/2qdncd5/6

You can't move one shoulder down by itself. If you flex on arm, you can do that by itself, as an isolated movement. But, you can't just drop your shoulder. Your shoulder moves as function of your whole torso. So, it it involves the spinal column, and it invariably involves the other shoulder. If you drop one shoulder, you automatically raise the other shoulder. Think of it like a children's seesaw: if one child goes down, the other child must go up. It's the same way with your shoulders. We can see enough of Doorman's right shoulder to establish the plane of it, and from that, we know that he is not pinching up that shoulder. Here is the plane of his shoulders:

Therefore, he is not dropping down low his left shoulder. And he had no reason to do that. He's standing there watching the motorcade. Nothing would be gained by doing that. Kennedy had already passed to his right. So what did he do? He rotated a little to his right. Right rotation. That is the nature of what he is doing. He is standing there with a slight degree of right rotation. And I do mean slight because if it were more than slight, we'd see it more in the position of his head, which we don't. And he is securing that position by adjusting his whole torso; he is not doing something specifically with his shoulders. He has no reason to. He is not dropping his left shoulder. That would accomplish nothing towards his purpose. Plus, he could not do that without raising his right shoulder, which he is not doing. Rather, he is turning his whole torso a little to the right.

In the picture above, I have drawn in correctly the plane of Doorman's shoulders. That is both sides. And somewhere in the white of Black Tie Man's shirt is where the point of Doorman's left shoulder would be. I am tempted to draw it in, but I won't. And that's because I can't. You see, they also distorted his arm. As it appears, his upper arm is going up to his shoulder at an impossible angle. It is way too medial and awy too vertical. Again, it looks like he has no clavicle or an extremely blunted clavicle. So, it is impossible to connect his arm to the socket of his shoulder where it really would be.

And even the position of the lower part of his arm, his forearm, is askew. DOORMAN IS NOT HOLDING ON TO ANYTHING. I'll say it again because it is very important that you look at it and understand it. DOORMAN IS HOLDING ON TO NOTHING. There is nothing there for him to hold on to. Therefore, he is just swinging his arm over and holding it in space, in mid-air. Nobody does that. Nobody would. It is uncomfortable to do that. It is lots of work to do that. Try it and see. It starts getting heavy very quickly. And you can feel the tension going all the way to your shoulder.

What do people do with their arms? They let them drop. They let them dangle. They let them hang. They don't fall to the ground. They're always attached. They just suspend down whatever length your arms are. Just imagine a tire that is suspended from a tree by a rope. It's a simple suspension. That's what you do with your arms when you're not using them. You don't expend energy holding them up. So, that little swing of Doorman's arm to the inside may not look like much to you or to most people. They may not look at the picture and give it any thought. But, they should. And someone who is trained in kineseology knows that it isn't right. That too is an alteration.

P.S. And while you're at it, take a look at the black guy crouched down there. What the heck is he doing there?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 7:07:20 AM PDT
Interesting how Linda K. Hadley always advises those that disagree with "her" to go to hell. This is EXACTLY the same methodology and abusive language that got Ralph Cinque banned from Amazon.

Of course Cinque got banned from all the other sites for simply posting the same unproven allegations and ignoring contradictory evidence over and over and over. Ralph gets banned for a variety of reasons. But NO ONE is fooled into thinking that Linda K. Hadley is really posting any of these posts--anyone plagued with Cinque's posts sees his annoying writing style in "Linda" posts.

Amazon is looking into this as we write.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 11:39:21 AM PDT
Anderson, I am Ralph's girlfriend, business partner, and life partner. And since he can't be here, I am replacing him on this thread. And since I am a real person, I will explain that to Amazon if they contact me, whether it's by email, phone, or whatever. They'll have no trouble reaching me. Like a good little Nazi, you'd like to silence us through administrative means since you can't beat us any other way.

The Doorman was Oswald, and it's going to take down the whole edifice of JFK lies. You can count on it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 7:11:23 PM PDT
You may have duped some of the posters on this site Cinque, but I'm not fooled for one second. I have taught about 4,000 students over the years and read about 25,000 research papers. I can spot a person's writing style after about three entries and there is no doubt that you are lying through your teeth. The most hilarious point of all is that you falsely accused ME of being someone else for a long time until it made you look loike a moron, so you quit. Then YOU start doing the bery thing you falsely accused me of doing. You have no character credibility, no historical credibility, and no logical credibility.

I have no need to correspond with you and your nutty theories any longer, let others try to sweep back the ocean. I have better things to do.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 11:52:46 AM PDT
Your "sweep back the ocean" point implies to me that Ralph is correct, and his argument can't be held back by mere mortals. I don't think you meant to imply that.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 3:26:27 PM PDT
If you think that I would EVER imply that Ralph Cinque is correct about ANYTHING in his innane analysis of the Kennedy assassination then you certainly don't know me very well. My point was that sweeping back the ocean is an impossible task, iin a similar vein trying to talk reason, logic, or common sense to Ralph Cinque is an equally impossible task, since he doesn't respond to historical evidence in the same way a scholar would. Why do you think Cinque has been booted off of nearly every discussion board he has plagued over the past twelve months--no one can stomach his endless repetitions and vapid claims. He ignores contradictory evidence, he refuses to discuss points for which he has no answer (the chronology of the taking of Altgens 6 with its dissemination across the globe at 1:03). Therefore debating him is pointless. He doesn't debate. If you think you can talk reason and sensibility to Ralph Cinque then good luck--so far I havenb't seen any of your evidence make any difference. He is the textbook definition of a conspiracy cultist. I have dealt with conspiracy believers since 1975 and his claims have to rank among the most ridiculous, the most simple minded, the most innane. The fact that his Doorman Theory has garnered ANY serious debate is testament that some people will believe ANYTHING.

Good luck, I'll check back in a few months when you too have given up dealing with this kook.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 7:39:13 PM PDT
Not implying you thought Ralph was correct. Thought you merely mis-stated the analogy. I'm currently debating his second in command, Linda Hadley, elsewhere on this site, and I agree that he / she cannot explain anything you ask them. I disagree that he's among the worst. Pretty run-of-the-mill, based on my experiences.

Have you been reading the Education Forum at all? Even the most ardent Conspiracy Theorists are telling Ralph he's, to put it politely, got it all wrong.

Another ardent conspiracy theorist (Robert Prey) went on for nearly 200 pages on the Amazing Randi's site. That thread is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=222556

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 10:16:47 PM PDT
Henry, I would take the pink slisp for both my family car and my personal pick-up truck and lay them both on the table in a bet that Ralph Cinque is writing all of the posts under the guise of Linda K. Hadley. She hasn't written a single one of his posts. Cinque has been banned from this (and several other sites) for abusive and profane language but his ego won't allow him to remain silent, he HAS to keep repeating the same nonsense.

Yes, I follow the Mis-Educaiton Forum all the time but I wasn't aware of the Amazing Randi site. I will have to check it out.

Thanks for the thread link

SVA

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 6:19:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 5, 2012 6:19:46 AM PDT
Linda says it's Linda, not Ralph. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. ;)

Regardless, the important thing is the ideas discussed, not who is advancing them. I could be CIA-MOLE#1, and if my points are irrefutable, it doesn't matter whether I'm a CIA employee or not. Elsewhere on this forum, Linda called me a CIA mole, and now says she isn't responding to any of my points.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 8:54:12 AM PDT
"Linda called me a CIA mole, and now says she isn't responding to any of my points."

If Ralph Cinque has vowed to never respond to you again, Henry, then you are among the luckiest men currently alive on the planet. I say, "Let the celebrations begin!!"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 9:18:48 AM PDT
lol. I do miss feeling superior to him, though. I want him back so I can abuse him some more. ;)

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 5:02:28 PM PDT
Well...one more site has banned Ralph Cinque and Jimmy Fetzer's nonsense. Perhaps the nuttiest of all the nutty conspiracy forums has finally deleted the endless thread dealing with the ridiculous claims of Ralph Cinque and Jimmy Fetzer. The Education Forum, command central for every wacky conspiracy theory, every ridiculous claim, every unfounded allegation, finally deleted once and for all the galactically-stupid claim that Billy Lovelady was actually Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the second shot that day in Dallas. This theory was disproven forty-nine years ago, but no claim is too dumb, no allegation is to ridiculous, no theory is too innane for either Jimmy Fetzer and his new cohort in lunacy Ralph Cinque (Dumb and Dumber). But the Education Forum has finally taken a stand on this silly claim and deleted the endless thread of people attempting to disprove a theory that needed no disproving from its inception.

Whew...FINALLY Ralph Cinque and Jimmy Fetzer have been silenced one more time. There is still hope for humanity.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the JFK forum (118 discussions)

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
JFK: Judyth Baker's Pixel Analysis of Altgens6 photo proves Oswald is Doorman 9 5 days ago
Just exactly WHO is Ralph Cinque the struggling creator of the "Doorway Man" hoax? 414 5 days ago
JFK:Did Oswald shoot Tippit? Eyewitnesses:NO; Warren Commission:YES 8 Jul 14, 2016
JFK Blog Index: JFK Calc, Facts, Q & A, Media, Math, Debunking the Apologists 33 Dec 12, 2015
The disappoing position of the conspiracy nuts. 167 Nov 28, 2015
Exposing Coincidence Theorists (CTs) in the JFK Cover-up 32 Sep 2, 2015
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy 5 Aug 26, 2015
A Definitive Logical Mathematical Proof of a Conspiracy 611 Jun 29, 2015
Nov. 16, 5pm: Closing in on Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Kennedy" 0 Nov 16, 2014
JFK Assassination: Fritz notes Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" 5 Oct 26, 2014
The New JFK Calc Witness Spreadsheet: Absolute Numerical Proof of a Conspiracy 1 Oct 13, 2014
JFK Calc: 20 questions, 20 answers 2 Oct 13, 2014
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  JFK forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  54
Initial post:  Dec 29, 2011
Latest post:  Feb 18, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions