And now, we move on to Glenn Viklund, whom I have been battling for years- although it's more like swatting a fly. He's got his very own hate blog against me- in Swedish. He sent me the link. I guess he figured that since it's in Swedish, I'd be stymied.
But, it's amazing how effective language translation software is these days. Of course, it isn't perfect, but in this case, when you consider the source, who cares?
So, it's time to dispose of Glenn Viklund.
Keep in mind that time is always a valuable commodity, therefore, I am not going to respond at any of his general denunciations and slurring except to say: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never harm me." I shall only address concrete issues that he raises, and there aren't many.
In connection with articles about Staffan Westerberg, I mentioned some of the surrounding group of "independent researchers" who call themselves "Oswald Innocence Campaign", which Westerberg therefore is a member - and it refers to the group's founder, Ralph Cinque, as one of his mentors in JFK research.
Ralph Cinque, chiropractor. Founder of the OIC and passionate loudmouth.Really deserve this group and its founder, ignored, especially if one is interested in the assassination of President Kennedy. It involves research at a level that is so incompetent and subjective contaminated that it can be left without further comment. However, Cinque is not only incompetent, he is also the latest example of a classic loudmouth who instead of asserting rational and reasoned arguments, resorts to miscellaneous mischief, falsehood and personal mistakes against those he argues with that is beyond any ounce of sense and wit. Via blogs, facebook pages and other daily updates, Cinque creates a fictitious interest that far exceeds what the content of his message.A full-bodied and aggressive language attracts readers and creates probably one and the other supporters of this spectacle. Westerberg is not the only Swedish participant in the debates based in the US, for that reason, I think it may be time, perhaps as a preventive measure, to devote little energy to the Cinque et al and the circus, these individuals have succeeded in creating around the conclusions they want incite others to join in.Altgens 6. Picture taken by AP photographer James "Ike" Altgens. The basis for the OIC's conclusion that Lee Oswald, not Billy Lovelady, who appears in the door entrance to the Texas School Book Depository when Kennedy is assassinated and therefore innocent.
The background, in brief:Ralph Cinque took about three years ago contact with Professor Jim Fetzer, one in the US well-known conspiracy theorists, not only regarding the Kennedy assassination. Fetzer stands behind a long, long line of alleged conspiracies.
With drums and trumpets then declared Fetzer that now he had indeed received the proof needed to show that Lee Oswald was in the door entrance, when Kennedy was assassinated, and therefore could not be guilty of murder! The evidence for this? Yes, they now consisted of the Cinque had analyzed the photo above, which is usually called "Altgens 6", and concluded that the photo has been manipulated and that this was evidence that in fact it was Oswald who was in the door entrance. Cinque had concluded that the clothing complies with the Oswald but not Lovelady's. Moreover, had the hairline of the person who appears in the picture "cut from Lovelady" so that the resemblance could not be questioned. Subsequently, since Ralph Cinque via various blogs and Facebook groups fully drenched these forums with all sorts, new and amazing discoveries of additional counterfeiting and foul play. Daily, often through several tedious posts, Cinque "proved" how "they" [They] manipulated the photos, witnesses and others. What evidence is, or what "they" are, was not explained. Otherwise, therefore, than this is the result of the analyzes Ralph Cinque behind.
That's right, Viklund. The clothes and the man are both a perfect match to Oswald. Put this on your blog and stoke it.
Now, it would also involve enlisting other members. Preferably ones that have some type of academic letter combination associated with his name. These had to ride in the fast lane, straight into the privileged groups that can boast the title of "senior member of the OIC." Others who were recruited were well known personalities in JFK's research, all the critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions and convinced of a conspiracy. Therefore it is not surprising that Staffan Westerberg should belong to the party. As we have seen through other posts I have written in this blog, Staffan Westerberg, to put it mildly, is a very reliable conspiracy advocate.And since Jim Fetzer some years before the OIC was founded had been campaigning very strongly for Judyth Baker, she would naturally also be accommodated in the renowned company. The problem of the Cinque do not believe her story, it was decided to keep quiet about, the hatchet would be buried. That way everyone would be happy and to have the freedom to pursue their own escapades as usual. And no one could deny that the Baker, though she was controversial all around, would also be a big draw, she had, among other things, its own fan club via facebook. As long as the arguments in no way conflicted with the Judyth Baker was who she claimed to be, she would probably be able to set up at the time that the OIC had to offer, certainly went the reasoning. Good so!
Judyth Vary Baker, who in 1999 came forward and claimed to have been Lee Oswald's mistress in 1963.
Jim Fetzer at the helm, therefore, that the Society's most exalted and prominent member, the chairman and the ubiquitous Ralph Cinque this could not fail. Now the critics would be overcome by a storm of participation in various discussion forums on the Internet. Fetzer was already up and Cinque had no problem getting admission in the most exclusive research forums even though he was in relation to the JFK assassination was a completely unknown capacity. No one had ever heard of this person, in this context and it could of course be considered as an advantage if one only managed correctly?
Win them over!Jim Fetzer took advantage of course the channels he had access to. Via its own podcast, the Real Deal and by his chronicler status at the perhaps better-known online magazine Veterans Today drummed the message out. Oswald innocent! Oswald in the doorway! We have evidence! That critical voices in the media never allowed to answer, was no problem for Jim Fetzer. He had always done what he could to at any cost silent or denigrate those who deigned to have other opinions than he himself propagated. He always talks about the importance of free speech everyone knew that it was just the usual chatter. And if Fetzer was trying to spread the message that there was absolutely nothing against the veritable cascade of post Cinque represented in the forum he attended. Tell passion!Slowly it began to be clear that the Cinque's argument does not quite measure up. What was really his qualifications in photo analysis? Had his analysis certified by professional photo analysts? As the questions became more and additionally unanswered raised now pitch. What initially could be described as' reluctance quickly went to purely condemnation of the arguments. And what was worse, this was the forum which is largely populated by researchers which of course was the conspiracy advocates, how in the world could they be so critical? This had Fetzer and Cinque served them the evidence that Oswald was innocent so long been looking for?So perhaps it was inevitable, these eminent men, Fetzer and Cinque, was thrown out of several forums, one by one. The world is unfair, they had both evidence and argument! To take an example, here's what administrators at Deep Politics Forum citing as Fetzer fell for the ax:"This promotion of" Oswald in the doorway "as the smoking gun That Proves Oswald's innocence is deeply disturbing, as it will inevitably be shown as a massively overstated the interpretation of the available evidence and thus tarnish the Efforts of the entire research community. Indeed, why is it That just before the 50th anniversary of the public slaughter of JFK, Fetzer and co announce the ridiculous vehicle known as the "Oswald Innocence Campaign"?The world may indeed be a real bitch, this forum in question consists of course also undertaken by only the most dedicated conspiracy advocates to be found? "Violent over-interpretation of available evidence"?Well, this is discouraged, of course, neither Ralph Cinque, or Jim Fetzer. Do they not understand that they have the truth in front of your nose then it's their problem, seemed to be the motto. Now launched new Facebook groups, it was just to take the new tag. And here found the Cinque their retreat, the gratitude! For this, he needed no longer put up with the old foxes devoted decades to the JFK assassination, and even though they said to be conspiracy-oriented behaved as the worst of enemies! No, this was nothing but fresh new faces and opinions. Not to Cinque knew who they were or if they had any knowledge of the murder, only in exceptional cases he had ever heard of these people. But it did not matter, the majority was damn nice and then he was actually a lot of praise for success in research! I think hell the Cinque felt more among these new abilities!No, there was instead a few stubborn blogger who refused to let the Cinque free in the internet ether. Each argument in Cinque's blog responded stubbornly and persistently by bloggers like Joe Backes and Robin Unger, signatures Bpete1969 or Lancelot uppercut. And they did not give up, despite persistent attempts by poor Ralph by threatening to both lawyers and lawsuits. That it was not only this; Cinque was now banished to the only forum he has not been ported from - John McAdams alt.assassination.jfk. Thus, the forum where the majority are convinced Oswald's guilt. As I said, life is not fair!
You're not saying anything here, Viklund. It's just blah, blah, blah, blah. And why are you applauding Joe Backes? He doesn't agree with you. And Lance Uppercut believes that Oswald was in the doorway- just as another figure, Prayer Man. You like that better, do you?
For some reason it starts often fall into email from an anonymous server based in the Czech Republic to the Cinque debated in public forums and through blogs. The e-mails, however, contains nothing but prepubertal and obscene tirade against these beneficiaries. Ralph Cinque is obviously with great emphasis and customary passionately declared that he was indeed "have nothing with these e-mails to make and that he goes to court against those who claim this."
Viklund: I have NEVER used an anonymous server based in the Czech Republic or anywhere else. That is a vicious lie. And despite all the disappointments became the winter and spring of 14-15 if possible, even worse. First this:What is hidden in snow coming up in the thaw; ultimately caused the then Judyth Baker decisive crash. She was the reason that Fetzer and Cinque after two years of failed attempts to convince the world about the OIC's "inevitable truths", threw in the towel. Surprising? Not at all. Fetzer's allegations that the Cinque's linguistic pirouettes could be the reason, seems both ridiculous and untrue. Everyone who followed the debates knows that Fetzer is at least as good as Cinque when it intends to use language that is anything but civilized.Jim Fetzer never change. He would have to choose, it was obvious that the Cinque would be sacrificed. Fetzer's support Judyth Baker is about much more general context of Fetzer's world of how the murder went to; where Baker has a given place unlike Cinque.For Fetzer's part of it was also completed written on Veterans Today. After a conflict with the editor in chief, he was thrown out also from this facility to propagate, indeed not just the OIC, but as I said a number of other conspiracies. Articles are still there to take part of the who might be interested.So after Ralph Cinque in March 2015 announced that there was now a new and qualified chairman of his OIC, Prof. James Norwood, was enough to get that responded when the other day, just a few months later it was clear that he too threw in the towel. But this time the criticism of Ralph Cinque even more detailed and in particular about the details of Cinque's stubbornness regarding Altgens 6:"(2) Eyewitness Testimony: In the Warren Commission Hearings, seven witnesses Identified Billy Lovelady as the man in the doorway. (I am not including William Shelley's ambivalent testimony.) Were all seven witnesses who Identified Lovelady guilty of perjury? Were They All Mistaken In Their recall? Were They All coerced into giving false testimony? After fifty years, not a single one of These eyewitnesses ever recanted his / her testimony. The weight of the evidence here is on the side of the eyewitnesses who Identified Lovelady in the doorway.
That's a lie, Viklund. There weren't 7. And most important: Lovelady never told the Warren Commission that he was Doorman, and he wasn't even asked. He was only asked to draw an arrow to himself on the photo, and when he finished, it was never stated that he drew it to Doorman. And he didn't. In fact, he drew it to Black Hole Man.
There are only two marks on the photo, Viklund. It's Frazier's arrow on the left, the big arrow that is mostly in white. The only other mark on the photo is the little line that we see on Black Hole Man's forearm. It is the tail of Lovelady's arrow. Now, if you think that's wrong and that there is another arrow in the black pointing to Doorman, then you find it. I'm waiting. Until you do, the default goes to what I'm saying. (3) OSWALD'S OWN WORDS: Oswald himself had ample opportunities from Friday evening through Sunday morning to proclaim his innocence by simply Stating That he was standing in front of the building observing the passing of the motorcade. Oswald was captured on camera in an agitated state, crying out, "I'm just a patsy" or "I emphatically deny These charges." But he never proclaimed, "I was standing in front of the building at the time of the shooting . "One reporter pointedly asked Oswald the question," Were you in the building at the time? "It was at that moment, more than any other, thats Oswald shouldhave Answered loudly and Clearly That he was standing out front, if That is where he was at 12:30 pm on November 22 Instead, Oswald Clearly informed the reporter That he was inside the building. The weight of the evidence here is on the word of Oswald himself, who publicly Stated That he was in the building and not standing on the steps outside. "
Oswald's own words? How about: "I was out with Bill Shelley in front"? How could he even know that Shelley was out there unless he was out there himself? And if you want to claim that he was there, briefly, and he saw Shelley, and then he rushed upstairs to do his dastardly deed, there wasn't enough time.Norwood has also stated some other oddities. Among other things, that a third of those listed as the Society's senior members can not be reached because the Cinque "do not have their e-mail addresses". Or about the fact that Cinque often portray their personal opinions as if they thoroughly discussed among the members, which obviously did not happen.
Every member has given me his email address, Viklund. The problem is that I forgot to add some of them to my address book, and they got lost in the shuffle. However, there are a few members who are old and struggling, and they are definitely not going to be active members. Mark Lane is 88. Gerald McKnight is 90 and suffering with cancer. I am simply honored that they were willing to put their names on our roster. Now you may ask someone why Professor Norwood no involvement in this church? There is of course a good question. I think part of the answer lies in the article I refer to below, that Norwood then wrote a few days ago. Some of the OIC's members seem to have joined the group for a bit obscure conditions. You have not really understood that * everything * that constitute its foundation rests on the absolute conviction that what Cinque come to regard the elks 6, is sacred, and in no way permitted to be questioned. Norwood regard this Oswald innocent, but the position does not rest on Altgens 6. A not uncommon view among conspiracy advocates and I think much more of this group belong to the same category.Some of the reasons for Norwood's hesitancy is exactly those I previously raised here on the blog; witness statements support exclusively to Billy Lovelady, not Oswald, was in the entrance door when the shots rang out. And perhaps most telling of all - Oswald himself claimed that he was inside the building, not outside of it. One may be convinced that Oswald had stood in the door entrance so he would obviously have trumpeted this to the assembled world press, he on several occasions over the weekend, he was interrogated, workshop founded by. The Cinque ignoring these crucial factors are not that Norwood now actually take up this honors him.
What happened with James Norwood, Viklund, is that he simply changed his mind. He definitely was, originally, an advocate of Oswald in the doorway. He even wrote articles about it for the OIC website. First, he became skeptical about the timeline for Altgens photo alteration, and then, he abandoned Oswald in the doorway completely. But, James has got some soul-searching to do because not only does he have to answer for this:
But, he has to address the fact that there is no collage of Lovelady and Doorman that comes remotely close to working, to matching. Furthermore, James has never placed Oswald anywhere else. If he wasn't in the doorway, where was he? And don't tell me the 6th floor because he wasn't there. That is utter nonsense. And Judyth Baker? She avoids both Ralph Cinque and the OIC. Calmest so, Cinque saves rarely pull any punches when it comes to criticizing Baker. She also busy with their homegrown assurance of his own excellence, in one of the seventy Facebook groups and blogs, she now uses.********************The OIC is an abomination. A dysfunctional organization with a dysfunctional management and with a corrupt and wrong message. Hopefully this joke in history is a bizarre bracket in JFK research, and it will be gone pretty soon.
What the OIC is going to be pretty soon, Viklund, is bigger and stronger. You need to understand something: there is no longer any doubt about this. Oswald was definitely the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo. The visual match between Oswald and Doorman is way beyond the threshold of certainty.
And nothing matters more than these images. This is information that goes directly from our eyes to our brains, depending not a bit on anyone's lipflapping. This is all we need. Yet, we do have more. We have Oswald saying that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." We have his Marine buddy Anthony Botelho identifying him in the Altgens photo. We have the complete elimination of anywhere else but the doorway for Oswald to have been- once you rule out the 6th floor, which you can easily do. Oswald was in the doorway, and there is nowhere else he could have been even theoretically.
Viklund, these images are like the cross used to stop Dracula. And when it comes to fighting, you couldn't win a battle against a Swedish meatball.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.