Thursday, February 4, 2016

That's Jim DiEugenio, the head of CTKA. For some reason, not having much to do, he wrote a two-part hit piece against Jim Fetzer which starts here:

I am not going to address what he wrote about Jim Fetzer because Jim Fetzer is perfectly capable of responding himself, which I know he will.  But, DiEu also mentioned me and made some attacks against me and the OIC, and I will address those.

DiEu referred to me and my "Doorway Man theory." Now, you would think that a guy who has his own Doorway Man theory would at least admit it. 

Haven't you heard? DiEugenio joined the Praymanites. 

So, DiEu thinks that that's Oswald and that he matches Oswald better than this guy:

Perhaps, DiEu has changed his mind, but the fact is that, in the past, he has vouched for Prayer Man as Oswald, and he should have come clean about that.  It's called truth in advertising. 

Then, DiEu made this statement about what I claim on the OIC website.

"In a nutshell, what they were saying was that in the famous Altgens photo, the facial features of the figure in the Texas School Book Depository doorway were done over in an attempt to hide its, i.e., Oswald’s, identity. The object was to make it appear that it was Billy Lovelady. In other words, the photo was altered."

No. That is NOT correct, DiEu. What we say is that the face is Oswald's, and our chairman Larry Rivera has done the most advanced and sophisticated software analysis to prove it, using facial overlays. 

What the alterers did was leave Oswald's facial features alone and move over only the top of Lovelady's head, his crown, or you could say, his cap, giving him the same hairline as Young Lovelady from the 1950s. 

Do you see how well those hairlines match? And not just the hairlines, but the length of the hair, the lay of the hair, the cut of the hair: everything. But, that's impossible because Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man who couldn't possibly have the same hair in 1963 that he had in 1957. 

Have I mentioned how upset I get when someone misrepresents my work, DiEugenio?

DiEu styles himself as a scholarly researcher with high standards, but his standards aren't high enough to describe my work accurately. 

Then, DiEu claimed to know that the FBI did NOT tell Billy Lovelady to wear the same clothes that he wore on the day of the assassination. But, that's just what the FBI later said. It's just a revisionist statement, and it's belied by the fact that they had Lovelady unbutton and spread open his shirt like Doorman.

I put that arrow there because it looks to me like Lovelady, or perhaps one of the FBI agents, nudged the shirt apart at that point to give it more of a gaping look like Doorman's. But, why would you do it at all unless it was the same clothes? Why would you attempt to recreate the look of Doorman unless you were wearing the same clothes that he wore?

The fact is: the incompatibility of the Lovelady's posing clothes with those worn by Doorman sailed right over the heads of the FBI agents. Too bad.  

So, the FBI put it in writing TWICE that Lovelady stated that he wore those clothes, the striped, short-sleeved shirt and blue jeans, and then they photographed him in those clothes and configured them like Doorman's, and just because they later reversed the statement, we are supposed to believe them?

There's this thing that people do, DiEugenio. It's called lying. 

And, if you are going to believe them about that, then why don't you just believe the FBI about everything, DiEu?  You might as well.

Then, DiEu made this statement:

"Further, a central tenet of Fetzer and Cinque was that the Doorway Man figure was wearing a V-neck undershirt. Yet when one looks at Robin Unger’s finer resolution of the photo, to put it kindly, this is not readily evident."

Actually, it's pretty darn evident even in Robin Unger's version:

Remember, we are not claiming that it was a store-bought v-neck t-shirt. We're saying that it got made that way by Oswald's habit of tugging on the margin, which stretched it and deformed it. That's what happened; that's what we're claiming; and that's what we're seeing.

Then, DiEu essentially admitted that it does look like a vee, but it's just an illusion from a chin shadow. 

First of all, make up your mind, DiEu. Either it looks like a vee or it doesn't. 

And listen, DiEugenio- you hapless moron: you can't talk about this and make claims about it without demonstrating. Show me the photographs of chin shadows that are laid down so perfectly and symmetrically that they make round t-shirts look vee. What you're claiming is an optical illusion. I'd say that it's a one in a million shot except that it doesn't even happen that often. It hasn't even happened once. There are NO examples. Doorman's t-shirt looks vee because it was vee. 

There is shadow which appears grey over the t-shirt, but the claim that there is white t-shirt beneath the inky blackness is insane. 

And, if you're going to deny that that's a v-shaped opening, DiEu, then the burden of proof is on YOU. You're the one who has to produce images to prove otherwise; not me. And the burden of proof is pretty damn high. But, you haven't offered any images at all; you just flap your lips. 

Then, DiEu claimed that Oswald changed his shirt after he left the Depository. The basis for that claim? Pat Speers said it. 

"Thus the shirt that Fetzer claimed Oswald was wearing at the police station was not the same one he was wearing before the assassination."

Then, how, DiEu, did this bus transfer ticket, which Oswald admitted was his, get into his pocket? 

You think that was all a conspiracy? The Dallas Police schemed it? They planted it, did they? When? And how did they come up with it so fast? It was entered into evidence at 4:00, which was 2 hours before McWatters was even found. 

Oswald's first interview didn't start until 3:15 to hear what he had to say about what he had done. So, how could they decide to fake that he rode the bus and actually get the transfer ticket by 4:00? 

And, why did Oswald go along with it? Was he part of the conspiracy to frame himself?  He admitted that he rode the bus and cab, and he also admitted getting the bus transfer ticket. He identified it as his. And don't tell me he transferred it from one shirt to another because that is ridiculous. He wasn't even riding the bus again. 

Then, DiEu went on to misrepresent my work about Lovelady in the squad room:

"Incredibly, at the conclusion of this eventually locked thread, Fetzer and Cinque then tried to bring up this issue again. Except this time they now argued that in the film inside the Dallas Police station, it wasn’t actually Lovelady. Lovelady had been substituted by an actor."

By itself, that would seem to indicate that they had an actor there on November 22, 1963, and that is not my claim at all. My claim is that nobody was at that desk- not Lovelady and not anyone else. It wasn't even the kind of desk at which anyone would sit.  Years later, they squeezed a Lovelady impostor into the footage because it was the only place they could think of putting him.   

Let's review the known facts:

1) There was NEVER any mention or citing or showing of Lovelady in the squad room until the HSCA. All those years went by and all that debate, and nobody but nobody ever noticed him, even though it was, supposedly, in footage taken on 11/22/63.

2) Lovelady never claimed to see Oswald there; ever. He didn't claim it during his WC testimony, and he didn't claim it in 1976 when Ken Brooten informally deposed him for the HSCA. Brooten asked him specifically when was the last time he saw Oswald, and Lovelady said when they broke for lunch. And not even his chatty wife broke in to remind him about the squad room sighting. So, neither one of them knew anything about it.

Both times, he was asked directly when was the last time he saw Oswald, and both times he said when they broke for lunch. 

Others mentioned seeing Oswald at the PD but not Lovelady.  

3) The man in the footage sitting at the desk doesn't look remotely like 26 year old Billy Lovelady.

That guy doesn't look like 26 year old anybody, and if you told me he had a 26 year old son, I wouldn't argue with you. 

Then there is another version of him in which he looks totally different.

This guy doesn't look anything like the other guy, and his shirt is configured totally different. Yet, it's supposed to be the same guy at the same moment in time and space.

DiEu, you have some nerve to even discuss this without showing the images. It's all about imagery. So, how can you possibly claim anything, make any kind of rational argument, without showing images and pointing out things in the images? It's plain as day here that these two guys have different hair, different ears, different builds, different weights, and different shirt configurations. They are different men! I asked you once on EF to estimate the weight difference between them, and you sheepishly said 10 to 15 pounds. I dare say it's quite a bit more than that. But, even 10 to 15 pounds is a very real difference. How can one man be of two weights 10 to 15 pounds apart on the same day? So, even your low-ball estimate proves that they cannot possibly be the same man. 

That about covers DiEu's hapless critique of my work. 

DiEu: you didn't land a glove. You didn't lay a scratch on the chrome.  What, do you think I have to go to the OIC website now and take things down or start editing? I don't have to change a word.

Fact: it is Oswald standing in the doorway of the Altgens photo, just as Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones, Jim Garrison and other prominent researchers observed and maintained. Lovelady did wear a short-sleeved striped shirt on the day of the assassination, which we can see on him in the Couch film.

Therefore, all the images of Lovelady in a plaid shirt on 11/22/63 must have been faked. 

DiEugenio, I have to wonder if you're not really a CIA or FBI agent yourself and that your job is to do dis-info by pretending to be a JFK skeptic. We know that they work both sides of the debate. David Talbot wrote about it in his book, The Devil's Chessboard. He even gave it a term, although I forget what it is. But, instead of denying it, tell us what you do for a living. What do you do for money? Because you seem to be at this JFKing full-time, and you have been at it full-time for a very long time. Decades. And, it doesn't look like you've missed any meals. And don't tell me you live off sales of your book or paid speeches that you give because that I would not believe that for a New York second. So, how do you live, DiEugenio? 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.