Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Who cares? You are only here to distract from the arguments I have made about the Zapruder film. Everyone knows it. I would have thought you would be more subtle, but the arguments remain. And I notice you have not touched them because you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Who cares? You are only here to distract from the arguments I have made about the Zapruder film. Everyone knows it. I would have thought you would be more subtle, but the arguments remain. And I notice you have not touched them because you can't. Look in the mirror, and you'll see the person who started "distract[ing] from arguments...about the Zapruder film." And if you go back through old threads you'll see that I was one of the people who helped tear down your silly arguments, so I've "been there done that". Unfortunately on Z-film threads the same 'points' get recycled over and over and over...(with limited exceptions) I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Who cares? You are only here to distract from the arguments I have made about the Zapruder film. Everyone knows it. I would have thought you would be more subtle, but the arguments remain. And I notice you have not touched them because you can't. You don't have arguments about the Zapruder film, all you have is silly drivel. You standard fare. Let the Fetzering continue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 People: 1. 9/11 discussion belongs in the 9/11 sub-forum. Posts which discuss 9/11 and distract from the purpose of this thread will be moved to the 9/11 forum. 2. Please be civil! We'll be monitoring the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Did I miss something? Jim Phelps comes on and works a post in that says nothing at all about the arguments I have made--and we are supposed to take him seriously? Here are the arguments. Where are his replies? So far as I can see, NOWHERE. We have more than 60 witnesses who reported seeing the limo slow dramatically or come to a complete stop, where it slowed dramatically AS it came to a complete stop, where those witnesses include all four of the motorcycle escort officers, as follows: "What happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak" http://www.assassina...5n1costella.pdf We also know that Officer James Chaney motored forward to inform Chief Curry the president had been shot, which was confirmed by Jesse Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, and Motorcycle Escort Officer Bobby Hargis as well as Chaney: "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" http://www.opednews...._of_jfk_fil.htm We know that, for nearly 50 years, Clint Hill has described climbing on the trunk, pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, peering into the wound, observing a fist-sized blow- out and giving a "thumbs down", all before the limo had reached the Triple Underpass: "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" http://jamesfetzer.b...nt-hill-or.html We know that the original 8mm, already split film developed in Dallas, was taken to the NPIC on Saturday, the 23rd, and that a substitute 16mm, unsplit film, developed in Rochester, was taken there on Sunday, the 24th, where two different teams worked on the different versions: "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication" http://www.veteranst...lm-fabrication/ These NPIC events have been documented in spades by Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV: “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration” (with Douglas P. Horne) http://www.veteranst...lms-alteration/ “The Two NPCI Zapruder Film Events: Analysis and Implications” (with Douglas P. Horne) http://www.veteranst...d-implications/ We also know that a half-dozen or more have reported viewing another film, which appears to have been the original, including William Reymond, Rich DellaRosa, Gregory Burnham and several others, where Rich DellaRosa's description of its content appears as an Appendix to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX: “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?” http://www.veteranst...-zapruder-film/ And we have John Costella's precise visual tutorial about evidence internal to the film that explains how we can know that the film is a fabrication, where all of its frames had to be reshot to create the right sequence of "ghost panels", without having done such would have revealed the fabrication even to casual inspection. "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: An Introduction" by John P. Costella http://assassination...k</span>/intro/ We know that they not only removed the limo stop but painted over the blow-out in early frames and that the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, but that they overlooked that in later frames, especially in Frame 374, the blow-out can be seen, as I have explained in many places, including in this lecture: "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today" (UW-Madison, 22 November 2011) As I explain there, the limo stop was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be removed. In the process, they took out Chaney's motoring forward and Clint Hill's actions on the limousine. The painted over the blow-out and painted in the blob and the blood spray along the way. Phelps claims, "I generally find huge errors in Jim Fetzer's analysis, and not only I, but many others. Jim Fetzer has tried to sell so many totally flawed analysis on the JFK hit", but he never spells out the "huge errors". So I am calling his bluff: SPELL 'EM OUT, BUDDY, OR BE EXPOSED AS A FRAUD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) So I am calling his bluff: SPELL 'EM OUT, BUDDY, OR BE EXPOSED AS A FRAUD. Been done, over and over again...and like a cat with a hair ball they get coughed up all over again. Edited February 22, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Lamson is a broken record, with endless claims that he can't back up. This has been true as long as I have known him. The reckless disregard for evidence is the signature of Lamson's posts. If he could refute my arguments, he would; but he can't, which leads him to make OBVIOUSLY FALSE ASSERTIONS about how all this has been previously debunked. * Where is the refutation of the 60 eyewitness reports of the limo dramatically slowing or coming to a complete halt? * Where is the refutation of the reports of Officer Chaney motoring forward to inform Chief Curry JFK had been shot? * Where is the refutation of Clint Hill's consistent testimony over nearly 50 years of his actions taken in Dealey Plaza? * Where is the refutation of the original film arriving at NPIC on the 23rd and the substitute arriving there on the 24th? * Where is the refutation of the reports of William Reymond, Rich Dellarosa and Greg Burnham seeing the other film? * Where is the refutation of the necessity to reshoot each frame to be sure the "ghost panels" would come out right? * Where is the refutation of the wound having been painted over in early frames, yet being visible in later frame 374? * Where is the refutation that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, as Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman? I think we are making progress as it becomes increasingly apparent who does and doesn't care about the truth re JFK. Like Jim Phelps, Lamson has beome one of the premiere examples of irresponsible assertions about what has and has not been shown in relation to the assassination of JFK. Just review this very thread for multiple and convincing proofs. In addition, he ignores the appropriate dictionary definition of a key term and perverts its meaning beyond recognition: THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS: Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or, the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones involving complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again, as with Lamson and Phelps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 eck, eck...another fur ball from Fetzer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Lamson is a broken record, with endless claims that he can't back up. This has been true as long as I have known him. The reckless disregard for evidence is the signature of Lamson's posts. If he could refute my arguments, he would; but he can't, which leads him to make OBVIOUSLY FALSE ASSERTIONS about how all this has been previously debunked. * Where is the refutation of the 60 eyewitness reports of the limo dramatically slowing or coming to a complete halt? * Where is the refutation of the reports of Officer Chaney motoring forward to inform Chief Curry JFK had been shot? * Where is the refutation of Clint Hill's consistent testimony over nearly 50 years of his actions taken in Dealey Plaza? * Where is the refutation of the original film arriving at NPIC on the 23rd and the substitute arriving there on the 24th? * Where is the refutation of the reports of William Reymond, Rich Dellarosa and Greg Burnham seeing the other film? * Where is the refutation of the necessity to reshoot each frame to be sure the "ghost panels" would come out right? * Where is the refutation of the wound having been painted over in early frames, yet being visible in later frame 374? * Where is the refutation that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, as Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman? I think we are making progress as it becomes increasingly apparent who does and doesn't care about the truth re JFK. Like Jim Phelps, Lamson has beome one of the premiere examples of irresponsible assertions about what has and has not been shown in relation to the assassination of JFK. Just review this very thread for multiple and convincing proofs. In addition, he ignores the appropriate dictionary definition of a key term and perverts its meaning beyond recognition: THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS: Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or, the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones involving complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again, as with Lamson and Phelps. From the Urban Dictionary Fetzering 3 thumbs up Noun: 1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim. 2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you're wrong. therefore you are. 3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument. "to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook;" Not surprised to discover "Dr. Critical Thinking" is a Sandy Hooker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Fetzer what was the point of posting the same text and links three times in the same 3 page thread, do think they need to appear on every page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 No one, including you, is responding to the arguments I have presented. If you read more carefully, you will see I have added comments. If you and Lamson can't do better than this, simply admit it! You don't care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 No one, including you, is responding to the arguments I have presented. If you read more carefully, you will see I have added comments. If you and Lamson can't do better than this, simply admit it! You don't care! "The arguments" were 'responded to' years ago. It is unreasonable expect people to read an entire text 2 - 3 times just to find a couple of coments you may have added, why not post just those comments on their own or at least highlight the additions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 No one, including you, is responding to the arguments I have presented. If you read more carefully, you will see I have added comments. If you and Lamson can't do better than this, simply admit it! You don't care! "The arguments" were 'responded to' years ago. It is unreasonable expect people to read an entire text 2 - 3 times just to find a couple of coments you may have added, why not post just those comments on their own or at least highlight the additions? Len, Maybe because he wants you to read the whole thing again? --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 We know that's baloney. How can you have "responded to" (meaning refuted) these arguments, when no one has done that--and certaily not on this forum. If that were true, it would be effortless to repost them. SO WHERE ARE THEY? I think it's fair to infer from there absence that THEY DO NOT EXIST. So show me I am wrong by producing them. THERE'S THE CHALLENGE: PRODUCE THEM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 We know that's baloney. How can you have "responded to" (meaning refuted) these arguments, when no one has done that--and certaily not on this forum. If that were true, it would be effortless to repost them. SO WHERE ARE THEY? I think it's fair to infer from there absence that THEY DO NOT EXIST. So show me I am wrong by producing them. THERE'S THE CHALLENGE: PRODUCE THEM! You're pulling our legs right Jim?! This was discussed years ago in several threads totaling hundreds of posts; unless you inhabit some sort of Twilight Zone parallel universe or suffer from serious memory problems one has to wonder why you're rehashing this stuff now. Here are just a few of the threads: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11824 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12263 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12308 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now