Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Phelps

Veterans Today editorial on Jim Fetzer dismissing Zapruder Film

Recommended Posts

In my opinion, Mr. Fetzer is brave in his willingness to put life and reputation on the line to protect the American Constitution and the Liberties then-in offered to it's citizens.

LOL how exactly has Dr. F. "put life...on the line"? As for his "reputation" he pretty much blew that even among the JFK assassination and 9/11 Truth communities long ago and what exactly has he done "to protect the American Constitution and the Liberties then-in offered to it's citizens"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>New research by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others have established that none of the four crash sites was authentic, which means some kind of video fakery was taking place in New York >that we are now able to explain. (See “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11”.)

Why anyone continues to take absolute, utter nonsense of this ilk seriously is beyond me. It is an insult to the thousands of people who died that day.

A bigger question is, why is he pushing this crap on the JFK forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

There's someone here so gullible they believe that they've been

told about 9/11? Astounding! Here's the argument. Let me know

what I have wrong. It is the highest form of respect to those who

died on 9/11 to determine how and why they did, which the US

government has clearly not told us. So what do I have wrong?

"Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?" (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):

Part 1

http://archive.org/d...seattlejune1320

Part 2

http://archive.org/d...seattlejune1320

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Fascinating how many arrive to launch ad hominems or agree that ignorance is preferable to knowledge about the assassination! When am I going to hear from someone who is willing to come to grips with the evidence and explain what I am supposed to have wrong? Just identify what I claim, explain why I say it, then tell me what I have wrong and how you know. That's your agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

For the moderators: I am doing my best to be civil and not impugn anyone's integrity or intelligence, but that is most certainly not the case for Len Colby, who has referred to my work as "lunacy" and as "crap". I personally find it fascinating the DiEugenio has come to express his solidarity with Patrick Block (that we don't really need to know what actually happened as long as we can do a PR job in promoting the idea that a conspiracy was involved, which is my translation of his and Patrick's stance). But if that's their stance, then why not quit by observing that, since the Warren Commission locked up the documents and records on the ground of national security, when if its report is accurate, there is no "national security" aspect to the case, and let it go at that? Why bother to even investigate the case? Why prove the "magic bullet" theory is anatomically impossible or that Oswald was framed? Why not settle for the weakest possible argument? But of course then there is nothing more to say about it. And I am incredulous that "a little knowledge is enough" is being advocated here, when we know that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

How come Colby can make insulting remarks like these, which have no foundation, with impunity? I was put on moderation for less: "LOL how exactly has Dr. F. "put life...on the line"? As for his "reputation" he pretty much blew that even among the JFK assassination and 9/11 Truth communities long ago and what exactly has he done "to protect the American Constitution and the Liberties then-in offered to it's citizens"?" Are you moderators going to take appropriate action against him as you did against me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears my little thread on JFK and the Z-film has gone way off topic, as 911 and all that didn't exist in the JFK assassination. So, that 911 topic needs to go elsewhere. Stay on topic!

I did like this observation from an earlier listing: "Getting attention from a media circus by making wild assertions will get you on television, but such things are unproductive in getting to the Truth."

Such wild assertions also makes more money from making up more fantasy books, imho.

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, that few believe his latest poor attempts to revive stuff half the JFK researchers have shot down.

I have looked at the Z-film with a scientific eye and it matches all the other films and photos. But the Jim Fetzer game is to attempt to tell us that everything was remade in Hollywood. Such fantasy, imho, often sells books. I don't think fantasy book writing is about good forensics. Nor does it move us forward to say as a Community all 100 percent of America knows this Warren Commision Report was a fabricated lie and the real criminals went free, which was LBJ's and JEH big game against the People of the USA

One of the most glaring issues is the ultra-clear photo that ran in Life Magazine, but such is easily explained with hand held camera motion. Handheld cameras almost always have jitter and loss of detail due to the hand held jitter. Every once in a while the camera holder's motion becomes accidentally more stable and a frame or two in the whole film will become extra sharp compared to the average shake frames.

Now the Magazine's film splicers all knew this and they looked frame by frame for the most jitter free and sharpest images, and those were enlarged and printed in the magazine. Pure common sense they would do that.

Pretty simple to explain from just common sense camera experience. The Zapruder Film is still very valid, and what isn't is the conjecture and fantasy analysis to make up more sensational claims.

I also notice this little word game on the SS agent seeing a fist size hole in JFK's head, but did the SS agent say specifically the hole was where some of the Jim Fetzer clan attempt to place it on the back of JFK's head? I don't think so.

There was a huge hole in the top of JFK's head due to a large skull bone being knocked loose and the long defect along the top of his head. I don't think the Fetzer analysis has even figured out that two shots hit JFK's head in close succession. First one pushed his head forward and the second head shot pushed it rearward.

All this noise on 911 is just more of the attempts to derail the topic and keep others confused.

Like always, the Jim Fetzer analysis is just his opinion, and one that is so weak that it doesn't go far for the literate of scientific analysis.

Jim Fetzer is just, as always, trying to get up some momentum for a book which has little to do with the obvious realities of the JFK forensics. imho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come Colby can make insulting remarks like these, which have no foundation, with impunity? I was put on moderation for less: "LOL how exactly has Dr. F. "put life...on the line"? As for his "reputation" he pretty much blew that even among the JFK assassination and 9/11 Truth communities long ago and what exactly has he done "to protect the American Constitution and the Liberties then-in offered to it's citizens"?" Are you moderators going to take appropriate action against him as you did against me?

How exactly were my comments “insulting” do you deny that you“pretty much blew [your reputation] even among the JFK assassination and 9/11 Truth communities long ago”? As for the rest AFAIK no one ever claimed I had "put life and reputation on the line to protect the American Constitution and the Liberties then-in offered to it's citizens”

As for your taking umbrage over my referring to your work as "lunacy" and as "crap” you've said similar if not worse about the work of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's someone here so gullible they believe that they've been

told about 9/11? Astounding! Here's the argument. Let me know

what I have wrong. It is the highest form of respect to those who

died on 9/11 to determine how and why they did, which the US

government has clearly not told us. So what do I have wrong?

"Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?" (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):

Part 1

http://archive.org/d...seattlejune1320

Part 2

http://archive.org/d...seattlejune1320

LOL the 1st thing you "have wrong" is your belief anyone (outside a small group of cultists) would willing to listen to you blabber for nearly 2 hours. I watched just long enough to catch your 1st incorrect claim. It didn't take long; as a matter of fact in it came within 30 seconds of you starting to speak (1:20 in the video) when said you had “not endorsed” Judy Woods “Star Wars” theories regarding the destruction of the towers. That was bull and you knew it, you have done so several times. For example you wrote one essay in which you went over what you thought were the six possible explanations the last of which was “(h6) directed energy weapons: lasers, masers, or something like them" and shortly after continued:

"Here I must admit that, as a philosopher, I am at the borderline of my competence to resolve the matter. I have repeatedly explained why I do not believe that (h1) through (h3) can be correct. Here I go a bit further and explain why (h4) and (h5) also appear implausible to me. I am convinced that molecular dissociation took place, but I confess that I am not presently able to discriminate between alternative mechanisms for bringing that about. I presume future studies will resolve this."

LOL so you stated her theory was the only plausible explanation and were “ convinced that” something very much like it “ took place”. How it that not an endorsement?

Not surprised to see you had your Holocaust denying buddy in tow; speaking of which do you still deny there were 6 million "Jews in Europe at the time”?

EDIT - Added underlined phrase above, accidentally omitted from the 1st version of my post.

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

This is very odd (by citing an old article, long since superseded). I am going to ignore the ad hominems for which you are noted and observe that you are far removed from being familiar with the current state of research on what happened to the Twin Towers:

“9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/911-seismic-proof-video-fakery-inside.html

“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

"Is '9/11 Truth' based upon a false theory?"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

“Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/

“Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/20/judy-wood-and-dews-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/12/911-truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-ii/

“Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle” with Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken, Dr. Ed Ward and Dennis Cimino

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/29/mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle/

Very curious how you love to attack those who are doing serious research, which has never been associated with your name. But then again, those who are familiar with your modus operandi know that you are doing your part for the sake of a greater cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you missed it this is a JFK thread in the JFK forum. I have no interest in debating 9/11 with you here. Nor am I interested in debating Woods nutty theories nor equally kooky one like the towers were destroyed with neutron bombs. I only pointed to your denial that you had endorsed her theories because it was amusing that it only 30 seconds to make a false statement. Since you made an untrue statement about yourself in the 1st minute why should anyone listen to the remaining 155?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

I added some links about 9/11 because of the inquiries about it, but I certainly like

returning to the question of the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Here are the most

important articles about it subsequent to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003):

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.

The issues concern the content of the Zapruder film, not two trivial splices, which are well-known and

have nothing to do with the massive alteration of the content of the film to conceal the true causes of the

death of our 35th president. So if anyone wants to dispute the arguments I have presented, slug away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added some links about 9/11 because of the inquiries about it, but I certainly like

returning to the question of the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

No Jimmy no one 'inquired about' 9/11 Peter McGuire made brief mention of it, which you leapt on as an excuse to make a few lengthy off topic posts about it. The rest of your post was a repeat of one you made on page 1 of this thread. Do we really need to go over the supposed limo stop AGAIN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:33 AM

Sorry Jim [Phelps], but having read through the evidence presented by Jim Fitzer, I conclude that Jim is right on the money about the alterations and chain of custody issue with the Z-Film.

I think that Jim Fitzer gets a bad rap on this forum, not sure why. He is really one of the few who seemed to have picked up the battle flag and moved forward with meaningful JFK research, not to mention a forward thinking investigation into 9/11.

He was not the only one, since this nice post by Steve Kobor also appears here. Since there is a mountain of proof regarding the limo stop--more than 60 witnesses, Chaney's motoring forward, Clint Hill's consistent testimony, Costella's technical study, tose who have seen "the other film", the painting out of the blow-out, which can still be seen in frame 374, and more--why is it that every time I attempt to focus on THE EVIDENCE THAT THE FILM IS A FABRICATION, you show up with some distracting and provocative post that has next to nothing to do with the subject of the thread? I've dropped 9/11 here; let's get on with JFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:33 AM

Sorry Jim [Phelps], but having read through the evidence presented by Jim Fitzer, I conclude that Jim is right on the money about the alterations and chain of custody issue with the Z-Film.

I think that Jim Fitzer gets a bad rap on this forum, not sure why. He is really one of the few who seemed to have picked up the battle flag and moved forward with meaningful JFK research, not to mention a forward thinking investigation into 9/11.

He was not the only one, since this nice post by Steve Kobor also appears here...

You're right Steve also briefly referred to your 9/11 "research", so there were two brief mentions of it, one supportive the other dismissive but neither asked to expound on the topic. You initiated the 'distracting posts' on the topic I merely replied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...