Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Phelps

Veterans Today editorial on Jim Fetzer dismissing Zapruder Film

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Craig Lamson

Share this post


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


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

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :sun

Share this post


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

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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...