Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Lamson just can't bring himself to cope with the arguments I have presented, for

the obvious reason that they are valid with true premises and have conclusions

that cannot be false. It is all BLUFF AND FAKERY. This guy has more moves

than a magician. Pamela has made the very sensible suggestion that Lamson,

Cobly and Unger (not by name) try something different, namely: TRY TO COME

TO GRIPS WITH THE ARGUMENTS THAT I HAVE PRESENTED. That would

be novel, but of course it does not suit their purpose, which is to make serious

discussion of this central issue in JFK research SO UNPLEASANT THAT MOST

MEMBERS OF THE FORUM WILL SHY AWAY FROM THE STENCH. Compare

my posts with their posts. One side is presenting evidence and arguments that

demonstrate--conclusively, I maintain--that the film is a fabriation. The others

are posting one nasty ad hominem after another and doing their level best to

drive anyone with a serious interest in advancing our understanding away from

the discussion. And of course he cannot resist introducing an abusive attack in

the form of a "definition", which displays the extent of their intellectual incapacity

to actually come to grips with arguments and necessity to resort to childish ploys.

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 shown here with Lamson.

Over the years MANY have "come to grips" with the weak arguments you have tried to make , and over the years they have been taken apart one after the other.

Despite of that you keep coughing up these hair balls over and over again, like they actually still had merit. Earth to Jim. They don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, you've had four years to disprove them. I have seen no such refutations.

You are all talk and no action, Lamson. WHERE ARE YOUR REFUTATIONS?

I think we all know what it means when you continue to post on ad hominem

after another. It means that's all you've got! WHERE ARE THEY? WHERE?

After four years, we are entitled to presume that my arguments are sound and

to accept the conclusions that follow. SO WHERE ARE YOUR REFUTATIONS?

Link to post
Share on other sites

over the last couple of years i have come to the conclusion that Fetzer is nothing but a BLOWHARD

who thinks that if he gets red in the face and barks loud enough, that he will force his opinions on other researchers.

NEWSFLASH

You Won't

The fact that he throws his support behind the Cinque entity, tells me that he is not an honest broker, and has a set adgenda.

Supporting KOOKS and KOOK theories, will not get you any respect or support from the majority of JFK Assassination Researchers.

Until now i have held back from criticizing you directly !

but i will remain silent no longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

over the last couple of years i have come to the conclusion that Fetzer is nothing but a BLOWHARD

who thinks that if he gets red in the face and barks loud enough, that he will force his opinions on other researchers.

NEWSFLASH

You Won't

The fact that he throws his support behind the Cinque entity, tells me that he is not an honest broker, and has a set adgenda.

Supporting KOOKS and KOOK theories, will not get you any respect or support from the majority of JFK Assassination Researchers.

Until now i have held back from criticizing you directly !

but i will remain silent no longer.

It is unfortunate when anyone is unable to put forth their position and argue it with respect in an open forum. That leads to a meaningful discussion. Bullying, use of fallacy, ad homs shut down a possible discussion.

Nobody has the right to claim without a doubt that their position is correct. They can attempt to persuade others that it is.

If two sides are unable to come to an agreement, they can agree-to-disagree and move forward.

All of this can be done with respect. Why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you've had four years to disprove them. I have seen no such refutations.

You are all talk and no action, Lamson. WHERE ARE YOUR REFUTATIONS?

I think we all know what it means when you continue to post on ad hominem

after another. It means that's all you've got! WHERE ARE THEY? WHERE?

After four years, we are entitled to presume that my arguments are sound and

to accept the conclusions that follow. SO WHERE ARE YOUR REFUTATIONS?

You know as well as we do, that your KOOK theories have been refuted OVER AND OVER AGAIN on multiple forums.

You just don't have the photographic skills to understand what is being presented to you.

and because you lack these skills, you choose the easy way out, by calling any apposing photographic evidence presented, as being FAKE FAKE FAKE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you've had four years to disprove them. I have seen no such refutations.

You are all talk and no action, Lamson. WHERE ARE YOUR REFUTATIONS?

I think we all know what it means when you continue to post on ad hominem

after another. It means that's all you've got! WHERE ARE THEY? WHERE?

After four years, we are entitled to presume that my arguments are sound and

to accept the conclusions that follow. SO WHERE ARE YOUR REFUTATIONS?

That you claim to have not seen the debunking of the junk "science" you pimp, does not mean they do not exist.

Here, let me help you find them.

www.google.com

You got no game Fetzer.

Heck even your ct closest friends have turned against you. And now you are stuck with Ralph Cinque.

That pretty much tells the world all they will ever need to know about Jim Fetzer and his search for "truth". There is none.

As much fun as it is to play whack-a fetzer, its getting really boring.

Keep fetzering...its all you have left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] Yes, the article was first pubished more than four years ago, but .......

I noticed that you put the word "new" in the title of the thread.

But the so-called "proof" is not new, is it?

So, did you just think it was new or were you trying to deceive us into thinking that it was?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

That was the title of the article when it appeared. Are you really making

such a silly argument? Everyone needs to give this situation serious

thought. Surely Pamela is not the only one to notice that Lamson and

Colby are bullies and thugs and that Unger and Graves are weaklings

who support them. But logic and evidence are not on their side. It is

too much to ask of the members of this forum to consider EVIDENCE:

There are dozens of arguments embedded in this article, the most obvious being the proof that Chaney motored forward:

Part of the power of Costella’s new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved:

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’”

There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Costella’s study provides additional citations.

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.

How could this evidence possibly HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED? If it had,

surely this brain trust would produce the refutations. THEY HAVEN'T

BECAUSE THE DO NOT EXIST. THIS EVIDENCE IS GOOD AS GOLD.

How can anyone seriously dispute the reports of Jesse Curry, Winston

Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, James Chaney and Bobby Hargis that James

Chaney motored forward to inform Chief Curry that JFK had been shot?

There is no basis for disputing it. But it PROVES that the Zapruder film

has been massively altered--as, indeed, do multiple other lines of proof.

So somethig is going on here beyond the search for truth re the death of

JFK--and it involves Lamson, Colby, Unger and Graves. Think about it.

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

Are you really THIS childish? Lamson and Colby assail me,

not with logic and evidence, but a barrage of ad hominems.

You and Unger go along with it, as though you did not notice

they these attack have nothing to do with my arguments. And

now you "pile on" (as in, "add to the pile" of BS) coming from

them--not with any reason or evidence of your own but some

very infantile remark. Do you have any idea how trivial all this

is making you appear? I'm not the only one to notice. Really!

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

Unger trys his best. I see the image of Chaney beside the lead car

under the TUP. He was left behind because he had come to a stop

to speak with Curry and had to get out of the way. Not only does

this "performance" of yours not undermine my position, it actually

strengthens it. Plus we know how easy it is to alter photographs.

Are you suggesting that Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest

Sorrells, James Chaney and Bobby Hargis WERE LYING ABOUT

CHANEY'S MOTORING FORWARD? And why would they do that?

You, like Lamson, are grasping after straws. You can manipulate

all the images you want and not thereby refute their testimony. OK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Officer Chaney thread

Been there done that

http://educationforu...opic=15281&st=0

Here is Martin where's Chaney ?

Limousineenteringunderpass.jpg

There he is, WAY BACK STILL UNDERNEATH THE OVERPASS.

jfkMcIntire1_Motorcycles.jpg

Robin,

Thanks for posting these two photos.

In the top photo, Officer Martin 's head is turned to his far right as though he's looking-at-or-communicating-with Officer Chaney (who is not shown in the top photo but is shown in the bottom one). Martin couldn't be looking at anyone in the Queen Mary in the top photo because it's already far in front of him...

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

At least you are making an effort to produce some argument,

which is fine. But our best sources about what happened are

not photographs but the reports of eyewitnesses. And these

are taken after the limo has sped past the lead car and taken

off for Parkland. So they really cannot answer the question.

Why are you not discussing what those involved have said?

Are you suggesting that Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest

Sorrells, James Chaney and Bobby Hargis WERE LYING ABOUT

CHANEY'S MOTORING FORWARD? And why would they do that?

Just reread their testimony. There really isn't any room for doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chaney rode up to Curry's car, said his piece and then backed off.

we should still see him in the backround in Daniel.

We don't

As in the Bell frame above, in Daniel we only see officer Martin

Chaney is no where to be seen.

As shown in McIntire Chaney was left behind, and if he spoke to Curry, i would assume that it must have been near the Stemmons Freeway on-ramp and NOT before.

Pdvd_398~0.jpg

Pdvd_395.jpg

Pdvd_397.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger
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...