Jack White

Yes. That is a scan I made of Norton from a brochure he produced for one of his "businesses".

Jack

The Z film clearly does not depict actual events. THEREFORE, it is a given that all objections raised by non-believers

automaticallY are givens also. This is simple LOGIC, not a matter of whether it could be done or not.

GET IT? The film is provably NOT AUTHENTIC. So any objections regarding any other films or persons which may

seem contradictory MUST ALSO BE NOT AUTHENTIC. Regardless of theories to the contrary, ALL OBJECTIONS are invalid.

The logic of this cannot be contradicted. That is why "anti-alterationists" cringe at the thought of a faked Z film...all

their theories go down the drain.

Jack

I must repeat.

The extant film was NOT shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Therefore the extant film cannot be said to be an ALTERATION of a Zapruder film, but indeed a FABRICATION.

The extant film is a concoction, a fabrication, a cartoon, an animation based on guide films and genuine films.

It is less than 500 frames and was quickly made into its extant form to fit a required scenario. The limo turning

the corner was "removed", the limo stop was "removed", Chaney riding forward was "removed", Jean and Mary

in the street were "removed"...I could go on and on. Read HOAX, Costella tutorials, and Fetzer website. Everything

is spelled out in detail. Quit speculating.

Jack

To anyone who thinks the tall 5'11" Zapruder was on the pedestal shooting a film, please explain this:

This last one stuns me. Where did I ever say such a thing?

Can't you read English?

Whom is this directed to? Not me! What does it mean?

Jack

My take on the backyard photos of Lee Harvey Oswald? They are completely legit because Marina in the year 2010 says she took them. The Marina of 1963-1964 was completely controlled by the murderers of JFK.

I think backyard photos were part of LHO's sheep dipping operations; creating the fake "pro-Castro Marxist" persona that would be use to frame him posthumously, after they killed him.

You are completely out of your depth here, nullifying some of your good work on LBJ. If you think the

BY photos are real, you are exposed as a very shallow researcher.

Jack

I believe that Abe was a witting OR unwitting agent of the plot.

If you can show me an identifiable photo of Abe Z on the pedestal, it would help your argument. But alas, none exist.

All photos purporting to show him there are the result of retouching. How do we know? Zapruder was 5'11" and the

midgets shown on the pedestal in various known images show him from 5'2" to 5'6" (from memory), so the images

by necessity are false.

Jack

Are you serious? So I'm guessing that Marilyn Sitzman is in on it too right, Jack?

She sure looks the nefarious type...

Since Zapruder lied, Sitzman necessarily lied also.

Some may want to have a serious discussion, but certainly are repelled by such

juvenile hacking.

Jak

Not to worry, Jack ... we will get back on track soon. I do hope the moderators can make the last

few pages of totally off topic stuff invisible, or move it elsewhere.

Hope you had a very Merry Christmas, Jack!

Barb :-)

Thanks! You seem to be the only researcher actively trying to validate or invalidate the Baker information. I support your

efforts to determine the veracity of her "stories". It is very annoying to have serious research such as yours disrupted

by jokesters, and the "moderators" take no action.

Unlike you, I have done no primary research on Baker. I read what she says and what is said by those doing primary

research. Based on what she says and what researchers say about it leads me to believe she is a fraud or victim of

some malady. I look forward to any additional research or comments from you and other primary researchers. It is

an unfortunate distraction to real research.

Jack

Jack now you know that a great many 9-11 researchers do not buy the whole Wood, Reynolds hologram scenario.

In fact, I have recieved e mails from them about this since I mentioned it on BOR.

To imply that they do, and that you and Fetzer are leading the unified hordes is just wrong.

Most people with an interest in 9-11 understand the split that took place there after Wood and Reynolds started to go after Jones.

Fetzer was unceremoniously dumped and had to start a new group.

"The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][91]

Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer—such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers—were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule. By December 2006, Jones and several others set up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.[92] The original members took a vote on which group to join and the majority voted to move to the new group.[93] "

Jim...I cannot believe that you are so ill informed on these matters.

Jack

To Jack and Fetzer:

What I am saying here is an accurate interpretation of what your are clearly driving at.

You are clearly driving toward the point that Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film.

IF this is so, then everything else I listed almost certainly has to follow.

Have a nice time proving it.

Lifton had the courtesy to personally email me his post.

I post here in reply what I emailed him.

"I am not barking up the wrong tree on this.

I read Horne's book thoroughly. ANd I took notes.

As far as that statement goes, it is correct i.e. concerning whether or not the remains of JFK were taken off the plane, to another destination ie. Walter Reed, and altered there. Horne's book does not endorse this.

My reference was to Fetzer who endorses fully both you and Horne.

They cannot both me true.

Its as simple as that."

Just let me add one thing here. All this stuff going on here really worries me. Its one thing to say that CE 399 was substituted and to be able to prove it with firsthand testimony, and documents and a visual inspection of the exhibit. It is something else to say that somehow Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film, and was therefore enlisted in the plot beforehand. Are you now also going to say that he was given a preproduced film to show? Because if he was not there, he did not shoot the film. Therefore, the film is not just altered, it was manufactured beforehand. Besides the fact that there is no proof for this, it requires a magnitude of film sorcery that is breathtaking for that time. Plus it says that the plotters knew who was going to be there in advance! Since, clearly the film shows witnesses like Hill, Moorman etc.

This is what happens though when nothing is ever enough. As Ed Tatro has said, proving a conspiracy nine ways to Sunday is not enough for certain people. THey want to prove it 21 ways to Sunday and then like Jean Genet, they want to question the very nature of each and every witness and his evidence--even if that evidence proves conspiracy already.

Pardon me if I leave the room at this point. But the air is getting too thin to breathe.

Jim...everything you say about Z film alteration indicates a lack of understanding about the alterations which occurred.

This means that you cannot have read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX nor any of the several John Costella tutorials.

The "altered reality" is massively documented. The events shown do not depict what the closest witnesses say happened.

Taking only one incident and the closest witnesses, who certainly saw a horrible event indelibly imprinted in their mind,

please consider THE LIMOUSINE STOP. Read what Toni Foster, Bill Newman, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman all said about

about the limousine stopping, and then look at the film and tell me about the limo stop. This would be sufficient, but

there are dozens more indications of fakery. The LIMO STOP is but one thing not in the film which should be.

I do not like the term ZAPRUDER FILM ALTERATION. I prefer the term ALTERED REALITY. It is impossible that Abe Z

shot the extant film, so why call it the Zapruder film? I believe that Abe was a witting OR unwitting agent of the plot.

I also prefer the term ZAPRUDER FILM FABRICATION, since the total film seems to be based on a real film, but animated

or fabricated to alter reality. In effect, it is a special effects fabricated cartoon worthy of Disney.

If you can show me an identifiable photo of Abe Z on the pedestal, it would help your argument. But alas, none exist.

All photos purporting to show him there are the result of retouching. How do we know? Zapruder was 5'11" and the

midgets shown on the pedestal in various known images show him from 5'2" to 5'6" (from memory), so the images

by necessity are false.

Instead of poking fun at "alterationists", do a little reading, please.

Jack

Jim DiEugenio, on 28 December 2010 - 06:02 AM, said:

Tony:

Get ready for Judy Wood, dustification, Morgan Reynolds, and giant holograms.

Good advice. Then you will be up to speed on latest developments in technology.

Jack

One film even shows NOBODY on the Zapruder pedestal.

What about this interview then, Jack? Is Zapruder a xxxx here (a mere two hours after the assassination)?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BXsXFLEjKE&p=569A375DA8B51DE5

Zapruder was a xxxx and asset.

Jim:

You are saying that your buddy Schaeffer--who actually co wrote an article in Assassination Science-- never visited Wilkinson and her hubby, and that you never heard of this episode during which they had a disagreement?

Really?

Should I then describe their side of that visit?

BTW, if you are saying you abide by alternatives numbers 2 or 3, then you are clearly implying that Zapruder never took the Zapruder film.

IF that is so, then you clearly have to be saying that Zapruder was some kind of agent who decided to go along with a deliberate lie. ANd this had to be planned in advance. Because the alternative would be that they just told him everything off the cuff right after the assassination.

Therefore, Zapruder was play acting to his family, to the newsmen, to the processors at Jameson, to Rather and Stolley. ANd he signed a contract for something he did not do and film he did not take.

He then committed perjury in front of the Warren Commission, and again at the trial of Clay Shaw.

And not a peep of this huge deception ever leaked out.

This is what I mean about taking extreme positions.

Tell me when you have all the details worked out on this one Jim. Maybe there was a Second Zapruder.

Jim...you are getting way out of bounds. EVIDENCE shows Zapruder being five different heights, none of which are remotely

close to his actual height. It is YOU who are unfamiliar with the EVIDENCE...not Fetzer. In fact, one film even shows NOBODY

on the Zapruder pedestial. So it is you ridiculing Fetzer for being correct. It is you taking the extreme position.

Jack

Thanks, Duane.I urge all researchers to take a look at my videos FREE!

As for your questions about Marina, she is trapped by what she testified to in previous hearings.

I do not think she took ANY such photos. They are complete fabrications by the perpetrators.

Jack

Maybe Mr White can answer this how many tapes did Mr White release i had them at one time and i needed to sell them and i would like to find copies of them again.

Any help would be greatful

Mark...I produced 4 videos on JFK, but no longer sell copies. I have put them FREE on the internet,

but I do not have the URLs handy right now. I will look them up. You can watch all on your

computer.

Jack

I just now looked up the access to the videos. Click on:

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

Interesting information on 'The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald', Jack.

I was especially intrigued by the spilt face images, where it was obvious that it was not Oswald's face.. The two split face images, that didn't even resemble a normal human being, were chilling.

Thanks, Duane. I risked $20,000 out of pocket to produce the videos. Fortunately I finally recouped all the funds,

without ever realizing a profit. Having broken even, I have now made all the videos available on the internet for free.

Jack

Jack,

I watched the FAKE video this morning .. I never knew there was more than the one backyard photo, that was allegedly taken by Oswald's wife.

At first she was willing to go along with the official story of Oswald killing JFK, but later claimed that he was not only innocent of the assassination, but was working undercover for the CIA.. So if she is willing to go that far now, I wonder why she is still claiming that she took the backyard photos, if she didn't? .. Do you think it's still fear, or possible brainwashing that motivates her to stick that story?.. Or is there a possibility that she did take some backyard photos of Oswald, but they were either different photos than the ones we've seen, or the ones we've seen might have been taken by her, but have been doctored?

It doesn't make any sense that she would still be claiming to have taken those photos, if she didn't.

Jack White, the person who started this thread and is defending Fetzer, believes that the moon landing was faked and that the Pentagon was hit by a missile during the terrorist attacks that destroyed the 2 towers of the WTC.

The bottom line is that both Jack White and Jim Fetzer make claims that are in stark contrast with reality.

This posting is rife with errors:

1. I believe the the photos depicting the Apollo missions were faked. I have no evidence whether or not astronauts went to the moon.

you said on various occasions you think the landings were faked

2. I do not know what, if anything, hit the Pentagon. I only know that photos were fabricated and evidence planted. I do know that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

That you think the Pentagon was hit by anything other than a Boeing 757 is just as bad, missile drone, fighter of what ever the flavor of the month is. And he missed your goofiest theories

-the WTC towers were were not struck by jetliners.

- they "dustified" by "star wars" beams

- 6 WTC was light grey

3. There were NO terrorist attacks. People within the USG orchestrated the WTC attacks, using sophisticated weaponry.

4. Both Fetzer and I ARE in touch with reality and you are not.

In the future, when saying what I believe, please use these statements, not fiction you make up.

Jack

This posting is rife with errors:

1. I believe the the photos depicting the Apollo missions were faked. I have no evidence whether or not astronauts went to the moon.

you said on various occasions you think the landings were faked

This is FALSE. My most prominent study states the opposite. This is a deliberate deception.

2. I do not know what, if anything, hit the Pentagon. I only know that photos were fabricated and evidence planted. I do know that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

That you think the Pentagon was hit by anything other than a Boeing 757 is just as bad, missile drone, fighter of what ever the flavor of the month is. And he missed your goofiest theories

This is FALSE. For 9 years I have said AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. This is a deliberate deception.

-the WTC towers were were not struck by jetliners.

- they "dustified" by "star wars" beams

- 6 WTC was light grey

These statements are not false; neither are they correct. None of the three buildings that collapsed was struck by a hijacked jetliner.

The twin towers were "dustified" by sophisticated

means which are not yet known; WTC 6 had aluminum cladding matching the twin towers, so I suppose light gray is a good description of aluminum color.

3. There were NO terrorist attacks. People within the USG orchestrated the WTC attacks, using sophisticated weaponry.

4. Both Fetzer and I ARE in touch with reality and you are not.

In the future, when saying what I believe, please use these statements, not fiction you make up.

Jack[/color]

The moderators here are a joke! Ad hominem intended. Refusing to delete all the frivolous postings which have derailed

the thread proved that they are a joke. Some may want to have a serious discussion, but certainly are repelled by such

juvenile hacking. These people are indeed juvenile jerks. Ad hominem intended.

Jak

Jack White, the person who started this thread and is defending Fetzer, believes that the moon landing was faked and that the Pentagon was hit by a missile during the terrorist attacks that destroyed the 2 towers of the WTC.

The bottom line is that both Jack White and Jim Fetzer make claims that are in stark contrast with reality.

This posting is rife with errors:

1. I believe the the photos depicting the Apollo missions were faked. I have no evidence whether or not astronauts went to the moon.

2. I do not know what, if anything, hit the Pentagon. I only know that photos were fabricated and evidence planted. I do know that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

3. There were NO terrorist attacks. People within the USG orchestrated the WTC attacks, using sophisticated weaponry.

4. Both Fetzer and I ARE in touch with reality and you are not.

In the future, when saying what I believe, please use these statements, not fiction you make up.

Jack

I have been a close observer of both the JFK assassination facts and its researchers for over 40 years.

Many researchers know every detail of important aspects of the case that most interests them, such

as David Lifton on medical evidence and John Armstrong on Lee Harvey Oswald. DiEugenio is

strong on Garrison; Groden is expert on the official provenance of photos.

However, I know only two researchers who have an encyclopedic knowledge of every aspect of the

assassination. They are Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs. They both know the case inside out. Of course,

neither is perfect (Marrs thinks Files and Baker are truthful; Fetzer thinks Holt and Baker are truthful).

But on most facts of the case the total knowledge of Fetzer and Marrs stands unchallenged. Both

have amazing memories for all information previously encountered, and are good at synthesizing

and organizing and then presenting the information in a cogent manner.

Yet rather than benefit from this storehouse of knowledge, certain people here who fancy themselves

masters of information choose to disregard and dismiss Dr. Fetzer's grasp of facts, and when they

cannot refute his facts they turn to ridicule and ad hominem attacks (the last tactic of a loser).

I have studied the case since 1963, and during that time I have studied every bit of information

possible, and have learned to separate the wheat from the chaff. I know what facts are true and

which ones are not; I know which theories are true and which ones are not. But I do not have the

public persona of Marrs or Fetzer, so my views are not as well known as theirs. But I can say that

my views on the assassination are most often expressed by Fetzer and Marrs, except when they

wander into the swampland of Files, Holt and Baker (none of whose stories has any significant

bearing on the case).

Fetzer bashing has become fashionable here. In my view it shows the desperation of losers who

do not know the facts, or provocateurs who are assigned to oppose people who know too much.

This also is true in the case of 911, where Fetzer has the best grasp of the situation of any

extant researcher.

KUTGW, Jim.

Jack

No way.

Jack

Thanks Jack!

If you watched it, you see that in every speech, he emphasized the word PEACE. The MilIndComp needs WARS

to keep them in business.

Jack

Yes. The danger of allowing the Military-Industrial Complex to create/promulgate the illusion justifying the

"necessity for war" is what Eisenhower only "hinted at" in his farewell address. But, IMO, Ike had already gone

past the point of no return...he'd been compromised to a degree by then. He nonetheless warned us in advance.

By contrast, JFK was set on peace going into it. Why not? War hadn't worked so far...

John Lennon: "All we are saying, is give peace a chance..." -- and they killed him too...

There was a brief clip where Eisenhower remarked:

"No. As I said, I know the American people will stand solid and they will not be stampeded."

This was said when he was replying to reporters about the murder of President Kennedy. It appears at the very end of this YouTube clip:

Some other quotes by Eisenhower on war:

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."

"War settles nothing."

"Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative."

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war."

"There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs."

"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it."

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

"How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?"

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

Wonderful quotes from Ike! Summing up his campaign slogan, I LIKE IKE.

Jack

Thanks Jack!

If you watched it, you see that in every speech, he emphasized the word PEACE. The MilIndComp needs WARS

to keep them in business.

Jack

Will the moderators please remove all OFF TOPIC messages on this thread to restore its integrity?

Some serious researchers may wish to comment further on the Baker book.

Jack

Maybe Mr White can answer this how many tapes did Mr White release i had them at one time and i needed to sell them and i would like to find copies of them again.

Any help would be greatful

Mark...I produced 4 videos on JFK, but no longer sell copies. I have put them FREE on the internet,

but I do not have the URLs handy right now. I will look them up. You can watch all on your

computer.

Jack

I just now looked up the access to the videos. Click on:

http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html

Interesting information on 'The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald', Jack.

I was especially intrigued by the spilt face images, where it was obvious that it was not Oswald's face.. The two split face images, that didn't even resemble a normal human being, were chilling.

Thanks, Duane. I risked $20,000 out of pocket to produce the videos. Fortunately I finally recouped all the funds,

without ever realizing a profit. Having broken even, I have now made all the videos available on the internet for free.

Jack

...PEACE, and the MilIndComp objected:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=666048701355447870#docid=5335724479269105967

Jack

For some reason the forum software posts Part One instead of Part Two.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=666048701355447870#docid=5335724479269105967

This is the URL I copied when watching Part Two. Watch Part One, and then over to the right on

the menu column, open Part Two, which tells WHY JFK was killed. The documentary has five parts.

I recommend all five.

The forum software will not even let me write the URLs; instead it imbeds the video.

The videos are titled EVIDENCE OF REVISION, in five parts. You can find it by googling.

From interesting article on keepers of secrets: