Jack White Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) "If you believe that Greer shot JFK from the driver's seat with a chrome revolver, you really are drinking Fetzer's Cool Aid. He was trying to sell that delusion back in the early nineties." Am I allowed to say that this statement is the antihesis of truth? Jack Edited March 5, 2008 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) ...IMHO,Taking YOU on, personally, is another matter entirely. You have done so much to prove the authenticity of the Z film, Moorman position in taking her photograph, etc. that any mistakes found in your work, including typos, are probably being done to create a "feather in the cap" of the poster. ... my-goodness, I had no idea research into JFK's assassination, The Warren Commission Report AND The Zapruder Film stopped after the publication of Dr. Thompson's 6 Seconds in Dallas, Kathy? Look, Josiah Thompson, David Lifton and Oliver Stone (whether you believe any of three or not), have done more in bringing attention the conspiracy side of this case, than anyone alive today or any other time, for that matter. The three above are apt and capable defending the entire scope of their work, if YOU have any doubt, ask them... with that said: I guess we can all fold this Ed Forum tent and go home, eh? Is your above patronage (potential bias[es]) part of a mod's job description? Can we get back to the technical aspects regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder film, you know the stuff no one wants to touch? Finally, you may rise off of bended knee now, I'm in the house! LMAO! Edited March 5, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 my-goodness, I had no idea research into JFK's assassination, The Warren Commission Report AND The Zapruder Film stopped after the publication of Dr. Thompson's 6 Seconds in Dallas, Kathy? That's not what Kathy said. It appears that your comprehension skills is the problem. I guess we can all fold this Ed Forum tent and go home, eh? Going by the quality of the responses that you post ... I'd say that you could be excused. Can we get back to the technical aspects regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder film, you know the stuff no one wants to touch? David, anytime you like ... feel free to list your credentials against that of Zavada's as to each of your qualifications on being able to authenticate Kodachrome II film .... that is if you want to touch it. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I beg to differ with you, David... although I must first thank you for the kind words. I can’t tell you how pleased I am that not only Kathy Beckett but also you yourself, Dennis Pointing, Bill Miller, Tom Purvis, Pat Speer, Miles Scull, Peter Lemkin, William Kelly and J. Raymond Carroll have chosen to enter this thread and say something supportive. I think that is precisely what should happen when someone tries a “hit piece” like this. I have no idea what Paul Rigby’s motives are or whether he drank Fetzer’s CoolAid about Greer turning around and shooting JFK with a chrome revolver. All I know is that this thread is bizarre and getting more so. I really have much better things to do than defend an appendix from a forty-year-old book. So if this game is to bait Thompson into defending his appendix against silly charges, it ends. I’m not going to play anymore and it will be up to anyone else to deal with Mr. Rigby. Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment. A final point... When each of Mr. Rigby’s claimed “mistakes” was explained as not being a mistake, he just clammed up and didn’t try to defend his claim. He just threw out another claim until that was shot down. I call attention to this kind of “drive-by” form of argument because of what happened to start this whole exchange. With typical modesty, Fetzer announced an epochal “breakthrough.” The Zapruder and Nix films have been altered since they don’t show what Officer James Chaney later told a TV newsman he had done. Fetzer and company failed to their homework. Hence, it was possible to point out rather quickly that the Bell, Altgens, Muchmore, Daniel and McIntire films/photos all back what we see going on in the Nix and Zapruder films and are at odds with what Officer Chaney told a newsman. Hence, if we are to continue to believe that Officer Chaney described what really happened, we now have to believe that five (5) films in addition to the Nix and Zapruder films were phonied up by unknown persons for unknown ends. When Fetzer and company were asked about this... about whether or not this is a necessary consequence of their argument... they just clammed up and disappeared. Therefore, Mr. Rigby appears to be mimicking the argument style of Fetzer and company. Finally, and once again... thanks Kathy! ...IMHO,Taking YOU on, personally, is another matter entirely. You have done so much to prove the authenticity of the Z film, Moorman position in taking her photograph, etc. that any mistakes found in your work, including typos, are probably being done to create a "feather in the cap" of the poster. ... my-goodness, I had no idea research into JFK's assassination, The Warren Commission Report AND The Zapruder Film stopped after the publication of Dr. Thompson's 6 Seconds in Dallas, Kathy? Look, Josiah Thompson, David Lifton and Oliver Stone (whether you believe any of three or not), have done more in bringing attention the conspiracy side of this case, than anyone alive today or any other time, for that matter. The three above are apt and capable defending the entire scope of their work, if YOU have any doubt, ask them... with that said: I guess we can all fold this Ed Forum tent and go home, eh? Is your above patronage (potential bias[es]) part of a mod's job description? Can we get back to the technical aspects regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder film, you know the stuff no one wants to touch? Finally, you may rise off of bended knee now, I'm in the house! LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Example: The WC informed us that James Altgens was in this position: Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing. Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct? Mr. LIEBELER - Yes. (The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.) Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Is that approximately where you were standing? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0487a.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRIOR to it having been made ever so obvious on this forum, James Altgens WAS NOT standing even remotely close to that position marked "3" on this aerial photo. In fact, position "3" is actually located between the location where Mary Moorman & Jean Hill were standing (at the first yellow curb stripe) and back up Elm St. towards the TSDB, and in fact away from Altgens true position which was further down Elm St. past the first yellow curb stripe and just prior to the second yellow curb stripe. Thusly, in 1964, when the WC deemed that we did not need to see anything past Z334, which was prior to Altgens coming into view in the Z-film, for the most part there have no doubt been many researchers who were highly mislead into thinking that James Altgens was way "UP" Elm St., when in fact, he was way "DOWN" Elm St. Therefore, anyone who wasted time and effort in not researching the WC & the true Altgens position, would have repeated the same "rumor" as if it were fact. Which by the way, many have done. Should we shoot everyone who, without the available information to contradict the WC, has made the mistake of taking WC evidence as if it were factual and repeating it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Bailey Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I haven't read all of this thread, but I thought I'd say my 'piece'. It was Josiah Tompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas' that got me 'hooked' on JFK research in a passionate way....it opened-up to me the possibility of really knowing and seeing the official lies...so I can never see him as the 'enemy'. While I personally believe the Z-film was tampered with and would think all should see that...but maybe disagree on the extent [what about the spiced frames removed and others reversed, as the minimum mutually agreed upon minimum?]. I know Thompson doesn't feel the Zap film has been tampered with further [as far as I suspect it has] but that doesn't make him the enemy. He is in the camp of 'conspiracy' and we in that camp do not all see the same things.....nor agree on many things....lets not fight...lets discuss the differneces and fight those who would shove down our throats the LN crap and the growing fascism in America that is a result of it. I totally agreed with you Peter… Mr. Thompson’s book SSID was the spark that started my fire to investigate the JFK assassination. Tink, if you don’t mind me calling you that… where can I find your information online that the Zapuder film was not altered. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts