Jump to content

Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would like to make two points about research on the Kennedy assassination.

First, research on the Kennedy assassination is not part of any religious crusade. Hence, the language that puts people in two camps (LN'ers and CT'ers) is just stupid. Research in the Kennedy assassination is a subbranch of historical research in general. The same canons of respectable argumentation apply here as in the wider world of historical research. One doesn't check one's common sense, one's respect for the laws of nature, and one's basic integrity at the door when one enters the precinct of research on the Kennedy assassination.

Secondly, Professor Fetzer has proved himself here (as he has before) as the worst nightmare research in the Kennedy experience could design for itself. Here we have a pedestrial academic who asks that others "swoon" before his rather ordinary CV telling others they are not "qualified" to have opinions in this area. His penchant for publishing crap that even the tabloids would find beneath them, embarrasses the tradition of citizens's inquiry on the JFK case that started 45 years ago. I have been part of that tradition and I will continue to emphasize its origin in, and commitment to, research that is substantial and factually grounded. If that means calling attention to Professor Fetzer's trashing of that tradition with his mindless blitzkriegs of words and attempts to smear the character of those who disagree with him, then so be it.

Kathy, you make it sound like some mindless war between two old coots. It isn't.

Josiah Thompson

Don,

I guess I can understand your concern in presenting a more united front, and certainly, your lean toward alterationism as a possibility, because you believe that the cover-up was massive, and something like this would not be above the conspiracists.

Where the problem lies is here:

"Each photo and film taken in Dealey Plaza has to fit into a more general fabric. If you take photos and movies of a single event from multiple standpoints, all the films and photos have to agree. They can only vary with respect to the standpoint from which they were taken. For example, with respect to Mary Moorman, the Muchmore and Zapruder films show her from wildly different angles. Yet these films can be matched up frame-by-frame to lay out every detail of her actions as the limousine passes her. The same can be said of all the photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza. If a film or photo were altered, it would stand out. It would be discrepant with the rest of the photo record."(Thompson)

This is certainly a true and reasonable statement. And there is nothing wrong with challenging the photographic evidence. It should pan itself out as consistent. It either is or is not altered. Studies demonstrating possible alteration should be subject to the same constraints as any other studies. They should be peer reviewed, and if the reviews poke holes in the studies, they should be tossed out. It has nothing to do with personality, or, ideally, should not.

The problem with this particular issue, is that each time an objection is made, the explanation gets turned toward something else. For example, it is being argued that Zapruder is shown at many different height(although Duncan shows him the same height), and one reason that is produced to explain this is that Z may have been made of rubber...

I also find it kind of funny, and this is nothing against you at all, that Barb's, Josiah's, and Bill's leanings could be questioned because of their stance.

..at least I think Josiah, Bill and Barb are all conspiracy believers)? All of you think there WAS a conspiracy, right? All of you think there WAS a cover up, right?

By this I mean that some folks may have no problem throwing them into the LN camp merely because they are questioning a theory. I would hate to think that because I do not believe in alteration, that I am not a conspiracy supporter. But then as well, I would hate it even more if other folks align the alteration concept as being a cornerstone of conspiracy theory.

I agree with you about the "vitriolicity" that is displayed, and I don't know what one can do about it.

We need to be reasonable and rational to go forward. We have to have a solid evidentiary base. And, because of this, it is essential to review the alteration point.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Josiah,

I in no way meant for my response to Don to be taken in that manner.

I firmly agree that it is not some sort of cult and said that I found it kind of funny(odd) that some folks will think others are LNs just because they do not agree with the alteration theory.

I did not know how much of the Moorman argument that Don had read, which is why I quoted you. He was saying that, in the way I read his post, the groups should unite under the conspiracy/coverup cloak, and that is what is important. I was trying to demonstrate to him that this is important.

I am very pleased that the Moorman study was posted. It is a reasonable, logical response and I applaud that, and I was trying to explain that it is necessary--we have no base other than the evidence.

I cannot believe anywhere in my post I made you sound like a old coot, and if I came across that way, I apologize. I have the greatest respect for you, and I applaud all of your efforts. I have thanked the group repeatedly, as I feel that the essay presented here was timely, and truthful. In understanding the importance of what you are doing, I cannot blame you your anger. When I stated that we need to be reasonable and rational to move forward, I meant that we will never get anywhere (as a collective group) other than by presenting reasonable and rational arguments for our beliefs, for, if not, no one will hear us.

The Moorman essay represents the reasonability and rationality I was speaking of, because this is exactly the way we should research.

Again, I apologize.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent, Kathy. Well put.

This "us vs them" thing is a detriment to the research community as a whole.

In my many years discussing and debating evidence, theories and opinions on this topic on the net, I have found that generally, those who *can* defend/discuss their beliefs in reasoned discussion ... *do*. Those who cannot, dodge, divert or disrupt reasoned discussion ... unfortunately, most often by descending to some form of the "us vs them" mindset ala, if you disagree with me, or you believe that, then there is something wrong with you ... that you must be stupid, must be mentally imbalanced or worse yet, that you are probably one of *them* .... or worse yet, one of *those*. What nonsense! I am a firm conspiracy believer, but I do not care what someone else believes, CT or LN, or if they have some sort of other agenda ... what I have to deal with are the words, evidence, documentation, claims they put out on the table to be considered and evaluated. My credo has always been to make them meet me on the evidence ... anything else they are or are not doesn't matter.

That one's work will be scrutinized, vetted, should not only be expected - it should be *invited*. I know that if I have been inaccurate, if I am missing something in what I have put forth, if I am flat out wrong, I want to know it! If it comes down to just a difference of opinion, so be it - but having stepped back, listened and considered something from the other person's perspective, is a good thing for all. It's how we can all learn and grow. It's the only way we can ever make real progress, imo.

Egos have no place in a genuine quest for truth ... and are the major stumbling block to a united front. There are few angels amongst us .... assaulted personally enough, enough buttons pushed, and anyone can react. The state of the human bean.

I appreciated your post and Don's! :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Don,

I guess I can understand your concern in presenting a more united front, and certainly, your lean toward alterationism as a possibility, because you believe that the cover-up was massive, and something like this would not be above the conspiracists.

Where the problem lies is here:

"Each photo and film taken in Dealey Plaza has to fit into a more general fabric. If you take photos and movies of a single event from multiple standpoints, all the films and photos have to agree. They can only vary with respect to the standpoint from which they were taken. For example, with respect to Mary Moorman, the Muchmore and Zapruder films show her from wildly different angles. Yet these films can be matched up frame-by-frame to lay out every detail of her actions as the limousine passes her. The same can be said of all the photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza. If a film or photo were altered, it would stand out. It would be discrepant with the rest of the photo record."(Thompson)

This is certainly a true and reasonable statement. And there is nothing wrong with challenging the photographic evidence. It should pan itself out as consistent. It either is or is not altered. Studies demonstrating possible alteration should be subject to the same constraints as any other studies. They should be peer reviewed, and if the reviews poke holes in the studies, they should be tossed out. It has nothing to do with personality, or, ideally, should not.

The problem with this particular issue, is that each time an objection is made, the explanation gets turned toward something else. For example, it is being argued that Zapruder is shown at many different height(although Duncan shows him the same height), and one reason that is produced to explain this is that Z may have been made of rubber...

I also find it kind of funny, and this is nothing against you at all, that Barb's, Josiah's, and Bill's leanings could be questioned because of their stance.

..at least I think Josiah, Bill and Barb are all conspiracy believers)? All of you think there WAS a conspiracy, right? All of you think there WAS a cover up, right?

By this I mean that some folks may have no problem throwing them into the LN camp merely because they are questioning a theory. I would hate to think that because I do not believe in alteration, that I am not a conspiracy supporter. But then as well, I would hate it even more if other folks align the alteration concept as being a cornerstone of conspiracy theory.

I agree with you about the "vitriolicity" that is displayed, and I don't know what one can do about it.

We need to be reasonable and rational to go forward. We have to have a solid evidentiary base. And, because of this, it is essential to review the alteration point.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Tink

I didn't take Kathy's post that way at all. You an old coot ... never!<g>

I should clarify though, from my response to Kathy, that while I do not care what someone else believes, I do care how they act ... especially if they are a CT, as we conspiracy believers have enough problems with credibility in mainstream media and other circles. The last thing we need, but what we have with Fetzer, imo, is a poster child for everything that is wrong in research. As you note, his outrageous behavior reflects poorly on what is supposed to be a community of *researchers* overall. We should not ... and can not ... tolerate that.

Bests,

Barb :-)

I would like to make two points about research on the Kennedy assassination.

First, research on the Kennedy assassination is not part of any religious crusade. Hence, the language that puts people in two camps (LN'ers and CT'ers) is just stupid. Research in the Kennedy assassination is a subbranch of historical research in general. The same canons of respectable argumentation apply here as in the wider world of historical research. One doesn't check one's common sense, one's respect for the laws of nature, and one's basic integrity at the door when one enters the precinct of research on the Kennedy assassination.

Secondly, Professor Fetzer has proved himself here (as he has before) as the worst nightmare research in the Kennedy experience could design for itself. Here we have a pedestrial academic who asks that others "swoon" before his rather ordinary CV telling others they are not "qualified" to have opinions in this area. His penchant for publishing crap that even the tabloids would find beneath them, embarrasses the tradition of citizens's inquiry on the JFK case that started 45 years ago. I have been part of that tradition and I will continue to emphasize its origin in, and commitment to, research that is substantial and factually grounded. If that means calling attention to Professor Fetzer's trashing of that tradition with his mindless blitzkriegs of words and attempts to smear the character of those who disagree with him, then so be it.

Kathy, you make it sound like some mindless war between two old coots. It isn't.

Josiah Thompson

Don,

I guess I can understand your concern in presenting a more united front, and certainly, your lean toward alterationism as a possibility, because you believe that the cover-up was massive, and something like this would not be above the conspiracists.

Where the problem lies is here:

"Each photo and film taken in Dealey Plaza has to fit into a more general fabric. If you take photos and movies of a single event from multiple standpoints, all the films and photos have to agree. They can only vary with respect to the standpoint from which they were taken. For example, with respect to Mary Moorman, the Muchmore and Zapruder films show her from wildly different angles. Yet these films can be matched up frame-by-frame to lay out every detail of her actions as the limousine passes her. The same can be said of all the photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza. If a film or photo were altered, it would stand out. It would be discrepant with the rest of the photo record."(Thompson)

This is certainly a true and reasonable statement. And there is nothing wrong with challenging the photographic evidence. It should pan itself out as consistent. It either is or is not altered. Studies demonstrating possible alteration should be subject to the same constraints as any other studies. They should be peer reviewed, and if the reviews poke holes in the studies, they should be tossed out. It has nothing to do with personality, or, ideally, should not.

The problem with this particular issue, is that each time an objection is made, the explanation gets turned toward something else. For example, it is being argued that Zapruder is shown at many different height(although Duncan shows him the same height), and one reason that is produced to explain this is that Z may have been made of rubber...

I also find it kind of funny, and this is nothing against you at all, that Barb's, Josiah's, and Bill's leanings could be questioned because of their stance.

..at least I think Josiah, Bill and Barb are all conspiracy believers)? All of you think there WAS a conspiracy, right? All of you think there WAS a cover up, right?

By this I mean that some folks may have no problem throwing them into the LN camp merely because they are questioning a theory. I would hate to think that because I do not believe in alteration, that I am not a conspiracy supporter. But then as well, I would hate it even more if other folks align the alteration concept as being a cornerstone of conspiracy theory.

I agree with you about the "vitriolicity" that is displayed, and I don't know what one can do about it.

We need to be reasonable and rational to go forward. We have to have a solid evidentiary base. And, because of this, it is essential to review the alteration point.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think perhaps the apologies should go in the other direction... that is, from me to you.

I was reacting to one sentence in your post: "I agree with you about the "vitriolicity" that is displayed, and I don't know what one can do about it." I took that to mean... wrongly... that you were being even-handed with respect to who was spreading the vitriol. Fetzer has been sliming so many people for so long that I'm fed up with defending the brick-bats I throw back at him. It was to the implication of "equal vitriolicity" that I was responding. Obviously, I was wrong. I'm sorry.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

I in no way meant for my response to Don to be taken in that manner.

I firmly agree that it is not some sort of cult and said that I found it kind of funny(odd) that some folks will think others are LNs just because they do not agree with the alteration theory.

I did not know how much of the Moorman argument that Don had read, which is why I quoted you. He was saying that, in the way I read his post, the groups should unite under the conspiracy/coverup cloak, and that is what is important. I was trying to demonstrate to him that this is important.

I am very pleased that the Moorman study was posted. It is a reasonable, logical response and I applaud that, and I was trying to explain that it is necessary--we have no base other than the evidence.

I cannot believe anywhere in my post I made you sound like a old coot, and if I came across that way, I apologize. I have the greatest respect for you, and I applaud all of your efforts. I have thanked the group repeatedly, as I feel that the essay presented here was timely, and truthful. In understanding the importance of what you are doing, I cannot blame you your anger. When I stated that we need to be reasonable and rational to move forward, I meant that we will never get anywhere (as a collective group) other than by presenting reasonable and rational arguments for our beliefs, for, if not, no one will hear us.

The Moorman essay represents the reasonability and rationality I was speaking of, because this is exactly the way we should research.

Again, I apologize.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think perhaps the apologies should go in the other direction... that is, from me to you.

I was reacting to one sentence in your post: "I agree with you about the "vitriolicity" that is displayed, and I don't know what one can do about it." I took that to mean... wrongly... that you were being even-handed with respect to who was spreading the vitriol. Fetzer has been sliming so many people for so long that I'm fed up with defending the brick-bats I throw back at him. It was to the implication of "equal vitriolicity" that I was responding. Obviously, I was wrong. I'm sorry.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

I in no way meant for my response to Don to be taken in that manner.

I firmly agree that it is not some sort of cult and said that I found it kind of funny(odd) that some folks will think others are LNs just because they do not agree with the alteration theory.

I did not know how much of the Moorman argument that Don had read, which is why I quoted you. He was saying that, in the way I read his post, the groups should unite under the conspiracy/coverup cloak, and that is what is important. I was trying to demonstrate to him that this is important.

I am very pleased that the Moorman study was posted. It is a reasonable, logical response and I applaud that, and I was trying to explain that it is necessary--we have no base other than the evidence.

I cannot believe anywhere in my post I made you sound like a old coot, and if I came across that way, I apologize. I have the greatest respect for you, and I applaud all of your efforts. I have thanked the group repeatedly, as I feel that the essay presented here was timely, and truthful. In understanding the importance of what you are doing, I cannot blame you your anger. When I stated that we need to be reasonable and rational to move forward, I meant that we will never get anywhere (as a collective group) other than by presenting reasonable and rational arguments for our beliefs, for, if not, no one will hear us.

The Moorman essay represents the reasonability and rationality I was speaking of, because this is exactly the way we should research.

Again, I apologize.

Kathy

When Kathy first appeared on this forum, we more or less "locked horns" as a result of her actually believing that I was sitting and holding evidence which I refused to share with others.

That appeared to get resolved, and for the most part she has been a refreshing beam of light within a den of fools groping in the dark.

Tom

P.S. We are "old"! Whether we are perceived as being old fools or old coots should be mostly irrelevant to us at this stage in life.

Personally, I am merely satisfied that I made it to "old".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point on being old, Tom ... and old = experienced besides. :-)

Barb :-)

I think perhaps the apologies should go in the other direction... that is, from me to you.

I was reacting to one sentence in your post: "I agree with you about the "vitriolicity" that is displayed, and I don't know what one can do about it." I took that to mean... wrongly... that you were being even-handed with respect to who was spreading the vitriol. Fetzer has been sliming so many people for so long that I'm fed up with defending the brick-bats I throw back at him. It was to the implication of "equal vitriolicity" that I was responding. Obviously, I was wrong. I'm sorry.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

I in no way meant for my response to Don to be taken in that manner.

I firmly agree that it is not some sort of cult and said that I found it kind of funny(odd) that some folks will think others are LNs just because they do not agree with the alteration theory.

I did not know how much of the Moorman argument that Don had read, which is why I quoted you. He was saying that, in the way I read his post, the groups should unite under the conspiracy/coverup cloak, and that is what is important. I was trying to demonstrate to him that this is important.

I am very pleased that the Moorman study was posted. It is a reasonable, logical response and I applaud that, and I was trying to explain that it is necessary--we have no base other than the evidence.

I cannot believe anywhere in my post I made you sound like a old coot, and if I came across that way, I apologize. I have the greatest respect for you, and I applaud all of your efforts. I have thanked the group repeatedly, as I feel that the essay presented here was timely, and truthful. In understanding the importance of what you are doing, I cannot blame you your anger. When I stated that we need to be reasonable and rational to move forward, I meant that we will never get anywhere (as a collective group) other than by presenting reasonable and rational arguments for our beliefs, for, if not, no one will hear us.

The Moorman essay represents the reasonability and rationality I was speaking of, because this is exactly the way we should research.

Again, I apologize.

Kathy

When Kathy first appeared on this forum, we more or less "locked horns" as a result of her actually believing that I was sitting and holding evidence which I refused to share with others.

That appeared to get resolved, and for the most part she has been a refreshing beam of light within a den of fools groping in the dark.

Tom

P.S. We are "old"! Whether we are perceived as being old fools or old coots should be mostly irrelevant to us at this stage in life.

Personally, I am merely satisfied that I made it to "old".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

"Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? "

Unfortunately, YES! Not only that, they then repeat it repeatedly, as if it had some basis or foundation in fact.

Just think about this: We are purportedly the "intelligent" species on this planet.

Scary as all hell, isn't it?

Certainly glad to see that someone else with common sense has joined the discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an open

umbrella on the motorcade route was pumping it up and down for

his health at the precise location of the assassination? Incredible.

And the rubbish about "lone nutters" is quite ridiculous. This is a

perfectly appropriate way to identify where someone is coming

from. They object because they are POSING as if they weren't.

That is why so many of their arguments are so strange. They are

not actually engaged in research, merely in attempting to under-

mine the progress made by others, where Tink is the bandleader.

I can't believe the assemby of phonys and fakes who have gathered

here. Bill Miller seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth

after agreeing to respond to my explanation of Zapruder frame problems.

Where are you, Bill? I know you're out there somewhere. What about

YOUR INVITATION that I tell you what Zapruder frame is bothering me

and you'll explain to me in detail whether you agree with me or not?

I've done that, Bill. Here are the links that show EXACTLY WHAT I'M

TALKING ABOUT. So why have you gone missing? Are you afraid to

response? The world is waiting, Miller. Just where have you gone?

The very same points put the lie to Josiah and Junk and Lamson and

the rest of that sordid crowd, who appear to be welcome to some

on this forum. Amazing! We live in a strange, strange world.

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:29 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

Bill,

You wrote, "tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll

explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not", which

was an appropriate response. So here is what I am talking about:

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. The Parkland doctors didn't observe

it. Even the mortician contradicts it. It didn't happen. It is fake!

We know there are phony drawings by artists who never saw the body. We

know there is a fake autopsy report that was rewritten under orders. We

know the X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of

the head. All of these deceptions have been subjected to meticulous and

detailed scrutiny in books I edited. But fake evidence doesn't support

a rationally justifiable or a morally responsible reply to this question.

Here's how I have put it: None of what I have said here (in laying out

around twenty proofs of fakery) even reaches to the mutually reinforcing

deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film,

(B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the

publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-

front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after

twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception,

when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview

on television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Notice:

Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the

mortician! Dr. McClelland certified a drawing of the massive blow-out to

the back of the head. More than forty witnesses have confirmed that that

was the location. Dr. Crenshaw drew it for me to include in my first book.

There is an overwhelming accumulation of evidence that establishes that the

blow-out was to the back of his head, not to the right-front. And Roderick

Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, who received an Oscar for his

contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, that the blow-out

and the head spray had been painted in. I will assume that you are familiar

with all of this, since otherwise you are incompetent to address the issue.

So my challenge to you is very simple. Do you acknowledge the blow-out to

the right-front is a fabrication? If you do, then you are thereby acknowl-

edging that the film is a fabrication. The proof is present. It is clear

and compelling. Indeed, in my view, this is the most powerful proof that

the film is a recreation and places the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

John Costella, David Mantik, Jack White, David Lifton and I have advanced

over twenty reasons for concluding the Zapruder is a fake, as I have out-

lined below. Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!

Jim

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:

>--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@... wrote:

>>

>>What is not "specific" about the blow-out to the right front? Didn't you

>>get the memo? What I am talking about is detailed in paragraph 11 as (a),

>>(B), ©, and (d). Even you should be able to understand that. The fact

>>that others, including Jack, John, David, and David are better on photos

>>and films, having done vastly more than have I, does not imply that I have

>>no competence at all! Evidently, I AM MUCH BETTER THAN BILL MILLER when

>>it comes to the Zapruder. That kind of verbal shell game represents your

>>kind of "research" and is completely typical of the logical blunders that

>>come from shills, stooges, and disinfo ops like you. Moreover, this is

>>as good a test case as there could be relative to the Zapruder, which you

>>have flunked! So I don't think there's any reason for you to lecture any-

>>one about competence in relation to the photographic record. It is clear

>>to everyone by now that, when it comes to real questions, you fake it all

>>the way, which, of course, is your only option when the evidence refutes

>>your position. The case for video fakery is decisive and shows that you

>>and your buddies are here to obscure, obfuscate, and undermine advances

>>in understanding the genuine causes of the death of our 35th president.

>>Hang it up, BM! You are making yourself look worse and worse to us all.

>

>

>Mr. Fetzer, I cannot help but notice that you are one of those people who claim victory before the game even starts. You did it with Hoax and yet when I listed a good many of the claims Jack made that can be easily shown to be wrong ... you bitch that Jack is being attacked. In other words - you hide behind Jack's claims and yet when they are unraveled before you, then you bitch how Jack is being mistreated. To that I can only say - Stop using Jack if you don't want his claims critiqued. You cannot use him for a shield and then complain about the blows he is getting pelted with.

>

>Now about Zapruder ... I don't want to hear any revisions. Don't mention Jack if you don't want his short-comings mentioned. Instead you tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not.

>

>Bill Miller

>

>

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Don,

You are a good man. This is one of most objective post about our debates

I've ever read. It is "personal" to Josiah, which is in part due to an acute

sense of inadequacy--were I, after all these years, to hazard a guess.

The film has been used as the backbone of the cover up. As long as you

think it is genuine, you will attempt to adapt any explanation of these

events to the film, which guarantees that you will never be sucessful.

That Tink is so relentless in pursing us, so childish in his attitudes, and

appeals to arguments that would flunk a freshman out of "Critical

Thinking" tells me that he, a Yale Ph.D., also has an agenda.

It never ceases to amaze me that he seems to find so many allies and

collaborators, at least some of whom do not appear to be kooks. I

am glad to see that you are not among them. Keep it up!

Jim

As I've stated, I'm an agnostic on the alteration question. However, I'd like to add my two cents, which any or all of you are free to reject and/or scoff at.

To the alterationists, I'd like to state that I think you are placing too much emphasis, and expending too much time, on what is obviously a contentious issue, even among believers in conspiracy. As has been noted, there is abundance evidence that Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963, and the clear indications of a massive cover up are everywhere throughout the official record. I acknowledge that you've raised some interesting points, and I do think there may quite well be something there. That being said, I don't think at this point that the continuing arguments are helping to heal what was already a bitterly divided critical community.

To the non-alterationists, I'd like to state that the vitriol you expend on Jack White, Jim Fetzer and co. is often transparently personal. It's also baffling, in that you seem to consider their claims to be more objectionable than lone nutterism itself. Why do you think it's impossible that those who killed a sitting U.S. president and launched a cover up so extensive that it is still being promoted consistently by every organ of the mainstream media today, would alter film footage of the crime? I'm familiar with your interpretations and counterarguments, but do you acknowledge that such a thing was possible?

On both sides, the animosity is ugly. Can Jim Fetzer and Jack White acknowledge the contrbution made by Josiah Thompson, in his important book "Six Seconds In Dallas?" Can Josiah Thompson acknowledge the crucial early studies Jack White did on the backyard photos, as well as the fact he was (I think) the first critic to study all the photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, and theorize about his "many faces?" Can Josiah Thompson credit Jim Fetzer for putting together the important book "Assassination Science?"

I readily admit that I'm a bit biased here; I tend to believe the worst about our corrupt leaders, and thus have an instinctive attraction for most conspiracy theories. Thus, I am bound to find myself agreeing with White and Fetzer more often than I would with Thompson (I think- because Josiah doesn't post much about anything besides the alteration issue, I'm not completely sure about his other beliefs, except that he did argue against a 911 conspiracy). I can see both sides of this question, in spite of that. I simply think that the debate over the credibility of the films is taking up way too much time and attention on this forum.

Those are the thoughts of someone who is just observing this debate, and is not one of the heated participants. Can all of you remember the crucial points you do agree upon (at least I think Josiah, Bill and Barb are all conspiracy believers)? All of you think there WAS a conspiracy, right? All of you think there WAS a cover up, right? Isn't that more imporant than whether the Zapruder film is legitimate? Of course, I'm not referring to Craig, who is plainly a lone nutter. He is almost certainly in disagreement with all of you about the essential facts of this case.

Okay, I'm not used to being the voice of moderation. Let me get back to being a radical....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Thinking about the inconsistency between the medical evidence and

the Zapruder film in relation to the blow-out to the right front, it occurred

to me that Tink confronts a dilemma, since, when he reviewed MURDER

IN DEALEY PLAZA, he praised exactly one chapter, which was authored by

Gary Aguilar. Most of us know that, in the time since, he has collaborated

with Gary on a paper under the title, "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical

Than We Knew?" What is fascinating about all of this is that, in his chapter

in MURDER, Aguilar offers extensive proof that the wound to JFK's head was

consistently described by the physicians at Parkland and at Bethesda in the

same fashion, namely: as a massive blow-out to the back of the head! So

when I returned to amazon.com to revisit his review, I was struck by the fact

that the sentence in which he praised Aguilar's chapter was missing!

Apparently, Tink Thompson was worried that someone might put "2" and "2"

together and notice that Aguilar's good work impeaches Zapruder's film. A

change of this kind can hardly be accidental but has to be deliberate. Of

course, if it were a unique occurrence, it might be one that we could discount.

This, however, is hardly the only instance of deliberate deception or of sloppy

research in relation to that review. For example, he begins by ridiculing the

publisher's observation that I "also edited the highly acclaimed ASSASSINATION

SCIENCE (Catfeet Press, 1998), widely praised as a rigorous and ground-breaking

contribution to Kennedy Assassination research", which he belittles as follows:

> The hype begins on the back cover of this book. There we find a smiling

> photo of its portly editor, James H. Fetzer, along with the statement that

> he "also edited the highly acclaimed Assassination Science (Catfeet Press,

> 1998) widely praised as a rigorous and ground-breaking contribution to

> Kennedy Assassination research." Highly acclaimed? Widely praised? A

> rigorous and ground-breaking contribution to Kennedy assassination

> research? Only in your dreams, Professor Fetzer!

Notice how he conveys the impression that I wrote the blurbs on my own book,

which, of course, came from the publisher. Those who are actually familiar

with the book, I suspect, would find this attitude just a bit difficult to understand,

in part because it is contradicted by the Publishers Weekly review:

> From Publishers Weekly

> A compendium of recent thought and discovery about the Kennedy assassination,

> this volume makes a case for official malfeasance and against the "lone

> gunman" explanation. Fetzer (Assassination Science), a professor of

> philosophy at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, sets the tone for an in-

> depth revisionist history in his prologue, in which he makes note of what he

> views as 16 "smoking guns" in the Warren Report and questions the veracity

> of the JFK autopsy photographs and tissue samples, and even the Zapruder

> film. Most contributors explore these topics in detail, aided by Ira Wood's

> precisely detailed "November 22, 1963: A Chronology." In provocative essays,

> Douglas Weldon explores tangled vehicle-related evidence that he concludes

> indicates that JFK was shot through the throat from in front of the car

> rather than from behind; Vincent Palamara names several Secret Service

> agents who he believes may have been compromised; and Fetzer discusses the

> little-seen "Assassination File" of former Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry.

> Also included is Bertrand Russell's acid 1964 assessment of what he viewed

> as a nascent coverup. With much discussion of alleged manipulation of

> forensic and photographic evidence, the book's overall focus is primarily

> technical, on what the contributors see as the wealth of evidence of a

> multiple-shooter assassination, with likely complicity of the Secret Service

> and other government agencies. This coolly angry dismantling of the theories

> of the Warren commission and lone-gunman supporters like Gerald Posner will

> be fodder for conspiracy theorists. © 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

One might think that, insofar as this review appears on the home page of the

book on amazon.com, it would be hard to miss. Even more striking, however, in

relation to the question of sloppy research or deliberate deception, is that

he obviously has the book in hand and knows it has a back cover, where he found

"a smiling photo of its portly editor". But if he found my photo on the back

cover, he had to have also found the "wide praise" and "high acclaim" of five

experts on the assassination, including Michael Parenti, Author of HISTORY AS

MYSTERY and TO KILL A NATION; Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Coroner, Allegheny

County, and Past President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences and American

College of Legal Medicine; Michael L. Kurtz, Author of CRIME OF THE CENTURY:

THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION FROM A HISTORIAN'S PERSPECTIVE; Kerry Walters,

Bittinger Professor of Philosophy, Gettysburg College; and Steward Galanor, Author

of CALCULUS: A VISUAL APPROACH and COVER-UP.

That makes is a bit difficult to imagine that his remarks to the contrary are

only the result of sloppy research. Instead of acknowledging what he knows to

be the true, he resorts to an obscure review by one Ernst-Ulrich Franzen in

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which, in my opinion--which others will share,

if they know the signs--was an obvious hit piece by an unqualified author, but

which Tink embraces with gusto in the classic pattern of one disinfo op citing

another as though they were independent sources, which is not even about the

book under review but ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. He even cites a second review

of that book as though he didn't realize that the book he is purportedly review-

ing is MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA! Once again, this is such an extraordinary

gaff that it can't be simply a matter of sloppy research but has to be one of

deliberate deception, where casual readers might not notice the shell game.

His grotesque intellectual stunts continue in relation to MURDER, where he

makes several misrepresentations about photographs and films. For example,

> On page 149 Fetzer reprints the famous Altgens photo of the assassination

> along with a circle in the windshield and a caption: "Circle 1 The apparent

> through-and-through hole in the windshield." Enlargements of this photo show

> clearly that there is no damage to the windshield visible and certainly no

> "apparent through-and-through hole." This is a fact known for thirty-five

> years which Professor Fetzer apparently missed.

But as anyone can verify for themselves, if you study the Altgens on p. 149

you will see the small, white spiral nebula with a dark spot at the center,

situated right where JFK's left ear would be if it were visible, where this

photograph is complemented by others found on pp. 157-158 and on p. 436 of

HOAX. Indeed, even ASSASSINATION SCIENCE included an article by a reporter

for the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Richard Dudman, on p. 167 and a discussion

of the hole in the windshield by Robert Livingston, M.D., on pp. 165-166.

Even more striking is the chapter on this subject by Douglas Weldon, J.D.,

who even tracked down the employee at Ford Motor Company who had changed

the windshield and confirmed that the original had a through-and-through

hole. Interestingly, two readers offered their own comments about this:

> Anonymous says:

> I will comment on one aspect of Thompson's review only: He says with regard

> to the Altgens photo of the motorcade on Elm: "Enlargements of this photo

> show clearly that there is no damage to the windshield visible and certainly

> no "apparent through-and-through hole." This is a fact known for thirty-five

> years which Professor Fetzer apparently missed."

>

> I bought Groden's The Killing of a President, which has a clear copy Altgen's

> photo on pages 30-31, if Thompson cannot see the black through and through

> hole (roughly where Kennedy's left ear would be, if visible), surrounded by

> cracked glass, he is either visually impaired or willfully blind. The hole

> is there. View a good copy of the photo and see for yourself. That should

> give an indication of Josiah Thompson's honesty and the quality of his

> research.

Here anonymous is talking about Altgens 5, which is the photo in MURDER. But

further confirmation came from a second source talking about Altgens 6 instead:

> Michael K. Beusch says:

> Altgens took two photos of the motorcade on Elm: The view looking west on

> Elm with the TSBD and the Dal-Tex building in the background, taken before

> the fatal shot and the view looking east on Elm that shows Jacqueline Kennedy

> on the trunk with Secret Service agent Clint Hill, taken after the fatal shot.

> The second photo, indeed, shows a hole in the windshield. However, I believe

> Josiah Thompson is referring to the first photo in which there is no apparent

> damage to the windshield.

Except, of course, it does. But while Michael Beusch might be excused for his

"sloppy research", that is more difficult to accept in the case of Thompson.

Indeed, he poses as an expert on the photos and films, including the Altgens,

yet the small, white spiral nebula can be clearly observed in Groden's book.

No one should be surprised when he uses this occasion to attack Jack White and

me over the Moorman. Think about what he says in the context of our debate:

> Fetzer includes a color section of photos put together by Jack White

> intended to show that the Zapruder film has been altered by some shadowy

> government agency. One of the wackiest "proofs" of this idea is the claim

> that Mary Moorman took her famous photo from the street and that therefore

> the Zapruder film (which shows her in the grass) has been altered. This

> proof depends on the existence of a particular line-of-sight in the Moorman

> photo. Fetzer published a blow-up from the Moorman photo of the purported

> line-of-sight and then covered up the critical area with thick red lines.

> When you remove the thick red lines, you can see that the claim is false,

> that the purported line-of-sight is not there.

Except, of course, it isn't true. The red lines were used to orient readers

to the location of the line of sight, which remains when it is not present, as

Jack and I have demonstrated repeatedly in the course of this debate. Anyone

who persists in advancing such chicanery at this point in time would stand out

like a sore thumb for practicing such duplicity. Those who are less familiar

with the history of research on JFK, however, would be easily misled by the

absence of a sentence from a review of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, one which--as

it happends--advances powerful evidence that contradicts the authenticity of

the Zapruder. So ask yourself, what is this? Sloppy research or deliberate

deception?" Either way, no one should doubt that it is vintage Tink Thompson.

What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an open

umbrella on the motorcade route was pumping it up and down for

his health at the precise location of the assassination? Incredible.

And the rubbish about "lone nutters" is quite ridiculous. This is a

perfectly appropriate way to identify where someone is coming

from. They object because they are POSING as if they weren't.

That is why so many of their arguments are so strange. They are

not actually engaged in research, merely in attempting to under-

mine the progress made by others, where Tink is the bandleader.

I can't believe the assemby of phonys and fakes who have gathered

here. Bill Miller seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth

after agreeing to respond to my explanation of Zapruder frame problems.

Where are you, Bill? I know you're out there somewhere. What about

YOUR INVITATION that I tell you what Zapruder frame is bothering me

and you'll explain to me in detail whether you agree with me or not?

I've done that, Bill. Here are the links that show EXACTLY WHAT I'M

TALKING ABOUT. So why have you gone missing? Are you afraid to

response? The world is waiting, Miller. Just where have you gone?

The very same points put the lie to Josiah and Junk and Lamson and

the rest of that sordid crowd, who appear to be welcome to some

on this forum. Amazing! We live in a strange, strange world.

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:29 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

Bill,

You wrote, "tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll

explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not", which

was an appropriate response. So here is what I am talking about:

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. The Parkland doctors didn't observe

it. Even the mortician contradicts it. It didn't happen. It is fake!

We know there are phony drawings by artists who never saw the body. We

know there is a fake autopsy report that was rewritten under orders. We

know the X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of

the head. All of these deceptions have been subjected to meticulous and

detailed scrutiny in books I edited. But fake evidence doesn't support

a rationally justifiable or a morally responsible reply to this question.

Here's how I have put it: None of what I have said here (in laying out

around twenty proofs of fakery) even reaches to the mutually reinforcing

deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film,

(B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the

publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-

front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after

twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception,

when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview

on television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Notice:

Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the

mortician! Dr. McClelland certified a drawing of the massive blow-out to

the back of the head. More than forty witnesses have confirmed that that

was the location. Dr. Crenshaw drew it for me to include in my first book.

There is an overwhelming accumulation of evidence that establishes that the

blow-out was to the back of his head, not to the right-front. And Roderick

Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, who received an Oscar for his

contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, that the blow-out

and the head spray had been painted in. I will assume that you are familiar

with all of this, since otherwise you are incompetent to address the issue.

So my challenge to you is very simple. Do you acknowledge the blow-out to

the right-front is a fabrication? If you do, then you are thereby acknowl-

edging that the film is a fabrication. The proof is present. It is clear

and compelling. Indeed, in my view, this is the most powerful proof that

the film is a recreation and places the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

John Costella, David Mantik, Jack White, David Lifton and I have advanced

over twenty reasons for concluding the Zapruder is a fake, as I have out-

lined below. Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!

Jim

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:

>--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@... wrote:

>>

>>What is not "specific" about the blow-out to the right front? Didn't you

>>get the memo? What I am talking about is detailed in paragraph 11 as (a),

>>(B), ©, and (d). Even you should be able to understand that. The fact

>>that others, including Jack, John, David, and David are better on photos

>>and films, having done vastly more than have I, does not imply that I have

>>no competence at all! Evidently, I AM MUCH BETTER THAN BILL MILLER when

>>it comes to the Zapruder. That kind of verbal shell game represents your

>>kind of "research" and is completely typical of the logical blunders that

>>come from shills, stooges, and disinfo ops like you. Moreover, this is

>>as good a test case as there could be relative to the Zapruder, which you

>>have flunked! So I don't think there's any reason for you to lecture any-

>>one about competence in relation to the photographic record. It is clear

>>to everyone by now that, when it comes to real questions, you fake it all

>>the way, which, of course, is your only option when the evidence refutes

>>your position. The case for video fakery is decisive and shows that you

>>and your buddies are here to obscure, obfuscate, and undermine advances

>>in understanding the genuine causes of the death of our 35th president.

>>Hang it up, BM! You are making yourself look worse and worse to us all.

>

>

>Mr. Fetzer, I cannot help but notice that you are one of those people who claim victory before the game even starts. You did it with Hoax and yet when I listed a good many of the claims Jack made that can be easily shown to be wrong ... you bitch that Jack is being attacked. In other words - you hide behind Jack's claims and yet when they are unraveled before you, then you bitch how Jack is being mistreated. To that I can only say - Stop using Jack if you don't want his claims critiqued. You cannot use him for a shield and then complain about the blows he is getting pelted with.

>

>Now about Zapruder ... I don't want to hear any revisions. Don't mention Jack if you don't want his short-comings mentioned. Instead you tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not.

>

>Bill Miller

>

>

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer writes: "What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an open umbrella on the motorcade route was pumping it up and down for his health at the precise location of the assassination?"

Well, the problem is that what you say isn't the case. Rich Dellarosa claims to have seen some "other film" that shows the umbrella man "pumping his umbrella up and down." You make this claim into objective fact in your statement. It isn't. Other films don't show this and no witnesses reported this. Just because Rich Dellarosa says something doesn't make it true.

So what did Rich Dellarosa actually see. We can't know for sure but my bet is that he saw one of the simulated Zapruder films put together by movie production companies. Remember the Zapruder-like sequence in Executive Action. Who knows. But the fact someone said they saw something in a film twenty or thirty years ago doesn't make it an objective fact about what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

The rest is Fetzer's usual unpleasant bloviation.

Josiah Thompson

What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an open

umbrella on the motorcade route was pumping it up and down for

his health at the precise location of the assassination? Incredible.

And the rubbish about "lone nutters" is quite ridiculous. This is a

perfectly appropriate way to identify where someone is coming

from. They object because they are POSING as if they weren't.

That is why so many of their arguments are so strange. They are

not actually engaged in research, merely in attempting to under-

mine the progress made by others, where Tink is the bandleader.

I can't believe the assemby of phonys and fakes who have gathered

here. Bill Miller seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth

after agreeing to respond to my explanation of Zapruder frame problems.

Where are you, Bill? I know you're out there somewhere. What about

YOUR INVITATION that I tell you what Zapruder frame is bothering me

and you'll explain to me in detail whether you agree with me or not?

I've done that, Bill. Here are the links that show EXACTLY WHAT I'M

TALKING ABOUT. So why have you gone missing? Are you afraid to

response? The world is waiting, Miller. Just where have you gone?

The very same points put the lie to Josiah and Junk and Lamson and

the rest of that sordid crowd, who appear to be welcome to some

on this forum. Amazing! We live in a strange, strange world.

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:29 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

Bill,

You wrote, "tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll

explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not", which

was an appropriate response. So here is what I am talking about:

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. The Parkland doctors didn't observe

it. Even the mortician contradicts it. It didn't happen. It is fake!

We know there are phony drawings by artists who never saw the body. We

know there is a fake autopsy report that was rewritten under orders. We

know the X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of

the head. All of these deceptions have been subjected to meticulous and

detailed scrutiny in books I edited. But fake evidence doesn't support

a rationally justifiable or a morally responsible reply to this question.

Here's how I have put it: None of what I have said here (in laying out

around twenty proofs of fakery) even reaches to the mutually reinforcing

deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film,

(B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the

publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-

front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after

twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception,

when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview

on television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Notice:

Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the

mortician! Dr. McClelland certified a drawing of the massive blow-out to

the back of the head. More than forty witnesses have confirmed that that

was the location. Dr. Crenshaw drew it for me to include in my first book.

There is an overwhelming accumulation of evidence that establishes that the

blow-out was to the back of his head, not to the right-front. And Roderick

Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, who received an Oscar for his

contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, that the blow-out

and the head spray had been painted in. I will assume that you are familiar

with all of this, since otherwise you are incompetent to address the issue.

So my challenge to you is very simple. Do you acknowledge the blow-out to

the right-front is a fabrication? If you do, then you are thereby acknowl-

edging that the film is a fabrication. The proof is present. It is clear

and compelling. Indeed, in my view, this is the most powerful proof that

the film is a recreation and places the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

John Costella, David Mantik, Jack White, David Lifton and I have advanced

over twenty reasons for concluding the Zapruder is a fake, as I have out-

lined below. Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!

Jim

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:

>--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@... wrote:

>>

>>What is not "specific" about the blow-out to the right front? Didn't you

>>get the memo? What I am talking about is detailed in paragraph 11 as (a),

>>(B), ©, and (d). Even you should be able to understand that. The fact

>>that others, including Jack, John, David, and David are better on photos

>>and films, having done vastly more than have I, does not imply that I have

>>no competence at all! Evidently, I AM MUCH BETTER THAN BILL MILLER when

>>it comes to the Zapruder. That kind of verbal shell game represents your

>>kind of "research" and is completely typical of the logical blunders that

>>come from shills, stooges, and disinfo ops like you. Moreover, this is

>>as good a test case as there could be relative to the Zapruder, which you

>>have flunked! So I don't think there's any reason for you to lecture any-

>>one about competence in relation to the photographic record. It is clear

>>to everyone by now that, when it comes to real questions, you fake it all

>>the way, which, of course, is your only option when the evidence refutes

>>your position. The case for video fakery is decisive and shows that you

>>and your buddies are here to obscure, obfuscate, and undermine advances

>>in understanding the genuine causes of the death of our 35th president.

>>Hang it up, BM! You are making yourself look worse and worse to us all.

>

>

>Mr. Fetzer, I cannot help but notice that you are one of those people who claim victory before the game even starts. You did it with Hoax and yet when I listed a good many of the claims Jack made that can be easily shown to be wrong ... you bitch that Jack is being attacked. In other words - you hide behind Jack's claims and yet when they are unraveled before you, then you bitch how Jack is being mistreated. To that I can only say - Stop using Jack if you don't want his claims critiqued. You cannot use him for a shield and then complain about the blows he is getting pelted with.

>

>Now about Zapruder ... I don't want to hear any revisions. Don't mention Jack if you don't want his short-comings mentioned. Instead you tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not.

>

>Bill Miller

>

>

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer's let's fly such a volume of words, that it seldom is worth taking the time to read them all. It certainly is not worth the time to reply to all the claims, semi-claims, misinterpretations and misrepresentations that populate his postings. Hence, it is an uncommon delight to find Fetzer claiming something that is so preposterously wrong that one can only laugh, thinking of Fetzer standing there with an Alfred E. Neuman smile on his face, his pants around his ankles.

His present post offers that kind belly laugh situation. The Professor, who again and again tells us of his great talent and experience in teaching "critical thinking," quotes me correctly as follows:

"Fetzer published a blow-up from the Moorman photo of the purported line-of-sight and then covered up the critical area with thick red lines. When you remove the thick red lines, you can see that the claim is false, that the purported line-of-sight is not there."

Then, Fetzer goes on to say:

"Except, of course, it isn't true. The red lines were used to orient readers to the location of the line of sight, which remains when it is not present, as Jack and I have demonstrated repeatedly in the course of this debate. Anyone who persists in advancing such chicanery at this point in time would stand out like a sore thumb for practicing such duplicity."

Cool. Now let's just have a look at what "remains when it is not present."

Redlinesandwithout.jpg

Can you all see what I'm laughing at? The good professor, that master of critical thinking as it's taught in academic backwaters all over this great country, has just hoisted himself from his own petard!

Josiah Thompson

Thinking about the inconsistency between the medical evidence and

the Zapruder film in relation to the blow-out to the right front, it occurred

to me that Tink confronts a dilemma, since, when he reviewed MURDER

IN DEALEY PLAZA, he praised exactly one chapter, which was authored by

Gary Aguilar. Most of us know that, in the time since, he has collaborated

with Gary on a paper under the title, "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical

Than We Knew?" What is fascinating about all of this is that, in his chapter

in MURDER, Aguilar offers extensive proof that the wound to JFK's head was

consistently described by the physicians at Parkland and at Bethesda in the

same fashion, namely: as a massive blow-out to the back of the head! So

when I returned to amazon.com to revisit his review, I was struck by the fact

that the sentence in which he praised Aguilar's chapter was missing!

Apparently, Tink Thompson was worried that someone might put "2" and "2"

together and notice that Aguilar's good work impeaches Zapruder's film. A

change of this kind can hardly be accidental but has to be deliberate. Of

course, if it were a unique occurrence, it might be one that we could discount.

This, however, is hardly the only instance of deliberate deception or of sloppy

research in relation to that review. For example, he begins by ridiculing the

publisher's observation that I "also edited the highly acclaimed ASSASSINATION

SCIENCE (Catfeet Press, 1998), widely praised as a rigorous and ground-breaking

contribution to Kennedy Assassination research", which he belittles as follows:

> The hype begins on the back cover of this book. There we find a smiling

> photo of its portly editor, James H. Fetzer, along with the statement that

> he "also edited the highly acclaimed Assassination Science (Catfeet Press,

> 1998) widely praised as a rigorous and ground-breaking contribution to

> Kennedy Assassination research." Highly acclaimed? Widely praised? A

> rigorous and ground-breaking contribution to Kennedy assassination

> research? Only in your dreams, Professor Fetzer!

Notice how he conveys the impression that I wrote the blurbs on my own book,

which, of course, came from the publisher. Those who are actually familiar

with the book, I suspect, would find this attitude just a bit difficult to understand,

in part because it is contradicted by the Publishers Weekly review:

> From Publishers Weekly

> A compendium of recent thought and discovery about the Kennedy assassination,

> this volume makes a case for official malfeasance and against the "lone

> gunman" explanation. Fetzer (Assassination Science), a professor of

> philosophy at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, sets the tone for an in-

> depth revisionist history in his prologue, in which he makes note of what he

> views as 16 "smoking guns" in the Warren Report and questions the veracity

> of the JFK autopsy photographs and tissue samples, and even the Zapruder

> film. Most contributors explore these topics in detail, aided by Ira Wood's

> precisely detailed "November 22, 1963: A Chronology." In provocative essays,

> Douglas Weldon explores tangled vehicle-related evidence that he concludes

> indicates that JFK was shot through the throat from in front of the car

> rather than from behind; Vincent Palamara names several Secret Service

> agents who he believes may have been compromised; and Fetzer discusses the

> little-seen "Assassination File" of former Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry.

> Also included is Bertrand Russell's acid 1964 assessment of what he viewed

> as a nascent coverup. With much discussion of alleged manipulation of

> forensic and photographic evidence, the book's overall focus is primarily

> technical, on what the contributors see as the wealth of evidence of a

> multiple-shooter assassination, with likely complicity of the Secret Service

> and other government agencies. This coolly angry dismantling of the theories

> of the Warren commission and lone-gunman supporters like Gerald Posner will

> be fodder for conspiracy theorists. © 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

One might think that, insofar as this review appears on the home page of the

book on amazon.com, it would be hard to miss. Even more striking, however, in

relation to the question of sloppy research or deliberate deception, is that

he obviously has the book in hand and knows it has a back cover, where he found

"a smiling photo of its portly editor". But if he found my photo on the back

cover, he had to have also found the "wide praise" and "high acclaim" of five

experts on the assassination, including Michael Parenti, Author of HISTORY AS

MYSTERY and TO KILL A NATION; Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Coroner, Allegheny

County, and Past President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences and American

College of Legal Medicine; Michael L. Kurtz, Author of CRIME OF THE CENTURY:

THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION FROM A HISTORIAN'S PERSPECTIVE; Kerry Walters,

Bittinger Professor of Philosophy, Gettysburg College; and Steward Galanor, Author

of CALCULUS: A VISUAL APPROACH and COVER-UP.

That makes is a bit difficult to imagine that his remarks to the contrary are

only the result of sloppy research. Instead of acknowledging what he knows to

be the true, he resorts to an obscure review by one Ernst-Ulrich Franzen in

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which, in my opinion--which others will share,

if they know the signs--was an obvious hit piece by an unqualified author, but

which Tink embraces with gusto in the classic pattern of one disinfo op citing

another as though they were independent sources, which is not even about the

book under review but ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. He even cites a second review

of that book as though he didn't realize that the book he is purportedly review-

ing is MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA! Once again, this is such an extraordinary

gaff that it can't be simply a matter of sloppy research but has to be one of

deliberate deception, where casual readers might not notice the shell game.

His grotesque intellectual stunts continue in relation to MURDER, where he

makes several misrepresentations about photographs and films. For example,

> On page 149 Fetzer reprints the famous Altgens photo of the assassination

> along with a circle in the windshield and a caption: "Circle 1 The apparent

> through-and-through hole in the windshield." Enlargements of this photo show

> clearly that there is no damage to the windshield visible and certainly no

> "apparent through-and-through hole." This is a fact known for thirty-five

> years which Professor Fetzer apparently missed.

But as anyone can verify for themselves, if you study the Altgens on p. 149

you will see the small, white spiral nebula with a dark spot at the center,

situated right where JFK's left ear would be if it were visible, where this

photograph is complemented by others found on pp. 157-158 and on p. 436 of

HOAX. Indeed, even ASSASSINATION SCIENCE included an article by a reporter

for the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Richard Dudman, on p. 167 and a discussion

of the hole in the windshield by Robert Livingston, M.D., on pp. 165-166.

Even more striking is the chapter on this subject by Douglas Weldon, J.D.,

who even tracked down the employee at Ford Motor Company who had changed

the windshield and confirmed that the original had a through-and-through

hole. Interestingly, two readers offered their own comments about this:

> Anonymous says:

> I will comment on one aspect of Thompson's review only: He says with regard

> to the Altgens photo of the motorcade on Elm: "Enlargements of this photo

> show clearly that there is no damage to the windshield visible and certainly

> no "apparent through-and-through hole." This is a fact known for thirty-five

> years which Professor Fetzer apparently missed."

>

> I bought Groden's The Killing of a President, which has a clear copy Altgen's

> photo on pages 30-31, if Thompson cannot see the black through and through

> hole (roughly where Kennedy's left ear would be, if visible), surrounded by

> cracked glass, he is either visually impaired or willfully blind. The hole

> is there. View a good copy of the photo and see for yourself. That should

> give an indication of Josiah Thompson's honesty and the quality of his

> research.

Here anonymous is talking about Altgens 5, which is the photo in MURDER. But

further confirmation came from a second source talking about Altgens 6 instead:

> Michael K. Beusch says:

> Altgens took two photos of the motorcade on Elm: The view looking west on

> Elm with the TSBD and the Dal-Tex building in the background, taken before

> the fatal shot and the view looking east on Elm that shows Jacqueline Kennedy

> on the trunk with Secret Service agent Clint Hill, taken after the fatal shot.

> The second photo, indeed, shows a hole in the windshield. However, I believe

> Josiah Thompson is referring to the first photo in which there is no apparent

> damage to the windshield.

Except, of course, it does. But while Michael Beusch might be excused for his

"sloppy research", that is more difficult to accept in the case of Thompson.

Indeed, he poses as an expert on the photos and films, including the Altgens,

yet the small, white spiral nebula can be clearly observed in Groden's book.

No one should be surprised when he uses this occasion to attack Jack White and

me over the Moorman. Think about what he says in the context of our debate:

> Fetzer includes a color section of photos put together by Jack White

> intended to show that the Zapruder film has been altered by some shadowy

> government agency. One of the wackiest "proofs" of this idea is the claim

> that Mary Moorman took her famous photo from the street and that therefore

> the Zapruder film (which shows her in the grass) has been altered. This

> proof depends on the existence of a particular line-of-sight in the Moorman

> photo. Fetzer published a blow-up from the Moorman photo of the purported

> line-of-sight and then covered up the critical area with thick red lines.

> When you remove the thick red lines, you can see that the claim is false,

> that the purported line-of-sight is not there.

Except, of course, it isn't true. The red lines were used to orient readers

to the location of the line of sight, which remains when it is not present, as

Jack and I have demonstrated repeatedly in the course of this debate. Anyone

who persists in advancing such chicanery at this point in time would stand out

like a sore thumb for practicing such duplicity. Those who are less familiar

with the history of research on JFK, however, would be easily misled by the

absence of a sentence from a review of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, one which--as

it happends--advances powerful evidence that contradicts the authenticity of

the Zapruder. So ask yourself, what is this? Sloppy research or deliberate

deception?" Either way, no one should doubt that it is vintage Tink Thompson.

What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an open

umbrella on the motorcade route was pumping it up and down for

his health at the precise location of the assassination? Incredible.

And the rubbish about "lone nutters" is quite ridiculous. This is a

perfectly appropriate way to identify where someone is coming

from. They object because they are POSING as if they weren't.

That is why so many of their arguments are so strange. They are

not actually engaged in research, merely in attempting to under-

mine the progress made by others, where Tink is the bandleader.

I can't believe the assemby of phonys and fakes who have gathered

here. Bill Miller seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth

after agreeing to respond to my explanation of Zapruder frame problems.

Where are you, Bill? I know you're out there somewhere. What about

YOUR INVITATION that I tell you what Zapruder frame is bothering me

and you'll explain to me in detail whether you agree with me or not?

I've done that, Bill. Here are the links that show EXACTLY WHAT I'M

TALKING ABOUT. So why have you gone missing? Are you afraid to

response? The world is waiting, Miller. Just where have you gone?

The very same points put the lie to Josiah and Junk and Lamson and

the rest of that sordid crowd, who appear to be welcome to some

on this forum. Amazing! We live in a strange, strange world.

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:29 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: A challenge for Bill Miller . . .

Bill,

You wrote, "tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll

explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not", which

was an appropriate response. So here is what I am talking about:

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most

blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the

massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.

None of the witnesses observed it. The Parkland doctors didn't observe

it. Even the mortician contradicts it. It didn't happen. It is fake!

We know there are phony drawings by artists who never saw the body. We

know there is a fake autopsy report that was rewritten under orders. We

know the X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of

the head. All of these deceptions have been subjected to meticulous and

detailed scrutiny in books I edited. But fake evidence doesn't support

a rationally justifiable or a morally responsible reply to this question.

Here's how I have put it: None of what I have said here (in laying out

around twenty proofs of fakery) even reaches to the mutually reinforcing

deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film,

(B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the

publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-

front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after

twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception,

when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview

on television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Notice:

Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the

mortician! Dr. McClelland certified a drawing of the massive blow-out to

the back of the head. More than forty witnesses have confirmed that that

was the location. Dr. Crenshaw drew it for me to include in my first book.

There is an overwhelming accumulation of evidence that establishes that the

blow-out was to the back of his head, not to the right-front. And Roderick

Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, who received an Oscar for his

contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, that the blow-out

and the head spray had been painted in. I will assume that you are familiar

with all of this, since otherwise you are incompetent to address the issue.

So my challenge to you is very simple. Do you acknowledge the blow-out to

the right-front is a fabrication? If you do, then you are thereby acknowl-

edging that the film is a fabrication. The proof is present. It is clear

and compelling. Indeed, in my view, this is the most powerful proof that

the film is a recreation and places the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

John Costella, David Mantik, Jack White, David Lifton and I have advanced

over twenty reasons for concluding the Zapruder is a fake, as I have out-

lined below. Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am

challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to

acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about

the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of

disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!

Jim

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:

>--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@... wrote:

>>

>>What is not "specific" about the blow-out to the right front? Didn't you

>>get the memo? What I am talking about is detailed in paragraph 11 as (a),

>>(B), ©, and (d). Even you should be able to understand that. The fact

>>that others, including Jack, John, David, and David are better on photos

>>and films, having done vastly more than have I, does not imply that I have

>>no competence at all! Evidently, I AM MUCH BETTER THAN BILL MILLER when

>>it comes to the Zapruder. That kind of verbal shell game represents your

>>kind of "research" and is completely typical of the logical blunders that

>>come from shills, stooges, and disinfo ops like you. Moreover, this is

>>as good a test case as there could be relative to the Zapruder, which you

>>have flunked! So I don't think there's any reason for you to lecture any-

>>one about competence in relation to the photographic record. It is clear

>>to everyone by now that, when it comes to real questions, you fake it all

>>the way, which, of course, is your only option when the evidence refutes

>>your position. The case for video fakery is decisive and shows that you

>>and your buddies are here to obscure, obfuscate, and undermine advances

>>in understanding the genuine causes of the death of our 35th president.

>>Hang it up, BM! You are making yourself look worse and worse to us all.

>

>

>Mr. Fetzer, I cannot help but notice that you are one of those people who claim victory before the game even starts. You did it with Hoax and yet when I listed a good many of the claims Jack made that can be easily shown to be wrong ... you bitch that Jack is being attacked. In other words - you hide behind Jack's claims and yet when they are unraveled before you, then you bitch how Jack is being mistreated. To that I can only say - Stop using Jack if you don't want his claims critiqued. You cannot use him for a shield and then complain about the blows he is getting pelted with.

>

>Now about Zapruder ... I don't want to hear any revisions. Don't mention Jack if you don't want his short-comings mentioned. Instead you tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not.

>

>Bill Miller

>

>

In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.

This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.

Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.

Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...