Barb Junkkarinen Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Mr. Fetzer, below you say: "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. " You are incorrect. Your claim is not true: Bill Newman ... "By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head." [Affidavit 11-22-63] Bill Newman ... "At that time he heard the bullet strike the President and saw flesh fly from the President's head." .... "He said the president was hit on the right side of the head with the third shot ..."[FBI report 11-23-63] Gayle Newman ... "Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out, and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head." [Affidavit 11-22-63] Gayle Newman ... " A few seconds later she heard another shot and saw that the President had been hit in the head because she saw blood flowing from his body. She said a man had been standing back on the pedestal near an arcade taking photographs and there were a couple of people east of them on the north side of Elm Street." [FBI report 11-23-63] NOTE: She reports man with camera on pedestal. Gayle Newman .... Shaw trial testimony: "Q: And what were you able to observe the effects of this shot then? A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear." and "Q: Now what was the effect of this shot upon the President's head if you were able to observe? A: The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side." Bill Newman, Shaw Trial testimony: "I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. " and "A: Well, I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white ...." Recorded interview with Mariloyn Sitzman by Josiah Thompson, November 1966: "Thompson: (resumes recording) So now I believe the motorcade has made the turn onto Houston Street and is proceeding down Houston Street. Sorry we were interrupted. Sitzman: Try it again. There was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left, and the motorcade, you know, proceeded down the hill. And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his fa ... [sic] Thompson: Where on the side of the head did that shot appear to hit? Sitzman: I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front. Thompson: In other words, if one drew a line vertically upward from the tip of the ear, it would be forward of that line? Sitzman: Yeah. Thompson: It would then mean the left ... back of the temple, but on the side of the head, back of the temple? Sitzman: Between the eye and the ear. Thompson: Between the eye and the ear. Sitzman: And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less. Thompson: Did you see what the President's movement was at that point? I mean, how his head moved or how his body seemed to move under the impact of the shot. Sitzman: No, I guess ... I saw his, you know, the shot hit his head and what happened to his head, and I don't care what anybody says, I was looking at his head. I wasn't paying any attention which way he was moving or anything else, because it's something that I've never seen before, you know, and kind of ugh." Zapruder himself gave a graphic description of see the head open up on the right side in a TV interview the afternoon of 11-22-63 ... and then cried in relating about it in his WC testimony. These are some samples of witnesses reporting what you say no witness said. You are incorrect. And documentably so. You lost your own challenge because it was based on an untrue premise. If you know the evidence, why didn't you know this? If you don't know the evidence, why are you promoting stuff like this? Below you also said: "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!" Will you correct yourself and refrain from making this false claim in the future, Mr. Fetzer? "Either you have the strength of character to acknowledge this point or you do not." On the forum where you first posted this this morning, and I responded with these quotes, you have not yet had that "strength of character" ... in fact, instead, you went on a day long rant, first trying to dive, divert and dodge while trying to turn it into your favor. When that didn't work, I reminded you of your stated claim, you took another tack. When that didn't work either, you launched into several personal assaults on me. There's no need to relive all that here. :-) But you put the claim here ... so I put the documentation here that shows your claim is false. Perhaps here you will find that "strength of character" to "acknowledge" your claim is incorrect. I hope so. Barb What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an openumbrella 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 firstname.lastname@example.org ----- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:29 -0500 From: email@example.com 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, ( 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, 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), >>(, ©, 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 More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now