Jump to content
The Education Forum

We’re done. Why we came. What we learned. Thank you all.


Recommended Posts

For much too long, we’ve watched Professor Fetzer using debunked claims to argue for a discredited theory of Zapruder film alteration. He rattles off his claims in rapid fire fashion as if their very number will scare off any criticism. There was the seven-foot woman who turned out to be 5' 4," the growing Mrs. Frantzen who turned out not to have grown at all, the William Greer head-turn which turned out to be inhumanly fast only if you speeded up his turn by picking the wrong Z-frame numbers for beginning and ending his turn, the “frozen” spectators who turned out not to be frozen at all... and on and on. Last November, he resurrected the Moorman-in-the-street claim that had been buried with full military honors in 2002. Debate was joined on JFK-research and continued for a month or two.

Finally, out of frustration with Fetzer’s tactics of duck and cover, the five of us... Barb Junkkarinen, Bill Miller, Gary Mack, Craig Lamson and I... decided to try something else. We organized the debunking of the claim into the form of a scholarly article. We researched the provenance of each copy of the Moorman Polaroid even interviewing an individual who spoke to Moorman within forty-five minutes of the assassination. We presented the best copies available of relevant photos. We gathered whatever transcripts were available of Moorman’s comments over time. We put all this together and we brought it here to this forum.

Why?

We brought it here because we hoped that with the eyes of this forum upon him, Professor Fetzer might observe minimal standards of honest discussion.

What do we mean by “minimal standards of honest discussion?” Nothing complicated at all. We mean something like this: If A says something, B either agrees with A or tells A why he is wrong. It may be that what A said was correct. In that case, B might say, “You know, you’re right. I never thought of it that way.” B might then go on to say, “On the other hand, you haven’t taken into account ‘X’.” The discussion would then proceed along the lines of whether A had taken “X” into account. Alternatively, B might say: “No, I think you are wrong about that because of ‘Y.’” This is not rocket science. It’s something with which we are all familiar.... something we are all able to do easily.

What have we seen played out here? You all undoubtedly have reached your own opinion. This is what we’ve seen.

In presenting the Moorman-in-the-street claim in MIDP, Jack White started out by writing: “Because it was an instant photo that was copied and widely published within hours of the assassination, the Moorman Polaroid is guaranteed to be an authentic image.” Because of its obvious “guarantee” as authentic, White set out to use the Moorman Polaroid to undermine the authenticity of the Zapruder film. The Z film showed Moorman taking her photo while standing on the grass with the lens of her camera at least 50 or so inches above the ground. White thought he was able to see a LOS in the Moorman photo that placed her camera either 44.5" or 41.5" above the turf. He made a mistake. The LOS he carelessly believed was in the Moorman photo wasn’t there. The true LOS in the Moorman photo placed the position of Moorman’s camera right where it appears in the Zapruder film. We demonstrated this by chronicling the history of every Moorman photo copy and showing that they all showed the same “gap.” We showed how the size of that gap raised the true LOS to what we see in the Zapruder film.

What does Fetzer say in reply? He might have disagreed with any of the substantial evidentiary points that we raised. He didn’t. More simply, he could have just admitted, “Hey, guys, we were wrong about that. The LOS does match the Z film. She really was in the grass when she took her photo... right where the Z film and other films place her.” Fetzer did neither. He neither engaged with any of the evidentiary points or simply admitted he’d made a mistake. Instead, he side-stepped. He claims now that the Moorman photo itself has been faked. He said last week on this site, “It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.” Does this mean that the photo Mary Moorman has kept is not the photo she took? Does this mean that the Moorman photo filmed by NBC-News around 1:00 PM on that Friday and broadcast nationwide at 3:16 PM is not the photo she took that day? Or that all the various copies whose provenance we carefully traced are not copies of the photo she took that day? Apparently, this is what Fetzer means to maintain in order not to have to admit that the Moorman claim was a mistake. Last week, he wrote, “Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated when the alteration was done.”

Get it? The whole Moorman claim gets started because White believes it “is guaranteed to be an authentic image.” Later, when their claim has been shredded, instead of abandoning it and admitting they made a mistake, they jettison the authenticity of the photo itself. And where was the photo altered? Right in the area (“something in the pergola area”) in which they hoped to prove their claim but ultimately were tripped up. And why would anyone alter this particular area? “I believe that Jack may have hit on the crucial reason... for fiddling with the Moorman in the pergola area specifically,” writes Fetzer on this site, “has to do with the images of Sitzman and Zapruder, who might or might not have been there at all... Perhaps Zapruder did not take the ‘Zapruder film’ because the evidence presented here suggests he wasn’t even there!” And who was on the pedestal? Not a “who,” replies Fetzer, just a rubber dummy!

Fine. So instead of White and Fetzer being wrong we now have to believe that the Moorman film has been altered in the area of the pergola. And why? To conceal the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman were not standing on the pedestal while Zapruder filmed. Not only is the extant Moorman Polaroid not the photo Moorman actually took on November 22nd, but the Zapruder film is not the film that Zapruder took on November 22nd. The Hesters talked with Zapruder and Sitzman just before they got up on the pedestal. Other witnesses saw Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. Zapruder himself reported on television that afternoon that he stood on the pedestal to take his film. Sitzman told me and others the same thing. The Willis, Betzner, Nix, Muchmore, Moorman and Bronson films all show individuals dressed like Sitzman and Zapruder standing on the pedestal. James Altgens shot a still photo of Zapruder and Sitzman walking away from the pedestal in the seconds after the shooting. The film screened by Zapruder to technicians at the Kodak plant that afternoon appeared to have been shot from the pedestal. The Zapruder film we have is indisputably shot from the pedestal.

All of this ducking and covering is tiresome to the rest of us. Of course, it is dishonest. Even worse, it is boring. However, now and then Fetzer provides such a big target that one can only laugh. For example, take his recent introduction into the debate of the Towner film. This is really funny.

Again and again over the years Fetzer has claimed that only “qualified” people can have opinions worth anything about the Kennedy assassination. And who will turn out to be the most “qualified” person? Of course, no one other than James Fetzer, Ph.D. For example, a couple of weeks ago Fetzer was berating some poor guy named “Zachary Luing” who disagreed with Fetzer on the JFK-research board. Fetzer told him: "Presumably, unlike Zachary Luing, I am qualified to make an assessment of this kind. If Zachary wants scholarly credentials, then he can study mine at length, and swoon." Yes, Fetzer actually said this. And then he provided a link where Luing could find those credentials to swoon over!

Fetzer has been claiming for years that Bill Miller (who has no Ph.D. after his name) is not “qualified” to have opinions. What is hilarious is that Bill Miller just stuck Fetzer with an argument of dazzling simplicity. The point is so simple that you would have to be brain-dead not to applaud it. Miller showed that the Moorman camera was looking down on the 58" high top of the motorcyclists’ windscreens as they passed her position. Therefore, she was on the grass. Understanding very little, Fetzer last week introduced a frame from the Towner film into the discussion. His purpose was to blunt the “windscreen” argument of Bill Miller. He got everything in his argument wrong. He misidentified the police motorcyclist and hence got the position of the camera wrong. He claimed that the Towner frame proved that our “argument about [Moorman] being run over if she were in the street has no basis in fact” but forgot that Houston Street had six lanes free and Elm Street only three. He claimed that “the Zippo [copy] is our best evidence” but forgot that the FBI and UPI copies have higher resolution and also lack the disfiguring thumb-print. Most importantly, Fetzer failed to grasp the very simple fact that the Towner frame actually confirmed the Miller argument. It would be impossible to make any more mistakes about something in short compass. Has Fetzer admitted any one of them? Of course not, he won’t reply to the post that points them out.

This has been Fetzer’s behavior for the last several years. A particular “proof” of film alteration is exposed as mistaken but later Fetzer continues to cite it as if it were valid. It was precisely for this reason that we brought to this board our work in putting together a systematic approach to why one of Fetzer’s major claims fails. We hoped that here, feeling the eyes of the rest of you on him, he might be persuaded to observe a modicum of intellectual honesty. Sadly, given what is highlighted above, he has not.

However, our purpose has been accomplished. You have patiently watched as Fetzer evaded our arguments, side-stepped into fantasy, and contented himself with claiming that we are all part of some “psy-op plot.” It is both unpleasant and confusing to follow Professor Fetzer’s weird acrobatics. But the recent poll about Moorman-in-the-street showed that most of you could not care less and the few who cared saw clearly what was going on. The folks on this forum, however, are quite sophisticated. Paul Baker asked if “anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can take any of this rubbish seriously” and pointed out that therefore “Fetzer would be out of business.” Denis Pointing went on to make clear that “the danger is that people off this forum associate with these nuts.”

In closing, my own reaction is a bit different. Yes, Fetzer gives serious research in this area an incredibly bad name. Yes, that bad name ends up besmirching all of us. However, a longer view would show that Fetzer is fighting a dismal rear-guard action. Most of us in the research community got his number some time ago. Over time, his tabloid posturings seem more and more silly as he becomes more and more marginalized.. Blessedly, he has found other research communities to mess with. I end up reading his posts and after digesting the bile he throws my way either giggling or laughing out loud. I think that might be the healthiest response for all of us to what he writes.

For Barb and Bill and Gary and Craig... and for myself, I want to thank the members of this forum for your attention and comments over the last couple of weeks.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have to thank Prof. Fetzer for one thing--he brought all of you here.

It has been a great learning experience.

Thank you all for your time--and more than that, your dedication.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah,

Just curious- do you believe that the backyard photos were genuine? I know it's not directly related to the question of assassination film alteration, but it does involve assassination-related film alteration. Also, I'm sure you're familiar with John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" hypothesis. Do you think his research and/or theory is credible?

The reason I mention both the backyard photos and Armstrong is because Jack White performed groundbreaking research, in my opinion, in analyzing the backyard photos as well as the numerous photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I'm not taking sides, but wonder if you'd acknowledge Jack's excellent work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah........

You have presented your groups studies, and given your opinions here, which you are entitled to , but I am also sorry to see , that you turned, in what you imply is your farewell post into another diatribe against Jack White and Dr.J.Fetzer...

That is far from being gracious in any way...in thanking this forum or it's administration for allowing you to do so...

No I do not always agree with anyone...or group...whatever.... I am quite independant...I sat back and read, studied and watch all that was presented..as a rule that is how one learns...

I do not agree as you have implied that ""Fetzer gives serious research in this area an incredibly bad name. Yes, that bad name ends up besmirching all of us. ""

I think if you are going to, as you have, on your way out throw more stones, then "and we" should be used within that line......and the all of us, is inapproprate, as you cannot speak for another..at any time....and assume....

Only ....each and every individual has that right...as all have the right to disagree with you and yours...or anyones study..

Personally I did not see anyone evading anything...within any of the threads except some direct questions asked of you, by David Lifton in an email letter, ppsted by Dr.Fetzer.......that you did not reply to, but then again, I could have missed others...

In fact I thought it all went quite well, the commenting back and forth except for the overwhelming name calling which it seems always make an appearance...and I missed your or anyones laughter.....

I do think that perhaps in the future that you need to consider that there is a third opinon, not yours nor theirs, but the silent majority that you assume to imply by your statement.....re the poll that was taken, ........and which in reality represented such a small number of the membership of this forum, that it is inconsequential.....

It certainly has been an experience having you and yours here at the Forum, each will or has, decided what kind for themselves....

There were no winners decided here within what has gone down in the past week or so...no matter what anyone wants to imply.....

That is the research world as it stands today..IMO.

B...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For much too long, we’ve watched Professor Fetzer using debunked claims to argue for a discredited theory of Zapruder film alteration. He rattles off his claims in rapid fire fashion as if their very number will scare off any criticism. There was the seven-foot woman who turned out to be 5' 4," the growing Mrs. Frantzen who turned out not to have grown at all, the William Greer head-turn which turned out to be inhumanly fast only if you speeded up his turn by picking the wrong Z-frame numbers for beginning and ending his turn, the “frozen” spectators who turned out not to be frozen at all... and on and on. Last November, he resurrected the Moorman-in-the-street claim that had been buried with full military honors in 2002. Debate was joined on JFK-research and continued for a month or two.

Finally, out of frustration with Fetzer’s tactics of duck and cover, the five of us... Barb Junkkarinen, Bill Miller, Gary Mack, Craig Lamson and I... decided to try something else. We organized the debunking of the claim into the form of a scholarly article. We researched the provenance of each copy of the Moorman Polaroid even interviewing an individual who spoke to Moorman within forty-five minutes of the assassination. We presented the best copies available of relevant photos. We gathered whatever transcripts were available of Moorman’s comments over time. We put all this together and we brought it here to this forum.

Why?

We brought it here because we hoped that with the eyes of this forum upon him, Professor Fetzer might observe minimal standards of honest discussion.

What do we mean by “minimal standards of honest discussion?” Nothing complicated at all. We mean something like this: If A says something, B either agrees with A or tells A why he is wrong. It may be that what A said was correct. In that case, B might say, “You know, you’re right. I never thought of it that way.” B might then go on to say, “On the other hand, you haven’t taken into account ‘X’.” The discussion would then proceed along the lines of whether A had taken “X” into account. Alternatively, B might say: “No, I think you are wrong about that because of ‘Y.’” This is not rocket science. It’s something with which we are all familiar.... something we are all able to do easily.

What have we seen played out here? You all undoubtedly have reached your own opinion. This is what we’ve seen.

In presenting the Moorman-in-the-street claim in MIDP, Jack White started out by writing: “Because it was an instant photo that was copied and widely published within hours of the assassination, the Moorman Polaroid is guaranteed to be an authentic image.” Because of its obvious “guarantee” as authentic, White set out to use the Moorman Polaroid to undermine the authenticity of the Zapruder film. The Z film showed Moorman taking her photo while standing on the grass with the lens of her camera at least 50 or so inches above the ground. White thought he was able to see a LOS in the Moorman photo that placed her camera either 44.5" or 41.5" above the turf. He made a mistake. The LOS he carelessly believed was in the Moorman photo wasn’t there. The true LOS in the Moorman photo placed the position of Moorman’s camera right where it appears in the Zapruder film. We demonstrated this by chronicling the history of every Moorman photo copy and showing that they all showed the same “gap.” We showed how the size of that gap raised the true LOS to what we see in the Zapruder film.

What does Fetzer say in reply? He might have disagreed with any of the substantial evidentiary points that we raised. He didn’t. More simply, he could have just admitted, “Hey, guys, we were wrong about that. The LOS does match the Z film. She really was in the grass when she took her photo... right where the Z film and other films place her.” Fetzer did neither. He neither engaged with any of the evidentiary points or simply admitted he’d made a mistake. Instead, he side-stepped. He claims now that the Moorman photo itself has been faked. He said last week on this site, “It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.” Does this mean that the photo Mary Moorman has kept is not the photo she took? Does this mean that the Moorman photo filmed by NBC-News around 1:00 PM on that Friday and broadcast nationwide at 3:16 PM is not the photo she took that day? Or that all the various copies whose provenance we carefully traced are not copies of the photo she took that day? Apparently, this is what Fetzer means to maintain in order not to have to admit that the Moorman claim was a mistake. Last week, he wrote, “Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated when the alteration was done.”

Get it? The whole Moorman claim gets started because White believes it “is guaranteed to be an authentic image.” Later, when their claim has been shredded, instead of abandoning it and admitting they made a mistake, they jettison the authenticity of the photo itself. And where was the photo altered? Right in the area (“something in the pergola area”) in which they hoped to prove their claim but ultimately were tripped up. And why would anyone alter this particular area? “I believe that Jack may have hit on the crucial reason... for fiddling with the Moorman in the pergola area specifically,” writes Fetzer on this site, “has to do with the images of Sitzman and Zapruder, who might or might not have been there at all... Perhaps Zapruder did not take the ‘Zapruder film’ because the evidence presented here suggests he wasn’t even there!” And who was on the pedestal? Not a “who,” replies Fetzer, just a rubber dummy!

Fine. So instead of White and Fetzer being wrong we now have to believe that the Moorman film has been altered in the area of the pergola. And why? To conceal the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman were not standing on the pedestal while Zapruder filmed. Not only is the extant Moorman Polaroid not the photo Moorman actually took on November 22nd, but the Zapruder film is not the film that Zapruder took on November 22nd. The Hesters talked with Zapruder and Sitzman just before they got up on the pedestal. Other witnesses saw Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. Zapruder himself reported on television that afternoon that he stood on the pedestal to take his film. Sitzman told me and others the same thing. The Willis, Betzner, Nix, Muchmore, Moorman and Bronson films all show individuals dressed like Sitzman and Zapruder standing on the pedestal. James Altgens shot a still photo of Zapruder and Sitzman walking away from the pedestal in the seconds after the shooting. The film screened by Zapruder to technicians at the Kodak plant that afternoon appeared to have been shot from the pedestal. The Zapruder film we have is indisputably shot from the pedestal.

All of this ducking and covering is tiresome to the rest of us. Of course, it is dishonest. Even worse, it is boring. However, now and then Fetzer provides such a big target that one can only laugh. For example, take his recent introduction into the debate of the Towner film. This is really funny.

Again and again over the years Fetzer has claimed that only “qualified” people can have opinions worth anything about the Kennedy assassination. And who will turn out to be the most “qualified” person? Of course, no one other than James Fetzer, Ph.D. For example, a couple of weeks ago Fetzer was berating some poor guy named “Zachary Luing” who disagreed with Fetzer on the JFK-research board. Fetzer told him: "Presumably, unlike Zachary Luing, I am qualified to make an assessment of this kind. If Zachary wants scholarly credentials, then he can study mine at length, and swoon." Yes, Fetzer actually said this. And then he provided a link where Luing could find those credentials to swoon over!

Fetzer has been claiming for years that Bill Miller (who has no Ph.D. after his name) is not “qualified” to have opinions. What is hilarious is that Bill Miller just stuck Fetzer with an argument of dazzling simplicity. The point is so simple that you would have to be brain-dead not to applaud it. Miller showed that the Moorman camera was looking down on the 58" high top of the motorcyclists’ windscreens as they passed her position. Therefore, she was on the grass. Understanding very little, Fetzer last week introduced a frame from the Towner film into the discussion. His purpose was to blunt the “windscreen” argument of Bill Miller. He got everything in his argument wrong. He misidentified the police motorcyclist and hence got the position of the camera wrong. He claimed that the Towner frame proved that our “argument about [Moorman] being run over if she were in the street has no basis in fact” but forgot that Houston Street had six lanes free and Elm Street only three. He claimed that “the Zippo [copy] is our best evidence” but forgot that the FBI and UPI copies have higher resolution and also lack the disfiguring thumb-print. Most importantly, Fetzer failed to grasp the very simple fact that the Towner frame actually confirmed the Miller argument. It would be impossible to make any more mistakes about something in short compass. Has Fetzer admitted any one of them? Of course not, he won’t reply to the post that points them out.

This has been Fetzer’s behavior for the last several years. A particular “proof” of film alteration is exposed as mistaken but later Fetzer continues to cite it as if it were valid. It was precisely for this reason that we brought to this board our work in putting together a systematic approach to why one of Fetzer’s major claims fails. We hoped that here, feeling the eyes of the rest of you on him, he might be persuaded to observe a modicum of intellectual honesty. Sadly, given what is highlighted above, he has not.

However, our purpose has been accomplished. You have patiently watched as Fetzer evaded our arguments, side-stepped into fantasy, and contented himself with claiming that we are all part of some “psy-op plot.” It is both unpleasant and confusing to follow Professor Fetzer’s weird acrobatics. But the recent poll about Moorman-in-the-street showed that most of you could not care less and the few who cared saw clearly what was going on. The folks on this forum, however, are quite sophisticated. Paul Baker asked if “anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can take any of this rubbish seriously” and pointed out that therefore “Fetzer would be out of business.” Denis Pointing went on to make clear that “the danger is that people off this forum associate with these nuts.”

In closing, my own reaction is a bit different. Yes, Fetzer gives serious research in this area an incredibly bad name. Yes, that bad name ends up besmirching all of us. However, a longer view would show that Fetzer is fighting a dismal rear-guard action. Most of us in the research community got his number some time ago. Over time, his tabloid posturings seem more and more silly as he becomes more and more marginalized.. Blessedly, he has found other research communities to mess with. I end up reading his posts and after digesting the bile he throws my way either giggling or laughing out loud. I think that might be the healthiest response for all of us to what he writes.

For Barb and Bill and Gary and Craig... and for myself, I want to thank the members of this forum for your attention and comments over the last couple of weeks.

Josiah Thompson

well, it's tough when center stage is a long reach isn't it? So, it's time to move over, there's a new breed of JFK researcher coming down the pike. We should all look forward to watching them work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Josiah, (not devalueing Kathys, Davids, Barbs, and others, comments) it has been educational and thought provoking. A bit of brainstorming here and there and a shift towards a more scholarly research paradigm. At the same time I'm sad you are moving on as I have a number of issues I'd like to discuss, whatever, best wishes.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
Thank you Josiah, (not devalueing Kathys, Davids, Barbs, and others, comments) it has been educational and thought provoking. A bit of brainstorming here and there and a shift towards a more scholarly research paradigm. At the same time I'm sad you are moving on as I have a number of issues I'd like to discuss, whatever, best wishes.

John,

The whole purpose of starting this thread, IMO, is to attract a response like yours.... because, of course, what you imagine you'll miss out on, if Dr. Thompson continued to participate, won't happen, and we're told it's Dr. Fetzer's fault!

Sheesh! I didn't come here for this, I can get read manipulative, sophomoric thread topics like this one, anywhere.

Let's get back to sharing the fruits of our inquiries now, shall we?

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There they go, riding off into the sunset like the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

Tink Thompson really didn't need a posse of Barb, Bill, Gary and Craig to run Fetzer out of town. The only people to pay him any attention were Fox TV, who want to portray him as typical of all conspiacy theorists, and Tink and the Posse.

Fetzer was not and is not a threat, and its a shame that Tink & the Posse won't hold Bugloisi, Posner, Myers, Russo and Waldron to the same standards of evidence and reason, as they are much more dangerous to truth and justice in the case.

Those who claim that JFK was killed by a deranged lone nut, or Castro or the Mafia, continue the original cover story, or its various offshoots, while the truth still lingers somewhere beyond what we really know.

It was rather easy to debunk Fetzer's Folly, but the Posse won't take on Bugliosi, even though he gets much more media attention and will be developed into a mulit-million dollar made-for-tv dramatic production on HBO, or Russo, who gets a German "documentary" producer to put his propaganda on film and Posner, Myers and Waldron, who get mainstream TV shows.

Waldron may drop by to promote his book, but he won't stick around to answer any questions either.

Where's the real Posse? The real good guys in the white hats, who don't bother to stop and debunk the junk but actually follow the investigative leads discarded by the official investigators, assit in the real research that helps determine what actually happened, identifies the real assassins and brings some sembalance of justice for JFK?

They're not on the horizon, and the sun is setting.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There they go, riding off into the sunset like the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

Tink Thompson really didn't need a posse of Barb, Bill, Gary and Craig to run Fetzer out of town. The only people to pay him any attention were Fox TV, who want to portray him as typical of all conspiacy theorists, and Tink and the Posse.

Fetzer was not and is not a threat, and its a shame that Tink & the Posse won't hold Bugloisi, Posner, Myers, Russo and Waldron to the same standards of evidence and reason, as they are much more dangerous to truth and justice in the case.

Those who claim that JFK was killed by a deranged lone nut, or Castro or the Mafia, continue the original cover story, or its various offshoots, while the truth still lingers somewhere beyond what we really know.

It was rather easy to debunk Fetzer's Folly, but the Posse won't take on Bugliosi, even though he gets much more media attention and will be developed into a mulit-million dollar made-for-tv dramatic production on HBO, or Russo, who gets a German "documentary" producer to put his propaganda on film and Posner, Myers and Waldron, who get mainstream TV shows.

Waldron may drop by to promote his book, but he won't stick around to answer any questions either.

Where's the real Posse? The real good guys in the white hats, who don't bother to stop and debunk the junk but actually follow the investigative leads discarded by the official investigators, assit in the real research that helps determine what actually happened, identifies the real assassins and brings some sembalance of justice for JFK?

They're not on the horizon, and the sun is setting.

Bill Kelly

Where's the real Posse? The real good guys in the white hats, who don't bother to stop and debunk the junk but actually follow the investigative leads discarded by the official investigators, assit in the real research that helps determine what actually happened, identifies the real assassins and brings some sembalance of justice for JFK?

They're not on the horizon, and the sun is setting.

Bill Kelly

Thankfully, you are also incorrect there as well Bill.

"They" ARE out there and "they" are also conducting the type of factual research necessery to ultimately (for rational minded persons) place much of the facts into the proper perspective.

As one who receives emails and additional knowledge from them, "they" are a primary reason for my continuation to openly share information and knowledge here on this forum.

"They" just happen to be nowhere near as vocal as I am in regards to the multlitudes of assinine theories and completely erroneous claims, and for the most part content themselves with exposure to and evaluation of factual evidence.

In fact, for the most part, "They" are one of the few valid reasons for my even bothering to provide information here as well as through email correspondence.

That you are unaware of their activities is quite understandable.

"They" happen to be the newer generation of "non-sheeple" researchers, and hopefully the new generation which will ultimately assist the country as a whole in a newer and more intelligent direction.

"Your World Soon"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There they go, riding off into the sunset like the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

Tink Thompson really didn't need a posse of Barb, Bill, Gary and Craig to run Fetzer out of town. The only people to pay him any attention were Fox TV, who want to portray him as typical of all conspiacy theorists, and Tink and the Posse.

Fetzer was not and is not a threat, and its a shame that Tink & the Posse won't hold Bugloisi, Posner, Myers, Russo and Waldron to the same standards of evidence and reason, as they are much more dangerous to truth and justice in the case.

Those who claim that JFK was killed by a deranged lone nut, or Castro or the Mafia, continue the original cover story, or its various offshoots, while the truth still lingers somewhere beyond what we really know.

It was rather easy to debunk Fetzer's Folly, but the Posse won't take on Bugliosi, even though he gets much more media attention and will be developed into a mulit-million dollar made-for-tv dramatic production on HBO, or Russo, who gets a German "documentary" producer to put his propaganda on film and Posner, Myers and Waldron, who get mainstream TV shows.

Waldron may drop by to promote his book, but he won't stick around to answer any questions either.

Where's the real Posse? The real good guys in the white hats, who don't bother to stop and debunk the junk but actually follow the investigative leads discarded by the official investigators, assit in the real research that helps determine what actually happened, identifies the real assassins and brings some sembalance of justice for JFK?

They're not on the horizon, and the sun is setting.

Bill Kelly

Bill, in Tink's defense, he DID write a negative review of Bugliosi's book, and actually got it published. This, of course, sent Bugliosi and his over-sized ego in a spiral.

If you're interested in a thoroughly damning article about Bugliosi's book, might I suggest you check out chapter 9b at patspeer.com. I tried to write something that would stand up to any single-assassin theorist criticism, and demonstrate to all that Bugliosi's book is completely biased and deceptive. I think I succeeded. Certainly, no LNT has touched it with anything but criticisms of the "Bugliosi is a great writer and you suck" variety; which is to say, they haven't touched it at all.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where Bill Kelly is coming from. One of my main problems with the entire alteration debate is the intensely negative response Jack White and Jim Fetzer bring out in Josiah, Bill Miller and others. I just don't see the same kind of intense negativity and scrutiny directed at Bugliosi, David Von Pein, or any other lone nutter.

There is no doubt that the vitriol comes from both sides- it is always an uncivil exchange and I can't imagine too many lurkers are impressed or hang around long enough to sift through all the posts.

At this point, I think that Josiah's dramatic "farewell" to the forum (at least that's what it sounded like to me) indicates a need on his part to hear others say "you won!" I'm sure Jim and Jack would enjoy hearing that, too.

The problem is, in this debate, I just don't think anybody looks like a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, Mr. Jeffries,

To answer your first question, I think the backyard photos are probably genuine. I say “probably genuine” because this is a tangled mess of evidence. Marguerite and Marina Oswald have said on numerous occasions that they destroyed a fourth pose of Oswald with a rifle on Saturday morning so the cops wouldn’t find it. I don’t credit Jack White’s photo work on these photos as either decisive or illuminating. That’s my opinion.

I sympathize with you or anyone else who is turned off by the vitriol present in the recent debate. I am too. However, I challenge you or anyone else to disagree with Fetzer and find out how quickly you’ll be called an “unqualified” person to have an opinion, mentally unbalanced, or obviously a “psy-ops operator.” For ten years now, whenever Fetzer loses a point in argument, he hints darkly about me being an intelligence agent. The gambit is transparent. I resent this kind of tactic and I think you should too.

I regret that you believe I wanted you or others to proclaim that our little group “won.” We know what happened. We watched it unfold. That was more than enough. I certainly did not mean to bid a “dramatic farewell to the forum.” All I meant to say was that this little debate seemed to me to be over. I’ll be around. But I’m still a working detective with cases to take care of. Hence, my time is often in short supply.

By the way, when I used the term “we” I was referring to our little group and did not mean the forum as a whole. Obviously, no one speaks for that larger group.

Josiah Thompson

I understand where Bill Kelly is coming from. One of my main problems with the entire alteration debate is the intensely negative response Jack White and Jim Fetzer bring out in Josiah, Bill Miller and others. I just don't see the same kind of intense negativity and scrutiny directed at Bugliosi, David Von Pein, or any other lone nutter.

There is no doubt that the vitriol comes from both sides- it is always an uncivil exchange and I can't imagine too many lurkers are impressed or hang around long enough to sift through all the posts.

At this point, I think that Josiah's dramatic "farewell" to the forum (at least that's what it sounded like to me) indicates a need on his part to hear others say "you won!" I'm sure Jim and Jack would enjoy hearing that, too.

The problem is, in this debate, I just don't think anybody looks like a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Don,

You said:

"The problem is, in this debate, I just don't think anybody looks like a winner."

The only "winner" that matters is truth and accuracy. Some issues in this arena cannot be resolved for various reasons, some can. The Moorman in the street issue is one that we believed could be resolved ... and those of us who worked to put together the essay believe it has been. That was our only intent ... to present a definitive essay on the claims and the facts and place it on forums where people can find it when looking into the claim that Moorman was in the street, not on the grass, when she took her photo.

The information is now available in multiple places in cyberspace, and people can make up their own minds. That claim was the only issue the essay addressed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

I understand where Bill Kelly is coming from. One of my main problems with the entire alteration debate is the intensely negative response Jack White and Jim Fetzer bring out in Josiah, Bill Miller and others. I just don't see the same kind of intense negativity and scrutiny directed at Bugliosi, David Von Pein, or any other lone nutter.

There is no doubt that the vitriol comes from both sides- it is always an uncivil exchange and I can't imagine too many lurkers are impressed or hang around long enough to sift through all the posts.

At this point, I think that Josiah's dramatic "farewell" to the forum (at least that's what it sounded like to me) indicates a need on his part to hear others say "you won!" I'm sure Jim and Jack would enjoy hearing that, too.

The problem is, in this debate, I just don't think anybody looks like a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where Bill Kelly is coming from. One of my main problems with the entire alteration debate is the intensely negative response Jack White and Jim Fetzer bring out in Josiah, Bill Miller and others. I just don't see the same kind of intense negativity and scrutiny directed at Bugliosi, David Von Pein, or any other lone nutter.

There is no doubt that the vitriol comes from both sides- it is always an uncivil exchange and I can't imagine too many lurkers are impressed or hang around long enough to sift through all the posts.

At this point, I think that Josiah's dramatic "farewell" to the forum (at least that's what it sounded like to me) indicates a need on his part to hear others say "you won!" I'm sure Jim and Jack would enjoy hearing that, too.

The problem is, in this debate, I just don't think anybody looks like a winner.

Josiah Thompson does indeed have a flair for the dramatic, but NEVER gone.... and much easier on the eyes, and in print, than Wild Bill Millah (or the forum ghost Gary Mack)!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where Bill Kelly is coming from. One of my main problems with the entire alteration debate is the intensely negative response Jack White and Jim Fetzer bring out in Josiah, Bill Miller and others. I just don't see the same kind of intense negativity and scrutiny directed at Bugliosi, David Von Pein, or any other lone nutter.

I can only suggest that someone doing a simple search of the Von Pein threads at Lancer ... or at least talk to someone who has. Von Pein got it up one side and down the other and his views were just the opposite of Fetzer's. The same was done in part concerning Bugilosi's views as was cited on the forums.

Bill Miller

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...