Jump to content
The Education Forum

How about an internet cemetery for Z-film alteration claims?


Recommended Posts

For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.

Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?

On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.

Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?

The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.

Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?

On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.

Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?

The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.

Josiah Thompson

A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory.

A study of the film demonstrating that Kennedy was not bent forward enough for a bullet to enter has back and exit his throat (while traveling in a straight line) might prove enlightening to those still swallowing the SBT. A study of backspatter demonstrating that the bullet at frame 313 did not strike JFK on the back of his head might also prove useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.

Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?

On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.

Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?

The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.

Josiah Thompson

associating Z-film alteration claims with Nigerian scam arteeeeeests? Bit to much winter in Bodega this year? LMAO!

Well, does this mean I should figure you won't consider co-authoring the end-all b-all JFK assassination conspiracy book with Jim Fetzer and David Lifton? Damn thing would probably be a NYT best-seller. I'd even pitch a screenplay of same to a few network folks I know... Now that everyone is rapidly approaching 70, best to get consensus, SOON!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, does this mean I should figure you won't consider co-authoring the end-all b-all JFK assassination conspiracy book with Jim Fetzer and David Lifton? Damn thing would probably be a NYT best-seller. I'd even pitch a screenplay of same to a few network folks I know... Now that everyone is rapidly approaching 70, best to get consensus, SOON!

David, after you finish getting that request written to the NARA to allow you to examine the said in-camera original Zapruder film which has been ongoing for a very long time for some odd reason ... Why don't you write a piece on why it was after reading and thinking through all the claims in 'Hoax' that you had felt that you'd seen NO PROOF of alteration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.

Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?

On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.

Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?

The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.

Josiah Thompson

Possibly there could be a locked/indexed topic on this forum that gathers all the pertinent postings. People can then discuss around it at will and also fling salespitches about to their hearts content.

The topic can be mrrored as open source and linked to from anywhere.

There's no need IMO to consider any balanced opposition segment, those who think there is one have ample resources to do that in their own time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, does this mean I should figure you won't consider co-authoring the end-all b-all JFK assassination conspiracy book with Jim Fetzer and David Lifton? Damn thing would probably be a NYT best-seller. I'd even pitch a screenplay of same to a few network folks I know... Now that everyone is rapidly approaching 70, best to get consensus, SOON!

David, after you finish getting that request written to the NARA to allow you to examine the said in-camera original Zapruder film which has been ongoing for a very long time for some odd reason ... Why don't you write a piece on why it was after reading and thinking through all the claims in 'Hoax' that you had felt that you'd seen NO PROOF of alteration.

we're above your pay-grade young feller, take a seat......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.

Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?

On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.

Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?

The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.

Josiah Thompson

Possibly there could be a locked/indexed topic on this forum that gathers all the pertinent postings. People can then discuss around it at will and also fling salespitches about to their hearts content.

The topic can be mrrored as open source and linked to from anywhere.

There's no need IMO to consider any balanced opposition segment, those who think there is one have ample resources to do that in their own time.

and current thread contributors to this particular subject matter thread(s) TIME belongs to who? So look John, John Simkin denied me a locked thread on this forum a few years back when I invited Roland Zavada (which he agreed) here to present material concerning the Zapruder Film (one posting), actually involved his updated Zavada report (which never materialized), I would present (one posting) we each had one additional posting within 30 days later -- that locked thread would then be indexed. Commentary concerning content would take place in peripheral threads/posting.

Your a few years late with your idea. A side question JohnD, have you ever been in-touch with Dr. John Costella, in any way?

Hi Gary, mildwinter in the south this year? :tomatoes

David

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

we're above your pay-grade young feller, take a seat......

Do I take it that you are not going to make a request to the NARA to allow you to put an end to the altered Zapruder film stuff once and for all ... now why am I not surprised.

Maybe this explains it ... http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/page...ON+HEALY?t=anon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we're above your pay-grade young feller, take a seat......

Do I take it that you are not going to make a request to the NARA to allow you to put an end to the altered Zapruder film stuff once and for all ... now why am I not surprised.

Maybe this explains it ... http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/page...ON+HEALY?t=anon

good, stay seated.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, this was a JFK Assassination DEBATE forum.

I'm guessing a debate forum is a place where people (presumably on opposite sides of an issue) can come together to discuss issues (in this case issues pertinent to the JFK assassination).

Though the battles between the Fetzer's and the Thompson's were tiresome, THIS is the forum where such exchanges are encouraged. I, for one, welcome an environment where there is a free exchange of ideas and lively discourse. Of course this whole "z-flim debate" broke down to name calling, personal attacks and so on, and as a result I skipped most of it.

My idea would be that you are free to create your own website to celebrate all of the z-film alteration claims that have been debunked. They would be safe there for future researchers to delve into and you could control the ramblings of anyone against your position.

I see no need to shut down debate on the alteration of the z-film (or any other substantive jfk assassination subject) since debate is the purpose of this forum.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory."

Why? I don't see any connection between the two.

Josiah Thompson

For a long time, the Nigerian sucker con still attracted people to send their banking information to a con man. You know the one... "I am the Undersecretary for Commerce in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and need to deposit my family funds in an overseas account of undisputed integrity. If you will deposit my funds in your account I will provide you with 35% of the funds deposited for every month they stay in your account. I wish to start with a deposit of $15.4 million. Please send to the address below your bank transfer information as well as your phone number (with international country code) so that I may contact you." The word got around and pretty soon the con was so well known that no one fell for it anymore.

Why not do the same with the endlessly repeated litany of supposed z-film alteration claims?

On one recent thread, Jack White referred us all to Fetzer's site where five or six of Costella claims were outlined. Then, a week later, Craig Lamson debunked two of the claims with as nice a piece of empirically based argument you would ever want to see. We all thought that Moorman-in-the-street was a dead puppy back in 2002. And then,last fall, Fetzer resurrected it only to see it interred on this site over the last couple of weeks. The problem is that the debunkings of these claims are scattered all over the internet. What we need to do is to bring them together at some central place where any neophytes can be directed for education.

Is this a good idea? Where should we collect the claims and their debunkings? How can we assure ourselves that the work will stay up on the internet for some time? Does anyone want to volunteer to get the ball rolling? Any good ideas?

The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't depend on Fetzer at all. It all can be done without having to listen to him drone on mindlessly covering everything in sight with masses of irrelevant verbiage. And after it was done, it could stand there for good as a kind of monument to silliness.

Josiah Thompson

A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory.

A study of the film demonstrating that Kennedy was not bent forward enough for a bullet to enter has back and exit his throat (while traveling in a straight line) might prove enlightening to those still swallowing the SBT. A study of backspatter demonstrating that the bullet at frame 313 did not strike JFK on the back of his head might also prove useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory."

Why? I don't see any connection between the two.

Josiah Thompson

There is widespread suspicion--you might even call it paranoia (I no longer do)--that any person choosing to focus on the errors of conspiracy theorists is someone with a pro-Warren Commission bias. At one point, I would have said I didn't get it. But after watching Inside the Target Car, where supposed conspiracy theorist Gary Mack helped push a whole lot of nonsense, all the while acting as though he was presenting a well-reasoned center, I've come to understand. (You can read my analysis of this con job here)

I just think your skills would be better spent debunking post Six Seconds single-assassin theorist nonsense (such as the Lattimer back wound location or Dale Myers' animation) than the findings of Fetzer and friends. There are points that can be proven to a reasonable certainty. The single-bullet theory trajectory does not line up. The back wound was at the same level or higher than the throat wound. The first shot did not miss. And yet single-assassin theorists and the mainstream media keep pretending these things aren't true. Let's change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I kinda figured that would be the case re locked threads, setting up a separate site as suggested by Robert, which can be mirrored anywhere, is more practical.

AFA Costella goes, no, he has never, (AFAIK), tried to contact me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I have to say to begin with that I don't give a damn where you think my skills at debunking should be employed. After all, they are my skills and I guess I get to choose where I'd like to employ them.

The more important point is that that you... and others... seem to think that research in the Kennedy assassination is some sort of tribal warfare. It isn't. At one point in time decades ago, research in the case had significant political importance. Now it doesn't. If someone believes it was possible for a single lone nut to have brought this off, then that is his/her prerogative. It bewilders me why I or anyone else should pay much attention to such an odd judgment. It seems to me that topics for research in this area should be chosen on the basis of what interests one. They certainly should not be chosen out of some misguided sense of what lyou propose "ought" to be investigated.

Fetzer is something else. First, he is such a pompous ass that taking him down has a certain enjoyment connected with it. Secondly, again because of his expanded ego, taking him down is not that difficult to do. Thirdly, because of the tactics he uses, he brings into disrepute not only research on the Kennedy assassination but also the integrity usually associated with being a professor of philosophy. Being a member of both groups, I find Fetzer and his "fetzering" not only an embarrassment but truly offensive. So that is why I continue to puncture his pomposity whenever I encounter it.

My other research interests are varied.

Josiah Thompson

"A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory."

Why? I don't see any connection between the two.

Josiah Thompson

There is widespread suspicion--you might even call it paranoia (I no longer do)--that any person choosing to focus on the errors of conspiracy theorists is someone with a pro-Warren Commission bias. At one point, I would have said I didn't get it. But after watching Inside the Target Car, where supposed conspiracy theorist Gary Mack helped push a whole lot of nonsense, all the while acting as though he was presenting a well-reasoned center, I've come to understand. (You can read my analysis of this con job here)

I just think your skills would be better spent debunking post Six Seconds single-assassin theorist nonsense (such as the Lattimer back wound location or Dale Myers' animation) than the findings of Fetzer and friends. There are points that can be proven to a reasonable certainty. The single-bullet theory trajectory does not line up. The back wound was at the same level or higher than the throat wound. The first shot did not miss. And yet single-assassin theorists and the mainstream media keep pretending these things aren't true. Let's change that.

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...