Dr Fetzer theories

[Steve Duffy]

I Need a crash course in James Fetzer. What, precisely, is he view on the Zapruder film. Now I've read Murder in Dealy Plaza, but was so baffled buy his suggestions I thought I'd ask some other possible readers if they subscribe to his theories. Not trying to start a Flame, its just my head can't get around aspects of the film that he suggest are a forgery. Any help?

[Jack White]

I Need a crash course in James Fetzer. What, precisely, is he view on the Zapruder film. Now I've read Murder in Dealy Plaza, but was so baffled buy his suggestions I thought I'd ask some other possible readers if they subscribe to his theories. Not trying to start a Flame, its just my head can't get around aspects of the film that he suggest are a forgery. Any help?

Steve...everything you want to know can be found at http://www.assassinationscience.com/

Jack

[Steve Duffy]

You might also want to go to You Tube where the conference Fetzer sponsored on this subject is posted.

Its very long though so I would just get a taste of each individual speaker.

There are also debates on this forum that you can look up over what is in IARRB on this subject.

And there is also the back and forth between Doug Horne and Roland Zavada on the issue.

[John Simkin]

I Need a crash course in James Fetzer. What, precisely, is he view on the Zapruder film. Now I've read Murder in Dealy Plaza, but was so baffled buy his suggestions I thought I'd ask some other possible readers if they subscribe to his theories. Not trying to start a Flame, its just my head can't get around aspects of the film that he suggest are a forgery. Any help?

I suggest you engage in a debate with Jim. It will not take him to insult you and you can then become a confirmed non-believer.

[Steve Duffy]

I Need a crash course in James Fetzer. What, precisely, is he view on the Zapruder film. Now I've read Murder in Dealy Plaza, but was so baffled buy his suggestions I thought I'd ask some other possible readers if they subscribe to his theories. Not trying to start a Flame, its just my head can't get around aspects of the film that he suggest are a forgery. Any help?

I suggest you engage in a debate with Jim. It will not take him to insult you and you can then become a confirmed non-believer.

[Steve Duffy]

I assumed that was the case. Thanks John

[Jack White]

I assumed that was the case. Thanks John

That is not the case. Jim only "insults" those who make dumb, illogical or false statements in his opinion.

He will give detailed answers to sincere and polite questions.

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

Jack has more knowledge, intelligence, and integrity in his little finger than you would appear to have acquired in your entire life.

That is not the case. Jim only "insults" those who make dumb, illogical or false statements in his opinion.

While heartwarming that two old friends have patched things up, the above statement contains qualifiers that render it self-serving, misleading and essentially meaningless.

He will give detailed answers to sincere and polite questions.

Not when he finds the questions inconvenient.

[Jack White]

Jack:

Can you tell us what happened to you when you disagreed with him about Judy Baker?

Jim has his opinion. I have my opinion. I agree with him when he is right, and disagree when he is wrong.

He is not always right. Neither am I. Jim is extremely passionate in his beliefs. I am not. I just do the

best I can. Criticism does not bother me. I was in the ad business for 50 years, and am accustomed

to criticism.

If I disowned every friend I disagree with at times, I would have no friends. My wife and I do not always

agree, but we have been happily married for 40 years.

I pity Mrs. Baker. She needs psychological help for her disorder. Jim disagrees.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

I Need a crash course in James Fetzer. What, precisely, is he view on the Zapruder film. Now I've read Murder in Dealy Plaza, but was so baffled buy his suggestions I thought I'd ask some other possible readers if they subscribe to his theories. Not trying to start a Flame, its just my head can't get around aspects of the film that he suggest are a forgery. Any help?

for starters, the film is Kodachrome II 8 mm safety film (nearly everyone agrees on that) -- from that starting point everything concerning the Z-film is open for debate. You might want to get/read The Great Zapruder Film HOAX.... and keep in mind, Jim Fetzer is/was the editor of the TGZFH book, as well as Murder in Dealey Plaza, AND Assassination Science...

[Craig Lamson]

You might want to get/read The Great Zapruder Film HOAX....

I suggest your local library.

Lots of talk that Fetzer is not really very good at keeping agreements to pay royalites to one of the authors....

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Steve,

I just discovered this thread. If you read MURDER, did you understand the "16 Smoking Guns"? If not, what was difficult for you? I spent 35 years teaching college students logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, so if you are having trouble sorting things out, let me know. Some suggestions for reading:

"JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t"

http://www.voltairenet.org/article165721.html

where I offer (what is intended to be) a very accessible summary of the death of two of our most inspiring leaders, where I am currently doing research on disputed evidence of the presence of three CIA officials at the Ambassador Hotel, where Bobby was taken out after winning the California primary;

"Reasoning about Assassinations"

http://www.assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf

where I take apart the "magic bullet" theory by considering the evidence of where JFK was actually hit in the back and thereby confirm Michael Baden's observation that, if the "magic bullet" theory is false, then there have to have been at least six shots from three different directions;

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

where I offer an overview of the evidence that demonstrates the film is not authentic, including especially that the bulging of brains to the right-front is inconsistent with the medical evidence, which shows that his brains were blown out to the left-rear, while providing many sources;

"JFK Assassination. How "Patsies" are Framed. The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" (with Jim Marrs)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16224

where Jim Marrs and I respond to a recent study by a Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, who claims that the back-yard photos are genuine based upon a superficial study of one of four, which anyone who had conducted a literature search would know cannot be true on multiple grounds;

"US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

where I offer an introduction to the brilliant work of Douglas Horne, the senior analysis for the ARRB, in relation to his research on the fabrication of the film, which includes five features distinguishing the original from the substitute, the abrogation of the chain of custody, and other important results;

"Reclaiming History: A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public"

http://www.assassinationscience.com/v5n1fetzer.pdf

where I provide an overview of what we know about the assassination of JFK as a context for critiquing the monumental blunder that is Vincent Bugliosi's misconceived contribution to research on his death, which is massive and sprawling but clearly and provably wrong about every major aspect of the assassination.

What you will discover is that I take strong stands on controversial issues after I have done my homework, which reflects my background as a professional scholar. I am open to arguments that are based upon logic and evidence, but I do not suffer fools gladly. I like conducting serious research on serious subjects.

Jack suggested you can find more on assassinationscience.com. I also co-edit assassinationresearch.com with John P. Costella, Ph.D. Because I am aggressive in criticizing others when I think they are wrong, I have earned the enmity of many on this forum, most of whom have never published an article in their life.

Jim

I Need a crash course in James Fetzer. What, precisely, is he view on the Zapruder film. Now I've read Murder in Dealy Plaza, but was so baffled buy his suggestions I thought I'd ask some other possible readers if they subscribe to his theories. Not trying to start a Flame, its just my head can't get around aspects of the film that he suggest are a forgery. Any help?

[Mark Knight]

I have read Fetzer's books, and I own a couple of them. That said, when I raised a question to him awhile back on this forum, his first response--rather than to answer my question--was to label me as a disinformation agent. At that point, Dr. Fetzer's credibility fell a great deal with me. The truth is, I believe there is a lot of disinformation out there, but I try my damndest to NOT be a part of that. I'm just seeking information and asking questions. I'm not trying to sell any particular viewpoint. So for Dr. Fetzer to label me a disinformation agent seems, IMHO, a giant leap, based upon information not in evidence here or anywhere. I haven't published anything on the JFK assassination because I really don't believe I've found the answers to all the questions I've asked...so I suppose that not only makes me a disinformation agent, but a lesser entity in the universe than the esteemed Dr. Fetzer.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Mark,

Why don't you post the exchange, because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why would I suggest that? Lots

of people on this forum have opinions that vary from mine. Indeed, convergence in point of view (conclusions)

is only to be expected when we are apply the same rules of reasoning to the same alternative hypotheses based on

the same body of evidence. That is seldom the case here, so I EXPECT disagreements. Tell me more so I have a

better idea of what you are talking about. If I owe you an apology for something, then I will be glad to extend one.

Jim

I have read Fetzer's books, and I own a couple of them. That said, when I raised a question to him awhile back on this forum, his first response--rather than to answer my question--was to label me as a disinformation agent. At that point, Dr. Fetzer's credibility fell a great deal with me. The truth is, I believe there is a lot of disinformation out there, but I try my damndest to NOT be a part of that. I'm just seeking information and asking questions. I'm not trying to sell any particular viewpoint. So for Dr. Fetzer to label me a disinformation agent seems, IMHO, a giant leap, based upon information not in evidence here or anywhere. I haven't published anything on the JFK assassination because I really don't believe I've found the answers to all the questions I've asked...so I suppose that not only makes me a disinformation agent, but a lesser entity in the universe than the esteemed Dr. Fetzer.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Steve,

While I'm here, let me add a few reflections on what I have already said. I am just the least bit puzzled by

your questions about the Zapruder film in relation to MURDER. The principal work on that issue in that book

is by Jack White and David W. Mantik. My views on the film are presented extensively in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER

FILM HOAX, where the Preface provides an overview and the Prologue lays out indications, not only of Zapruder

film fakery, but of deceit and deception throughout the whole case. So you may be looking at the wrong book.

In addition, most of the best research on the film has been done by David Mantik, John Costella, Jack White,

David Healy, and David Lifton, each of whom contributed chapters to HOAX. A very nice introduction to how we

know the film has been recreated may be found at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

where John Costella presents a visual tutorial. His "Costella Combined Cut", which is available on the web

site, is the best version of the film available to the public. And it is downloadable for no charge at all!

Let me also add that this forum features lots of unworthy attacks on persons because someone doesn't like the

target. The comments here that claim I am abusive, don't pay my taxes, and all that, even if they were true,

do not show that my arguments are wrong. That requires dealing with the evidence I present and the reasoning

I apply to that evidence. To take a simply example, there is nothing wrong with receiving royalties from the

sale of books you have edited, especially when those funds are used to support further assassination research.

I have used royalties to fly David Mantik to the National Archives, to buy Jack White a DVD player, to bring

John Costella to the US from Australia, and to transport to Duluth and provide accommodations for the other

participants in the 2003 conference on the Zapruder film, which can be found in segments under the heading,

"Zapruder Fakery". They are easily accessible at http://assassinationscience.com/UNDchapter/VideosJFK3.html

So don't be taken in by everything you read here. There are those whose motives are not entirely altruistic.

Jim

I Need a crash course in James Fetzer. What, precisely, is he view on the Zapruder film. Now I've read Murder in Dealy Plaza, but was so baffled buy his suggestions I thought I'd ask some other possible readers if they subscribe to his theories. Not trying to start a Flame, its just my head can't get around aspects of the film that he suggest are a forgery. Any help?