Jump to content
The Education Forum

In Defense of Fetzer


Recommended Posts

Jim Fetzer is my friend. So, my support of him and his work could easily be characterized as "biased" and such a characterization is probably a legitimate "ghost argument" to be advanced by those who don't know me well. But, Jim himself, and others who know us both, would refute that conclusion (in legal terms) with prejudice!

Jim is of a dying breed...a pioneer of sorts. Like Captain Kirk he goes "where no man has gone before" and he goes there in defiance of the politically correct view, in defiance of the safe place, and in defiance of the status quo. For this and many other traits, I am proud to call him my friend.

I do NOT always agree with him. His "methods" of persuasion--many times--do NOT persuade. Many times his methods are rather coarse, bitter to the taste, even offensive.

But, he is true--true to himself--to the ONLY thing he knows--and he is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of "speaking the truth" even when to do so is possibly the most unpopular undertaking imaginable. However, he is not infallible.

He sometimes is in error. Many times...but not because he took the "easy way out" -- quite the contrary. He took the HARD ROAD--the path less followed. For this alone, I call him my friend.

There is no doubt that future Fetzer endeavors will result in conflict. There is no doubt that I will remain his friend and support him. There is no doubt that I will, from time to time, disagree vehemently with him...but, NEVER will there come a day when I doubt his sincerity.

Insincerity is simply beyond his ability.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very admirable Greg, and I agree that he is sincere. Is insincerity beyond him? I don't know the Professor well enough to say, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. i don't see actions which indicate a deep, deliberate decption.

I do see an inability to accept that others may be right when he believes otherwise. To not be able to at least examine rebuttals, to not at least consider that a position might be incorrect, is indicative of a blinkered view which seriously compromises the quality of someones work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicely said, Monk! I agree with all you say. I admire Jim for his courage to test all evidence and

avoid political correctness. He is an advocate of my principle of TESTING EVERY OFFICIAL STORY

about any momentous national or world event. Forty years of study about these events have

convinced me that ALL histories of these events ARE WRITTEN BY THE PERPETRATORS. They

can do this because they have the power and money and controls to do so. Their controlled

media writes the history the way they dictate. Their controlled politicians thwart investigations.

It is said that HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICTORS. I would amend that to HISTORY IS WRITTEN

BY THE POWERFUL PERPETRATORS OF WRONGDOING.

History is a myth told by evil doers. Jim has the courage to pursue them.

Jack

Jim Fetzer is my friend. So, my support of him and his work could easily be characterized as "biased" and such a characterization is probably a legitimate "ghost argument" to be advanced by those who don't know me well. But, Jim himself, and others who know us both, would refute that conclusion (in legal terms) with prejudice!

Jim is of a dying breed...a pioneer of sorts. Like Captain Kirk he goes "where no man has gone before" and he goes there in defiance of the politically correct view, in defiance of the safe place, and in defiance of the status quo. For this and many other traits, I am proud to call him my friend.

I do NOT always agree with him. His "methods" of persuasion--many times--do NOT persuade. Many times his methods are rather coarse, bitter to the taste, even offensive.

But, he is true--true to himself--to the ONLY thing he knows--and he is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of "speaking the truth" even when to do so is possibly the most unpopular undertaking imaginable. However, he is not infallible.

He sometimes is in error. Many times...but not because he took the "easy way out" -- quite the contrary. He took the HARD ROAD--the path less followed. For this alone, I call him my friend.

There is no doubt that future Fetzer endeavors will result in conflict. There is no doubt that I will remain his friend and support him. There is no doubt that I will, from time to time, disagree vehemently with him...but, NEVER will there come a day when I doubt his sincerity.

Insincerity is simply beyond his ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though Jim and I got into it over Judyth it never changed my opinion of his sincerity

I still like and respect Jim, even if I disagree with him on some subjects

I still agree with him on the subject that matters most to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very admirable Greg, and I agree that he is sincere. Is insincerity beyond him? I don't know the Professor well enough to say, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. i don't see actions which indicate a deep, deliberate decption.

I do see an inability to accept that others may be right when he believes otherwise. To not be able to at least examine rebuttals, to not at least consider that a position might be incorrect, is indicative of a blinkered view which seriously compromises the quality of someones work.

The other problem is his tendency to lash out at those who disagree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very admirable Greg, and I agree that he is sincere. Is insincerity beyond him? I don't know the Professor well enough to say, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. i don't see actions which indicate a deep, deliberate decption.

I do see an inability to accept that others may be right when he believes otherwise. To not be able to at least examine rebuttals, to not at least consider that a position might be incorrect, is indicative of a blinkered view which seriously compromises the quality of someones work.

The other problem is his tendency to lash out at those who disagree with him.

I must admit I was shocked when he lashed out at me

However he was fighting many people at the same time, so I can understand the fact that Jim came out swinging when lots of members disagreed with him over Judyth

Water under the bridge for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other problem is his tendency to lash out at those who disagree with him.

Agreed. That is perhaps the most "un-persuasive" technique of all. I too can become overly frustrated, at times, and inappropriately lash out. It is not a trait of which I am proud...and, in fact, I find somewhat embarassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very admirable Greg, and I agree that he is sincere. Is insincerity beyond him? I don't know the Professor well enough to say, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. i don't see actions which indicate a deep, deliberate decption.

I do see an inability to accept that others may be right when he believes otherwise. To not be able to at least examine rebuttals, to not at least consider that a position might be incorrect, is indicative of a blinkered view which seriously compromises the quality of someones work.

The other problem is his tendency to lash out at those who disagree with him.

I must admit I was shocked when he lashed out at me

However he was fighting many people at the same time, so I can understand the fact that Jim came out swinging when lots of members disagreed with him over Judyth

Water under the bridge for me

I think people here give him a lot of leway because he is CT. How would you respond to a LN who acted like him? What would the response be if the Bug, McAdams or that guy from RI (can't rember his name right now) read from and backed a book like Stranger than Fiction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people here give him a lot of leway because he is CT. How would you respond to a LN who acted like him? What would the response be if the Bug, McAdams or that guy from RI (can't rember his name right now) read from and backed a book like Stranger than Fiction?

I don't think that's the reason, Len. I think it has more to do with the tremendous contributions that he has made to the dissemination of information in the JFK case, including "leading edge" research by very qualified individuals that may never have had their respective work published within the same volume had Jim not made that happen.

As for your comment about LNers... Let me just say this:

In sales there is a principle known by wisemen, but often missed by rookies. Namely, "Never talk past the close." In practice, it works like this. Let's say you are a salesman who makes a living by selling jewelry, like engagement rings, etc. -- One day a customer comes into your store inquiring about purchasing a diamond ring for his girl friend as he is planning to propose marriage in the very near future. You begin by explaining the various differences in the stones, the cut, clarity, and in the settings...why one is more costly than the others, and you explain terms of payment and financing. After that you tell him about the exceptional reputation of your store, the skill of the main jeweler there, and explain the guarantee policy.

At some point your customer says, "I think I'll go ahead and buy that one" as he points to a diamond ring that is perhaps in the top 20% of your inventory, both in quality and in price. What should you say next? Well, you should say, very casually, "Ok." (pause) "I'll fill out the paper work...blah blah blah" -- But the KEY here is STOP selling it because it has already been sold. Anything the sales person says by way of continuing to "sell it" beyond that point is not only wasted energy, but it has a chance of screwing up an already "done deal" -- mostly because the customer becomes suspicious if the sales person continues to "sell" beyond that point.

That's exactly what LNer's are doing. They are talking WAY past the close. The official history shouldn't need any "selling" anymore. The official story became suspect on its own, but that suspicion is amplified by those who continue to re-sell it.

I can tell you FOR SURE that if I was a LN...I would have moved on by now. I wouldn't be talking past the close.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Fetzer is my friend. So, my support of him and his work could easily be characterized as "biased" and such a characterization is probably a legitimate "ghost argument" to be advanced by those who don't know me well. But, Jim himself, and others who know us both, would refute that conclusion (in legal terms) with prejudice!

Jim is of a dying breed...a pioneer of sorts. Like Captain Kirk he goes "where no man has gone before" and he goes there in defiance of the politically correct view, in defiance of the safe place, and in defiance of the status quo. For this and many other traits, I am proud to call him my friend.

I do NOT always agree with him. His "methods" of persuasion--many times--do NOT persuade. Many times his methods are rather coarse, bitter to the taste, even offensive.

But, he is true--true to himself--to the ONLY thing he knows--and he is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of "speaking the truth" even when to do so is possibly the most unpopular undertaking imaginable. However, he is not infallible.

He sometimes is in error. Many times...but not because he took the "easy way out" -- quite the contrary. He took the HARD ROAD--the path less followed. For this alone, I call him my friend.

There is no doubt that future Fetzer endeavors will result in conflict. There is no doubt that I will remain his friend and support him. There is no doubt that I will, from time to time, disagree vehemently with him...but, NEVER will there come a day when I doubt his sincerity.

Insincerity is simply beyond his ability.

Given the last few months it's quite clear that Fetzer needs a defense. The more he exhibits himself the more embarrasing it becomes.

I think Nietzsche once wrote: "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

This seems to me to emphasize exactly why Fetzer has been such a disaster for research on the Kennedy assassination. His longstanding campaign to prove the Zapruder film was altered has come up short. Why? Because the arguments he has broadcast are faulty in the extreme. In addition, his cyclical rants with respect to the Bush Administration's downing Welstone's plane with a "directed energy weapon," his endorsement of the claim that the U.S never went to the moon, his endorsement of claims that planes never hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon and that some "directed energy weapon from space" carried out the destruction on 9/11.

If Fetzer wanted to claim that Santa Claus and his reindeer brought down the Twin Towers, I'd have no objection as long as he didn't relate it to the Kennedy assassination. There will always be kooky theories around and a surplus of wingnuts ready to embrace them. But when Fetzer speaks up about the Kennedy assassination, it embarrasses all of us who are trying to do sober, responsible historical research. His continued antics have the capacity to associate research on the Kennedy assassination with moon shot scepticism and the silliest 9/11 conspiracy theories. In addition to being really unpleasant and ugly as a Forum member, Fetzer does real harm to genuine research.

Fetzer is a hazard to navigation in this our space.

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Fetzer is my friend. So, my support of him and his work could easily be characterized as "biased" and such a characterization is probably a legitimate "ghost argument" to be advanced by those who don't know me well. But, Jim himself, and others who know us both, would refute that conclusion (in legal terms) with prejudice!

Jim is of a dying breed...a pioneer of sorts. Like Captain Kirk he goes "where no man has gone before" and he goes there in defiance of the politically correct view, in defiance of the safe place, and in defiance of the status quo. For this and many other traits, I am proud to call him my friend.

I do NOT always agree with him. His "methods" of persuasion--many times--do NOT persuade. Many times his methods are rather coarse, bitter to the taste, even offensive.

But, he is true--true to himself--to the ONLY thing he knows--and he is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of "speaking the truth" even when to do so is possibly the most unpopular undertaking imaginable. However, he is not infallible.

He sometimes is in error. Many times...but not because he took the "easy way out" -- quite the contrary. He took the HARD ROAD--the path less followed. For this alone, I call him my friend.

There is no doubt that future Fetzer endeavors will result in conflict. There is no doubt that I will remain his friend and support him. There is no doubt that I will, from time to time, disagree vehemently with him...but, NEVER will there come a day when I doubt his sincerity.

Insincerity is simply beyond his ability.

Given the last few months it's quite clear that Fetzer needs a defense. The more he exhibits himself the more embarrasing it becomes.

I think Nietzsche once wrote: "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

This seems to me to emphasize exactly why Fetzer has been such a disaster for research on the Kennedy assassination. His longstanding campaign to prove the Zapruder film was altered has come up short. Why? Because the arguments he has broadcast are faulty in the extreme. In addition, his cyclical rants with respect to the Bush Administration's downing Welstone's plane with a "directed energy weapon," his endorsement of the claim that the U.S never went to the moon, his endorsement of claims that planes never hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon and that some "directed energy weapon from space" carried out the destruction on 9/11.

If Fetzer wanted to claim that Santa Claus and his reindeer brought down the Twin Towers, I'd have no objection as long as he didn't relate it to the Kennedy assassination. There will always be kooky theories around and a surplus of wingnuts ready to embrace them. But when Fetzer speaks up about the Kennedy assassination, it embarrasses all of us who are trying to do sober, responsible historical research. His continued antics have the capacity to associate research on the Kennedy assassination with moon shot scepticism and the silliest 9/11 conspiracy theories. In addition to being really unpleasant and ugly as a Forum member, Fetzer does real harm to genuine research.

Fetzer is a hazard to navigation in this our space.

JT

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Fetzer is my friend. So, my support of him and his work could easily be characterized as "biased" and such a characterization is probably a legitimate "ghost argument" to be advanced by those who don't know me well. But, Jim himself, and others who know us both, would refute that conclusion (in legal terms) with prejudice!

Jim is of a dying breed...a pioneer of sorts. Like Captain Kirk he goes "where no man has gone before" and he goes there in defiance of the politically correct view, in defiance of the safe place, and in defiance of the status quo. For this and many other traits, I am proud to call him my friend.

I do NOT always agree with him. His "methods" of persuasion--many times--do NOT persuade. Many times his methods are rather coarse, bitter to the taste, even offensive.

But, he is true--true to himself--to the ONLY thing he knows--and he is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of "speaking the truth" even when to do so is possibly the most unpopular undertaking imaginable. However, he is not infallible.

He sometimes is in error. Many times...but not because he took the "easy way out" -- quite the contrary. He took the HARD ROAD--the path less followed. For this alone, I call him my friend.

There is no doubt that future Fetzer endeavors will result in conflict. There is no doubt that I will remain his friend and support him. There is no doubt that I will, from time to time, disagree vehemently with him...but, NEVER will there come a day when I doubt his sincerity.

Insincerity is simply beyond his ability.

Greg, it's lovely with friends and friendships. It is also lovely with loyalty, both of those qualities are rare, nowadays. What bugs me, however, is that sometimes these friendships ends up in disaster. As it did with Jack and Fetzer, for example. Only on the back of Jack strongly questioning what Fetzer from the beginning to end proclaimed as being "evidence".

Now, this is where I came in to picture. I provided this (and other) communities with hard evidence (two court decisions) of JVB being far from truthful with her story. Far from.

Your friend, the professor and scholar who normally should welcome real evidence of this caliber, immediately dismissmed me, my evidence, and the two court decisions which left no doubts about JVBs honesty.

Do you think this is an educated, or even balanced approach, from Fetzer, to the information I provided? Is it possible, in your view, that a lot of the support for Fetzer in this matter derives from old loyalties?

Perhaps?

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me say that I am not as critical of the first two volumes that Fetzer edited as TInk is. I think there are some things of value in the volumes e.g. the work of David Mantik, Gary Aguilar, and Doug Weldon especially. Also, I think Jim is an intelligent and articulate guy who likes to argue.

The problem I see with Jim, especially in light of the two long threads with Baker and Israel and 9-11 are these: 1.) Jim has a tendency to take extreme positions, even when the evidence does not really fully warrant it, and 2.) He then has a tendency to defend those positions vigorously with all the techniques available to a philosopher and philologist. Really good examples are the two Judys--Baker and Wood.

My approach in the cases I have specialized in--JFK, RFK, MLK--has not been like that. I try not to take extreme positions. Secondly, when I say something categorical and sweeping, its only when I have the evidence to prove it by at least the preponderance standard. For instance, today I have little problem saying that CE 399 was switched by the FBI. And I will argue that with anyone, confident I have the evidence to prove it. And secondly, that there is no other way to explain what happened.

I don't think Fetzer does this. And this is why he is so embattled. In both 9-11 and JFK by both the pro and anti conspiracy forces.

The comparison of the two Judy's is comparing apples and oranges.

Judy Wood is a scientist who is degreed in several areas and who is adept at assembling evidence and deducing theories.

Most of her facts are clearly labeled facts, and her theories are called theories. She pushes the envelope of cause and

effect by a strong belief that Tesla-like weapons were used. Fetzer and Judy had a parting of the ways over this,

although he still supports her earlier works.

Judy Baker is a poor unfortunate woman whose ailment causes her to insert herself in to every possible nook and cranny

of the JFK New Orleans investigation, with minimal proof. Fetzer believes that she is the "real deal" for reasons I cannot

fathom.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Thanks to Monk and others for their sympathetic support and intelligent criticism. Even Len is kinder than I would have expected, which I appreciate. Josiah and Glenn are dedicated, repetitive, and unstinting in their gross and reckless assaults, which have nothing to do with balance or the search for truth. A nice illustration is Tink's continuing efforts to salvage the Zapruder film long "past the close", where it is not I but he who is unwilling to accept new proof and powerful arguments, such as the evidence adduced by Douglas Horne, which I have summarized http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_5772.shtml Some kind of sickness pervades this man whom I once admired, which is once again manifest here as well as elsewhere. The fact that he cannot rise above his obsession, even here, telegraphs that his life has now been consumed by his preoccupation with me. He really does need professional help. I would like for him to attain inner peace before he departs this world.

ANALYSIS

US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabrication

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Guest Writer

Apr 7, 2010, 00:19

MADISON, Wisconsin -- Douglas Horne, who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), has now published INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), a five-volume study of the efforts of the board to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations related to the assassination of JFK.

As a former government official, historian, and author, he is speaking out to disabuse the public of any lingering belief that THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), Gerald Posnerís CASE CLOSED (1963), or Vincent Bugliosiís RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) represent the truth about what is known about the assassination of our 35th president, even remotely! Indeed, in relation to a new article, ìBirds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Lawî, Horne has made a forceful declaration to set the record straight:

I know, from my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB (from 1995-1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a government-directed medical cover-up in the death of JFK, and of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays, early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy report changed over time as different versions were produced; and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs of President Kennedyís brain -- they are fraudulent, substitute images of someone elseís brain.

Over and beyond the medical evidence, however, Horne -- in Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has also demonstrated that the home movie of the assassination known as ìthe Zapruder filmî -- and others that correspond to it, such as the Nix and Muchmore films -- have been massively edited to remove indications of Secret Service complicity in the crime and to add other events to these films in order to sow confusion and conceal evidence of the true causes of death of John F. Kennedy.

There are many proofs that the film has been fabricatedóincluding that the driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure he would be killed; that his brains were blown out to the left-rear; and that a motorcycle patrolman accompanying the limo rode forward at the time of the stop to inform Dallas Chief of Police Jessie Curry that the president had been hit. But none of these events appears in the extant version of the film, which has been massively edited. That these events occurred has been established by more than 60 witness reports of the limo stop, where the wound to the back of his head was confirmed by 40 witnesses, including virtually all the physicians at Parkland Hospital, who described cerebellum as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. The blow-out to the right-front, as seen in the film, therefore, is not authentic.

Indeed, in an appendix to Vol. IV, Horne explains that a copy of the film has now been studied by Hollywood exerts, who found that the blow-out to the back of his head had been painted over in black in an amateurish effort to obfuscate the blow out, which can actually be seen in a few later frames, including 372 and 374. Those who have persisted in defense of the authenticity of the film have offered three major arguments -- (1) that the features of the extant film correspond to those of the original processed in Dallas, (2) that there was an unbroken chain of custody, which precluded the film be changed; and (3) that the Dealey Plaza films are not only consistent with themselves but with one another, where the Zapruder could only have been faked if the others had been as well.

The following extracts from INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, demonstrate that all three arguments are fallacious: (1) there are five features of the extant film that differ from those of the original and (2) that different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days, which vitiates the chain-of-custody argument. The consistency of the films with one another (3) turns out to be an interesting question, since they all seem to have been edited to remove the turn of the presidential limousine from Houston onto Elm. More significantly, there are subtle inconsistencies between the films and, most importantly, the Zapruder film is not even consistent with itself, which proves that it cannot possibly be authentic! Horneís new studies thus confirm the previous research that has previously been reported in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), ìNew Proof of JFK Film Fakeryî (2007), and ìZapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroidî (2008), where these two articles are on-line.

(1) Five features of the original do not match the extant film

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009), p. 1292:

Conclusions

In his long essay published in 2007 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, Josiah Thompson [NOTE: the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), an early study based on the Zapruder film] told us we should all trust [retired Kodak expert on celluloid] Rollie Zavadaís judgment and defer to his authority:

ìRoland Zavada has a towering reputation in the field and no conceivable reason for cooking his conclusions.î

Now that we have concluded examining his report and Zavadaís changes of mind since that time, it is clear that he has cooked his conclusions. In particular, he has ignoredótrashedókey testimony:

*That the exposures were not bracketed at the Jamieson lab when the three ëfirst day copiesí were struck, meaning that the three ëfirst generationí copies today should not be bracketed copies;

*That a ëfull frameí aperture (picture plus soundtrack) was used when duplicating the Zapruder film, meaning that the intersprocket images should be present on the ëfirst generation copiesí;

*That the edge printer light was turned off when the original film was developed, meaning that there a double registration of processing edge prints in the family scenes on the extant ëfirst generationí copies; and,

*That the camera original film was slit at the Kodak plant in Dallas, meaning that the 16 mm wide, unslit black-and-white copies in existence today cannot have originated from the camera original film, and are instead indirect evidence that a new ëoriginalí was created as an unslit 16 mm, double 8 movie (just as Homer McMahonís expert testimony to the ARRB indicates).

Furthermore, Zavadaís opposition to the shooting of a control film in Zapruderís actual camera in Dealey Plazaówhich was inexplicable and extremely frustrating when it occurred in 1997ónow takes on a very different taint, one of possibly intentional sabotage of the authentication effort by the ARRB staff. An incredible charge, you say? Not necessarily.

Read more on pages 1292 through 1294 as well as 1243 to 1292. And this does not take into account that the numbers on the extant film are not punched in the same location as the original. Read Horne to appreciate the depth of Zavadaís deception.

(2) Different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days

Not only has Doug Horne demonstrated that the strips of filmóthe actual celluloid -- of the film that was processed in Dallas and the extant ìZapruder filmî are not the same, but he has demonstrated that David Wrone has misled his audience and distorted the evidence about the chain-of-custody, where one filmóapparently the original, was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963, which was an 8mm, slit version, the processing of which Bruno Brugioni, Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, supervised, which even required opening a camera store to purchase an 8mm projector, which the NPIC did not possess, while a second, 16mm unslit version, was brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 December 1963, by Secret Service Agent ìWilliam Smith,î which was handled by Homer McMahon and by Ben Hunter, who had not been present the night before, and a very different film.

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1226 and 1227:

Analysis: First of all, we can now say with certainty that the NPIC never copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that it had. However, Homer McMahonís rock-solid certainty that the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 movie -- and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run by Kodak at Rochester -- implies that McMahon and Hunter were not working with the true camera original developed in Dallas, but were instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as ëthe original.í I suspected in 1997, and I am more certain than ever today at this writing in 2009, that ëBill Smithí told the truth when he said that the film he couriered to NPIC was developed in Rochester -- after all, how could he possible make a mistake about something so elementary, since he brought it from Rochester to Washington, D.C. himself? He was only lying about one thing: it could not have been the original film exposed inside Abe Zapruderís camera, because we know from the Dallas Affidavit trail, and from the interviews Rollie Zavada conducted with the surviving personnel from the Dallas Kodak lab, that the original film was indeed developed in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963. If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated ëoriginalí created with an optical printer at the CIAís secret film lab in Rochester.

The critical information published in the ARRB call and meeting reports about our interviews with McMahon and Hunter in 1997 was published in full by Jim Fetzer in the year 2000 in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, but was subsequently ignored by Josiah Thompson in a 2007 essay posted on the Mary Ferrell website (note 14) and was intentionally under-reported and misrepresented by David Wrone in his 2003 book on the Zapruder film. This is what many advocates of a specific hypothesis or a historical position resort to when the heat is on and their longstanding positions on key issues are threatened by new evidence: all too often they either ignore the argument of their opponents as if they do not exist, or they will misrepresent them, intentionally setting up a false ëstraw man,í and then knock it down. In the case of the serious chain-of-custody implications of the McMahon interviews, Thompson chose to ignore the problem in 2005 and again in 2007, while David Wrone has not only misreported/misrepresented their import, but he has overstated the case for authenticity, as I shall demonstrate below.

In his 2003 book THE ZAPRUDER FILM: REFRAMING JFKíS ASSASSINATION, Wrone fails to report the specific content of the Homer McMahon interviews (nor does McMahonís name even appear in Wroneís index), and then completely misreports what I have said about them (on page 127), as follows:

Similarly spurious is Douglas Ormeís charge (yes, he misspelled my name, too) that Time, Inc. allowed the film to be altered. In MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, Horne argues that Time, Inc. permitted the film to be taken by Federal Officials for doctoring. [This statement was followed by endnote 36, which simply refers to page 319 of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, without telling the reader what is on page 319. Page 319 is the interview report I wrote of the Homer McMahon interview of July 14, 1997 at the National Archives.] Like Zapruder, however, Time knew it had a treasure in the Zapruder film, and it would do nothing to endanger the flow of revenue it expected from those 26 seconds of film. [boldface added by author]

Shame on you David Wrone! There are so many things wrong with this short paragraph that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, and most importantly, Wrone never mentioned in his text that the Head of the Color Lab at NPIC, the worldís pre-eminent photo interpretation lab in 1963, claimed that he had [had] delivered to him by the Secret Service, prior to the Presidentís funeral, a 16 mm wide, unslit original double 8 film of the Kennedy assassination that was developed in Rochester, the location from which the courier brought him the film!!! So David Wroneís first sin is that of intellectual dishonesty -- hiding facts from his readers which might have contradicted his own thesis that the extant film in the Archives today is authentic and unaltered. His second sin is that of putting words in my mouth: it is simply not true that I said anywhere in Fetzerís book that Time, Inc. had allowed the film to be altered! The editor of the anthology, Jim Fetzer, published only my call reports and meeting reports of what the witnesses told the ARRB staff, and no one used that language in their interviews with us. So Wrone set up a straw man here which he attempted to knock down with a private enterprise profit motive, while all the time ignoring facts about C.D. Jacksonís long standing associations with the CIA and the national security establishment during the decade of the 1960s. If Wrone had been intellectually above-board, he would have talked honestly about the content of the McMahon/Hunter interviews, and then stated why he did not find these eyewitness recollections persuasive, if that was the case; instead, he took the cowardís way out and intentionally failed to report what McMahon had said. . . .

Note 14: The name of the lengthy 3-part essay is ìBedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination,î and is based upon a somewhat shorter version delivered by Thompson on November 19, 2005 at a conference sponsored by Jim Lesarís Assassination Archives and Research Center (ARRC) and the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law.

(3) The Zapruder film displays inconsistencies with other films and with itself

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1336 to 1337:

The Alteration of the Zapruder Film was Rushed and Imperfect

Because there are physical limitations to what can be altered in a film -- particularly on a tight schedule and when faced with time pressure--the alteration of the Zapruder film was imperfect, and it therefore had to be suppressed as a motion picture even after its gross alteration to conceal what the forgers had been unable to remove. My working hypothesis postulates that because the cabal that killed the president (and which was feverishly covering up the crime that weekend) did not yet know, on the weekend of the assassination, what type of investigation(s) would be conducted of the crime, or by which governmental bodies, speed was of the essence. By late Sunday afternoon -- after discussing the limitations to the filmís alteration with the technicians at ìHawkeyeworksî in Rochester -- they would have known that while the car stop had been removed from the film, and the exit debris leaving the back of President Kennedyís skull had also been removed, that a serious problem remained: the so-called ëhead snap,í or violent movement of the Presidentís head and upper body to the left and rear, in response to the frontal head shots. This was a simple and persuasive demonstration of the law of conservation of momentum that even a layperson without a physics degree could viscerally understand, and the public could not be permitted to see it, or the lone assassination cover story would not sell . . .

The filmís imperfect alteration was revealed in other ways aside from the ëheadsnap.í As later discovered by Josiah Thompson, Ray Marcus, and other researchers, and as written about in scores of books now and as mentioned in hundreds of lectures, the extant film contains evidence of a very serious ëtiming problemí: President Kennedy and Governor Connally react to separate shots that occur too close together to have been fired in succession by the rather slow mechanism of the alleged murder weapon. The Warren Commission staff expressed great concern about this internally, and ultimately dealt with it dishonestly by concluding that the same bullet had hit both men, and that Connally had unaccountably exhibited a ëdelayed reactioní to his very severe and painful wounds. What we do not know today is whether the ëtiming problemí is an artifact of frame removal, or whether those frames of the film prior to the headshot were not tampered with, and reflected the true reality of the assassination farther up Elm Street in the vicinity of the Stemmons Freeway sign. Either possibility is [better: could be] true. Given what we know about the robust evidence in favor of alteration of the Zapruder film, it would be imprudent for JFK researchers to continue to claim that the ëtiming problemí is the primary evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. It isnít. Given the overwhelming evidence that the camera original has been altered, the ëtiming problemí should now be demoted to simply being ëpossible evidenceí of conspiracy. Eyewitness and earwitness testimony from Dealey Plaza alone, and the behavior of the impact debris after the head shots, are the true ëbedrock evidenceí that proves conspiracy, not the ëtiming problem,í which is inevitably suspect now, because of the overwhelming evidence that the camera original Zapruder film was altered on Sunday, November 24, 1963.

One final and undeniable mistake by the forgers was their failure to black out the real exit wound(s) in the posterior skull in all frames. I believe one of two exit wounds can been seen today, with proper magnification, in frames 335 and 337 of the extant film [NOTE: and in frames 372 and 374, where a comparison between David Mantikís study of ìArea Pî in the lateral cranial X-rays and the blow-out to the back of the head can be viewed in ìDealey Plaza Revisited,î Chapter 30 of JOHN F. KENNEDY: HISTORY, MEMORY, LEGACY (2009), which can be downloaded here.] The best images of this to date have been published in HIGH TREASON (the color plate in the cloth edition, opposite page 387), in [Harrison Livingstonís] THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY: DECODING THE FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (on page 264) and in [Robert Grodenís] THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (on page 38). While the forgers were ësuccessfulí in superimposing rather poor aerial imaging artwork of an enormous head wound on the top and right side of President Kennedyís head in the Zapruder film -- a head wound which is grossly inconsistent with the localized posterior blowout observed at Parkland Hospital, and only roughly consistent with the autopsy photos taken after clandestine post mortem surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital -- they failed to properly execute their most basic task, which was to hide all evidence of posterior exit wounds in the back of JFKís head. Persons in the government were clearly aware of this problem, for the last frame of the Zapruder film published in volume XVIII of the Warren Commissionís 26 supporting volumes was frame 334, the frame immediately prior to those which show one of the two exit defects in the back of the head. ëCoincidencesí like this are not worthy of belief, and the fact that the Warren Commission stopped publishing at frame 334 strongly implies that someone on the staffópresumably Specter and Rankinóknew they had a problem in frames 335 and 337, and so simply decided not to publish those frames. For them, discretion was the better part of valor. . . .

INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, pages 1317 to 1320 (in part):

If the Zapruder Film is an Alteration, Doesnít This Mean That Other Films of the Assassination Must Have Been Altered Also? Also, Are There Inconsistencies Between Other Films and the Zapruder Film?

Absolutelyóalteration of the Zapruder film does indeed imply that in a perfect conspiracy, that other films would have been altered also, and in the same way as the Zapruder film. If they were not altered and the Zapruder film was, this would have left undeniable evidence in the photographic record that ìtheî pre-eminent record of the assassination is indeed an alteration. In fact, what we do find in the evidence is one suggestion of identical alteration; and numerous indications of disagreement between various Dealey Plaza films and the Zapruder film.

The Turn from Houston Onto Elm May Have Been Removed from the Zapruder Film, the Nix Film, and the Muchmore Film

First, let us examine the suggested identical alteration of the Zapruder film, the Nix film, and the Muchmore film. Neither the Nix film, the Muchmore film,nor the Zapruder film show the Presidential limousine turning left from Houston Street onto Elm Street. Orville Nix told Mark Lane (on film) in 1966 that his film has initially been ëlostí by the processing plant and that when the FBI returned his film to him, some of the frames had been ëdamagedí and were missing. The originals of both the Nix film and the Muchmore film (taken from the opposite side of thje plaza from which Zapruder was shooting his film, and from much farther away) are missing today. How convenient. The absence of first-frame overexposure in frame 133 of the Zapruder film suggests, but in my view does not prove, that the limousineís turn from Houston onto Elm was removed when the film was altered and recreated, using an optical printer. The fact that the originals of the Nix and Muchmore films are missing is extremely suspicious; they may have been removed from circulation to prevent detection of their alteration -- specifically, removal of the limousineís turn onto Elm from Houston and of the car stop during the assassination. If ever found, one of the first things that should be checked is to see if the limousineís turn onto Elm Street in these two films has been excised--either crudely, with splices, or via reprinting those films in an optical printer.

Clint Hillís Interactions with Jackie Kennedy on the Trunk of the Limousine Appear to be Inconsistent in the Nix Film and the Zapruder Film

There is also significant disagreement between the Nix film and the Zapruder film. In Harry Livingstoneís 2004 book about the Zapruder film, he discusses differences between the images of Clint Hall and Jackie Kennedy on the trunk of the limousine in the Nix film, versus what is shown in the Zapruder film. Livingstone correctly points out that in the Nix Film, Clint Hill appears to place his left arm around Jackie Kennedyís right shoulder and push her back into her seat -- where as in the Zapruder film, he barely touches her with his right hand, and is not seen embracing her with his left arm at all. (See pages 250-251 of Livingstone for the pertinent Nix frames, and the MPI video of the Zapruder film for comparison. A projected version of the portion of the Nix film showing Clint Hill on the trunk of the limousine can been seen in the 1973 film ìExecutive Action,î and it can be seen in its entirety in the Groden DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy.)

Is the ìHeadsnapî Different in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films?

The ëheadsnapî in the Nix film appears to be slightly slower, and less violent than in the Zapruder film; in the Muchmore film, there appears to be no ëheadsnapí visible at all, but this may be inconclusive because of the camera angle at the time of the headshot(s) and because the line of sight to the Presidentís head is obstructed by Dealey Plaza bystanders immediately afterwards. (See episode 3 of ìThe Men Who Killed Kennedyî for footage oft he headshot(s) in both the Nix and the Muchmore films; both films can also been seen in their entirety in Robert Grodenís DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy.) The perceived differences between the headshot(s) in the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films suggests that when debris exiting from the back of President Kennedyís head was removed from the three films, that it was not done uniformly, resulting in three slightly different versions of the motion of the Presidentís head caused by the fatal shot(s). This has not been conclusively proven, but is worthy of further investigation. . . .

Concluding Reflections

There is much more, but the Addendum, ìThe Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood,î pages 1352 to 1363, is of special interest, where highly qualified experts on film restoration viewed a digital version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives and found that the massive blow out at the back of the head had been painted over in black, which was a stunning confirmation of the observation of Roderick Ryan, reported in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the bulging out of brains -- called the ìblobîóand the blood spray visible in frames 314 and thereafter had also been painted in, where Ryan would receive the Academy Award in 2000 for his contributions to cinematography, where his area of specialization was special effects.

As of this date, seven Hollywood film experts -- eight, if we include Ryan -- have agreed that the fakery used to cover up the blow out to the back of the head by painting it over in black was very primitive and highly amateurish, a finding that they have based upon a 6k version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has verified these artifacts using the 4x5 slides created by MPI when it produced a digital version of the film -- which are archived at The 6th Floor Museum -- the inadequacies of which are explained in ìWhich Film is ëthe Zapruder Filmí?,î by me and Scott Lederer, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), page 31. The creation of this visual deception was an elaborate undertaking, but it contained the elements of its own refutation.

ìChapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mysteryî is an astonishing achievement. For Horne to have assimilated and synthesized such a complicated and technical assortment of arguments and evidence impresses me beyond words. This chapter alone is worth the price of the whole. No matter what reservations or differences I may have with any other parts of his work, what he has done on the film is extraordinary. He was my featured guest on ìThe Real Dealî on Wednesday, 13 January 2010, archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. It is also archived http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/do . . . b-part-iii.html as part of a three-part blog on Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). Those who want to pursue this historic development in JFK assassination research are welcome to pursue these leads.

James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Science; and Co-Editor, Assassination Research, maintains a blog on 9/11 and other ìfalse flagî attacks.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Email Online Journal Editor

Jim Fetzer is my friend. So, my support of him and his work could easily be characterized as "biased" and such a characterization is probably a legitimate "ghost argument" to be advanced by those who don't know me well. But, Jim himself, and others who know us both, would refute that conclusion (in legal terms) with prejudice!

Jim is of a dying breed...a pioneer of sorts. Like Captain Kirk he goes "where no man has gone before" and he goes there in defiance of the politically correct view, in defiance of the safe place, and in defiance of the status quo. For this and many other traits, I am proud to call him my friend.

I do NOT always agree with him. His "methods" of persuasion--many times--do NOT persuade. Many times his methods are rather coarse, bitter to the taste, even offensive.

But, he is true--true to himself--to the ONLY thing he knows--and he is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of "speaking the truth" even when to do so is possibly the most unpopular undertaking imaginable. However, he is not infallible.

He sometimes is in error. Many times...but not because he took the "easy way out" -- quite the contrary. He took the HARD ROAD--the path less followed. For this alone, I call him my friend.

There is no doubt that future Fetzer endeavors will result in conflict. There is no doubt that I will remain his friend and support him. There is no doubt that I will, from time to time, disagree vehemently with him...but, NEVER will there come a day when I doubt his sincerity.

Insincerity is simply beyond his ability.

Given the last few months it's quite clear that Fetzer needs a defense. The more he exhibits himself the more embarrasing it becomes.

I think Nietzsche once wrote: "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

This seems to me to emphasize exactly why Fetzer has been such a disaster for research on the Kennedy assassination. His longstanding campaign to prove the Zapruder film was altered has come up short. Why? Because the arguments he has broadcast are faulty in the extreme. In addition, his cyclical rants with respect to the Bush Administration's downing Welstone's plane with a "directed energy weapon," his endorsement of the claim that the U.S never went to the moon, his endorsement of claims that planes never hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon and that some "directed energy weapon from space" carried out the destruction on 9/11.

If Fetzer wanted to claim that Santa Claus and his reindeer brought down the Twin Towers, I'd have no objection as long as he didn't relate it to the Kennedy assassination. There will always be kooky theories around and a surplus of wingnuts ready to embrace them. But when Fetzer speaks up about the Kennedy assassination, it embarrasses all of us who are trying to do sober, responsible historical research. His continued antics have the capacity to associate research on the Kennedy assassination with moon shot scepticism and the silliest 9/11 conspiracy theories. In addition to being really unpleasant and ugly as a Forum member, Fetzer does real harm to genuine research.

Fetzer is a hazard to navigation in this our space.

JT

Edited by James H. Fetzer
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...