Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fetzer bashing is fashionable here


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been a close observer of both the JFK assassination facts and its researchers for over 40 years.

Many researchers know every detail of important aspects of the case that most interests them, such

as David Lifton on medical evidence and John Armstrong on Lee Harvey Oswald. DiEugenio is

strong on Garrison; Groden is expert on the official provenance of photos.

However, I know only two researchers who have an encyclopedic knowledge of every aspect of the

assassination. They are Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs. They both know the case inside out. Of course,

neither is perfect (Marrs thinks Files and Baker are truthful; Fetzer thinks Holt and Baker are truthful).

But on most facts of the case the total knowledge of Fetzer and Marrs stands unchallenged. Both

have amazing memories for all information previously encountered, and are good at synthesizing

and organizing and then presenting the information in a cogent manner.

Yet rather than benefit from this storehouse of knowledge, certain people here who fancy themselves

masters of information choose to disregard and dismiss Dr. Fetzer's grasp of facts, and when they

cannot refute his facts they turn to ridicule and ad hominem attacks (the last tactic of a loser).

I have studied the case since 1963, and during that time I have studied every bit of information

possible, and have learned to separate the wheat from the chaff. I know what facts are true and

which ones are not; I know which theories are true and which ones are not. But I do not have the

public persona of Marrs or Fetzer, so my views are not as well known as theirs. But I can say that

my views on the assassination are most often expressed by Fetzer and Marrs, except when they

wander into the swampland of Files, Holt and Baker (none of whose stories has any significant

bearing on the case).

Fetzer bashing has become fashionable here. In my view it shows the desperation of losers who

do not know the facts, or provocateurs who are assigned to oppose people who know too much.

This also is true in the case of 911, where Fetzer has the best grasp of the situation of any

extant researcher.

KUTGW, Jim.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's take a look at two quotes from the lips of Prof. Fetzer (which should make any reasonable person doubt the credibility of anyone making such absurd statements):

"There are several possibilities, including that Zapruder was made of rubber, that Zapruder was not there at all, and that someone else stood in for him." -- James H. Fetzer; March 11, 2009

"Zapruder and Sitzman may have been in the area, but I have always found it a bit odd that she would climb up on the pedestal, which would have been difficult for anyone but especially a woman in a dress, who, presumably, would want to preserve her modesty. But the question is a bit more basic than that, since we know that "the Zapruder film" is not a film that Zapruder--or anyone else!--could have taken, since it includes events, like the blow-out to the right-front, which are complete fabrications." -- James H. Fetzer; March 15, 2009

Nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been a close observer of both the JFK assassination facts and its researchers for over 40 years.

Many researchers know every detail of important aspects of the case that most interests them, such

as David Lifton on medical evidence and John Armstrong on Lee Harvey Oswald. DiEugenio is

strong on Garrison; Groden is expert on the official provenance of photos.

However, I know only two researchers who have an encyclopedic knowledge of every aspect of the

assassination. They are Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs. They both know the case inside out. Of course,

neither is perfect (Marrs thinks Files and Baker are truthful; Fetzer thinks Holt and Baker are truthful).

But on most facts of the case the total knowledge of Fetzer and Marrs stands unchallenged. Both

have amazing memories for all information previously encountered, and are good at synthesizing

and organizing and then presenting the information in a cogent manner.

Yet rather than benefit from this storehouse of knowledge, certain people here who fancy themselves

masters of information choose to disregard and dismiss Dr. Fetzer's grasp of facts, and when they

cannot refute his facts they turn to ridicule and ad hominem attacks (the last tactic of a loser).

I have studied the case since 1963, and during that time I have studied every bit of information

possible, and have learned to separate the wheat from the chaff. I know what facts are true and

which ones are not; I know which theories are true and which ones are not. But I do not have the

public persona of Marrs or Fetzer, so my views are not as well known as theirs. But I can say that

my views on the assassination are most often expressed by Fetzer and Marrs, except when they

wander into the swampland of Files, Holt and Baker (none of whose stories has any significant

bearing on the case).

Fetzer bashing has become fashionable here. In my view it shows the desperation of losers who

do not know the facts, or provocateurs who are assigned to oppose people who know too much.

This also is true in the case of 911, where Fetzer has the best grasp of the situation of any

extant researcher.

KUTGW, Jim.

Jack

I AGREE!

In the last few months, I've been befriended by Jim on many occasions. He was the first notable author / researcher to contact me within a month after the book was published. He conducted a radio interview with me and subsequently wrote a tremendous review of my book, which he posted on Amazon.

During this time, I feel like I've come to "know" Jim, way more than I had before that. I must admit that I was a bit intimidated by him; yes he can be brusk and impatient with people, which seems to be a common malady of people of higher intellects. He acknowledges all of that, admitting that he "doesn't suffer fools gladly."

I have the same feelings as expressed by Jack, but I'm not one to engage in the high level "debating" that goes on around here. I don't "hang out" here much as a result, and only saw this thread because of my posting a reply to the CTKA review of my book.

In any event, I believe that even Jim's "enemies" would admit that you have to admire his intellect and wit and the passion he brings to the table.

JMHO

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasons he draws so such criticism are that he:

- seems drawn to the most far fetched theories like a moth to flame or a fly to #@&$ e.g. Zapruder was not on the pedestal, the WTC was destroyed by space beams.

- Makes frequent errors but refuses to admit it when he is wrong

- Thinks his less than impressive CV proves him right when he debates those with less academic credentials (“I taught critical thinking for 35 years!”)

- Lashes out legitimate criticism with personal attacks

- Prevaricates, changes the subject or otherwise ‘dodges the bullet’ when shown to be wrong

In any event, I believe that even Jim's "enemies" would admit that you have to admire his intellect and wit and the passion he brings to the table.

Guess again

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White, the person who started this thread and is defending Fetzer, believes that the moon landing was faked and that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane, during the terrorist attacks that destroyed the 2 towers of the WTC.

The bottom line is that both Jack White and Jim Fetzer make claims that are in stark contrast with reality.

Edited by Tony Frank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Let Von Pein spell out the context, which explains the remark. Like DiEugenio and others,

he loves to quote out of context, which displays all of the intellectual virtues of theft over

honest toil. If anyone here is completely and utterly untrustworthy, it is this David Von Pein.

In case anyone missed it, the second quote is one on which I have expanded in "The JFK 'Head

Shot' Paradox", which may be found at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html which means

that this example is a perfect illustration of Von Pein's underhanded and duplicitous methodology.

Let's take a look at two quotes from the lips of Prof. Fetzer (which should make any reasonable person doubt the credibility of anyone making such absurd statements):

"There are several possibilities, including that Zapruder was made of rubber, that Zapruder was not there at all, and that someone else stood in for him." -- James H. Fetzer; March 11, 2009

"Zapruder and Sitzman may have been in the area, but I have always found it a bit odd that she would climb up on the pedestal, which would have been difficult for anyone but especially a woman in a dress, who, presumably, would want to preserve her modesty. But the question is a bit more basic than that, since we know that "the Zapruder film" is not a film that Zapruder--or anyone else!--could have taken, since it includes events, like the blow-out to the right-front, which are complete fabrications." -- James H. Fetzer; March 15, 2009

Nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let Von Pein spell out the context, which explains the remark.

LOL.gif

Who CARES what the "context" is, Jim? What difference does it make? In 2009, you wrote that you actually were entertaining the notion that the Abe Zapruder that is seen in the various other films and photos was possibly made out of "rubber".

And ANYONE who could actually entertain such a goofy notion (regardless of any additional "context" attached to such an idiotic theory) is a person who is so deeply entrenched in his conspiracy treasure hunt that nothing more needs to be said to destroy that person's overall credibility.

If anyone here is completely and utterly untrustworthy, it is this David Von Pein.

Coming as it does from a man who thinks that all kinds of meaningless things were "wholly fabricated" in the Zapruder Film, the above comment isn't exactly too shattering.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White, the person who started this thread and is defending Fetzer, believes that the moon landing was faked and that the Pentagon was hit by a missile during the terrorist attacks that destroyed the 2 towers of the WTC.

The bottom line is that both Jack White and Jim Fetzer make claims that are in stark contrast with reality.

This posting is rife with errors:

1. I believe the the photos depicting the Apollo missions were faked. I have no evidence whether or not astronauts went to the moon.

2. I do not know what, if anything, hit the Pentagon. I only know that photos were fabricated and evidence planted. I do know that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

3. There were NO terrorist attacks. People within the USG orchestrated the WTC attacks, using sophisticated weaponry.

4. Both Fetzer and I ARE in touch with reality and you are not.

In the future, when saying what I believe, please use these statements, not fiction you make up.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

No I wasn't. I was offering alternative explanations for his very odd stance, which means that this is actually

a very nice example of your duplicity. The alternatives were (1) that he was made of rubber (which he obviously

was not), (2) that he wasn't there, or (3) that someone stood in for him. Anyone who would take that literally

is either congnitively impaired or completely dishonest. Since it is you, Von Pein, no one here will have any

problem sorting it out. And since you provided the link, anyone who wants to follow it up is welcome to do so.

Similarly, trading upon equivocations appears to be your long suit. The film was recreated using original film,

which involved a lot of editing using an optical printer. Events were taken out, others were added in, and a new

version was produced, which, if assumed to be authentic, makes it impossible to reconstruct the assassination. I

recommend those with a serious interest should read "US Government Offical: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

(via google) and watch John Costella's "Zapruder Film Hoax" tutorial at http://assassination...ella/jfk/intro/

What Von Pein is not telling you and hopes you will not discover is that the frames of the film were linked by the

so-called "ghost panels", which occur in the sprocket area and reflect images that link one frame to another. If

the film had been altered and frames had been removed without reshooting each frame in a laboratory to recreate

the "ghost panels", the deception would have been immediately exposed. The film thus had to be recreated to avoid

giving the game away.<REMOVED BY MODERATOR>

Let Von Pein spell out the context, which explains the remark.

LOL.gif

Who CARES what the "context" is, Jim? What difference does it make? In 2009, you wrote that you actually were entertaining the notion that the Abe Zapruder that is seen in the various other films and photos was possibly made out of "rubber".

And ANYONE who could actually entertain such a goofy notion (regardless of any additional "context" attached to such an idiotic theory) is a person who is so deeply entrenched in his conspiracy treasure hunt that nothing more needs to be said to destroy that person's overall credibility.

If anyone here is completely and utterly untrustworthy, it is this David Von Pein.

Coming as it does from a man who thinks that all kinds of meaningless things were "wholly fabricated" in the Zapruder Film, the above comment isn't exactly too shattering.

Edited by Evan Burton
removed personal attack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Len,

Over dinner with a beer, I realized that my response about you was inappropriate. Neither you

nor Von Pein is a fool. <REMOVED BY MODERATOR>

You, Len, belong in a different category. While I do not trust you and have found that you work

to undermine my posts, I can't hold that against you. Every now and then, you even say something

I find interesting. So accept my apology. I placed you in the wrong category. Sorry about that.

Jim

The reasons he draws so such criticism are that he:

- seems drawn to the most far fetched theories like a moth to flame or a fly to #@&$ e.g. Zapruder was not on the pedestal, the WTC was destroyed by space beams.

- Makes frequent errors but refuses to admit it when he is wrong

- Thinks his less than impressive CV proves him right when he debates those with less academic credentials ("I taught critical thinking for 35 years!")

- Lashes out legitimate criticism with personal attacks

- Prevaricates, changes the subject or otherwise 'dodges the bullet' when shown to be wrong

In any event, I believe that even Jim's "enemies" would admit that you have to admire his intellect and wit and the passion he brings to the table.

Guess again

Edited by Evan Burton
removed personal attack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White, the person who started this thread and is defending Fetzer, believes that the moon landing was faked and that the Pentagon was hit by a missile during the terrorist attacks that destroyed the 2 towers of the WTC.

The bottom line is that both Jack White and Jim Fetzer make claims that are in stark contrast with reality.

This posting is rife with errors:

1. I believe the the photos depicting the Apollo missions were faked. I have no evidence whether or not astronauts went to the moon.

you said on various occasions you think the landings were faked

2. I do not know what, if anything, hit the Pentagon. I only know that photos were fabricated and evidence planted. I do know that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

That you think the Pentagon was hit by anything other than a Boeing 757 is just as bad, missile drone, fighter of what ever the flavor of the month is. And he missed your goofiest theories

-the WTC towers were were not struck by jetliners.

- they "dustified" by "star wars" beams

- 6 WTC was light grey

3. There were NO terrorist attacks. People within the USG orchestrated the WTC attacks, using sophisticated weaponry.

4. Both Fetzer and I ARE in touch with reality and you are not.

In the future, when saying what I believe, please use these statements, not fiction you make up.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I don't know, Len. Just when I am feeling charitable about you, you offer utter rubbish like this.

I have said that the evidence weighs in favor of our not having gone to the moon, which I support

eight or ten studies that are linked on the upper left of the assassinationscience.com home page.

Likewise, I have SUPPORTED the study of the use of Directed Energy Weapons on the Twin Towers and

have been misrepresented as ENDORSING IT, which I have explained on more than one occasion. See,

for example, "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml about this.

Your remarks about the Pentagon are equally baseless. No Boeing 757 hit the building, as Pilots for

9/11 Truth has confirmed. I have believed that a small plane could have approached and then fired a

missile, but I no longer insist upon that. See "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html

The reason is that the fireballs that appear in the original five frames released with the wrong

dates and times do not appear to have caused any damage to the inside of the Pentagon after the

collapsed floors were removed, including no indications of those floors having been singed by fire.

So I am afraid that his very exchange falsifies some of your allegations about me. I am willing to

extend an apology if I think I have done something wrong, even if it involved you. And when I find

new evidence that undermines my beliefs, I am willing to revise them, as I have done in this case.

Jack White, the person who started this thread and is defending Fetzer, believes that the moon landing was faked and that the Pentagon was hit by a missile during the terrorist attacks that destroyed the 2 towers of the WTC.

The bottom line is that both Jack White and Jim Fetzer make claims that are in stark contrast with reality.

This posting is rife with errors:

1. I believe the the photos depicting the Apollo missions were faked. I have no evidence whether or not astronauts went to the moon.

BS you said on various occasions you think the landings were faked

2. I do not know what, if anything, hit the Pentagon. I only know that photos were fabricated and evidence planted. I do know that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

That you think the Pentagon was hit by anything other than a Boeing 757 is just as bad, missile drone, fighter of what ever the flavor of the month is. And he missed your goofiest theories

-the WTC towers were were not struck by jetliners.

- they "dustified" by "star wars" beams

- 6 WTC was light grey

3. There were NO terrorist attacks. People within the USG orchestrated the WTC attacks, using sophisticated weaponry.

4. Both Fetzer and I ARE in touch with reality and you are not.

In the future, when saying what I believe, please use these statements, not fiction you make up.

Jack

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

This posting is rife with errors:

1. I believe the the photos depicting the Apollo missions were faked. I have no evidence whether or not astronauts went to the moon.

Jack

Jack,

Are you saying it is possible that astronauts went to the moon (because there is no evidence otherwise!!) and the photos depicting this were faked?

If so, why were the photos faked??

Thanks,

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I agree with you. Those who oppose me are usually shoveling BS.

. While I do not trust you and have found that you work

to undermine my posts, I can't hold that against you.

I oppose BS which invariably leads to countering what you post

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...