Fetzer bashing is fashionable here

[Evan Burton]

You are persona non grata at many truther sites.

There are what I would call "full on CT sites" that claim Jim F is a disinformation agent! I think it is just another case of them eating their young (e.g. 911 scholars, DPF, etc) but according to some, anything is possible.

[Evan Burton]

Why am I not surprised that Evan Burton would arrive on the scene to defect the fact that none of

these critics are able to deal with the arguments and evidence that we have presented? Instead, he

endorses a blatant ad hominem attack by someone who knows neither the medical evidence nor the film.

Stephen has nothing to contribute here and neither do you. Let DiEugenio stand up for himself, if he can.

Very well said. IMO, Len should heed this advice with respect to Jack.

To Jim DiEugenio:

An unsolicited observation (although I note that you may be "leaving the room":

It may be a pointless waste of time and energy to debate with Jim Fetzer on these issues. No citation of evidence or logic will discourage him from firing back on all cylinders. Several months back, in an epic thread on Judyth Baker, I came to realize that Jim, despite obvious talents, has a fatal flaw which prevents him from discussing matters without descending into childish putdowns of those who disagree with him. He may question your credentials, intelligence, familiarity with the subject, sincerity and/or motives, all while puffing his own perceived strengths. It will take much time and energy but ultimately accomplish nothing. I think it is best to make your case, let him make his, and be done with it. The rest of us know what the score is.

I am expressing an opinion JIm, and it is not an ad hom. In fact, you are confirming what Stephen said.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Evan, I have offered many arguments and cited evidence that supports them. You and Stephen Roy and, of

course, Len Colby are the ones who specialize in ad hominems, where you have offered nothing but! Why

don't you let DiEugenio and me sort it out between ourselves? You are contributing exactly nothing here!

Why am I not surprised that Evan Burton would arrive on the scene to defect the fact that none of

these critics are able to deal with the arguments and evidence that we have presented? Instead, he

endorses a blatant ad hominem attack by someone who knows neither the medical evidence nor the film.

Stephen has nothing to contribute here and neither do you. Let DiEugenio stand up for himself, if he can.

Very well said. IMO, Len should heed this advice with respect to Jack.

To Jim DiEugenio:

An unsolicited observation (although I note that you may be "leaving the room":

It may be a pointless waste of time and energy to debate with Jim Fetzer on these issues. No citation of evidence or logic will discourage him from firing back on all cylinders. Several months back, in an epic thread on Judyth Baker, I came to realize that Jim, despite obvious talents, has a fatal flaw which prevents him from discussing matters without descending into childish putdowns of those who disagree with him. He may question your credentials, intelligence, familiarity with the subject, sincerity and/or motives, all while puffing his own perceived strengths. It will take much time and energy but ultimately accomplish nothing. I think it is best to make your case, let him make his, and be done with it. The rest of us know what the score is.

I am expressing an opinion JIm, and it is not an ad hom. In fact, you are confirming what Stephen said.

[Dawn Meredith]

My take on the backyard photos of Lee Harvey Oswald? They are completely legit because Marina in the year 2010 says she took them. The Marina of 1963-1964 was completely controlled by the murderers of JFK.

I think backyard photos were part of LHO's sheep dipping operations; creating the fake "pro-Castro Marxist" persona that would be use to frame him posthumously, after they killed him.

OMG Robert will you LOOK at the damn things. You do not even have to study the evidence here, though that would be helpful too, they are so beyond FAKE!!! And The article that Jim Fetzer did is fantastic. I don't care what Marina says. Her ability to change stories probably has a lot to do with fear. Recall that Harvery, upon seeing these fakes said they were fake and that his face was superimposed on somone's head. Look at the damn chin!!!! Geez!!!!

Dawn

[Dean Hagerman]

My take on the backyard photos of Lee Harvey Oswald? They are completely legit because Marina in the year 2010 says she took them. The Marina of 1963-1964 was completely controlled by the murderers of JFK.

I think backyard photos were part of LHO's sheep dipping operations; creating the fake "pro-Castro Marxist" persona that would be use to frame him posthumously, after they killed him.

OMG Robert will you LOOK at the damn things. You do not even have to study the evidence here, though that would be helpful too, they are so beyond FAKE!!! And The article that Jim Fetzer did is fantastic. I don't care what Marina says. Her ability to change stories probably has a lot to do with fear. Recall that Harvery, upon seeing these fakes said they were fake and that his face was superimposed on somone's head. Look at the damn chin!!!! Geez!!!!

Dawn

Just tell Robert that LBJ himself superimposed LHOs head on someone elses body and he will jump all over the Backyard pics being fake.

[Michael Hogan]

To Jim DiEugenio:

An unsolicited observation (although I note that you may be "leaving the room"):

It may be a pointless waste of time and energy to debate with Jim Fetzer on these issues. No citation of evidence or logic will discourage him from firing back on all cylinders. Several months back, in an epic thread on Judyth Baker, I came to realize that Jim, despite obvious talents, has a fatal flaw which prevents him from discussing matters without descending into childish putdowns of those who disagree with him. He may question your credentials, intelligence, familiarity with the subject, sincerity and/or motives, all while puffing his own perceived strengths. It will take much time and energy but ultimately accomplish nothing. I think it is best to make your case, let him make his, and be done with it. The rest of us know what the score is.

Why am I not surprised that Evan Burton would arrive on the scene to defect the fact that none of

these critics are able to deal with the arguments and evidence that we have presented? Instead, he

endorses a blatant ad hominem attack by someone who knows neither the medical evidence nor the film.

Stephen has nothing to contribute here and neither do you. Let DiEugenio stand up for himself, if he can.

I suppose that anyone critical of Jim Fetzer has nothing to contribute to a thread about Fetzer bashing.

In his heart, Jack White knows that Stephen Roy is right on the money about the Baker thread.

[Tony Frank]

Tony:

Get ready for Judy Wood, dustification, Morgan Reynolds, and giant holograms.

Jack White and Jim Fetzer give assassination research a bad name. I am simply amazed that anyone would take such positions on monumental historic events, but it is inevitable that people who think the government fabricated the information about the 9/11 terrorist attacks will involve themselves in the JFK assassination and the obvious government cover up.

I have no interest in viewing their videos or reading their "analyses" of anything.

[Len Colby]

Tony:

Get ready for Judy Wood, dustification, Morgan Reynolds, and giant holograms.

Jack White and Jim Fetzer give assassination research a bad name. I am simply amazed that anyone would take such positions on monumental historic events, but it is inevitable that people who think the government fabricated the information about the 9/11 terrorist attacks will involve themselves in the JFK assassination and the obvious government cover up.

I have no interest in viewing their videos or reading their "analyses" of anything.

??? Fetzer and White were involved in JFK research well before 9/11.

[Len Colby]

Evan, I have offered many arguments and cited evidence that supports them. You and Stephen Roy and, of

course, Len Colby are the ones who specialize in ad hominems, where you have offered nothing but! Why

don't you let DiEugenio and me sort it out between ourselves? You are contributing exactly nothing here!

Of course Fetzer won’t supply any examples of us doing such things. I for one am basically done with the alteration issue here having spent hours debating it several years ago only to see the topic go in circles. If DuEugenio wants to we’re not doing anything to stop it.

My beef with Jack entirely separate, getting him to clear up his contradictory comments about Apollo.

[David Lifton]

Just to spell out my own position on these matters. . . :

Jack’s heart is in the right place, but I disagree with him on certain specifics.

1. I agree completely that the limo stopped. There is no question (in my mind) about the validity of that statement. I interviewed the key witnesses back in November, 1971, and I believe what they told me. (Moreover, if that is true, then more than one film must have been faked). The films of Dealey Plaza must have been accessed, reviewed, and edited—and in making this statement, I am not claiming to know how the particulars, just that something of this sort must have occurred, to explain the fact that the “car stop” was removed from more than one film.

2. Because of that, I understand (and am very sympathetic to) the idea that “altered reality” is a legitimate way of describing what happened. How else should one describe a situation in which multiple film records were altered?

3. One place---an important one--where I disagree with Jack White: I do not believe that Zapruder was not up on the pedestal, and did not take the film (or “a” film).

4. The alteration of films—notice, I said films (plural)—in Dealey Plaza was a critical (and central) part of the plot to kill President Kennedy. The autopsy had to be falsified, but also bystander film had to be dealt with. Exactly how this was accomplished is as yet unresolved—at least, from the standpoint of published information.

5. It is my personal opinion that, starting later on Friday evening, Zapruder –who was not previously involved in any plotting or any collusion--was figuratively (if not literally) given a tap on the shoulder and brought into collusion with others, along with some explanation as to why his cooperation was needed; and that further, from that point onward, he knowingly (if not intentionally) participated in this operation. He did so by surrendering his film to those he believed to be legitimate reps of “the government” which then led to a situation in which an altered film was back in his possession by Saturday morning, for sale to LIFE magazine.

6. Did Zapruder know that the film he was provided back (for sale) did not have the same image content as the one he took? That is a most interesting question.

7. I do not claim to know Zapruder’s state of mind on Friday night, or what he thought he was involved in; just that he was “cooperating” with legitimate authority, and was –very likely—paid handsomely for his help. We know the contract price jumped from $50,000 on Saturday to $150,000 on Monday, 11/25/63 (a fact that was concealed from the public for years); and I would assume there was probably unacknowledged cash, possibly a lot of cash, that was paid, as well. (This latter statement is my personal opinion).

I am truly sorry to see that the puzzle of how the film was “altered so fast”—which is truly the heart of the matter if one is to attempt to “solve” the Kennedy assassination---has led to (what I believe) are incorrect hypotheses as to how it was altered.

Personally, I find it ironic that those who are smart enough to think “outside the box” on this issue of film alteration happen to entertain hypotheses in other areas which I do not believe to be true. Specifically, I am referring here to theories that we did not go to the moon, and/or theories re 9/11—i.e., that the World Trade Center was the result of controlled demolition, or that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.

In my opinion, neither the media nor the public will ever take seriously claims of Zapruder film alteration if those who propound them also are tied to conspiracy theories about faked moon landings and/or 9/11. However, I realize that those who subscribe to these theories are sincere, and so there is not much that can be done about this awkward situation. Jack White has meticulously reviewed the Dealey Plaza films and many of his observations are important.

I know that Doug Horne feels much the same way. We both believe the Z film was altered (although we do not agree as to the particulars of how it was done) but we also reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board.

Happy New Year.

DSL

1/01/2011; 11:45 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 1, 2011 by David Lifton

[Glenn Viklund]

David Lifton:

"I am truly sorry to see that the puzzle of how the film was “altered so fast”—which is truly the heart of the matter if one is to attempt to “solve” the Kennedy assassination---has led to (what I believe) are incorrect hypotheses as to how it was altered."

David, would you care to elaborate on this statement, I'd appreciate it.

According to Doug Horne, one of the critical elements during that first weekend was that the extant Z-film was at that "secret lab", which was crucial to the possibility of alteration.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got the facts wrong here.

But, and this is the point; how would anyone with the intention to alter the Z-film during those early stages, know what to alter?

Considering all cameras, film cameras this would be a highly risky endeavour unless they knew what was in the rest of photos and films taken at Dealey Plaza during the event?

And I wish you a Happy New Year as well!

//Glenn Viklund

Edited January 1, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Dean Hagerman]

Just to spell out my own position on these matters. . . :

Jacks heart is in the right place, but I disagree with him on certain specifics.

1. I agree completely that the limo stopped. There is no question (in my mind) about the validity of that statement. I interviewed the key witnesses back in November, 1971, and I believe what they told me. (Moreover, if that is true, then more than one film must have been faked). The films of Dealey Plaza must have been accessed, reviewed, and editedand in making this statement, I am not claiming to know how the particulars, just that something of this sort must have occurred, to explain the fact that the car stop was removed from more than one film.

2. Because of that, I understand (and am very sympathetic to) the idea that altered reality is a legitimate way of describing what happened. How else should one describe a situation in which multiple film records were altered?

3. One place---an important one--where I disagree with Jack White: I do not believe that Zapruder was not up on the pedestal, and did not take the film (or a film).

4. The alteration of filmsnotice, I said films (plural)in Dealey Plaza was a critical (and central) part of the plot to kill President Kennedy. The autopsy had to be falsified, but also bystander film had to be dealt with. Exactly how this was accomplished is as yet unresolvedat least, from the standpoint of published information.

5. It is my personal opinion that, starting later on Friday evening, Zapruder who was not previously involved in any plotting or any collusion--was figuratively (if not literally) given a tap on the shoulder and brought into collusion with others, along with some explanation as to why his cooperation was needed; and that further, from that point onward, he knowingly (if not intentionally) participated in this operation. He did so by surrendering his film to those he believed to be legitimate reps of the government which then led to a situation in which an altered film was back in his possession by Saturday morning, for sale to LIFE magazine.

6. Did Zapruder know that the film he was provided back (for sale) did not have the same image content as the one he took? That is a most interesting question.

7. I do not claim to know Zapruders state of mind on Friday night, or what he thought he was involved in; just that he was cooperating with legitimate authority, and was very likelypaid handsomely for his help. We know the contract price jumped from $50,000 on Saturday to $150,000 on Monday, 11/25/63 (a fact that was concealed from the public for years); and I would assume there was probably unacknowledged cash, possibly a lot of cash, that was paid, as well. (This latter statement is my personal opinion).

I am truly sorry to see that the puzzle of how the film was altered so fastwhich is truly the heart of the matter if one is to attempt to solve the Kennedy assassination---has led to (what I believe) are incorrect hypotheses as to how it was altered.

Personally, I find it ironic that those who are smart enough to think outside the box on this issue of film alteration happen to entertain hypotheses in other areas which I do not believe to be true. Specifically, I am referring here to theories that we did not go to the moon, and/or theories re 9/11i.e., that the World Trade Center was the result of controlled demolition, or that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.

In my opinion, neither the media nor the public will ever take seriously claims of Zapruder film alteration if those who propound them also are tied to conspiracy theories about faked moon landings and/or 9/11. However, I realize that those who subscribe to these theories are sincere, and so there is not much that can be done about this awkward situation. Jack White has meticulously reviewed the Dealey Plaza films and many of his observations are important.

I know that Doug Horne feels much the same way. We both believe the Z film was altered (although we do not agree as to the particulars of how it was done) but we also reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board.

Happy New Year.

DSL

1/01/2011; 11:45 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

My stance on the Z-film alteration is very much in line with David's

I also believe Zapruder was on the pedestal, I also believe that Zapruder was filming

I believe the Limo did stop, and was taken out

I believe the wide Limo turn (as seen by Roy Truly) was taken out

I also believe that we landed on the moon in 1969 (and all the times after that) and the images are real

I do not believe in a 9/11 cover up

So for all the members who seem to think that all alterationists have the same exact theories about everything (including the moon landings and 9/11) please think again

Edited January 2, 2011 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

Just to spell out my own position on these matters. . . :

Jack’s heart is in the right place, but I disagree with him on certain specifics.

1. I agree completely that the limo stopped. There is no question (in my mind) about the validity of that statement. I interviewed the key witnesses back in November, 1971, and I believe what they told me. (Moreover, if that is true, then more than one film must have been faked). The films of Dealey Plaza must have been accessed, reviewed, and edited—and in making this statement, I am not claiming to know how the particulars, just that something of this sort must have occurred, to explain the fact that the “car stop” was removed from more than one film.

2. Because of that, I understand (and am very sympathetic to) the idea that “altered reality” is a legitimate way of describing what happened. How else should one describe a situation in which multiple film records were altered?

3. One place---an important one--where I disagree with Jack White: I do not believe that Zapruder was not up on the pedestal, and did not take the film (or “a” film).

4. The alteration of films—notice, I said films (plural)—in Dealey Plaza was a critical (and central) part of the plot to kill President Kennedy. The autopsy had to be falsified, but also bystander film had to be dealt with. Exactly how this was accomplished is as yet unresolved—at least, from the standpoint of published information.

5. It is my personal opinion that, starting later on Friday evening, Zapruder –who was not previously involved in any plotting or any collusion--was figuratively (if not literally) given a tap on the shoulder and brought into collusion with others, along with some explanation as to why his cooperation was needed; and that further, from that point onward, he knowingly (if not intentionally) participated in this operation. He did so by surrendering his film to those he believed to be legitimate reps of “the government” which then led to a situation in which an altered film was back in his possession by Saturday morning, for sale to LIFE magazine.

6. Did Zapruder know that the film he was provided back (for sale) did not have the same image content as the one he took? That is a most interesting question.

7. I do not claim to know Zapruder’s state of mind on Friday night, or what he thought he was involved in; just that he was “cooperating” with legitimate authority, and was –very likely—paid handsomely for his help. We know the contract price jumped from $50,000 on Saturday to $150,000 on Monday, 11/25/63 (a fact that was concealed from the public for years); and I would assume there was probably unacknowledged cash, possibly a lot of cash, that was paid, as well. (This latter statement is my personal opinion).

I am truly sorry to see that the puzzle of how the film was “altered so fast”—which is truly the heart of the matter if one is to attempt to “solve” the Kennedy assassination---has led to (what I believe) are incorrect hypotheses as to how it was altered.

Personally, I find it ironic that those who are smart enough to think “outside the box” on this issue of film alteration happen to entertain hypotheses in other areas which I do not believe to be true. Specifically, I am referring here to theories that we did not go to the moon, and/or theories re 9/11—i.e., that the World Trade Center was the result of controlled demolition, or that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.

In my opinion, neither the media nor the public will ever take seriously claims of Zapruder film alteration if those who propound them also are tied to conspiracy theories about faked moon landings and/or 9/11. However, I realize that those who subscribe to these theories are sincere, and so there is not much that can be done about this awkward situation. Jack White has meticulously reviewed the Dealey Plaza films and many of his observations are important.

I know that Doug Horne feels much the same way. We both believe the Z film was altered (although we do not agree as to the particulars of how it was done) but we also reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board.

Happy New Year.

DSL

1/01/2011; 11:45 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Thanks, David...I agree with nearly everything you say UNTIL your last paragraph. All your comments regarding the DP films are "reasonable", most are "probable, and a few are "debatable."

For instance NO PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD supports the allegation that Zapruder was on the pedestal. The man seen on the pedestal is seen to be as small as less than 5 feet, while Abe

was nearly six feet tall.

However, that you and Horne "reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board" are opinions

not supported by the facts. Those who know the facts of the cases you mention can successfully defend any point you object to, much in the manner that Z film alteration can be explained.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

However, that you and Horne "reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board" are opinions not supported by the facts. Those who know the facts of the cases you mention can successfully defend any point you object to, much in the manner that Z film alteration can be explained.

Jack

No, you have opinions which are not supported by the facts, and every time people who are familiar with those facts ask you to debate them, you refuse to do so, claiming various reasons.

[Len Colby]

However, that you and Horne "reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board" are opinions

not supported by the facts. Those who know the facts of the cases you mention can successfully defend any point you object to, much in the manner that Z film alteration can be explained.

Jack

Still waiting for you to clarify whether you believe the missions were faked or only believe the photos were faked, you have made contradictory statements in this regard.