Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Tony, Here are links to some of the studies that have convinced me we really did not go to the moon: "Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the Moon?" "Metapedia entry on "Moon Landing Hoax" http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax "Wagging the Moondoggie" http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html For considerations about how it was done, see "Moon Landing Tapes Erased, NASA Admits" http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716 "Moon Movie" http://moonmovie.com/ "How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings" http://assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf Check 'em out and let me know if you want to discuss any of this. Jim 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Fetzer & White: Do you guys think ALL of the Apollo moon landings are frauds/phony -- from Apollo 11 in 1969 right on through to Apollo 17 in 1972? SIX phony moon landings?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 The alternatives [for Fetzer's stupid theory about Mr. Zapruder on the pedestal] 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. LOL. You're hilarious, James F.! ALL of those three "alternatives" of yours are equally idiotic/crazy/nutty/impossible -- and you surely realize that fact. Alternatives #2 and #3 -- "Zapruder wasn't there at all" and "somebody stood in for Zapruder" are just as foolish as the "made of rubber" bladder-buster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) Here's another post that demonstrates that Len Cobly is making false claims about my lack of willingness to acknowledge mistakes: Joseph Green's review of LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION Posted 25 December 2010 - 04:25 AM #9 I don't know how many demonstrations of DiEuginio's diminished capacity for JFK research he can pack into a single post. But he's doing a good job of it with this one.If we stick to the topic of LBJ, here is a list (from Robert Morrow) which establishes--conclusively, in my view--that DiEugenio has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the core of the assassination, which was covertly coordinated by LBJ. I have explained this before and I assert it again. Consider the massive evidence that DiEugenio has to discount in order to make his (otherwise, extremely implausible) case: 1 LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination Phillip F. Nelson 2 Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J Killed J.F.K. Barr McClellan 3 Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of Madeleine Brown and President Lyndon Baines Johnson Madeleine Brown 4 Billie Sol Estes a Texas Legend Billie Sol Estes 5 Defrauding America: Encyclopedia of Secret Operations by the CIA, DEA and Other Covert Agencies Rodney Stich 6 The Men Who Killed Kennedy - the Guilty Men DVD, episodes 7,8,9 on YouTube Nigel Turner 7 Who Killed Kennedy? Thomas Buchanan 8 The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson Joachim Joesten 9 How Kennedy was Killed: The Full Appalling Story Joachim Joesten 10 The Men on the Sixth Floor Glen Sample & Mark Collum 11 Power Beyond Reason: The Mental Collapse of Lyndon Johnson D. Jablow Hershman 12 A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power J. Evetts Haley 13 The Texas Connection Craig Zirbel 14 Who Shot JFK? Robin Ramsay 15 Jesse Ventura, Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura and Dick Russell 16 Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald Judyth Vary Baker & Edward Haslam 17 Lee Harvey Oswald: The True Story of the Accused Assassin of President John F. Kennedy, by His Lover Judyth Vary Baker 18 Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America Russ Baker 19 The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed Russell S. Bowen 20 Barry & 'the Boys': The CIA, the Mob and America's Secret History Daniel Hopsicker 21 JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters James Douglass 22 To Kill a President: Finally an Ex-FBI Agent rips aside the Veil of Secrecy that killed JFK M. Wesley Smearingen 23 JFK - Director's Cut - 2 Disc Special Edition (1991) Oliver Stone 24 Oswald and the CIA John Newman 25 Bloody Treason: On Solving History's Greatest Murder Mystery: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy Noel H. Twyman 26 The Last Investigation Gaeton Fonzi 27 Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years David Talbot 28 Someone Would Have Talked Larry Hancock 29 The Man Who Knew Too Much: Hired to Kill Oswald and Prevent the Assassination of JFK Dick Russell 30 The Dark Side of Camelot Seymour Hersh 31 The Tatum Chronicles (Google Chip Tatum Pegasus for free on internet) D. G. "Chip Tatum" 32 Conspiracy: Who Killed President Kennedy? Anthony Summers 33 Not in Your Lifetime Anthony Summers 34 Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and U.S. Intelligence Philip H. Melanson 35 Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK Mark Lane 36 History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, & the Murder of President Kennedy Martin Schotz 37 Edward Lansdale's Cold War Jonathan Nashel 38 JFK: The Cuba Files: The Untold Story of the Plot to Kill Kennedy (Secret War) Fabian Escalante 39 Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy Jim Marrs 40 The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World Fletcher Prouty 41 The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy: Stunning Evidence in the Assassination of the President Harrison Livingstone 42 Who Killed JFK? Carl Oglesby 43 The Yankee and Cowboy War: Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate Carl Oglesby 44 The JFK Assassination: The Facts and the Theories Carl Oglesby 45 The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider Al Martin 46 Lyndon B. Johnson: A Memoir George Reedy 47 JFK Conspiracy of Silence Charles Crenshaw 48 Trauma Room One: The JFK Medical Coverup Exposed Charles Crenshaw 49 The Grassy Knoll Witnesses: Who Shot JFK? Harry A. Yardum 50 Flight from Dallas: New Evidence of CIA Involvement in the Murder of John F. Kennedy James Johnston and Jon Roe His allusion to Gregory Douglas is instructive. Initially, I thought REGICIDE was very important, especially for its analysis of the role of James Jesus Angleton in suspecting that JFK was communicating with Nikita Khrushchev, which he (Angleton) was able to prove by distributing slightly different versions of a classified report to different officials of the government and then establishing which copy Khrushchev received. If what he tells us is accurate, it came from JFK, which led Angleton to work for his removal. My initial review of his book was favorable but, after giving more thought to the alleged Soviet intelligence assessment of the assassination, which just happened to parallel the official account of three shots fired, it appeared implausible to me that it should be authentic, when eight, nine, or ten shots had actually been fired. I made contact with Douglas and had several conversations. I even arranged to meet in Chicago for lunch, but he never showed up. I had by then concluded that he was not the person he represented himself as being, that something was wrong, and revised my review on amazon.com. I also wrote about it in the second issue of assassinationresearch.com, where my experiences with Douglas and my revised review appear on http://assassinationresearch.com/v1n2.html . I don't know how DiEugenio can fault me for pursuing research until I get it right by taking into account new evidence and new hypotheses, in this case, about the book and its author. If DiEugenio has some divine method for avoiding mistakes in research, I can remind him that no one has that ability, where these recent efforts of his are far more damning of his intellectual and research limitations than something I was exploring in 2002! Given the quality of his latest performances here, however, maybe that's the best he can do. When I discovered that I was wrong, I changed my opinion and published it. When is the last time that he has done that? The REGICIDE case is very interesting because it seems to me to be highly comparable to the sting that terminated Dan Rather's career. He even went over the memorandum, word for word, with the secretary who typed it, which means that he knew it was accurate about Bush's unsatisfactory performance. But the clever Bush operators, Karen Hughes and Karl Rove, realized that, if they had it retyped on a machine using a font that did not exist at time, they could discredit Rather, since everyone would assume that, if it was typed on a fake document, then the contents must be fake, too! I wouldn't be surprised if Jim had been taken in by that, too. In any case, I have called him on blunders before, such as his discounting the original testimony of Mary Morgan about the woman in the car related to Judyth's story, but he seems unwilling to concede that he makes mistakes. Since he raises the issue of the appearance of three officials of the CIA at the Ambassador, I find his remark that even Shane O'Sullivan had abandoned that conjecture to be especially revealing. What I discovered in reviewing the evidence about the identifications were (i) that Jefferson Morley and David Talbot had minimized the evidence in support of those identifications and (ii) that Shane himself had been taken in by the (faintly bizarre) hypothesis that two of them were actually Bulova Watch employees. In the course of my evaluation, I had to appraise some (rather flimsy) arguments that Jim DiEngenio had advanced to deny the allegation. I am sorry to say that Jim seems to me to spend a lot of his time defecting evidence that implicates the CIA in these assassinations, which I find very strange. In any case, his appeal to Shane as having changed his mind reflects his failure to understand the role of logic and evidence in research. He treats it as if it were a popularity contest! When I reassessed the situation, I found that the evidence supporting these identifications was far stronger and the evidence against them far weaker than Morley. Talbot, or DiEugenio appeared to be willing to admit. I exchanged several communications with Bradley Ayers and with Shane O'Sullivan, as I observed in my article about this, which is entitled, "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6464.shtml , which I recommend to anyone who wants to make their own assessment of our relative degrees of research competence. As for 9/11, I seriously doubt that Jim DiEugenio could even explain what my positions are, much less defeat them. This is another nice example of his incompetence, because I have no doubt that he is trading on rumor and speculation. If he wants to duke it out over 9/11, I would welcome that. He can come on my show. Some of us, by the way, can interview guests on the radio and also conduct research, just as some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Those who study this exchange will find that his efforts to impeach my research actually impeach his own. 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 December 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) "The point of the comparison was that no person could be different heights at such similar times, unless he were made of rubber! Rubber, of course, stretches to different lengths under various pressures, which might explain how he and his secretary can be photographed as having many different heights in five images." -- James H. Fetzer; 3/15/09 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14121&st=0&p=164102entry164102 Sure sounds to me like Fetzer is seriously considering the "made out of rubber" alternative. Was that just a tongue-in-cheek 2009 post, James F.? If so, you sure fooled a bunch of people--including many of your fellow conspiracy theorists. Edited December 28, 2010 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Jim D, Show us CLEAR photographic EVIDENCE that indisputably establishes the presence of Zapruder in Dealey Plaza. The cleverly "veiled" ad hominem attacks in which you are engaged are beneath you. That a position can be characterized as "extreme" is not evidence that the position is erroneous. That an individual investigates "extreme" evidence (as in the case of JFK research) should be the obvious pre-cursor to that individual reaching "extreme" conclusions. However, if the conclusion reached is consistent with sound critical thinking--no matter how apparently "extreme" it may appear--it is not indicative of the researcher's penchant for "extremes" or taking extreme positions. It may well be a valid conclusion NO MATTER YOUR PERSONAL rejection of it. That Fetz endorses both Horne and Lifton is evidence of his open mind, not evidence of hypocrisy, nor is it evidence of inconsistency. It could be cumulatively indicative of those things, but ONLY if there was independent evidence that had actual merit. This drivel is non-sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 28, 2010 Author Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) 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 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 This is FALSE. My most prominent study states the opposite. This is a deliberate deception. 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 This is FALSE. For 9 years I have said AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. This is a deliberate deception. -the WTC towers were were not struck by jetliners. - they "dustified" by "star wars" beams - 6 WTC was light grey These statements are not false; neither are they correct. None of the three buildings that collapsed was struck by a hijacked jetliner. The twin towers were "dustified" by sophisticated means which are not yet known; WTC 6 had aluminum cladding matching the twin towers, so I suppose light gray is a good description of aluminum color. 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[/color] Edited December 28, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) The point is that the photographic evidence we were discussing showed Zapruder as having different heights. I was offering three alternatives: (1) he was made of rubber (and therefore could stretch to different heights); (2) he wasn't even there; and (3) someone else was there. To this day, I do not know which is which, although, of course, the rubber hypothesis was to accent the oddity of the evidence. You seem to be playing along with Von Pein. That's going to impress ALL your fans. Where are you coming up with this stuff, DiEugenio? I was not there with someone named "Scaeffer", much less "my henchman". Have you lost your mind? My visit was brief, it was uneventful, and this appears to be a nice example of blowing smoke out your anal aperture. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Doug Horne even published about their finding that the defect was painted over in Vol. IV. I think you are losing your marbles, guy. You really need to get a firmer grip upon reality. I certainly agree that I had to scrutinize your arguments apologizing for the CIA at the Ambassador. They were extremely poorly reasoned, where you seem to think that, because an opinion is your opinion, it should be taken seriously. I love how you're distorting the evidence on the thread, by the way. But anyone who studies what I have uncovered will appreciate that your arguments are factually challenged and logically misconceived. Everyone can check it out at http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6464.shtml I haven't "suddenly gone after (you)". I called you about a blunder with respect to historical methodology, where you claimed that recent interviews with Mary Morgan were more reliable than her consistent early testimony. Now you are promoting three reviews that are completely unworthy of being taken seriously. I have explained why I fault them in a large number of substantial and detailed posts! Now you are going bananas with this "garbage dump" attack. You need help, Jim. Seek professional help. "Perhaps Zapruder did not take "the Zapruder film, because the evidence presented here suggests he wasn't even there!" This is you Jim. Now which is it? I assume you would say it is this last of the three alternatives. And then Jack White wonders why there is so much "Fetzer bashing" here. Here is a guy, who no matter what, takes extreme positions with predictable regularity. No extreme is too extreme for him Body hijacking and alteration: he endorses both Horne and Lifton even though Horne disagrees with Lifton. Photos and x rays altered. Even though neither Horne nor Lifton agrees with that. I mean, if you alter the body, why do you have to alter the photos? Zapruder film altered, and not mildly but radically. I mean the whole post production schedule. (BTW, Horne's Hollywood Group does not agree with Fetzer on this. In fact the visit by Fetzer and his henchman Scaeffer to the Valley did not go well.) Zapruder was not there. Judy Baker is credible. Chauncey Holt is credible. I won't even go into 9-11, Judy Wood etc.. ANd then when you don't follow the Pied Piper, he goes nuts. Because CTKA prints reviews that disagree with Lifton, or make some criticisms of Ventura, or negatively reviews a book that Fetzer actually compared with JFK and the Unspeakable, suddenly he goes after me. Jack, this is something you forgot. Fetzer started all this. Because of the above reasons. And it is he who goes to rhetorical extremes..against which I have to defend myself. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that. Edited December 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Tony, Posts in which I replied to you have disappeared and sentences that were not inflammatory have been deleted. I have no idea why, other than game playing by the moderator. Are you a student of 9/11? Because I have a considerable interest in the subject, including the Pentagon. Here are some links to presentations of mine: "Why Doubt 9/11?" http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?" http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?" http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ "What Didn't Happen at the Pengagon?" http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html While I have been disposed to believe that a small plane approached the Pentagon at about the time that a Boeing 757 flew over it, my confidence in the evidence has been shaken because the fireballs shown in the five frames with the wrong dates/times should have caused extensive damage to the inside of the building, yet when the collapsed floors were excavated, there were no signs that the interior has been singed by fire. I therefore now question the other frame (labeled "plane"), where the whole set of five may have been faked. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) Fetzer makes a very key point in the middle of all that: Lyndon Johnson was in the middle coordinating the 1963 Coup d'Etat, with the support of CIA/military and the shadow government of oil barons/Rockefellers. It was not just a bunch of mid level CIA guys who murdered John Kennedy and then had Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover do all the cover up work for them. Johnson was in on it from the beginning: source Madeleine Duncan Brown. LBJ had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination and within 6 weeks was admitting to his fave mistress Madeleine that it was CIA and Texas oil who murdered John Kennedy. BINGO! Jim DiEugenio once called Lyndon Johnson "unsophisticated" on another thread. Crude? Yes. Vulgar? Yes. Sadistic? Yes. Unsophisticated? No. Not when it came to power, finding out where it was, how to use it for his ends, and how to manipulate it. Lyndon Johnson was the master at that and he was an expert planner, especially when he was crafting one of his diabolical schemes: read Caro and Nelson for MANY examples of that. Lyndon Johnson had a saying that he knew well and practiced: power is where power goes. That means he had a nose for finding where real power was and how to use it. All those CIA guys - Angleton, Helms, Hunt, Phillips, Morales, ... those guys are are bunch of chimpanzees in the trees. Sure they manipulated and framed Oswald, and they pulled off a deception provocation for a Cuban invasion ... but that was not LBJ's agenda, which was purely survival. Lyndon Johnson - he is the anaconda slithering in the water. You think you are in good shape, floating in the water peacefully, like Robert Kennedy, feeding all that damaging info to LIFE, imagining how nice life will be once that Lyndon Johnson was vaporized within days once and for all... such a beautiful day just floating here in the river, looking up at those stupid chimpanzees in the trees that we are going to take care of right after Jack is re-elected, along with getting rid of that hyena J.Edgar Hoover... thinking I am a big bad crocodile, brother of President John Kennedy, nothing scares me, I own this river AND those chimpanzees I order around on Cuba, that stupid hyena who is getting the ax next year .... Then BOOM! SPLASH! THRASH! DEATH SQUEEZE in the grips of a powerful snake with a set of nasty teeth to boot! Johnson Strikes ... and he is the King of the Jungle. http://www.swotti.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYW5HY29UZGE=RW50ZXJ0YWLUBWVUDC1NB3ZPZXM=/imgAnaconda4.jpg Edited December 28, 2010 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) Show us CLEAR photographic EVIDENCE that indisputably establishes the presence of Zapruder in Dealey Plaza. Why on Earth would such photographic evidence be necessary, Greg? We've got Mr. Zapruder HIMSELF--on WFAA-TV videotape!--telling the world at 2:31 PM CST on 11/22/63 that he went to Dealey Plaza and stood on "one of these concrete blocks they have down near that park near the underpass": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BXsXFLEjKE http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/zapruder.html Edited December 28, 2010 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) Yes, Schaeffer did not come with me to visit with Sydney and, up until now, I have been unaware of any problem during the visit. I have written to her to ask what is going on. The person who accompanied me is MIke Pincher, who co-authored the article with Roy. Mike is an attorney with a keen interest in the film. Afterwards, he and I discussed the copy they had obtained from the National Archives, which is about as bad as any I have ever seen. He and I discussed it, but I don't recall that the subject came up while we were there. It was a very brief visit, because the studio was booked. The only copy I've seen that was worse is that used in "The Cooper Tape". Indeed, it is such a terrible copy that Mike has even called me to ask if they realize how bad their copy is. I don't understand why they would pay for such a shoddy copy when a far superior copy if available for free at assassinationscience.com. I don't know if Mike called Sydney about this, but it would not surprise me if he had. Since you do not appear to have read any of my books, I am not surprised that you would convey a garbled message. I told Mike that perhaps they can do what they are trying to do with a bad copy. As for the "post- production" timeline, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you had read HOAX, by the way, you would be aware that there are many rather different and conflicting images of Zapruder on the pedestal. Jack has a whole collection, many if not all of which are published in HOAX. In some, he is missing. This is another case where, if you knew the evidence, you would not be attacking me. Frankly, when you acknowledge that you do not know the medical evidence or the photographic, including the film, you should respect those of us who do. When you attack my criticisms, your might want to consider that possibly, in some cases, I know more than you. And when I read what you have written here, I cannot believe your gullibility. OF COURSE ZAPRUDER LIED. Once again, if you had only studied my books, you would know more about Zapruder. When he went on TV that evening, he placed his hand to the right-front of his head to show where the brains and gore bulged out. But since that didn't happen--as I have explained many times now--Zapruder had to have been complicit in the cover-up, where purportedly taking the film was a key contribution since it was reworked and turned into the backbone of the cover-up, as I explain in the Preface to HOAX. I discuss Zapruder and other efforts to mislead the public in "Distorting the Photographic Record", which is the Epilogue to HOAX. I think we are having conflicts because you have missed out on the most important studies of the evidence in my books. It bothers me tremendously that someone as good as you are would not know these aspects of the case. Jim: You are saying that your buddy Schaeffer--who actually co wrote an article in Assassination Science-- never visited Wilkinson and her hubby, and that you never heard of this episode during which they had a disagreement? Really? Should I then describe their side of that visit? BTW, if you are saying you abide by alternatives numbers 2 or 3, then you are clearly implying that Zapruder never took the Zapruder film. IF that is so, then you clearly have to be saying that Zapruder was some kind of agent who decided to go along with a deliberate lie. ANd this had to be planned in advance. Because the alternative would be that they just told him everything off the cuff right after the assassination. Therefore, Zapruder was play acting to his family, to the newsmen, to the processors at Jameson, to Rather and Stolley. ANd he signed a contract for something he did not do and film he did not take. He then committed perjury in front of the Warren Commission, and again at the trial of Clay Shaw. And not a peep of this huge deception ever leaked out. This is what I mean about taking extreme positions. Tell me when you have all the details worked out on this one Jim. Maybe there was a Second Zapruder. Edited December 28, 2010 by Evan Burton Corrected quote tag so that quote box appears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 How many times am I going to have to demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about? If you don't know what you are talking about re Zapruder and his film, how can you know enough about 9/11? Tony: Get ready for Judy Wood, dustification, Morgan Reynolds, and giant holograms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) Honest to God, you really are incompetent. I said I was not there with someone named "Scaeffer" because I was not there with someone name "Scaeffer" or "Schaeffer". I was there with a man named "Mike Pincher", who is an attorney with a keen interest in the film. I am unware of any argument about the film, but Mike may have expressed his concern about its quality. It is the worst copy I have ever seen absent the Cooper tape. We did not discuss the "post-production" timeline, which is why I asked you about it, unless it was to mention that there are conflicting opinions. It was not something that we discussed. I think you are dredging the bottom of the barrel, Jim, and I have no idea why you are placing yourself at the center of issues where you simply do not know what you are talking about. And why in the world would I be "paving the way" to discount the work they are doing? They confirm what we already knew. You THINK you know my opinions, but so far as I can discern, you have no understanding of the film or the grounds on whch we know it was faked. I have been accenting the simplest proofs we have because it appears to me that, if you are unable to grasp them, you are certainly not going to be able to grape those that are more complex. And, sure enough, you are unable to grasp even the simplest. How many times to I have to explain about the "ghost panels" and that, after taking frames out and adding others in, they had to reshoot each frame to create a consistent sequence of "ghost panels" because otherwise their inconsistency with the frames before them and after would have exposed the deception? Who knows how garbled a report you would have given "them" at Lancer or how little you would have understood. Why don't you tell me just what you told them, which I can share with David Mantik, David Lifton, John Cotella, and others? I am sorry to say that I am becoming convinced that you are incapable of understanding these issues, which severely compromises your ability to sort out the truth about the medical and the photographic evidence. I conveyed no garbled message. You played dumb because I misspelled Schaeffer's name. Then you tried to say you did not even know he visited them. And even though this was many months ago, you still don't know what happened. And now you are paving the road to dismiss their work by saying they have a terrible copy of the film. THe bottom line is this: They do not buy the whole "post-production schedule" that Lifton, Fetzer et al do. WHat do I mean by that? Post production schedule refers to what is done to a film after you have shot it to get it ready for distribution. If you look at Fetzer's series on You TUbe on this subject, its pretty clear that most, if not all, of the speakers are talking about a radical alteration of the film. That is different than what the Wilkinsons beleive. THey believe two parts of the film were blacked out. This is a far cry from the agenda that Fetzer talks about: aerial imaging, matte shots, traveling mattes etc. Which would have taken an extensive blow up and reduce down schedule, with all the painting etc, done at a 35 mm stage on individual frames. WHen I talked to them at Lancer, they did not buy that. At all. But let me add: Fetzer is now admitting what I thought he was implying and what this kind of scenario has to entail. THat Zapruder was part of the plot. ANd it almost has to be that he was in on it before the fact. Pity us all when HBO gets wind of this. Edited December 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 28, 2010 Author Share Posted December 28, 2010 Jim: You are saying that your buddy Schaeffer--who actually co wrote an article in Assassination Science-- never visited Wilkinson and her hubby, and that you never heard of this episode during which they had a disagreement? Really? Should I then describe their side of that visit? BTW, if you are saying you abide by alternatives numbers 2 or 3, then you are clearly implying that Zapruder never took the Zapruder film. IF that is so, then you clearly have to be saying that Zapruder was some kind of agent who decided to go along with a deliberate lie. ANd this had to be planned in advance. Because the alternative would be that they just told him everything off the cuff right after the assassination. Therefore, Zapruder was play acting to his family, to the newsmen, to the processors at Jameson, to Rather and Stolley. ANd he signed a contract for something he did not do and film he did not take. He then committed perjury in front of the Warren Commission, and again at the trial of Clay Shaw. And not a peep of this huge deception ever leaked out. This is what I mean about taking extreme positions. Tell me when you have all the details worked out on this one Jim. Maybe there was a Second Zapruder. Jim...you are getting way out of bounds. EVIDENCE shows Zapruder being five different heights, none of which are remotely close to his actual height. It is YOU who are unfamiliar with the EVIDENCE...not Fetzer. In fact, one film even shows NOBODY on the Zapruder pedestial. So it is you ridiculing Fetzer for being correct. It is you taking the extreme position. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now