Jump to content

Fetzer bashing is fashionable here


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jim, I did not post this, but I am concerned that you seem to lack

reading comprehension. Could you please tell me what he is saying

the second long paragraph? This comes from the Martin Hay thread,

where you can find it on the second page. Just tell me what it says.

Posted 25 December 2010 - 04:56 PM

What's next Mr. Fetzer?

Milicent Cranor, who wrote several distinguished essays for various publications in the nineties,and for my money knows more about the medical evidence than any person out there, also does not buy into it.

Roger Feinman, also an authorty on the emedical evidnce does not buy it.

I would like to take exception to two names on your list. I read Roger Reinman's long essay, "Between a Signal and a Noise," years ago. The essay is so emotionally encrusted with what appears to be Feinman's animus toward Lifton, prompted by what seems to be a chidlish jealousy, that it was hard to separate the rational from the irrational. There is a long history between these two, and unless Feinman has matured and produced quality work (and I would be glad to be pointed in that direction) I wouldn't think his contributions important in the medical field. The other name is Milicent Cranor, whose essays I have read as I have found them. Her essay on the size of the trach incision seems to me to be a case of very special pleading. The one thing Lifton did -- and which can never be undone -- is to interview witnesses and commit them to the historical record before they knew what they said was at variance with the record. Nothing Cranor can devise will ever erase Perry's estimate to Lifton of the size of the trach inicision he made. She has attempted to prove Perry was mistaken, but in this reader's mind there is a strength to an initial recollection, like Perry's, that cannot be explained away. Lifton's early interviews--whatever else one may think of alteration--are of utmost historical significance.

As an aside, other recollections by individuals have shaped my view of the case--recollections quite at variance with the official record and quite revealing. One is nurse Audrey Bell, who asked Perry where the head wound was, and Perry had to turn the head to the left so she could see the wound in the back of the head. The action of Perry is something a nurse would likely remember for the rest of her life. The other is Toni Foster, who was interviewed by Debra Conway in 2000 and who seems to have had no idea her recollections contradicted the official record. She told Debra, "For some reason, the car stopped. It did stop for seconds. I don't ever know shy it stopped and all of a sudden it sped up and they went under the underpass. I could never figure out why the car stopped." The way she delivers these lines, I doubt Toni had ever seen the extant Z-film, and had no idea her recollections contradicted that film. I am reminded of Lifton's early (1971) interviews with the Newmans who said the limo stopped. They had no way of knowing at the time that the Z-film showed no such stop. All of this is to say, the earliest recollections of individuals are likely to be the most significant, especially if there is evidence of a lack of exposure to contrary viewpoints that might influence memory.

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.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, are you claiming that Zapruder saw what we see in the Zapruder film, which you show after his

interview? The most charitable interpretation would be that Zapruder saw the skull flap in the right

side open up, but not that he saw brains bulging out to the right front. In HOAX, I quote Zapruder's

friend, Erwin Swartz, who viewed the film when it was developed and reported seeing the president's

brains blown out to the left/rear. So obviously they cannot both be telling the truth. We know that his

brains were blown out to the left/rear, because Officer Hargis was hit so hard by the debris that he

thought he himself had been shot--and the Harper fragment would be found on the grass to the left of

the limousine the following day. For those who want to check it, see page 27 of HOAX about Swartz.

It would be a good idea for those who are interested in how we know that the film has been faked to

read the Preface and the Prologue to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) for a summary.

One film even shows NOBODY on the Zapruder pedestal.

What about this interview then, Jack? Is Zapruder a xxxx here (a mere two hours after the assassination)?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BXsXFLEjKE&p=569A375DA8B51DE5

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

Thus speaks DiEugenio: "Body hijacking and alteration: he endorses both Horne and Lifton even though Horne disagrees with Lifton."

My response: You are really barking up the wrong tree, DiEugenio, if you think this line of "argument" is going to get you anywhere: (a) Doug Horne and I have been friends for years and (b ) it was because of Doug Horne's devotion to the truth, his interest in history, and his competence as an investigator and an analyst (traits that I believe to be lacking in much of your own writing) that the key autopsy witnesses named in BEST EVIDENCE were called to testify, and the issues laid out in BEST EVIDENCE were pursued.

So what if Doug Horne and I disagree on some of the details of body alteration--we've had a healthy dialectic on the subject for many years. It was my book that set Doug down the path he took, and it was Doug's work that strengthened my own conclusions. Need I remind you of the public statement he made on the subject years ago?

Here is just the first paragraph, and I quote:

David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. UNQUOTE

You seem not to understand the fundamental fact that the body of President Kennedy was the most important evidence in this case. The very language you use--"body hijacking"--betrays a profound ignorance of the basis of what was a very serious strategic deception. Maybe you can use that on a late night talk show, but it won't fly in serious debate.

If one does not address the fraud in the evidence, then one cannot get to the truth about Dallas.

If this were a financial fraud, would you be making fun at someone who took "accounting" seriously?

I thnk you need a good class on evidence, DiEugenio, so you will stop denigrating and making comments, out of ignorance, about what is really the most important analysis in this case: the evidence that the body of President Kennedy was altered, prior to autopsy.

DSL

Los Angeles, CA

12/28/10; 4:40 AM PST

POSTSCRIPT:

More from DiEugenio:

"Photos and x rays altered. Even though neither Horne nor Lifton agrees with that"

DSL Response: Are you smoking something? Where did you get the idea that neither of us believe that the X-rays were not altered? I have believed that ever since Mantik published his first article on the subject. (Can you spell "densitometer"??)

And still more: " I mean, if you alter the body, why do you have to alter the photos?"

First of all: Do you think its possible that you might drop from your writing the phrase "I mean". . . I mean, it makes you look really, uhm, er, I mean, er. .. . .[preemptive deletion. . so I will save the moderator some work. .. ]

Second, and again, from DiEugenio: "if you alter the body, why do you have to alter the photos?"

DSL Response: See Arthur Conan Doyle, under "imperfect forgery" . . know what I mean? Ya know. .

Third: "Zapruder film altered, and not mildly but radically. I mean the whole post production schedule."

DSL Response: I mean. . really, er, I mean. . what's wrong with a radical alteration? I mean. .do you think the folks that murdered the President said, "Hey, Joe. . I mean. . do you really want to do a radical alteration of this film of Kennedy's murder? I mean, Joe, isn't that going a bit too far? I mean, Joe, think about it, we just murdered the guy, and we even took the bullets out of his body, and altered the wounds, but this here is radical, a radical alteration (!) . and I think that's going too far, Joe. . .I mean, really, Joe. . ya know what I mean, Joe? What are you trying to do, Joe. . I mean, are ya trying to win an Oscar for special effects, or something, Joe?. . know what I mean Joe. . wanna another beer, Joe? .. . I mean, really Joe. . think about what I'm saying, Joe. . I'm serious. . I think this is a radical alteration and we've got to obey some limits here, Joe. . know what I mean?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My most recent replies in this color

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

I agree Jack, your “posting is rife with errors”

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

You said on various occasions the missions themselves were faked. Just two of many examples:

… JFK had nothing to do with faking the trips to the moon. LBJ and Nixon were responsible for that.
It would be stupid to say the Apollo Surface Journal is genuine since the photos are NOT.It is logical to consider the written record fiction since it is written about imaginary events which did not take place.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=36640

On an Aulis page you described the program as “a monumental deception” and ‘faking "landing a man on the Moon by the end of the decade"’ and said “But the Soviets likely knew that sending a man to the Moon was an immensely difficult task and that JFK's rhetoric was a hollow promise.” And surmised that LBJ “must have thought, "...the experts say we can't go to the Moon like Kennedy promised, but I say we can! We can FAKE IT!"”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5987&view=findpost&p=53036

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

If not working try

http://web.archive.org/web/20050706234526/http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

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.

Reread what I wrote I correctly stated your position that a 757 (i.e. AA77) did NOT hit the Pentagon.

-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.

The only problem here is your reading comprehension problems the only difference between how I described your position and your ‘corrected’ version is that you prefer to say the towers were dustified “by sophisticated means which are not yet known” while I said it was “by "star wars" beams”. However you copped your theory from Judy Wood (a dental filling expert) who claims the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry, show where you have indicated that contrary to Woods you believe that the means of destruction is unknown. You alternative is just as absurd as Woods albeit more intellectually cowardly.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/

As for 6 WTC it, like buildings 4 and 5, did have aluminum cladding but you have repeatedly been shown that they were all black.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15273&st=0&p=179245&hl=+black%20+white&fromsearch=1entry179245

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 by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Jack and Fetzer:

What I am saying here is an accurate interpretation of what your are clearly driving at.

You are clearly driving toward the point that Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film.

IF this is so, then everything else I listed almost certainly has to follow.

Have a nice time proving it.

Lifton had the courtesy to personally email me his post.

I post here in reply what I emailed him.

"I am not barking up the wrong tree on this.

I read Horne's book thoroughly. ANd I took notes.

As far as that statement goes, it is correct i.e. concerning whether or not the remains of JFK were taken off the plane, to another destination ie. Walter Reed, and altered there. Horne's book does not endorse this.

My reference was to Fetzer who endorses fully both you and Horne.

They cannot both me true.

Its as simple as that."

Just let me add one thing here. All this stuff going on here really worries me. Its one thing to say that CE 399 was substituted and to be able to prove it with firsthand testimony, and documents and a visual inspection of the exhibit. It is something else to say that somehow Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film, and was therefore enlisted in the plot beforehand. Are you now also going to say that he was given a preproduced film to show? Because if he was not there, he did not shoot the film. Therefore, the film is not just altered, it was manufactured beforehand. Besides the fact that there is no proof for this, it requires a magnitude of film sorcery that is breathtaking for that time. Plus it says that the plotters knew who was going to be there in advance! Since, clearly the film shows witnesses like Hill, Moorman etc.

This is what happens though when nothing is ever enough. As Ed Tatro has said, proving a conspiracy nine ways to Sunday is not enough for certain people. THey want to prove it 21 ways to Sunday and then like Jean Genet, they want to question the very nature of each and every witness and his evidence--even if that evidence proves conspiracy already.

Pardon me if I leave the room at this point. But the air is getting too thin to breathe.

Jim...everything you say about Z film alteration indicates a lack of understanding about the alterations which occurred.

This means that you cannot have read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX nor any of the several John Costella tutorials.

The "altered reality" is massively documented. The events shown do not depict what the closest witnesses say happened.

Taking only one incident and the closest witnesses, who certainly saw a horrible event indelibly imprinted in their mind,

please consider THE LIMOUSINE STOP. Read what Toni Foster, Bill Newman, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman all said about

about the limousine stopping, and then look at the film and tell me about the limo stop. This would be sufficient, but

there are dozens more indications of fakery. The LIMO STOP is but one thing not in the film which should be.

I do not like the term ZAPRUDER FILM ALTERATION. I prefer the term ALTERED REALITY. It is impossible that Abe Z

shot the extant film, so why call it the Zapruder film? I believe that Abe was a witting OR unwitting agent of the plot.

I also prefer the term ZAPRUDER FILM FABRICATION, since the total film seems to be based on a real film, but animated

or fabricated to alter reality. In effect, it is a special effects fabricated cartoon worthy of Disney.

If you can show me an identifiable photo of Abe Z on the pedestal, it would help your argument. But alas, none exist.

All photos purporting to show him there are the result of retouching. How do we know? Zapruder was 5'11" and the

midgets shown on the pedestal in various known images show him from 5'2" to 5'6" (from memory), so the images

by necessity are false.

Instead of poking fun at "alterationists", do a little reading, please.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack now you know that a great many 9-11 researchers do not buy the whole Wood, Reynolds hologram scenario.

In fact, I have recieved e mails from them about this since I mentioned it on BOR.

To imply that they do, and that you and Fetzer are leading the unified hordes is just wrong.

Most people with an interest in 9-11 understand the split that took place there after Wood and Reynolds started to go after Jones.

Fetzer was unceremoniously dumped and had to start a new group.

"The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][91]

Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer—such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers—were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule. By December 2006, Jones and several others set up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.[92] The original members took a vote on which group to join and the majority voted to move to the new group.[93] "

Jim...I cannot believe that you are so ill informed on these matters.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

As I have said many times, you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't you understand that Wikiepedia

is an "open encyclopeida" where anyone can add or substract? So the only way anyone can know whether what

it publishes is true is if they ALREADY KNOW what is true. You may be the most gullible person in the world

to buy into such obvious rubbish. I published an article about this when I discovered how Wiki was operating:

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

Your incredible lack of the ability to reason critically--the ability to sort things out and figure out what's really

going on--severely handicaps you in dealing with issues that are complex, like the medical evidence, the

Zapruder film, and the presence of the CIA at the Ambassador. You are the wrong guy in the wrong place.

at the wrong time. I am glad we are having this exchange, since no one should take you seriously after this.

By the way, given that you appear to have difficulty sorting things our, are you aware that one of the editors

of Wikipedia is John McAdams? Have you ever noticed that Wikipedia is not exactly "fair and balanced" when

it comes to its treatment of JFK? Well, Jim, it is no more "fair and balanced" when it comes to the 9/11 truth

movement. Is that too difficult for you to understand? What you read there is just part of a disinfo operation.

Jack now you know that a great many 9-11 researchers do not buy the whole Wood, Reynolds hologram scenario.

In fact, I have recieved e mails from them about this since I mentioned it on BOR.

To imply that they do, and that you and Fetzer are leading the unified hordes is just wrong.

Most people with an interest in 9-11 understand the split that took place there after Wood and Reynolds started to go after Jones.

Fetzer was unceremoniously dumped and had to start a new group.

"The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][91]

Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer—such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers—were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule. By December 2006, Jones and several others set up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.[92] The original members took a vote on which group to join and the majority voted to move to the new group.[93] "

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jim, I hate to break it to you, but NO ONE took the Zapruder film: it was faked!

I made the point in relation to Jesse's program on JFK: Marina cannot have taken

the backyard photographs BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE! Like most fakes, it was done by

taking some photographs and then pasting in Lee Oswald's face, just as he claimed

when he was interrogated by Will Fritz. Did you miss the memo? Jim Marrs and I

published a long piece about it when this Dartmouth computer scientist (falsely)

claimed to have shown the photo--he only studied one of a set of four--was genuine,

by showing that he could recreate the nose shadow if he arranged his lighting in a

special fashion. But that does not change the chin into Oswald's chin or remove

the insert line between the chin and his lower lip or restore the finger tips of

his right hand or correct the height disparity when you use the newspapers he is

holding as an internal ruler. Are you unaware of all of this? Haven't you read,

"The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html

I begin to wonder if there is any area of JFK research at which you are competent.

They took authentic film from Dealey Plaza, removed frames and events and added new

frames and events, including the limo stop, which was such an obvious indication of

Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit that it had to be taken out.

In the process, they put Mary and Jean back on the grass and deleted Officer Chaney

motoring forward to inform Chief Curry that the president had been shot. Don't you

even know that there are five physical differences in the strips of celluloid that were

taken to the NPIC, the one from Dallas on Saturday night, the one from Rochester on

Sunday night, where they were processed by different teams, as I've explained here:

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

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

In the process of reconstructing the film, however, they committed some blunders. Do

you know that none of the witnesses reported the back-and-to-the-left motion that is

so dramatic in the extant film? Do you know that, if he was hit from the right/front,

his brains should have been blown out to the left/rear, which in fact was the case but

is grossly misrepresented in the extant film. I have explained all of these things in

many places, including HOAX, but you obviously have never studied it or even read its

Preface and Prologue or you would not be displaying so much ignorance about it. Try:

"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

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

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

Please know that it gives me no pleasure exposing your ignorance and incompetence in JFK

research. I have long thought that you were a force for good. Beginning with your blunder

about Mary Morgan, however, which was powerfully reinforced by your defense of the denial of

the presence of CIA officials at the Ambassador, it has become apparent to me that you are

actually obstructing understanding of the medical evidence and of the fabrication of the film,

which has been demonstrated in spades with these three reviews you have promoted about the

Chambers' book, LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION, and Jesse's program on JFK.

But without understanding the medical evidence and the film, you cannot understand the case.

It's rather comparable to a root canal: there is deep decay here that has to be cleaned out.

To Jack and Fetzer:

What I am saying here is an accurate interpretation of what your are clearly driving at.

You are clearly driving toward the point that Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film.

IF this is so, then everything else I listed almost certainly has to follow.

Have a nice time proving it.

Lifton had the courtesy to personally email me his post.

I post here in reply what I emailed him.

"I am not barking up the wrong tree on this.

I read Horne's book thoroughly. ANd I took notes.

As far as that statement goes, it is correct i.e. concerning whether or not the remains of JFK were taken off the plane, to another destination ie. Walter Reed, and altered there. Horne's book does not endorse this.

My reference was to Fetzer who endorses fully both you and Horne.

They cannot both me true.

Its as simple as that."

Just let me add one thing here. All this stuff going on here really worries me. Its one thing to say that CE 399 was substituted and to be able to prove it with firsthand testimony, and documents and a visual inspection of the exhibit. It is something else to say that somehow Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film, and was therefore enlisted in the plot beforehand. Are you now also going to say that he was given a preproduced film to show? Because if he was not there, he did not shoot the film. Therefore, the film is not just altered, it was manufactured beforehand. Besides the fact that there is no proof for this, it requires a magnitude of film sorcery that is breathtaking for that time. Plus it says that the plotters knew who was going to be there in advance, and what they were going to wear! Since, clearly the film shows witnesses like Hill, Moorman with clothes they were wearing in other films.

This is what happens though when nothing is ever enough. As Ed Tatro has said, proving a conspiracy nine ways to Sunday is not enough for certain people. THey want to prove it 21 ways to Sunday. And then like Jean Genet, they want to question the very nature of each and every witness and his evidence--even if that evidence already proves conspiracy.

Pardon me if I leave the room at this point. But the air is getting too thin to breathe.

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

Guest Robert Morrow

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

When I endorse both Lifton and Horne, that does not necessarily mean IN EVERY DETAIL.

There work is highly complementary and mutually reinforcing, where Lifton was the theorist

and Horne the experimentalist--to use an analogy you will not understand--where what Horne

and the ARRB discovered confirmed what Lifton has conjectured: that the body was removed

from the casket, that bullet fragments were removed, and there was alteration of the wounds.

Combined with Horne's refinements about multiple entries of caskets at Bethesda and you have

a fascinating expose about why it was important to steal the body from Parkland and place it

under the control if compliant medical stooges at Bethesda. How could anyone expect you to

understand any of this if you don't even appreciate the difference between the head wound as

it was described by the Parkland physicians and as it is described in the autopsy report?

The breathtaking stupidity of suggesting that Zapruder had a "preproduced film" simply boggles

the mind. Where in the world did you come up with that howler? I don't think I have heard of

anything that ridiculous before. This, as perfectly as any other indication, is a symptom of

your complete and utter ignorance about the research we have done on the film. You seem to

think that the boundaries of your imagination defined the limits of reality with regard to the

assassination and the cover-up. You have no idea how much you think you know that ain't so.

To Jack and Fetzer:

What I am saying here is an accurate interpretation of what your are clearly driving at.

You are clearly driving toward the point that Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film.

IF this is so, then everything else I listed almost certainly has to follow.

Have a nice time proving it.

Lifton had the courtesy to personally email me his post.

I post here in reply what I emailed him.

"I am not barking up the wrong tree on this.

I read Horne's book thoroughly. ANd I took notes.

As far as that statement goes, it is correct i.e. concerning whether or not the remains of JFK were taken off the plane, to another destination ie. Walter Reed, and altered there. Horne's book does not endorse this.

My reference was to Fetzer who endorses fully both you and Horne.

They cannot both me true.

Its as simple as that."

Just let me add one thing here. All this stuff going on here really worries me. Its one thing to say that CE 399 was substituted and to be able to prove it with firsthand testimony, and documents and a visual inspection of the exhibit. It is something else to say that somehow Zapruder did not take the Zapruder film, and was therefore enlisted in the plot beforehand. Are you now also going to say that he was given a preproduced film to show? Because if he was not there, he did not shoot the film. Therefore, the film is not just altered, it was manufactured beforehand. Besides the fact that there is no proof for this, it requires a magnitude of film sorcery that is breathtaking for that time. Plus it says that the plotters knew who was going to be there in advance, and what they were going to wear! Since, clearly the film shows witnesses like Hill, Moorman with clothes they were wearing in other films.

This is what happens though when nothing is ever enough. As Ed Tatro has said, proving a conspiracy nine ways to Sunday is not enough for certain people. THey want to prove it 21 ways to Sunday. And then like Jean Genet, they want to question the very nature of each and every witness and his evidence--even if that evidence already proves conspiracy.

Pardon me if I leave the room at this point. But the air is getting too thin to breathe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Don't make a fool of yourself, Robert. Just study the evidence.

Read "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco". You are far off-base.

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.

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...