Fetzer bashing is fashionable here

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So you are grateful to David Lifton for sending you his post in advance but you have gone on with Len

to trash me by spreading disinformation from Wikipedia without checking with me first? Now I have to

add "hypocrite" to "ignorant" and "incompetent". You ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

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] "

[Jack White]

I believe that Abe was a witting OR unwitting agent of the plot.

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.

Jack

Are you serious? So I'm guessing that Marilyn Sitzman is in on it too right, Jack?

She sure looks the nefarious type...

Since Zapruder lied, Sitzman necessarily lied also.

[Jack White]

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.

You are completely out of your depth here, nullifying some of your good work on LBJ. If you think the

BY photos are real, you are exposed as a very shallow researcher.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If this is a response to Jack, you are the one who can't

read. It is clearly identified as a response to Robert

Morrow. I think you have bigger fish to fry, Jim. I am

waiting to hear your reply about having been taken in

by an article in Wikipedia. I expect to have an apology.

This last one stuns me. Where did I ever say such a thing?

Can't you read English?

[Jack White]

This last one stuns me. Where did I ever say such a thing?

Can't you read English?

Whom is this directed to? Not me! What does it mean?

Jack

[Jack White]

To anyone who thinks the tall 5'11" Zapruder was on the pedestal shooting a film, please explain this:

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You were quoting from Wikipedia. Steve and I had a falling

out over his management of the forum. A moderator cut off

a post by a fellow named Rick Siegel. Only two persons had

authority, one of whom, Carl Weiss, was on-line at the time.

So I asked Steve who had done it (because Siegel was a hard

case to deal with and we were using the forum for members

to blow off steam). He would not tell me who had done it!

That was a problem for me, since I had responsibility for

running the society. So I relieved him from managing the

forum. He was incensed and asked if that meant I could

also remover him as co-chair. Since I had made him co-

chair, obviously I could also remove him as co-chair. His

feeling/sensibilities were hurt and he began manufacturing

reasons for the split, which was done in a dishonest manner

I have explained all of this in my response to the Wiki

article, which appears to have taken you in. Since I was

there and lived through it all--and even addressed major

aspects of our split in my "Founder's Corner", including

http://www.911scholars.org/ScholarsAnniversary.html The very piece

to which you link, of course, is archived there for anyone

who wants to review the history from both points of view.

What I do not understand is why you do not have the common

decency to admit that you committed a blunder by taking for

granted that an article on 9/11 in Wikipedia would be true.

As I have explained there--with several examples--that is

not the case. I do not maintain that I have been flawless

in managing the society, but the conduct of a phony poll

and freezing me out of my own site--which required me to

create a new one--was simply disgusting and inexcusable.

I cannot understand why you are sinking so low ethically

and morally to trash me based upon circumstances you can-

not possibly know. You are dumping so much garbage here

that your character is coming into vivid display. You are

not only hypocritical, ignorant, and incompetent, as I

have documented in this thread and several others, but

you are also morally debased and incapable of admitting

a ethically wrong blunder, no matter how obvious it may

be. I had no idea you were of such low moral character.

You quoted from a Wikipedia article, which I have shown

to be mistaken and false. Then you cite another source,

which does not alter the false statement you have echoed

here, even after I pointed out where I had dealt with them:

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op"

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

And you are spreading this garbage to the public over BOR.

That is quite a record for someone who doesn't know what

he is talking about. Now that you have committed yet one

more smear, what are you going to do about the evidence of

Zapruder fakery and the rest? Are you going to pretend it

doesn't exist? You are only digging yourself into a deeper

and deeper hole. Are you only capable of more ad hominems?

If this is a response to Jack, you are the one who can't

read. It is clearly identified as a response to Robert

Morrow. I think you have bigger fish to fry, Jim. I am

waiting to hear your reply about having been taken in

by an article in Wikipedia. I expect to have an apology.

This last one stuns me. Where did I ever say such a thing?

Can't you read English?

http://911scholars.org/FetzerRespondsJones.html

Edited December 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David Von Pein]

This thread should be required reading by anybody who wants to see just how far conspiracy-happy mongers will go in order to attempt to find the non-existent "conspiracy" in the JFK murder case.

Classic idiocy on display in every single post (except mine, of course).

Edited December 28, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Len Colby]

You were quoting from Wikipedia.

Yes he cited Wikipedeia but the passage he quoted included references. The fact remains that whatever the real reasons for the break up, the split over your support for Woods cockamamie (even by truther standards) theories was perceived as the reason for the schisim and the vast majority of members of S9/11T decided to abandon your group in favor of the new ones. You are persona non grata at many truther sites.

[Len Colby]

So Jack now that I cited three occasions when you stated the Apollo landings were faked are you going to correct you inaccurate statements to the contrary “I have never said the landings were faked. I have always said THE PHOTOS ARE FAKED.”[2006] and “I have no evidence whether or not astronauts went to the moon.”[Today]

Three occasions when you said the missions were faked

2005 Aulis

Examination of NASA records reveals a terrible skeleton rotting away in their own files,

a monumental deception

. Very few NASA employees knew about the ruse, although it continues to be covered up to this very day by some secret keeper of the "national security" keys. Most likely this was a TOP SECRET political/military project.

[…]

To understand the "why" of faking "landing a man on the Moon

by the end of the decade" that had been promised by JFK in his first speech to Congress, one must go back to the Cold War with the USSR and the much-touted "space race". In the early 60s, the Soviets were ahead of the US in space exploration. Sputnik and other Red successes evoked a US political crisis. 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.

However, after Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded the assassinated Kennedy he likely came up with a brilliant (and evil, in my opinion) idea. He 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!

"… So

I theorize that LBJ conspired with his successor Richard M. Nixon and OTHERS to carry out an elaborate plan to fool the world by "flying to the Moon". It was a brilliant plan, executed in strict military secrecy, and it has fooled the world for more than 40 years

“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.” - 2005 EF

“JFK had nothing to do with faking the trips to the moon. LBJ and Nixon were responsible for that.” - 2006 EF

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I hope everyone will read this in conjunction with my piece,

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op". Even Steve is here

promoting the false claim I endorse Directed Energy Weaponry

as responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers. What

I endorse is the STUDY OF DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONRY

as one of the possible alternatives, which include mini-nukes

(3rd or 4th generation), lasers, masers, or plasmoids. Any

one who thinks that this was done using thermite (which, as

I have subsequently discovered, is not even an explosive)

and conventional explosives needs to confront the evidence,

including, for example, "New 9/11 Photos Release", which is

archived on my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html

I simply do not understand why DiEugenio persists in taking

stands on issues where he has no idea what he's talking about.

But the pattern is clear, persistent, and terribly disturbing.

If this is a response to Jack, you are the one who can't

read. It is clearly identified as a response to Robert

Morrow. I think you have bigger fish to fry, Jim. I am

waiting to hear your reply about having been taken in

by an article in Wikipedia. I expect to have an apology.

This last one stuns me. Where did I ever say such a thing?

Can't you read English?

http://911scholars.org/FetzerRespondsJones.html

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, there are many mediocrities in 9/11 research just as there are many in JFK research, where

some of them turn out to be surprising. The 9/11 disinfo op is probably even more effective than the

one here, because we all know each other very, very well here, while in 9/11 research, many have

no idea who I am or the nature of my views. They are acting on the basis of rumor and speculation,

including, of course, entries in Wikipedia that have no relationship to reality, as I've explained here,

where their standards for conducting actual research are comparable to what is found on this forum.

The practice of ops citing other ops to create the impression of independent agreement is one you know.

Key points in the Wikipedia article, as I have explained, are not only unsourced but actually absurd. I

am not everyone's "cup of tea". I deal with complex, controversial issues and do not suffer fools gladly.

Fortunately, my impact is considerably greater than that of most of my critics, both here and there.

If you google my name, "Jim Fetzer", or visit YouTube and enter "Jim Fetzer", you'll see what I mean.

When you actually get around to my research, let me know. I am familiar with your ability to smear.

You were quoting from Wikipedia.

Yes he cited Wikipedeia but the passage he quoted included references. The fact remains that whatever the real reasons for the break up, the split over your support for Woods cockamamie (even by truther standards) theories was perceived as the reason for the schisim and the vast majority of members of S9/11T decided to abandon your group in favor of the new ones. You are persona non grata at many truther sites.

Edited December 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim, I expend a lot of time and effort on my posts. Do you plan to reply to them?

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.

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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.

Edited December 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer