Jump to content

Fetzer bashing is fashionable here


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

Jack

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

I have made clear many times: The PHOTOS of the Apollo missions are NOT GENUINE. Whether or not men reached the moon and returned seems beyond actual proof.

However, opinions can be drawn from many inferences of sophisticated fakery.

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

Another inference may be drawn from the "successful" missions of 40 years ago and the NASA admissions of today that present technology is not sufficient to permit

moon missions for another "20 years". If they could do it 40 years ago, why is it NOW IMPOSSIBLE?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have made clear many times: The PHOTOS of the Apollo missions are NOT GENUINE. Whether or not men reached the moon and returned seems beyond actual proof.

However, opinions can be drawn from many inferences of sophisticated fakery.

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

Another inference may be drawn from the "successful" missions of 40 years ago and the NASA admissions of today that present technology is not sufficient to permit

moon missions for another "20 years". If they could do it 40 years ago, why is it NOW IMPOSSIBLE?

Jack

Jack, if you ever get the time ... watch a movie called "A Beautiful Mind".

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Jack

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

I have made clear many times: The PHOTOS of the Apollo missions are NOT GENUINE. Whether or not men reached the moon and returned seems beyond actual proof.

However, opinions can be drawn from many inferences of sophisticated fakery.

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

The problem is you have said on various occasions the missions were faked

Here:

Jack White, on Jan 7 2006, 02:15 PM, said:

… JFK had nothing to do with faking the trips to the moon. LBJ and Nixon were responsible for that.
Jack White, on Aug 12 2005, 03:48 AM, said:

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.

At Aulis:

But the thousands of honorable workers at NASA will be shocked and saddened to learn of the dark secrets of forty years ago...the Apollo Moon missions. 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!" If LBJ could pull it off, to simplify a very complex Cold War situation, it would be a great propaganda coup and establish US superiority over communism. 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. But it has been undone by its own excesses, as now revealed from NASA records for the first time
Another inference may be drawn from the "successful" missions of 40 years ago and the NASA admissions of today that present technology is not sufficient to permit

moon missions for another "20 years". If they could do it 40 years ago, why is it NOW IMPOSSIBLE?

Because the engineers who worked on Apollo are dead or very elderly and the blueprints were tossed out. Over 100 years ago Olds, Daimler and Benz made steam powered cars, I imagine the successor companies would take a few years to make working models again

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another inference may be drawn from the "successful" missions of 40 years ago and the NASA admissions of today that present technology is not sufficient to permit

moon missions for another "20 years". If they could do it 40 years ago, why is it NOW IMPOSSIBLE?

I can answer this.

Firstly, Jack is misquoting what NASA has said. They say that on the current budget will not allow a return to the Moon and travel to Mars, as per the Constellation vision. For instance, to quote an MSNBS science and technology report of 8 Sep 2009:

WASHINGTON - A White House panel of independent space experts says NASA's return-to-the-moon plan just won't fly.

The problem is money. The expert panel estimates it would cost about $3 billion a year beyond NASA's current budget.

"Under the budget that was proposed, exploration beyond Earth is not viable," panel member Edward Crawley, a professor of aeronautics at MIT, told The Associated Press Tuesday.

The panel's report provided options for President Barack Obama but said NASA's current plans would have to change in any case. Five years ago, then-President George W. Bush proposed returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. To pay for it, he planned on retiring the shuttle next year and shutting down the international space station in 2015.

For a lot of Apollo, the motto was 'waste anything but time'.

Okay, so we know money is a problem. If we threw enough money at it, we should be able to go there next year, right? Perhaps, but unlikely because you have the other two problems: facilities and technology.

The facilities for producing the spacecraft and launch vehicles were pretty unique. Unlike earlier launch vehicles, the Saturn series were essentially meant to support manned exploration / a lunar programme. The lunar modules were practically hand built. The facilities to test the various stages of the Saturn V were built for that sole purpose. So you have to have facilities to support the construction of the spacecraft and launch vehicles. The old ones are gone, so a Saturn V construction and test facility would have to be rebuilt from scratch, or new facilities constructed for a new rocket... which would take just as long and cost just as much.

Still, we have decided that money is no object, so let's just restart the production of all the Apollo-era equipment that we knew worked. Well, now you have the problem of technology. Not that we don't have the technology, but rather that we are going to use old technology. Things like guidance computers used electronics from the 1950s / 60s; where will you find those parts? The inputs by the astronauts were in the form of things like pressing buttons 'NOUN 27 ENTER VERB 23 ENTER PROCEED' rather than 'Fire the main engine'; shouldn't we update that to make things easier?

DSKY@285x450.jpg

The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) Display and Keyboard (DSKY)

The problem is that the technology has evolved, that we don't use old technology, and incorporating new technology poses problems to the point where you may as well just take your design and start from scratch!

For instance, the Space Shuttle. When it was first designed, it used state of the art technology - for the early 1970s - in its General Purpose Computers (GPC). By the late 1980s and early 1990s, NASA was buying up stocks of old computer technology in order to support the AP101 computer! It was old technology but upgrading the computers to completely modern standards would require redesign and requalification of the systems.

Think about this: you know Concorde was built and flew. You may have even travelled on it yourself... but if the airlines wanted a supersonic passenger transport aircraft again, how long do you think it would take them to design, produce and test a new aircraft? Or would they just rebuild the Concorde? How long would it take - in both time and money - to restart the Concorde production line?

What if you needed to build a B-17 bomber from scratch again? How much would it cost, and how long would it take? No-one makes radial engines anymore. Does anyone still build the old radios with valves? Sheet metal shouldn't be too bad, but what about metal cogs from the early airborne computers? They were producing B-17s at the rate of about 1 per day; how long would it take to build one... from scratch?

That's why it will take a long time to return to the Moon and go to Mars. Once you throw away the capability, it is very difficult to restart it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I agree completely that the limo stopped. There is no question (in my mind) about the validity of that statement.

With all due respect, David, I think your statement reflects a degree of faith in EYEWITNESS MEMORY that is not justified by experiments in the field. The Zapruder film shows that the limo slowed ABRUPTLY, as demonstrated by Alvarez. This abrupt slowdown is evidence that the driver, Bill Greer, was in cahoots with the assassins. If the Zfilm was faked (which I do not believe) then the fakers made a big boo-boo by leaving in evidence that points to Greer. They also left in evidence of the head-snap, which is PROOF that the fatal shot came from the right front. The extant Zfilm

shows NO EVIDENCE of shots from the rear.

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

Yes, interesting question. We know that Zapruder took the bible in his right hand and swore that the images on his film were exactly what he saw in real time, and he swore that not only before the Warren Commission, but also at the Clay Shaw trial. Zapruder had already been paid for the film before he testified, so what motive did he have to commit perjury?

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

If you were not Jewish yourself, David, I would be tempted to suspect you of promoting anti-semitic stereotypes based on this comment. Zapruder was a fairly competent businessman who maximized his once-in -a lifetime opportunity as any decent businessman would, but he was not in the same league as his heirs, who hired some clever attorneys and got $16 Million, while still retaining the copyright, for a film that cost them ONE DOLLAR!

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

No wonder that false hypotheses abound, since the entire theory of film alteration is a false hypotesis to begin with. And I do not believe that proving film alteration is necessary to corroborate the scenario outlined in BEST EVIDENCE. In fact I believe the extant Z-film is the best support for BEST EVIDENCE.

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

Your theory of body alteration has never been disproved, and cannot be disproved without a new autopsy. BEST EVIDENCE even received a respectful review in Time Magazine. But the film alteration theory has attracted mostly crackpots, and that should tell you something

In my opinion, neither the media nor the public will ever take seriously claims of Zapruder film alteration if those who propound them also are tied to conspiracy theories about faked moon landings and/or 9/11.

At the risk of repetition, that should tell you something about the theory of film alteration.

I know that Doug Horne feels much the same way. We both believe the Z film was altered (although we do not agree as to the particulars of how it was done)

Further evidence that the theory is ready for the scrap-heap of history, if its proponents disagree on fundamentals.

Happy New YearDSL

1/01/2011; 11:45 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA.

Happy New Year to you too, David, and to all men & women of goodwill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well-said, Jack, and much appreciated in view of all the dissension and conflict recently regarding Judyth. You may want to add Jim Marrs to the Judyth camp too, in that he wrote a splendid afterward to "Me and Lee". Whatever one's views may be on Judyth or any other major issue of the assassination, being able to respectfully agree-to-disagree with one's colleagues is the greatest compliment that can be paid them.

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever one's views may be on Judyth or any other major issue of the assassination, being able to respectfully agree-to-disagree with one's colleagues is the greatest compliment that can be paid them.

Judyth is NOT, never has been, and NEVER WILL BE a major issue of the assassination, so agreement or disagreement mean nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Jack

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

oh? "refuse to do so"... well then, close this thread down, as you're wont to do when you can't get your way..... otherwise, do a little research on your own for a change....better yet, regarding the JFK assassination, read HOAX; Murder in Dealey Plaza, etc... in short, get familiar with the JFK assassination -- till then and only then, maybe, just maybe some one will debate the alleged "WCR case" facts with you! :ice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Jack

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

oh? "refuse to do so"... well then, close this thread down, as you're wont to do when you can't get your way..... otherwise, do a little research on your own for a change....better yet, regarding the JFK assassination, read HOAX; Murder in Dealey Plaza, etc... in short, get familiar with the JFK assassination -- till then and only then, maybe, just maybe some one will debate the alleged "WCR case" facts with you! :ice

You're misinterpreting what I said, David. I claim no position or knowledge regarding the JFK assassination; in fact I am almost completely ignorant on the subject... but I was referring to the Apollo and 9-11 claims, and debates regarding those matters. I'm an expert in Apollo, and know a reasonable amount regarding 9-11. Jack won't debate me on his Apollo claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever one's views may be on Judyth or any other major issue of the assassination, being able to respectfully agree-to-disagree with one's colleagues is the greatest compliment that can be paid them.

Judyth is NOT, never has been, and NEVER WILL BE a major issue of the assassination, so agreement or disagreement mean nothing.

Whether you like it or not, Judyth has taken up an enormous amount of bandwidth and attention. Whether you are interested in what she has to say or not, I don't think you can disagree. In a case such as this it makes much more sense for those not interested to simply say so, agree to disagree, and move on to more fertile subjects, rather than continuing to foment the hassling that used to take place here. That's is the point I am trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony:

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

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

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

Fine. You can killfile them as I do Barb J. and Glenn Viclund. The only problem is that while you are celebrating the bliss of ignorance they may be sliming you behind your back with false claims, as they have tried to do with me. Ironically, I only viewed the forum without being logged in to find a document that had been posted by one of them. But, other than that, it is just lovely to view only the posts of those whose imput you consider of value. I look forward to your book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not men reached the moon and returned seems beyond actual proof.

Jack

Seems Jack White is no fan of John F. Kennedy, who believed that a moon landing was not only doable in the decade of the Sixties, BUT was provable to boot ("Sincerity is ALWAYS subject to PROOF" JFK inaugural address).

The Russians were smart enough and motivated enough to spot a fake, but were they really that stupid?

Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again;

The eternal years of God are hers;

But Error, wounded, writhes with pain,

And dies among his worshippers.

William Cullen Bryant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White has meticulously reviewed the Dealey Plaza films and many of his observations are important.

Apart from "PROVING" that Zapruder lied about his whereabouts that day, what else has Jack White observed in the Dealey Plaza photographs that merits our attention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not men reached the moon and returned seems beyond actual proof.

Jack

Seems Jack White is no fan of John F. Kennedy, who believed that a moon landing was not only doable in the decade of the Sixties, BUT was provable to boot ("Sincerity is ALWAYS subject to PROOF" JFK inaugural address).

The Russians were smart enough and motivated enough to spot a fake, but were they really that stupid?

"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."

Jack White, 2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct that it was a difficult task, but the Soviets took it on anyway. They were still trying to make a manned landing in 1972 but their Saturn V equivalent, the N-1, kept failing.

lk-lander.jpg

LK lunar lander

5148733952_18237bf461_b.jpg

N-1 lunar launcher and LOK lunar spacecraft

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...