Pamela Brown Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 The question of the limo stopping or slowing during the assassination is easily resolved by looking, ironically, at the Z-film(s). Everyone agrees that Greer turned and faced JFK for a number of frames. Just how fast do you think the limo was moving while he was looking backwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) Good one, Pamela! Notice how Colby would send us off on a wild-goose chase by having us sort through ancient treads of mixed arguments. If he and Lamson had some arrows in their quiver, they would use them. Instead, they PRETEND that these arguments have been defeated, when that claim is complete rubbish! * Where is the refutation of the 60 eyewitness reports of the limo dramatically slowing or coming to a complete halt? * Where is the refutation of the reports of Officer Chaney motoring forward to inform Chief Curry JFK had been shot? * Where is the refutation of Clint Hill's consistent testimony over nearly 50 years of his actions taken in Dealey Plaza? * Where is the refutation of the original film arriving at NPIC on the 23rd and the substitute arriving there on the 24th? * Where is the refutation of the reports of William Reymond, Rich Dellarosa and Greg Burnham seeing the other film? * Where is the refutation of the necessity to reshoot each frame to be sure the "ghost panels" would come out right? * Where is the refutation of the wound having been painted over in early frames, yet being visible in later frame 374? * Where is the refutation that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, as Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman? I am reminded of the children's chant, "xxxx, xxxx, pants on fire!", which fits Lamson and Cobly to a "t". They love to bully and cajole, but when it comes right down to producing the goods, THEY CAN'T DO IT--WHICH IS WHY THEY SPEND ALL THEIR TIME FAKING IT. THEY ARE FRAUDS. Edited February 24, 2013 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 What "wild goose chase", these points were addressed years ago in the linked threads and others, the more interesting question is why are you dredging this krapola up again after all these years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 What "wild goose chase", these points were addressed years ago in the linked threads and others, the more interesting question is why are you dredging this krapola up again after all these years? Really simple. Fetzer is no longer relevant. He has been abandoned by all but the most overt the top CT's. No one cares anymore about his Fetzering, unless it is just to poke fun. Jimmy is is full meltdown because he NEEDS his audience. And he has lost it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) Lamson and Colby make endless claims that they can't back up. This has been true as long as I have known them. The reckless disregard for evidence is the signature of their posts. If they could refute my arguments, they would; but they can't, which leads them to make OBVIOUSLY FALSE ASSERTIONS about how I have been previously debunked. * Where is the refutation of the 60 eyewitness reports of the limo dramatically slowing or coming to a complete halt? * Where is the refutation of the reports of Officer Chaney motoring forward to inform Chief Curry JFK had been shot? * Where is the refutation of Clint Hill's consistent testimony over nearly 50 years of his actions taken in Dealey Plaza? * Where is the refutation of the original film arriving at NPIC on the 23rd and the substitute arriving there on the 24th? * Where is the refutation of the reports of William Reymond, Rich Dellarosa and Greg Burnham seeing the other film? * Where is the refutation of the necessity to reshoot each frame to be sure the "ghost panels" would come out right? * Where is the refutation of the wound having been painted over in early frames, yet being visible in later frame 374? * Where is the refutation that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, as Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman? If these guys had anything probative to offer, they would have published it by now. Instead, when have endless infantile retorts, which would embarrass a 3rd grader. That's what they have been reduced to: name calling and other juvenalia. It is insulting to the other members of The Education Forum. Just review this thread for multiple and convincing proofs. In addition, they ignore the appropriate dictionary definition of a key term and pervert its meaning beyond recognition: THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS: Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or, the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones involving complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again, as with Lamson and Colby. Edited February 24, 2013 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 LOL Fetzer apparently suffers from what I've dubbed the Goebbels in Oz Syndrome, the belief if you repeat something enough times it becomes true, click your heels professor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 * Where is the refutation of the 60 eyewitness reports of the limo dramatically slowing or coming to a complete halt? * Where is the refutation of the reports of Officer Chaney motoring forward to inform Chief Curry JFK had been shot? * Where is the refutation of Clint Hill's consistent testimony over nearly 50 years of his actions taken in Dealey Plaza? * Where is the refutation of the original film arriving at NPIC on the 23rd and the substitute arriving there on the 24th? * Where is the refutation of the reports of William Reymond, Rich Dellarosa and Greg Burnham seeing the other film? * Where is the refutation of the necessity to reshoot each frame to be sure the "ghost panels" would come out right? * Where is the refutation of the wound having been painted over in early frames, yet being visible in later frame 374? * Where is the refutation that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, as Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Lamson is a broken record, with endless claims that he can't back up. This has been true as long as I have known him. The reckless disregard for evidence is the signature of Lamson's posts. If he could refute my arguments, he would; but he can't, which leads him to make OBVIOUSLY FALSE ASSERTIONS about how all this has been previously debunked. * Where is the refutation of the 60 eyewitness reports of the limo dramatically slowing or coming to a complete halt? * Where is the refutation of the reports of Officer Chaney motoring forward to inform Chief Curry JFK had been shot? * Where is the refutation of Clint Hill's consistent testimony over nearly 50 years of his actions taken in Dealey Plaza? * Where is the refutation of the original film arriving at NPIC on the 23rd and the substitute arriving there on the 24th? * Where is the refutation of the reports of William Reymond, Rich Dellarosa and Greg Burnham seeing the other film? * Where is the refutation of the necessity to reshoot each frame to be sure the "ghost panels" would come out right? * Where is the refutation of the wound having been painted over in early frames, yet being visible in later frame 374? * Where is the refutation that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, as Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman? [...] Actually all this krapola has been gone over repeatedly, Ryan for example recanted his initial analysis. Hilliarious that Fetzer would describe anyone else as being like "a broken record". Edited February 27, 2013 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 All - the use of the term "Fetzering" is banned, as it is considered to be a personal attack. Additionally, a reminder that the motives of a board member in posting here are not to be questioned. Lastly, if you are going to accuse anyone of a falsehood or misdeed, be VERY judicious in how you phrase such. Our STRONG advice is to check with the Mods first, or better yet, don't do it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I am no expert, especially on photography. But I would like to reiterate what several members have previously asked: if the Zapruder film was tampered with, why? After all, anyone who has viewed any version of it comes away believing that the fatal head shot came from the front. Why go to all the trouble to disappear evidence of the limo stopping, or of any other anomalies, and leave the most crucial bit for all to see? And why was it hidden from public view? Isn't it because it shows so clearly evidence of at last one frontal shot? There is only one reasonable conclusion for me to draw. The experts that promote theories of tampering of the Z and other films are either deluded, or deliberately denigrating these crucial proofs of conspiracy so that these films will no longer be seen as accurate portrayals of what happened that day. They are working, consciously or not, to destroy the credibility of the one piece of evidence that provides to nearly everyone who sees it clear evidence of shots from the front, and thus of conspiracy. We didn't need the dictabelt recordings to prove that. We can see it with our own eyes. Its a slippery slope to allow ourselves to be convinced of fakery or tampering, and when we engage in endless arguments about whether the films are faked we make it all too easy for our media and for the public at large to lump all the conspiracy theorists together as a bunch of quacks, which most of us surely are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I am no expert, especially on photography. But I would like to reiterate what several members have previously asked: if the Zapruder film was tampered with, why? After all, anyone who has viewed any version of it comes away believing that the fatal head shot came from the front. Why go to all the trouble to disappear evidence of the limo stopping, or of any other anomalies, and leave the most crucial bit for all to see? And why was it hidden from public view? Isn't it because it shows so clearly evidence of at last one frontal shot? There is only one reasonable conclusion for me to draw. The experts that promote theories of tampering of the Z and other films are either deluded, or deliberately denigrating these crucial proofs of conspiracy so that these films will no longer be seen as accurate portrayals of what happened that day. They are working, consciously or not, to destroy the credibility of the one piece of evidence that provides to nearly everyone who sees it clear evidence of shots from the front, and thus of conspiracy. We didn't need the dictabelt recordings to prove that. We can see it with our own eyes. Its a slippery slope to allow ourselves to be convinced of fakery or tampering, and when we engage in endless arguments about whether the films are faked we make it all too easy for our media and for the public at large to lump all the conspiracy theorists together as a bunch of quacks, which most of us surely are not. Colbiak, Karnak's cousin, predicts Fetzer will question Paul's intelligence! Excellent points Paul! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) All - the use of the term "Fetzering" is banned, as it is considered to be a personal attack. Additionally, a reminder that the motives of a board member in posting here are not to be questioned. Lastly, if you are going to accuse anyone of a falsehood or misdeed, be VERY judicious in how you phrase such. Our STRONG advice is to check with the Mods first, or better yet, don't do it at all. It should be pointed out that the word "xxxx" and its variants have been verboten on this forum for many years but that hasn't stopped Fetzer from using them repeatedly against his critics with nary a word from the mods. EDIT - Typo Edited February 27, 2013 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) I am no expert, especially on photography. But I would like to reiterate what several members have previously asked: if the Zapruder film was tampered with, why? After all, anyone who has viewed any version of it comes away believing that the fatal head shot came from the front. Why go to all the trouble to disappear evidence of the limo stopping, or of any other anomalies, and leave the most crucial bit for all to see? And why was it hidden from public view? Isn't it because it shows so clearly evidence of at last one frontal shot? There is only one reasonable conclusion for me to draw. The experts that promote theories of tampering of the Z and other films are either deluded, or deliberately denigrating these crucial proofs of conspiracy so that these films will no longer be seen as accurate portrayals of what happened that day. They are working, consciously or not, to destroy the credibility of the one piece of evidence that provides to nearly everyone who sees it clear evidence of shots from the front, and thus of conspiracy. We didn't need the dictabelt recordings to prove that. We can see it with our own eyes. Its a slippery slope to allow ourselves to be convinced of fakery or tampering, and when we engage in endless arguments about whether the films are faked we make it all too easy for our media and for the public at large to lump all the conspiracy theorists together as a bunch of quacks, which most of us surely are not. Paul, The only problem with your analysis is that the film has been massively altered and we have what was provided in its place. Why aren't you dealing with the evidence instead of offering your intuitive reflections, which are not based on what we already know? If you want to dispute the evidence I have laid out, fine; but then you are obligated to explain what I have wrong and how you know. Here is what you need to provide: * Where is the refutation of the 60 eyewitness reports of the limo dramatically slowing or coming to a complete halt? * Where is the refutation of the reports of Officer Chaney motoring forward to inform Chief Curry JFK had been shot? * Where is the refutation of Clint Hill's consistent testimony over nearly 50 years of his actions taken in Dealey Plaza? * Where is the refutation of the original film arriving at NPIC on the 23rd and the substitute arriving there on the 24th? * Where is the refutation of the reports of William Reymond, Rich Dellarosa and Greg Burnham seeing the other film? * Where is the refutation of the necessity to reshoot each frame to be sure the "ghost panels" would come out right? * Where is the refutation of the wound having been painted over in early frames, yet being visible in later frame 374? * Where is the refutation that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, as Roderick Ryan told Noel Twyman? Edited February 27, 2013 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Jim - i don't have any refutations for your arguments. Someday it might be worth arguing, especially if we could compare some of the so called original copies of the Z film to each other, the merits of your case. The eyewitness accounts that you note do differ from the film as we have it. But eyewitnesses are so often unreliable. The main point I made I stand by - that regardless of the possible merits of your case against the authenticity of filmed evidence, it does us no good to promulgate them. I think I read that you promote the on the ground detonation conspiracy theory on 9/11. I have a similar reaction to this theory. I think there is a wealth of information that suggests 9/11 was some kind of false flag event, or that certain people knew an attack was coming but deliberately did nothing to stop it. To me, arguments about the third building coming down, or detonations, diverts attention from what to me is the more serious question - were our normal safeguards disabled, allowing the attack to happen? I have the same question about the JFK assassination. I want to know who planned it, and I want to pursue avenues of investigation that might lead to answers. Jim - isn't it more likely that the eyewitnesses and anomalies in the copies of the films can be explained in other ways? I am willing to believe that the conspirators would have done anything to preserve their secrets, even doctoring film. But logistically it is an incredible stretch. If you can't convince the CT community that the films are doctored there is little chance of convincing the wider public. So what good can come out of it? Do you have a unified theory of what happened that day that incorporates your evidence of film fakery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Paul, Your naivete is breathtaking. We have a half-dozen or more, including one who posts on this forum (Gregory Burnham) who have ALREADY SEEN THE OTHER FILM. We have proven the film is a fake. They had to take out the limo stop, because it was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity. That left no time for the actions of Clint Hill and the motoring forward by James Chaney. Have you even listened to Clint Hill as he describes his actions on that occasion? Remember, he was there and his consistent reports for nearly 50 years contradict the extant film: ]And indeed I have a coherent account of the assassination as a whole: "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today" (UW-Madison, 22 November 2011) Edited February 28, 2013 by James H. Fetzer 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