New Proof of JFK Film Fakery: "Conclusive Evidence", Experts Claim

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

Office Chaney was taking appropriate action by riding forward to inform Chief Curry. That did not preclude occupants of the

lead car having other possible sources of information. Why anyone would make this argument is beyond me. And that Curry

late admitted they were only moving at about 3 mph further confirms that the limo had been brought to a stop and they were

attempting to watch the assassination as it took place. Had the limo NOT STOPPED, they would have been moving at least

ten times as fast. So even this very strained argument backfires on its author.

They were asked to render URGENT assistance to there dying president, by showing the Secret service how to get to Parkland

and instead they SLOWED there car to a crawl. 3 MPH

The fact is that they stuffed up, they were derelict in there duty, and they should have had the book thrown at them.

That is why Curry continued to insist that at no stage DID THE LIMO EVER PASS HIM contrary to all PHOTOGRAPHIC AND FILM EVIDENCE SHOWING OTHERWISE

HE WAS COVERING HIS ASS

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Robin, you are making yourself look like A COMPLETE IDIOT. Post all you want, the evidence is clear and compelling.

I don't think anyone here can have any doubt of your role as one of obfuscation, not clarification. VERY disappointing.

I will let the forum members decide if i am A COMPLETE IDIOT

Newsflash Jim

I could give a rats what your opinion of me is,

I only value the opinion of people i respect, and i don't respect you or your flunkies at the O.I,P

[Thomas Graves]

Robin, you are making yourself look like A COMPLETE IDIOT. Post all you want, the evidence is clear and compelling.

I don't think anyone here can have any doubt of your role as one of obfuscation, not clarification. VERY disappointing.

Dear Professor Fetzer,

Mental cases are known to yell a lot.

You yell a lot here.

Why do you yell so much here?

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited March 6, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Ian Kingsbury]

Robin

The guy in the checked shirt in Hughes is the guy in the checked shirt in Altgens6.

Dr.Fetzer and the OIP group are insisting that this is not Billy Lovelady so following that

Single line of logic it's possible JFK was shot from a train passing over

The triple underpass as Officer T F White insists that a train passed by and he did not see or hear anything

Concerning the shooting.another one to add to the OIP .

I believe segments were cut from the Ztoon to cover up certain aspects of the shooting

If this puts me in the alteration isn't group then so be it I can only say what I see and I am allowed

To be wrong, it's no good beating an idea into someone or beating one out.

Dr Fetzer suffers from too many letters after his name commonly known as iamalwaysrightus syndrome

So please allow for this human failing when dealing with him.

Your gallery is excellent, I remember the Willis thread very well at Duncan's

And you rarely get into arguments you let the images speak for themselves

If its that obvious that I can see it then others can see it too.

Cos I is crap at da pictures mate.

Ian

[Robin Unger]

Robin

The guy in the checked shirt in Hughes is the guy in the checked shirt in Altgens6.

Dr.Fetzer and the OIP group are insisting that this is not Billy Lovelady so following that

Single line of logic it's possible JFK was shot from a train passing over

The triple underpass as Officer T F White insists that a train passed by and he did not see or hear anything

Concerning the shooting.another one to add to the OIP .

I believe segments were cut from the Ztoon to cover up certain aspects of the shooting

If this puts me in the alteration isn't group then so be it I can only say what I see and I am allowed

To be wrong, it's no good beating an idea into someone or beating one out.

Dr Fetzer suffers from too many letters after his name commonly known as iamalwaysrightus syndrome

So please allow for this human failing when dealing with him.

Your gallery is excellent, I remember the Willis thread very well at Duncan's

And you rarely get into arguments you let the images speak for themselves

If its that obvious that I can see it then others can see it too.

Cos I is crap at da pictures mate.

Ian

Cheers

Thanks Ian.

[Ray Mitcham]

Cos I is crap at da pictures mate.

Ian

ROFLMAO!

[Robin Unger]

Daniel,

I don't normally censor anyone's posts, but that particular one from Lee Farley was way over the line. Jim Fetzer, meanwhile, never really deviates from his usual blustery putdowns.

You think that Dr. Fetzer's saying that Robin Unger and Craig Lamson are deliberately deceiving people and his insinuating that they are some sort of agent(s) is "only" another example of Dr. Fetzer's "usual blustery putdowns"?

What if Dr. Unger and Dr. Lamson get tired of it and respond by saying that Dr. Fetzer is a rotund and windy stack of s**t?

Hi Daniel

I have posted lots of new and varied presentations in these threads, while Jim Fetzer continues to recycle the same old Richard Hooke O.I.P collages

You can tell it's amateur hour.

Fetzer is the mouth piece for the O.I.P now, since Cinque and Hooke have been BANNED from posting on

Education Forum, Lancer Forum, Duncan's Forum, and every other JFK Assassination Forum.

Why were they banned ?

They weren't banned for presenting there alteration nonsense,

no that in it's self would not have got them banned,it was the manner and style in which they presented there evidence.

they just tried to bully there way through, swearing, and abusing ANYONE who dared to put forward an apposing viewpoint.

So now Fetzer is left all on his Lonesome trying to wave the O,I,P flag

The problem is,

Fetzer tries to argue against photographic evidence which is presented here, but the truth is that he is not qualified to do so.

I doubt that he has created even one of the images he presents on this or any other forum.

instead he leeches of the skills of others, and then posts the presentations as if they were his own.

It's blatantly obvious to me, that the man has never used any sort of photographic software, and lacks the skills to create his own presentations.

He would be nothing, if it wasn't for the photographic skills of Jack White, and John Costella. who propped him up,

Jim Fetzer is a dinosaur who is past his used by date

Edited March 6, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

This is a CLASSIC. ROFLMAO

James H. Fetzer, on 03 March 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

One of the elementary fallacies I spent 35 years teaching freshmen to avoid is known as "special pleading" by only citing the evidence favorable to your side and ignoring the rest.

Do you mean like the endless times you cut and pasted over and over again

ONLY THE FAVORABLE TESTIMONIES specially selected to prop up your CHANEY MOTORS FORWARD ARGUMENT.

while ignoring all the rest.

Is that what you mean Jim ?

Edited March 6, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Ian Kingsbury]

Cos I is crap at da pictures mate.

Ian

ROFLMAO!

Sad/funny but true Ray .

[Robin Unger]

Fetzer Quote:

According to Clint Hill (shown here on the rear foothold of the limousine as the vehicle is about to enter the Triple Underpass), he had already reached Mrs. Kennedy and pushed her down in the back seat. JFK had fallen to the left into her lap, where the right side of his head was exposed to Clint, who was lying over them. This photo is supposed to have been taken by Ike Altgens and corresponds with late Zapruder frames. Clint’s testimony not only falsifies the Zapruder film, but also shows that this photograph was faked to agree with it.

Lest there be any doubt on this crucial point, in Clint Hill’s written statement dated 30 November 1963, which was published as Commission Exhibit CE 1024, he wrote: “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying on the seat” [18H742]. And in his testimony to the commission on 9 March 1964, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the middle of the car. His brain was exposed.” [2H141]. Since he has told us he made these observations before the limousine had reached the pilot car drive by Chief Curry (shown above), this photo has to have been faked. Clint could not have made these observations from the rear foothold as it represents. (His descriptions of the wound to the right rear of JFK’s head are discussed below.)

Zapruder Zoomed GIF

Showing Clint Hill and Jackie just seconds before reaching the overpass.

Click on GIF to view FULL SIZE

Edited March 6, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, I have never been a "mouthpiece" for anyone, which I fear cannot be said of Robin Unger.

How could anyone doubt that I believe everything I am posting? That is simply one more scurrilous

charge from a man who has been deceiving and misleading the forum about these issues across

the board. If you have any doubts, simply check other threads and see how often I have refuted him.

He is unwilling to admit he is wrong, not matter how strong the evidence. Here is another case. We have

a huge amount of evidence about the limo stop,including all four of the motorcycle escort officers. It was

only because the limo had come to a stop that Chaney was able to motor forward and speak with Chief

Curry. And it was only because it had stopped that Clint Hill was able to do everything he reported doing:

Greer and Kellerman were not about to acknowledge their complicity by bringing the limo to a stop,

but that does not excuse Robin Unger from admitting the evidence shows the limo was brought to a

halt. Had that not happened, it would have been impossible for Clint to have pushed Jackie back

into the seat and laid across their bodies, which even Roy Kellerman confirmed he had observed:

To me, it is every embarrassing to have someone like Robin Unger and his associates in denial here,

because it creates the impression of uncertainty about matters where WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

We KNOW that Officer Chaney motored forward. We KNOW that Clint Hill climbed aboard, pushed

Jackie back and laid across their bodies, all before the limo reached the Triple Underpass. So what

in the world is ROBIN UNGER DOING attempting to create the impression that WE DON'T KNOW?

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

We KNOW that Clint Hill climbed aboard, pushed

Jackie back and laid across their bodies, all before the limo reached the Triple Underpass.

Jim as i understand it you originally said that the Zapruder film must be fake, because it doesn't show Clint Hill climbed aboard, pushed

Jackie back and laid across their bodies, all before the limo reached the Triple Underpass.

That was the reason i posted the NIX GIF in a previous thread showing Clint hill on the Limo

I am saying that in the GIF i posted, i believe it does.

Clint has his arm on Jackies elbow, and as Jackie moves her arm, Clints hand appears to move with it in unison

( Also i would not categorize it so much a pushing action, but more of a guiding her back to her seat ) his hand resting on her elbow.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

When you are pursuing an hypothesis that is true, then tends to me more and more evidence that supports

it, as in this case. Clint had climbed up on the back of the trunk, pushed Jackie down and laid across their

bodies. He has been consistent in his reports about his actions for nearly 50 years. He could only have

done that if the limo had come to a halt; otherwise, his body would have been left behind in Elm Street:

It is therefore remarkable that Roy Kellerman was in the position to confirm it. From his point of view, it

looked as though Clint was lying across the trunk. But he had secured a position across the back seat,

as he has consistently maintained, and I have have repeatedly explained. It never ceases to amaze me

how Robin Unger can attempt to defeat what we know on a forum dedicated to the search for truth about

the death of JFK. Will he now maintain that there WAS a limo stop, but it didn't happen until Parkland?

Fetzer Quote:

According to Clint Hill (shown here on the rear foothold of the limousine as the vehicle is about to enter the Triple Underpass), he had already reached Mrs. Kennedy and pushed her down in the back seat. JFK had fallen to the left into her lap, where the right side of his head was exposed to Clint, who was lying over them. This photo is supposed to have been taken by Ike Altgens and corresponds with late Zapruder frames. Clint’s testimony not only falsifies the Zapruder film, but also shows that this photograph was faked to agree with it.

Lest there be any doubt on this crucial point, in Clint Hill’s written statement dated 30 November 1963, which was published as Commission Exhibit CE 1024, he wrote: “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying on the seat” [18H742]. And in his testimony to the commission on 9 March 1964, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the middle of the car. His brain was exposed.” [2H141]. Since he has told us he made these observations before the limousine had reached the pilot car drive by Chief Curry (shown above), this photo has to have been faked. Clint could not have made these observations from the rear foothold as it represents. (His descriptions of the wound to the right rear of JFK’s head are discussed below.)

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

I have far and away greater "proof" than you of the limousine stop and therefore of alteration. Yet, even I do not demand that Robin Unger or anyone else accept it as fact. They owe it to themselves and to

future generations to "prove it" in a manner consistent with what they know to be true and then build on that. They don't wish to end up in the uncomfortable predicament of requesting that others accept

what they say as true simply because they said so. That is not good enough. So long as the person doing the study on the Zapruder film is honest and is of an open mind to where the evidence leads, then I

support their efforts to find out the truth. Notice I did not say I support their efforts to prove that my belief or my argument or my position is right. I said I support their journey toward the truth--even if they must

go the long way around the block to get there. So far, very few, if any, anti-alterationists have ever called me a xxxx as to what I saw. None, including Robin Unger have challenged me on what I saw. Many simply

want to "see for themselves" in order to remove any doubt. It is my belief that their skepticism will ultimately pay off... where an honest broker among them attempts to discover why it cannot be true, but, somewhat

serendipitously, ends up discovering why it MUST be true.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And it's a bloody shame that you don't speak up and oppose the dissemination of falsehoods on this forum.

That is unforgivable. You have seen the other film. You know what I am claiming is true. Yet you are silent.

Jim,

I have far and away greater "proof" than you of the limousine stop and therefore of alteration. Yet, even I do not demand that Robin Unger or anyone else accept it as fact. They owe it to themselves and to

future generations to "prove it" in a manner consistent with what they know to be true and then build on that. They don't wish to end up in the uncomfortable predicament of requesting that others accept

what they say as true simply because they said so. That is not good enough. So long as the person doing the study on the Zapruder film is honest and is of an open mind to where the evidence leads, then I

support their efforts to find out the truth. Notice I did not say I support their efforts to prove that my belief or my argument or my position is right. I said I support their journey toward the truth--even if they must

go the long way around the block to get there. So far, very few, if any, anti-alterationists have ever called me a xxxx as to what I saw. None, including Robin Unger have challenged me on what I saw. Many simply

want to "see for themselves" in order to remove any doubt. It is my belief that their skepticism will ultimately pay off... where an honest broker among them attempts to discover why it cannot be true, but, somewhat

serendipitously, ends up discovering why it MUST be true.