Jim Fetzer vs. Josiah Thompson
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15173
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15218
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15217
Watching two conspiracy-happy theorists throw mud on each other is quite
enjoyable to see at times, such as some of the recent battles between
Josiah Thompson and Jim Fetzer (linked above).
Thompson wins each round, but only because nobody in the world can rival
Dr. Fetzer in the "Kookiest Of The Conspiracy Kooks" category, whether it
be this year or any other year.
I particularly enjoyed the strained logic of Dr. Fetzer during one portion
of his persistent argument in favor of the Zapruder Film having been
altered, with Fetzer apparently thinking that during the very brief
1.6-second interval when Jean Hill and Mary Moorman are visible in Mr.
Zapruder's home movie, ALL of the following things should be seen in the
Z-Film:
"I advance an 11-page study of Jean's [Hill] interview with Len
Osanic and thereby establish a convergence in her testimony with that of
Mary Moorman, which not only indicates they were in the street at the same
time but that, if the Zapruder [Film] were authentic, it would show (a)
Mary handing her photos to Jean, (b) Jean coating them with fixative, (c)
the limo moving to the left (toward them), (d) Mary and Jean both stepping
off the curb and into the street, (e) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!"
and all that, (f) Mary taking her picture, (g) both stepping back onto the
grass, (h) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (h) [FETZER
MEANT TO SAY "I" HERE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK "H" FOLLOWS "H"] Jean
remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of
which is shown in the film." -- James H. Fetzer; March 27, 2009
--------------
LOL time. Hilarious stuff there, Dr. Fetzer!
For those who want the exact statistics on this, here they are:
Assassination eyewitnesses Jean Hill and Mary Moorman first become visible
in Abraham Zapruder's home movie in frame #287, when the right half of
Hill's body comes into view:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z287.jpg
The very last frame that shows any portion of either of the two women is
Z316, which is a frame that depicts a very small part of Moorman's left
arm:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg
This means that the two ladies are visible (either individually or
together) for a total of only 30 frames of the Zapruder Film (inclusively;
Z287 through Z316), which in "real time" equals 1.639 seconds.
But Jim Fetzer, incredibly, seems to think that an unaltered version of
the Zapruder movie should show ALL of the events he mentioned above--even
the post-assassination event of Moorman tugging on Hill's coat or leg (as
Mary encourages Jean to get down on the ground to avoid the gunfire, which
is an event that obviously did not occur until Mr. Zapruder had panned his
camera further to his right and well out of the view of either of the two
women).
Does Dr. Fetzer believe that the "real" and "unaltered" Zapruder Film is
focused on Jean and Mary for more than just 1.64 seconds? Fetzer must
certainly believe that is the case, because otherwise how could ALL of his
laundry list of Hill's and Moorman's actions have possibly been captured
in just 1.64 seconds by the CONSTANTLY-PANNING motion of Mr. Zapruder's
Bell & Howell camera?
There's only one truly accurate word to describe such nonsensical and
impossible beliefs on the part of James H. Fetzer --- Crazy!
WhiskyJoe
Plus, if the Zapruder film was not modified, why
doesn't it show Jean Hill immediately racing across
the street, bumping into Clint Hill, as she takes
off in immediate pursuit of the Grassy Knoll shooter.
WhiskyJoe
Is there any way a debate can be arranged between
Jim Fetzer and Josiah Thompson on Black Op Radio?
That would be worth listening to.
François Carlier
Thank you for a very good post, as usual.
I love reading your posts and articles.
Your style is pure, bright, brilliant. It makes sense and it is true !
How right you are about Jim Fetzer !
/François Carlier/
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:426dabe1-abaa-442c...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
WhiskyJoe
Some interesting tidbits of information in the threads
you mentioned, David.
I had no idea that our Pamela got to watch a Beta version
of the Zapruder film in a New York theater back in 1964.
I make a joke about this but actually, everyone's
memories become unreliable over time.
And Fetzer got his microphone turned off at JFK Lancer?
How zany does a CTer have to get to get his microphone
turned off at JFK Lancer. That must be a very rare honor.
Definitely, Thompson does come off better than Fetzer.
But Fetzer definitely has his supporters. The more
interesting the theory, the more CTers are instinctively
drawn to it so the theory that Thompson is really a
double agent tends to draw some CTers like moths to
a candle.
WhiskyJoe
James H. Fetzer post of January 8, 2010, 5:46 is great
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15217
"Josiah implies that slips in publishing are chimerical,
when his own book commits colossal blunders that
demonstrate how insignificat is a mistake in a caption?
Has he forgotten that his book claimed there were three
shooters who took four shots, when we know that JFK
alone was hit four times and Connally as many as three;
that there were at least three misses, one of which hit
the chrome strip on the limo's windshield, the second
the curb near James Tague and injured him, the third in
the grass near Mary and Jean?"
**************************************************
Josiah postulating only three shooters taking four
shots clearly exposes him as a government agent
when there were clearly, what, ten shots?
Let's see, JFK was hit four times, Connally by
three, and I can't believe that Fetzer is a
disinformation agent so he couldn't endorse any
kind of a Single Bullet Theory where one bullet could
cause multiple wounds to JFK, or to Connally, or to both.
I think he is too ideologically pure to stoop so low.
So that means seven shots right there, plus at least
three that missed so that means at least ten shots.
I wonder, what is the under/over of this. What is
the minimum number of shots a researcher can endorse
and not be considered automatically a disinformation
agent. What is the maximum number of shots before
Fetzer would begin to suspect someone of being a
lunatic. I would guess that Fetzer might set the
acceptable range between 8 and 20. Or, more likely
he does not have any sort of an upper limit. I guess
Oliver Stone was a disinformation agent, he only
thought there were six shots.
I suspect the problem is much worse than Fetzer
realizes. The number of people who disagree with
him is huge. Thompson is just the tip of the iceberg.
The number of researchers who are really government
agents must be staggering.
Anthony Marsh
Silly. Are you trying to play Fetzer? Auditioning for the role in the
movie? Jean Hill waited until she saw everyone else running up the
grassy knoll.
Anthony Marsh
>
> James H. Fetzer post of January 8, 2010, 5:46 is great
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15217
>
> "Josiah implies that slips in publishing are chimerical,
> when his own book commits colossal blunders that
> demonstrate how insignificat is a mistake in a caption?
Another case of the Pot calling the Kettle black. What about Fetzer's
error in his book and his threatening to sue me for pointing out his
error?
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Fetzer.htm
Do Pictures Lie?
I must admit that I did not want to buy Jim Fetzer's book
Assassination Science. My normal procedure when dealing with books like
this would be to borrow a copy from a local library and copy a few pages
which need criticism. But no local library would carry the book. As I
pointed out in messages on the Internet, I would have to reserve criticism
until I had read the book. I couldn't find the book in any local stores
for several weeks. Then one week I happened to find it and skimmed through
it. After seeing several obvious errors I decided to buy it only so that I
could prove that I had thoroughly read it before criticizing it.
I usually skim through a book which deals with historical issues
from back to front, looking for key names in the index and looking for
interesting documents in the Appendices. Appendix L surprised, shocked and
infuriated me. Fetzer had taken one of the autopsy photographs of JFK's
back and drawn in a "circle-x" where Fetzer claims that the HSCA had
located the back wound. There appears to be no one else to blame for this
horrendous illlustration, because the caption lists it as his note:
"[Editor's note: The 'circle-x' mark identifies the location of the
back wound as specified by the HSCA. See also pages 16, 34, 157-158, 177,
438 and 441.]"
This is an outrageous lie. The HSCA never said that the back wound
was where Fetzer placed the "circle-x." When I checked the referenced
pages, none of them dealt with the identification of the back wound by the
HSCA. But page 441 turned out to be Appendix K, and the drawing on the
bottom is Ida Dox's drawing of the back wound, as commissioned by the
HSCA.
Does the hole in the back of the Ida Dox drawing line up with the
"circle-x" in Fetzer's illustration? No. Fetzer's "circle-x" is a couple
of inches to the right of the hole drawn on Ida Dox's tracing of the
autopsy photograph. In her drawing, Ida Dox was instructed by the HSCA
medical panel to trace in ONLY where the panel had located the back wound
and leave out any extraneous marks on the body. [1H187] In both the
drawing on page 441 and the illustration on page 444 the back wound is to
the LEFT of the righmost edge of the President's neck. Fetzer's "circle-x"
is to the RIGHT of the President's neck.
Now, if I were trying to demonstrate this in person, I might make a
transparency of one Appendix and place it on top of the other, matching up
key points. In the computer, we can do the same thing by combining two
different scanned JPG files. I have scanned in Appendix K, the Ida Dox
drawing, into the file named HSCABACK.JPG and changed the black dots to
red. Then I scanned in Appendix L, Fetzer's illustration into the file
named FOX5BACK.JPG and changed the color to blue. When the two files are
properly scaled and combined, the resulting rgb file shows where the red
lines and blue lines overlap as black. This file, named RGB-BACK.JPG ,
shows that when the rulers in each original file are overlapped, the back
wound in the Ida Dox drawing overlaps the actual back wound in the autopsy
photograph. This proves that Fetzer's "circle-x" mark does not truly
represent where the HSCA said that the back wound was.
What is the reason for Fetzer's misidentification of the HSCA back
wound? Is there possibly an innocent explanation? Yes, if Fetzer simply
does not know his left from his right. Could there be a more sinister
motive for deliberately fabricating an illustration which misrepresents
what the HSCA medical panel believes? The desired conclusion it is trying
to suggest is that the HSCA medical panel was so incompetent that they
could not spot an obvious wound on the back. Study the JPG files below to
see what I mean.
UPDATE:
On July 19, 1998 Jim Fetzer threatened to sue me, claiming that this
article was "slanderous." Then on July 22, 1998, after consulting with Dr.
David Mantik, who actually designed the illustration for another purpose,
Jim Fetzer admitted his error and apologized. It seems that Dr. Mantik had
originally intended to use his illustration to indicate where the Bethesda
autopsy doctors located the back wound. Interestingly, Dr. Mantik,
although not 100% correct on this point, does bring up an important issue
which I hope he will put into print. There may even be five versions of
where the back wound was located which came out of Bethesda:
1. The actual location as seen in the autopsy photographs.
2. Where the autopsy doctors indicated it on a diagram.
3. Where the autopsy doctors said it was.
4. Where Admiral Burkley drew it on a diagram.
5. Where the artist Ryberg drew it on an illustration made for the
Warren Commission based on a verbal description by Commander Humes.
HSCABACK.JPG
HSCA DRAWING OF BACK WOUND
FOX5BACK.JPG
FOX 5 AUTOPSY PHOTO OF BACK WOUND
RGB-BACK.JPG
COMBINED RED-BLUE JPG OF BACK WOUND
> Has he forgotten that his book claimed there were three
> shooters who took four shots, when we know that JFK
> alone was hit four times and Connally as many as three;
> that there were at least three misses, one of which hit
> the chrome strip on the limo's windshield, the second
> the curb near James Tague and injured him, the third in
> the grass near Mary and Jean?"
>
What Fetzer labels as misses might just be the final destination of
another known bullet which we know hit one of the two men. Thus not
additional bullets, but fragments from other hits.
> **************************************************
>
> Josiah postulating only three shooters taking four
> shots clearly exposes him as a government agent
> when there were clearly, what, ten shots?
> Let's see, JFK was hit four times, Connally by
> three, and I can't believe that Fetzer is a
> disinformation agent so he couldn't endorse any
> kind of a Single Bullet Theory where one bullet could
> cause multiple wounds to JFK, or to Connally, or to both.
> I think he is too ideologically pure to stoop so low.
> So that means seven shots right there, plus at least
> three that missed so that means at least ten shots.
>
You don't need to buy the WC's SBT to realize that one bullet can cause
several wounds in one person. An entrance wound in the back and an exit
wound in the front does not indicate two bullets, just one bullet going
through both wounds.
> I wonder, what is the under/over of this. What is
> the minimum number of shots a researcher can endorse
> and not be considered automatically a disinformation
> agent. What is the maximum number of shots before
Fetzer labeled me a disinformation agent for showing proof that the
Zapruder film is authentic, examples of the ghost images he and his hand
picked film experts did not know existed.
> Fetzer would begin to suspect someone of being a
> lunatic. I would guess that Fetzer might set the
> acceptable range between 8 and 20. Or, more likely
> he does not have any sort of an upper limit. I guess
> Oliver Stone was a disinformation agent, he only
> thought there were six shots.
>
That makes Groden a piker.
> I suspect the problem is much worse than Fetzer
> realizes. The number of people who disagree with
> him is huge. Thompson is just the tip of the iceberg.
> The number of researchers who are really government
> agents must be staggering.
>
Remember the story about the right-wing kook who turned out to be an FBI
informant and agent provocateur?
WhiskyJoe
Man, this "Is Thompson a spook" debate has been raging
for days. Thompson is still hanging in there but I
wonder how much longer he can last. Fetzer is
relentless. I'm being to wonder if maybe I have
misjudged Thompson. Maybe he's all right. The next two
weeks should be decisive, one way or the other.
One of them is bound to break.
WhiskyJoe
The basic premise of Fetzer's arguments seems to be
that the alteration of the Zapruder film is totally
obvious. And yet, Thompson, when faced with this
obvious truth, still insists that the Zapruder film
has not been altered. Leaving Fetzer with the only
possible conclusion, that Thompson is a disinformation
agent. This is Theory A.
Of course, another explanation, is that Fetzer has
never forgiven Thompson for his forceful public
arguments in the 1990's against Fetzer's theories
about the film being altered. This is Theory B.
Which theory is correct, Theory A or Theory B?
Well, if Theory A is correct, why is Fetzer only
condemning Thompson. He is hardly alone in his
beliefs, however misguided they may be. Debra Conway
and host of other prominent CTers do not believe
the Zapruder film has been altered and have made their
views known. But how can they be blind to the obvious?
Why isn't it obvious to Fetzer that Conway and all
the others have to be disinformation agents? Why isn't
it Fetzer condemning them as will? Is it not a bad
thing to have an obvious disinformation agent, like
Conway, running the JFK Lancer convention year after
year? Surely, she must be a worst menace to the truth
than Thompson. Why isn't he calling for a major purge
of the CT community, in terms of who is accepted by
the CT public, starting with her? Why isn't he saying
"I have here in my hand a list of 205 — a list of names
of known disinformation agents" ?
Because the sin of Thompson is not his blindness to the obvious truth
of the alternation of the Zapruder film.
This is a common sin among prominent CTers. Clearly the
sin of Thompson is his expression of his views, his
forceful arguments at the JFK Lancer convention that publicly
embarrassed Fetzer. And Fetzer will never let
it go.
WhiskyJoe
I think it is time for some of this at this forum to
rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,
what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.
We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,
Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,
Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.
Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.
But he has always been civil and a good sport.
We should put all that behind us and log on to the
Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure
he would much appreciate it.
Who is with me?
John McAdams
I frankly have mixed feelings about that, since if Tink hangs around
in such places, he should expect the idiocy.
Also, Simkin has pretty much accused me of being a CIA spook, so I'm
not keen on giving any support to his forum.
But if anybody wants to go over there and intervene, more power to
them.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
WhiskyJoe
> Fetzer must certainly believe that is the case,
> because otherwise how could ALL of his laundry
> list of Hill's and Moorman's actions have possibly
> been captured in just 1.64 seconds by the
> CONSTANTLY-PANNING motion of Mr. Zapruder's
> Bell & Howell camera?
Yes. Instead of being given 15 minutes of fame they
were only given 1.64 seconds. And all Hill and Moorman
did with their moment was to stand there like frozen
turkeys.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15173
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15218
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15217
>
It seems that our own Pamela McElwain has jumped in to call Tink a
spook.
<Quote On>
In you come with your wonderful ideas for a book. You have the right
credentials -- Yale (Bones?), Navy (ONI?), a PhD, and you are tapped
by the powers that be. They also happen to be the powers behind at
least the ongoing cover-up, and maybe even the assassination itself.
That doesn't phase you. You are the golden boy. You are ferried around
the country for interviews with all the main witnesses. Every door is
opened to you. You spend countless hours with a very good copy of the
Z-film. You even feel sorry for the poor researchers at NARA who are
suffering with slides and film of inferior quality to what you are
using. You even realize the WC itself was sandbagged by the poor
quality of slides they had available. Did you call out for a new
investigation? Did you demand LIFE at least provide researchers with
as good a copy as you had? Wait -- you were going to head the LIFE
investigation into the assassination, weren't you? You, the
super-researcher that had been hand-picked and trained by LIFE. And
guess who probably gave LIFE the great idea to find a new fresh face
with credibility with the CTs who could be used to counteract the
growing current of dissent against the WCR and the govt?
All the time you were in NYC you were apparently oblivious to the
underground around you. You were at ground zero of the holy grail of
the assassination and nothing about the film or the slides caused you
to wonder if it had been altered and if so how. After all these years
your position has not changed.
<Quote off>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
I don't have Tink's e-mail address here at home, but if I did, I would
e-mail him and tell him he demeans himself either bothering with the
crazies on the Simkin forum.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "We should put all that behind us and log on to the Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure he would much appreciate it." <<<
Can't do it. Simkin booted me off of his CT-only site in 2006.
Sorry.
But I've been trying to get Duncan MacRae to copy-&-paste my top post
in this thread to the Edu. Forum for Fetzer to see.
I have a hard time believing that Fetzer could possibly believe that
ALL of the things he thinks should be in the Z-Film (re: Hill &
Moorman) could be shoehorned into 1.64 seconds of Z-Film space.
Deep down, he cannot possibly really believe such idiocy....can he?
~shrug~
ADDENDUM:
I'd love to see a few of the LNers here join Simkin's Edu. Forum. (I'd
really like to see how long they last before their common sense gets
them kicked out of the place by Simkin.)
pjsp...@aol.com
seem to think are "crazies", has largely rejected Fetzer's attack on
Thompson. Notably, Lifton and White, who've known Thompson for
decades, stepped to the side of Fetzer and told him they just weren't
buying it.
As far as anyone's suspicions of yourself, come on, you have to admit
that 1) IF the government killed Kennedy, as many believe, and
continues to cover it up, it would be likely to have agents in both
academia and the media tasked with perpetuating this cover-up, and 2)
there are few in academia as committed to the single-assassin
conclusion as yourself. This marks you as a suspected CIA operative,
like it or not.
John McAdams
wrote:
>John, you miss that the Ed Forum, even with its wide array of what you
>seem to think are "crazies", has largely rejected Fetzer's attack on
>Thompson. Notably, Lifton and White, who've known Thompson for
>decades, stepped to the side of Fetzer and told him they just weren't
>buying it.
>
That's good, but when half the people on a forum are insane, that
pretty much poisons things.
>As far as anyone's suspicions of yourself, come on, you have to admit
>that 1) IF the government killed Kennedy, as many believe, and
But the government didn't kill Kennedy.
>continues to cover it up, it would be likely to have agents in both
>academia and the media tasked with perpetuating this cover-up, and 2)
Nobody today can *cover up* anything. Today, it's just a metter of
competing opinions.
Certainly arguing against the buffs isn't "covering up" anything.
It just expressing an opinion.
>there are few in academia as committed to the single-assassin
>conclusion as yourself. This marks you as a suspected CIA operative,
>like it or not.
>
Only among deranged people.
>On Jan 9, 9:05�pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 9 Jan 2010 23:42:05 -0500, WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >I think it is time for some of this at this forum to
>> >rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,
>> >what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.
>> >We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,
>> >Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,
>> >Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.
>>
>> >Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.
>> >But he has always been civil and a good sport.
>> >We should put all that behind us and log on to the
>> >Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure
>> >he would much appreciate it.
>>
>> >Who is with me?
>>
>> I don't have Tink's e-mail address here at home, but if I did, I would
>> e-mail him and tell him he demeans himself either bothering with the
>> crazies on the Simkin forum.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15173&hl=Tink
Fetzer attacking Thompson:
<quote on>
Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your
position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have
observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland
diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to
the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313
through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author
of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the
film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima
facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these
intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in
doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it.
Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain
how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question.
<quote off>
Yes, that is a fundamental problem with SSID.
The diagram that Tink got McClelland to approve flatly contradicts the
Z-film.
Fetzer, like Aguilar and other loons, wants to use the diagram to
impeach the Z-film.
IOW, to do the typical buff thing and impeach more reliable evidence
with less reliable evidence!
As Tony Marsh has pointed out, when McClelland got to draw his own
diagram for TMWKK, it was very different.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
WhiskyJoe
> Also, Simkin has pretty much accused me of being a
> CIA spook, so I'm not keen on giving any support to
> his forum.
I'm sure any of us who supported Thompson at Simkin
would be pegged as a CIA spook, if we aren't already.
Of course, maybe Thompson is a spook. How else could
he have cycled that Carcano rifle at an impossibly
fast rate.
> But if anybody wants to go over there and intervene,
> more power to them.
I would support him, but he has never done me any harm,
so I won't.
> I don't have Tink's e-mail address here at home,
> but if I did, I would e-mail him and tell him he
> demeans himself either bothering with the crazies
> on the Simkin forum.
But is he really stooping that low? Yes, I suppose he
is. His points about the Zapruder alteration theory
were rather good. He can think rationally.
But though Fetzer and perhaps Thompson do demean
themselves, they do make the world a brighter place.
François Carlier
I'll go.
/François Carlier/
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:0d240bf2-f68c-4b87...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
WhiskyJoe
> This marks you as a suspected CIA operative,
> like it or not.
David is no more a CIA operative than I am.
WhiskyJoe
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15217&st=0
James H. Fetzer post of Jan 8, 2010 06:01 AM
> Well, David, there is a persistent and enduring
> pattern of deception and obfuscation, which
> extends from SIX SECONDS to this day. If you can't
> see through it, then I have taken you for your better.
> Pamela's post was brilliant; Jerry Logan's was
> misconceived. As much as I have admired you in the
> past, I am acutely disappointed to read this coming
> from you.
> Indeed, Josiah Thompson appears to have ripped
> you off some time ago. Something is wrong that
> you would make up excuses for his inexcusable
> conduct. Read my last post and this one and give
> this matter more thought. You are way off base
> here and I am having a hard time reconciling
> this attitude with my very patient and detailed
> dissections of his modus operandi.
> Study my posts, David. I have stuck to the details
> of his arguments, citing pages and verse, to
> establish that SIX SECONDS was a work of deception
> and obfuscation. He not only won't address why he
> did not confront the massive contradiction between
> the medical evidence and the film, but it looks
> like he even ripped you off in preparing his book
> and article for The Saturday Evening Post.
"Something is wrong that you would make up excuses
for his inexcusable conduct."
"You are way off base here and I am having a hard
time reconciling this attitude with my very patient
and detailed dissections of his modus operandi."
Oh oh. It looks like David Lifton is about to be
exposed as another disinformation agent. Once you
have raised the suspicions of the master, your cover
is soon to be blown.
Josiah cannot see the obvious lies of SSID, he must
be an agent. David cannot see Josiah's obvious lies,
he must be an agent.
Of course, this fits. If it makes sense to recruit an
author in the 1960's, it makes sense to do so in the
1980's. David Lifton must be he Josiah Thompson of
the 1980's. Or if David isn't, somebody is.
Fetzer should write a book called "On the Trail of
the Disinformation Agents" and maybe they can make
a movie on it.
Anthony Marsh
> On 8 Jan 2010 16:42:39 -0500, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15173
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15218
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15217
>>
>
> It seems that our own Pamela McElwain has jumped in to call Tink a
> spook.
>
> <Quote On>
>
> In you come with your wonderful ideas for a book. You have the right
> credentials -- Yale (Bones?), Navy (ONI?), a PhD, and you are tapped
> by the powers that be. They also happen to be the powers behind at
> least the ongoing cover-up, and maybe even the assassination itself.
Well, obviously we have to be suspicious of anyone with a PhD, right? But
Tink is already an admitted spook. He is a private detective. That's what
he does for a living.
> That doesn't phase you. You are the golden boy. You are ferried around
> the country for interviews with all the main witnesses. Every door is
> opened to you. You spend countless hours with a very good copy of the
> Z-film. You even feel sorry for the poor researchers at NARA who are
> suffering with slides and film of inferior quality to what you are
> using. You even realize the WC itself was sandbagged by the poor
> quality of slides they had available. Did you call out for a new
> investigation? Did you demand LIFE at least provide researchers with
> as good a copy as you had? Wait -- you were going to head the LIFE
> investigation into the assassination, weren't you? You, the
> super-researcher that had been hand-picked and trained by LIFE. And
> guess who probably gave LIFE the great idea to find a new fresh face
> with credibility with the CTs who could be used to counteract the
> growing current of dissent against the WCR and the govt?
>
> All the time you were in NYC you were apparently oblivious to the
> underground around you. You were at ground zero of the holy grail of
> the assassination and nothing about the film or the slides caused you
> to wonder if it had been altered and if so how. After all these years
> your position has not changed.
>
His position changes as new evidence comes in. He used to believe in two
shots to the head. Then he saw David Wimp's presentation on the blur of
frame Z-313 and now rejects the head shot from the TSBD. He now thinks the
only head shot came from the grassy knoll. He even rejects his original
analysis of the Zapruder film from his book.
Anthony Marsh
>
> I think it is time for some of this at this forum to
> rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,
> what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.
> We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,
> Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,
> Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.
>
No thanks. No LNers wanted or welcome. There are plenty of us conspiracy
believes who love Tink and realize just how crazy Fetzer is. I devote a
section on my Web site to exposing his nuttiness.
> Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.
Yes, and I have schooled him on some things even when he ignored me.
> But he has always been civil and a good sport.
> We should put all that behind us and log on to the
> Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure
> he would much appreciate it.
>
I don't think he would.
> Who is with me?
>
Nobody.
Anthony Marsh
>
> The basic premise of Fetzer's arguments seems to be
> that the alteration of the Zapruder film is totally
> obvious. And yet, Thompson, when faced with this
> obvious truth, still insists that the Zapruder film
> has not been altered. Leaving Fetzer with the only
> possible conclusion, that Thompson is a disinformation
> agent. This is Theory A.
>
It is Kook Tech. When you can't prove something say that it is patently
obvious and that the only reason why some would disagree is if the
person was a disinformation agent.
I go through it with the 9/11 kooks all the time.
> Of course, another explanation, is that Fetzer has
> never forgiven Thompson for his forceful public
> arguments in the 1990's against Fetzer's theories
> about the film being altered. This is Theory B.
>
> Which theory is correct, Theory A or Theory B?
> Well, if Theory A is correct, why is Fetzer only
> condemning Thompson. He is hardly alone in his
Fetzer does not only condemn Josiah Thompson. He called me a
disinformation agent for my article proving that the Zapruder film is
authentic.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/index.htm
> beliefs, however misguided they may be. Debra Conway
> and host of other prominent CTers do not believe
> the Zapruder film has been altered and have made their
> views known. But how can they be blind to the obvious?
> Why isn't it obvious to Fetzer that Conway and all
> the others have to be disinformation agents? Why isn't
> it Fetzer condemning them as will? Is it not a bad
He needs some of them to support his other kooky ideas.
> thing to have an obvious disinformation agent, like
> Conway, running the JFK Lancer convention year after
> year? Surely, she must be a worst menace to the truth
> than Thompson. Why isn't he calling for a major purge
> of the CT community, in terms of who is accepted by
> the CT public, starting with her? Why isn't he saying
> "I have here in my hand a list of 205 ? a list of names
> of known disinformation agents" ?
>
The research community is already split. It's the old divide and conquer
tactic.
Anthony Marsh
McClelland did not make that drawing.
Anthony Marsh
> On 10 Jan 2010 11:51:47 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>> John, you miss that the Ed Forum, even with its wide array of what you
>> seem to think are "crazies", has largely rejected Fetzer's attack on
>> Thompson. Notably, Lifton and White, who've known Thompson for
>> decades, stepped to the side of Fetzer and told him they just weren't
>> buying it.
>>
>
> That's good, but when half the people on a forum are insane, that
> pretty much poisons things.
>
>
>> As far as anyone's suspicions of yourself, come on, you have to admit
>> that 1) IF the government killed Kennedy, as many believe, and
>
> But the government didn't kill Kennedy.
>
Fair enough. So when the Army overthrows the President in a coup and the
coup leaders kill the President, likewise the government did not kill the
President. So if we follow your logic the President himself would have to
authorize his own assassination for it to be a government plot. Brilliant.
>> continues to cover it up, it would be likely to have agents in both
>> academia and the media tasked with perpetuating this cover-up, and 2)
>
> Nobody today can *cover up* anything. Today, it's just a metter of
> competing opinions.
>
Then why do you continue to support the cover-up? Worried about starting
WWIII?
pjfk
Whether Thompson was knowingly involved or not, he was trained by LIFE to
be an elite researcher, who had unlimited access to the Zapruder when it
was suppressed to the public. He had access to beautiful, clear 4X5
slides when researchers at NARA had to squint at lesser quality 35mm
slides. He's come down from the mountaintop to tell everyone how pristine
and perfect the Zapruder is, despite the fact that there are some obvious
alterations, such as the original being spliced in at least two places,
plus anomalies that defy definition, such as 'the blob'. He had no need
to ask questions. He didn't care about the virtual shell game that has
gone on with the different copies. He realized that a muddy copy had been
given to the WC, but just felt sorry for them.
If Thompson were just an LNT, all this would simply be par for the course.
The issue is that he seems to want to be a believable CT.
Barb Junkkarinen
Hi John,
Tink does not generally hang out there ... or anywhere. Someone
started a thing suggesting Tink is a disinfo person, Pamela did her
bit to stir the embers. Aside from allegations that SSID was a book to
lead people astray, an article Tink and Jerry Logan and myself wrote
last summer on whether or not there was a through-and-through hole in
the windshield became part of the discussion as did, of course, the
authenticity of the Z film .... things seem to be winding down a bit
.... Fetzer being scarce the last few days after being whacked quite a
bit, Pamela being scolded rather soundly by Lifton about her joining
the Fetzer fest in maligning Tink, but Jack continues to pop up like a
whack a mole character saying "read Horne IV" to just about anything
someone says..... sigh. A soap opera of sorts....
Barb :-)
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
Then I won't give you his address. <g> Tink has handlked himself well
thru this ... and he is quite aware already. And it's about over.
Support would be good though. Even David Lifton, who is at odds with
Tink on most everything, at odds with Tink, Jerry and I on our
articles, and is tight with Fetzer and his merry little band, came on
and blasted the very idea that anyone would stoop to this character
assassination. Kudos to Lifton for that ... many are intimidated there
to speak the courage of their convictions lest they end up on the
receiving end of the baloney from a small minded few. Others have been
willing to step up to the plate and say, "whoa."
Barb Junkkarinen
Pat, you have done a grat job there thru this latest too!
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>
>>>> "We should put all that behind us and log on to the Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure he would much appreciate it." <<<
>
>Can't do it. Simkin booted me off of his CT-only site in 2006.
>Sorry.
>
>But I've been trying to get Duncan MacRae to copy-&-paste my top post
>in this thread to the Edu. Forum for Fetzer to see.
>
>I have a hard time believing that Fetzer could possibly believe that
>ALL of the things he thinks should be in the Z-Film (re: Hill &
>Moorman) could be shoehorned into 1.64 seconds of Z-Film space.
>
>Deep down, he cannot possibly really believe such idiocy....can he?
No one can figure how Fetzer, who taught critical thinking and logic
for years as a philosophy professor, can spout the stuff he does. He
doesn't seem to think, and he really has a very poor grasp of any of
the evidence overall .... he runs on what others, whom he holds close,
tell him and runs off on his own from there. He ignores any info that
does not fit what he has already decided. He is a waste of time and a
real distraction to any real discussion taking place.
>
>~shrug~
>
>ADDENDUM:
>
>I'd love to see a few of the LNers here join Simkin's Edu. Forum. (I'd
>really like to see how long they last before their common sense gets
>them kicked out of the place by Simkin.)
CTs who do not espouse Zfilm alteration are considered LNs or disinfo
agents .... that's not Simkin, that's the vocal bats in the belfry
that intimidate a lot of others from participating. Thousands read
posts there, a handful participates....largely, I expect, because of
that.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
The predictables...Fetzer and White, lauded her for that post ...lol.
It's funny because they do not like Pamela ... she is the nemesis of
their hero Doug Weldon. It's such a 2 faced game, which Pamela plays
too, as all here already know .... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
What's funny is that now Weldon has come forth complaining about our
article, and it is Tink and Jerry and I taking Weldon on ... him being
very critical of Pamela. So maybe Tink and Jerry and I will be
Pamela's new best friends now....hahahaha!
Barb :-)
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjfk
LIFE/CIA certainly created an elite researcher in Tink, whether he was
aware of what was going on around him or not. To have him on the LNT side
would not be controversial at all -- it is his insistence on trying to
play ball as a CT that causes some of us to ask questions.
How anyone can spend so much time looking at the Zapruder and not wonder
where 'the blob' came from I can't imagine. I also wonder how someone in
the belly of the beast, as it were, LIFE headquarters in NYC, could be
completely oblivious to the underground all around him, with rogue copies
of the Z-film being made, locked away in the vaults of some of the
executives, shown in living rooms, and in at least one case in a movie
theater.
But perhaps, if one is tapped as he was, wined and dined from one end of
the country to the other, with doors opened to all the major witnesses of
the assassination, there might be some distractions to finding out the
truth under one's nose.
pjfk
> On 1/9/2010 4:16 PM, WhiskyJoe wrote:
>
>
>
> > James H. Fetzer post of January 8, 2010, 5:46 is great
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15217
>
> > "Josiah implies that slips in publishing are chimerical,
> > when his own book commits colossal blunders that
> > demonstrate how insignificat is a mistake in a caption?
>
> Another case of the Pot calling the Kettle black. What about Fetzer's
> error in his book and his threatening to sue me for pointing out his
> error?
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Fetzer.htm
>
> Do Pictures Lie?
> I must admit that I did not want to buy Jim Fetzer's book
> Assassination Science. My normal procedure when dealing with books like
> this would be to borrow a copy from a local library and copy a few pages
> which need criticism. But no local library would carry the book. As I
> pointed out in messages on the Internet, I would have to reserve criticism
> until I had read the book. I couldn't find the book in any local stores
> for several weeks. Then one week I happened to find it and skimmed through
> it. After seeing several obvious errors I decided to buy it only so that I
> could prove that I had thoroughly read it before criticizing it.
> I usually skim through a book which deals with historical issues
> from back to front, looking for key names in the index and looking for
> interesting documents in the Appendices. Appendix L surprised, shocked and
> infuriated me. Fetzer had taken one of the autopsy photographs of JFK's
> back and drawn in a "circle-x" where Fetzer claims that the HSCA had
> located the back wound. There appears to be no one else to blame for this
> horrendous illlustration, because the caption lists it as his note:
> "[Editor's note: The 'circle-x' mark identifies the location of the
> back wound as specified by the HSCA. See also pages 16, 34, 157-158, 177,
> 438 and 441.]"
> This is an outrageous lie. The HSCA never said that the back wound
> was where Fetzer placed the "circle-x." When I checked the referenced
> pages, none of them dealt with the identification of the back wound by the
> HSCA. But page 441 turned out to be Appendix K, and the drawing on the
> bottom is Ida Dox's drawing of the back wound, as commissioned by the
> HSCA.
> Does the hole in the back of the Ida Dox drawing line up with the
> "circle-x" in Fetzer's illustration? No. Fetzer's "circle-x" is a couple
> of inches to the right of the hole drawn on Ida Dox's tracing of the
> autopsy photograph. In her drawing, Ida Dox was instructed by the HSCA
> medical panel to trace in ONLY where the panel had located the back wound
> and leave out any extraneous marks on the body. [1H187] In both the
> drawing on page 441 and the illustration on page 444 the back wound is to
> the LEFT of the righmost edge of the President's neck. Fetzer's "circle-x"
> is to the RIGHT of the President's neck.
> Now, if I were trying to demonstrate this in person, I might make a
> transparency of one Appendix and place it on top of the other, matching up
> key points. In the computer, we can do the same thing by combining two
> different scanned JPG files. I have scanned in Appendix K, the Ida Dox
> drawing, into the file named HSCABACK.JPG and changed the black dots to
> red. Then I scanned in Appendix L, Fetzer's illustration into the file
> named FOX5BACK.JPG and changed the color to blue. When the two files are
> properly scaled and combined, the resulting rgb file shows where the red
> lines and blue lines overlap as black. This file, named RGB-BACK.JPG ,
> shows that when the rulers in each original file are overlapped, the back
> wound in the Ida Dox drawing overlaps the actual back wound in the autopsy
> photograph. This proves that Fetzer's "circle-x" mark does not truly
> represent where the HSCA said that the back wound was.
> What is the reason for Fetzer's misidentification of the HSCA back
> wound? Is there possibly an innocent explanation? Yes, if Fetzer simply
> does not know his left from his right. Could there be a more sinister
> motive for deliberately fabricating an illustration which misrepresents
> what the HSCA medical panel believes? The desired conclusion it is trying
> to suggest is that the HSCA medical panel was so incompetent that they
> could not spot an obvious wound on the back. Study the JPG files below to
> see what I mean.
>
> UPDATE:
> On July 19, 1998 Jim Fetzer threatened to sue me, claiming that this
> article was "slanderous." Then on July 22, 1998, after consulting with Dr.
> David Mantik, who actually designed the illustration for another purpose,
> Jim Fetzer admitted his error and apologized. It seems that Dr. Mantik had
> originally intended to use his illustration to indicate where the Bethesda
> autopsy doctors located the back wound. Interestingly, Dr. Mantik,
> although not 100% correct on this point, does bring up an important issue
> which I hope he will put into print. There may even be five versions of
> where the back wound was located which came out of Bethesda:
>
> 1. The actual location as seen in the autopsy photographs.
> 2. Where the autopsy doctors indicated it on a diagram.
> 3. Where the autopsy doctors said it was.
> 4. Where Admiral Burkley drew it on a diagram.
> 5. Where the artist Ryberg drew it on an illustration made for the
> Warren Commission based on a verbal description by Commander Humes.
>
> HSCABACK.JPG
> HSCA DRAWING OF BACK WOUND
> FOX5BACK.JPG
> FOX 5 AUTOPSY PHOTO OF BACK WOUND
> RGB-BACK.JPG
> COMBINED RED-BLUE JPG OF BACK WOUND
>
> > Has he forgotten that his book claimed there were three
> > shooters who took four shots, when we know that JFK
> > alone was hit four times and Connally as many as three;
> > that there were at least three misses, one of which hit
> > the chrome strip on the limo's windshield, the second
> > the curb near James Tague and injured him, the third in
> > the grass near Mary and Jean?"
>
> What Fetzer labels as misses might just be the final destination of
> another known bullet which we know hit one of the two men. Thus not
> additional bullets, but fragments from other hits.
>
> > **************************************************
>
> > Josiah postulating only three shooters taking four
> > shots clearly exposes him as a government agent
> > when there were clearly, what, ten shots?
> > Let's see, JFK was hit four times, Connally by
> > three, and I can't believe that Fetzer is a
> > disinformation agent so he couldn't endorse any
> > kind of a Single Bullet Theory where one bullet could
> > cause multiple wounds to JFK, or to Connally, or to both.
> > I think he is too ideologically pure to stoop so low.
> > So that means seven shots right there, plus at least
> > three that missed so that means at least ten shots.
>
> You don't need to buy the WC's SBT to realize that one bullet can cause
> several wounds in one person. An entrance wound in the back and an exit
> wound in the front does not indicate two bullets, just one bullet going
> through both wounds.
>
> > I wonder, what is the under/over of this. What is
> > the minimum number of shots a researcher can endorse
> > and not be considered automatically a disinformation
> > agent. What is the maximum number of shots before
>
> Fetzer labeled me a disinformation agent for showing proof that the
> Zapruder film is authentic, examples of the ghost images he and his hand
> picked film experts did not know existed.
>
> > Fetzer would begin to suspect someone of being a
> > lunatic. I would guess that Fetzer might set the
> > acceptable range between 8 and 20. Or, more likely
> > he does not have any sort of an upper limit. I guess
> > Oliver Stone was a disinformation agent, he only
> > thought there were six shots.
>
> That makes Groden a piker.
>
> > I suspect the problem is much worse than Fetzer
> > realizes. The number of people who disagree with
> > him is huge. Thompson is just the tip of the iceberg.
> > The number of researchers who are really government
> > agents must be staggering.
>
> Remember the story about the right-wing kook who turned out to be an FBI
> informant and agent provocateur?
I prefer Fetzer's blunders and leaping forward without doing his
homework to people such as Tink, Barb and Jerry trying to think they
can shut down research on documented witnesses to the limo.
Anthony Marsh
What you said about that forum goes for this forum in reverse.
Anthony Marsh
Ok, what are you babbling about now? Show me what you are confused about.
Peter Fokes
What was that article called ... Eternal Return?
As I recall you referred to Dr. Glanges as a nursing student or a
medical student.
She was a second year medical student, and some videos show folks
standing quite close to the front of the limo.
Vol IV an interesting read!
>
>Barb :-)
>>
>>.John
PF
>>--------------
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
Oh well, par for the course. You have to cut through the crapola in
any group to get to the good stuff. And there are some interesting
exchanges on the EF. Now alt.assassination does not have a single odd
poster, does it?
:-)
>>
>>.John
>>--------------
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
PF
Anthony Marsh
> I am.
>
> I'll go.
>
>
>
Not bloody likely. They are not allowing any new members.
"The board administrator is no longer accepting any new registrations at
the moment."
>
> "WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> a ?crit dans le message de
Anthony Marsh
You put me in an awkward position. Everyone knows that I love Tink even
when I disagree with him about some issues. And everyone knows that I
detest Fetzer and his bullying tactics. I hate to see you siding with a
kook like Fetzer and his cronies.
I looked at some of the message on the Education Forum and have to
disagree with Tink's tactics. I don't think he has any need to defend
himself against a wacko like Fetzer. The vast majority of the research
community appreciates all the work Tink has done over the years.
But he is arguing a straw man. The charge is not that he is an FBI agent
or a CIA agent. The charge seems to be that he is an agent provocateur,
only pretending to be a conspiracy believer while all the time really
working for the cover-up like Dale Myers or Gary Mack.
A little history here. The very first job Adolf Hitler had after the end
of WWI was an an agent provocateur for the Germany Army. He would pretend
to be a Communist to infiltrate Communist groups and spy on them. One he
joined was the German Worker's Party. An agent provateur would pretend to
believe in everything they believe in and do things to promote that
organization. So when Tink asks if an agent would do those things he has
done to prove it was a conspiracy, he is off the mark. Of course an agent
provocateur would do things to prove his dedication to the cause. I have
never seen any indication that Tink is an agent provocateur. Fetzer calls
anyone who disagrees with him a disinformation agent. That's what he
called me when I uploaded my article proving that the Zapruder film is
authentic. He threatened to sue me for pointing out an error in one of the
illustrations in his book. Because he doesn't have any facts on his side
he tries to win arguments by bullying.
jfk...@gmail.com
Well, that 'extra brain' that flops out of JFK's head after Z313.
Please tell me you have noticed it.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z335.jpg
And if you have, please explain how you think it ties in with the known
medical evidence?
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 9 Jan 2010 23:42:05 -0500, WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,
> >what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.
> >We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,
> >Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,
> >Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.
>
> >Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.
> >But he has always been civil and a good sport.
> >We should put all that behind us and log on to the
> >Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure
> >he would much appreciate it.
>
> >Who is with me?
>
> e-mail him and tell him he demeans himself either bothering with the
> crazies on the Simkin forum.
Apparently John and Barb think it is out-of-bounds to ask questions about
information from SSID that clearly indicates that Thompson was at the very
least used as a pawn by LIFE. Apparently, not only is he supposed to be
an elite researcher, but he is also untouchable?
If he were a plain-old LNT, there would be nothing to comment about. How
many elite LNT's have been allowed access to the medical evidence, for
example, to then try to 'explain' it to the rest of the masses?
But Thompson wants to be considered a CT. The bar is set a little higher
for that.
WhiskyJoe
In this great Jim Fetzer vs. Josiah Thompson debate,
I have done a complete 180. Initially, I did not
believe Fetzer. I do not think that Thompson was
a disinformation agent. But as I read the posts there
at the Education Forum it became increasingly clear
that Fetzer is right, Thompson is a disinformation
agent. And so is everyone else who posts there.
Not by intention but by their innate nature and
disordered thought processes. Some more so than
others, but all to a certain extent are
disinformation agents. And the one who can most
clearly see it in others is the biggest
disinformation agent of all.
Peter Fokes
Lol! Think folks will bite ytou if you use your real name, Whiskey
Joe?
Barb, are you going to take being called a disinfo agent sitting down?
Is McAdams still a member of the EF?
Vince Palmara, poor fellow, a disinfo agent!
Gary Mack a member, Jefferson Morley, etc., etc ...
Duncan! No wonder he posts so often! lol
I am a member, and find the exchanges informative at times.
Ah so easy launch jocular generalized smears,, eh?
Each to their own.
Regards,
Peter Fokes
jfk...@gmail.com
Best case scenario, maybe this debate at the Ed Forum as a
continuation of the '98 screaming match at NID over Zapruder
alteration. Maybe everyone, myself included, wants to understand how
Thompson and Lifton, for example, colleagues for many years, can look
at the same frame of the Zapruder and see two entirely different
things. At that time everyone behaved deplorably as well.
The underlying question, which cannot be resolved by attack/counter-
attack is how
Tink and Lifton, for example, colleagues for many years, can look at
the same frame of the Zapruder film and see two entirely different
things.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 9, 11:05 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 9 Jan 2010 23:42:05 -0500, WhiskyJoe<jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think it is time for some of this at this forum to
>>> rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,
>>> what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.
>>> We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,
>>> Von Pein, Bigdog, claviger, Bud, yeuhd, Parnell,
>>> Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.
>>
>>> Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.
>>> But he has always been civil and a good sport.
>>> We should put all that behind us and log on to the
>>> Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure
>>> he would much appreciate it.
>>
>>> Who is with me?
>>
>> I don't have Tink's e-mail address here at home, but if I did, I would
>> e-mail him and tell him he demeans himself either bothering with the
>> crazies on the Simkin forum.
>
> Apparently John and Barb think it is out-of-bounds to ask questions about
> information from SSID that clearly indicates that Thompson was at the very
> least used as a pawn by LIFE. Apparently, not only is he supposed to be
> an elite researcher, but he is also untouchable?
>
Then you could say the same thing about Robert Groden because he had
access to the Zapruder film.
> If he were a plain-old LNT, there would be nothing to comment about. How
> many elite LNT's have been allowed access to the medical evidence, for
> example, to then try to 'explain' it to the rest of the masses?
>
We've had several WC defenders who have had access to the original
autopsy photographs and have simply lied about them. I am not aware of
any conspiracy believers who have done that.
Anthony Marsh
You are pulling a Cooper. You see something and you don't know what it
is so you jump to conclusions.
There is no "blob" there.
> And if you have, please explain how you think it ties in with the known
> medical evidence?
>
You are seeing a glare, a light reflection, off the skull fragment which
hinged out of the right temple. What some people have called the Devil's
Flap. You can see this same bone sticking out in the autopsy photos.
David Von Pein
>>> "Think folks will bite you if you use your real name, Whiskey Joe?"
<<<
Joe has made his full real name (Joe Elliott) available for everybody here
to see. It's right here in his profile, just one easy click away:
So, Joe's not hiding his identity. But even if he did want to hide it, so
what? Some LNers hesitate to post using their real names (esp. at the acj
asylum). Bud is one such example. He thinks it's much wiser to use an
alias, because he never can tell what the "kooks" will do. And I can
certainly appreciate and understand that point-of-view (even if I don't
practice it myself).
Barb Junkkarinen
ROTFL!
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Nice to know even Anthony, perhaps, has his limit. LOL
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
You have GOT to be kidding, Pamela! Yikes.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Hi Peter,
Yes. ETERNAL RETURN: A Hole Through the Windshield?
>
>As I recall you referred to Dr. Glanges as a nursing student or a
>medical student.
Pamela had her listed as a nursing student on her website; we found
reference to both .... later tracked her career path, should have
gotten rid of the nursing and "or" reference. Turns out she was a bit
of a protege' of Crenshaw .... succeeded him as head of surgery or
whatever (no notes in front of me).
>
>She was a second year medical student, and some videos show folks
>standing quite close to the front of the limo.
Yup. Plenty of pics are included in the article. It can be found here:
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=82475&mesg_id=82475&listing_type=search
>
>Vol IV an interesting read!
So I hear! Don't have it yet.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:12:16 -0800, Barb Junkkarinen
LOL!
I like the Ed Forum .... some interesting people there, some broad
experience and thought. They just need more of those people to speak
up .... every forum has that prob, I expect.
Barb :-)
Bud
> On 8 Jan 2010 16:42:39 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15173
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15218
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15217
>
> It seems that our own Pamela McElwain has jumped in to call Tink a
> spook.
>
> <Quote On>
>
> In you come with your wonderful ideas for a book. You have the right
> credentials -- Yale (Bones?), Navy (ONI?), a PhD, and you are tapped
> by the powers that be. They also happen to be the powers behind at
> least the ongoing cover-up, and maybe even the assassination itself.
> That doesn't phase you.
Maybe he is going through a faze.
>You are the golden boy. You are ferried around
> the country for interviews with all the main witnesses. Every door is
> opened to you. You spend countless hours with a very good copy of the
> Z-film. You even feel sorry for the poor researchers at NARA who are
> suffering with slides and film of inferior quality to what you are
> using. You even realize the WC itself was sandbagged by the poor
> quality of slides they had available. Did you call out for a new
> investigation? Did you demand LIFE at least provide researchers with
> as good a copy as you had? Wait -- you were going to head the LIFE
> investigation into the assassination, weren't you? You, the
> super-researcher that had been hand-picked and trained by LIFE. And
> guess who probably gave LIFE the great idea to find a new fresh face
> with credibility with the CTs who could be used to counteract the
> growing current of dissent against the WCR and the govt?
>
> All the time you were in NYC you were apparently oblivious to the
> underground around you. You were at ground zero of the holy grail of
> the assassination and nothing about the film or the slides caused you
> to wonder if it had been altered and if so how. After all these years
> your position has not changed.
>
> <Quote off>
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
> I think it is time for some of this at this forum to
> rally around Josiah Thompson in his hour of need,
> what with these relentless attacks by Fetzer.
> We should have McAdams, Rahn, Davison, Barber,
> Carlier and the other stalwarts rally to his defense.
>
> Yes, we all have disagreed with Thompson on some issues.
> But he has always been civil and a good sport.
> We should put all that behind us and log on to the
> Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure
> he would much appreciate it.
>
> Who is with me?
I would, but they require a photo and I don`t appear on film. Seems
a Den of Retardation anyway.
pjsp...@aol.com
Anthony, Doug Weldon wanted to join the Forum to discuss the limo with
Barb and Logan, and he couldn't get in, so I emailed Simkin and asked him
what was the dealio. He then let Weldon join. Apparently, Andy and John
were behind with new requests, because several other members joined the
same time as Weldon. Anyhow, John said "All your friends and contacts can
join the forum. All they need to do is to send me a photograph and
biography and I will register them."
So the door is open if you want it. Just send a photo and a bio.
Anthony Marsh
He doesn't use his real name in his e-address, nor does he sign his
messages with his real name. And how do you know Joe Elliott is his real
name? Sounds suspicious to me, doubling both the "L" and the "T."
David Von Pein
>>> "He [Joe Elliott] doesn't use his real name in his e-address, nor does he sign his messages with his real name. And how do you know Joe Elliott is his real name? Sounds suspicious to me, doubling both the "L" and the "T." " <<<
You're kidding?! Tony, you're incredible.
"Elliott" with a double-L and double-T is by far the most common way
to spell Joe's last name:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Elliott&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=&fp=4b0e053116aeea03
jfk...@gmail.com
Exactly. In addition, we tend to anticipate that a CT will have an
open mind to consider all information that is available, rather than
doggedly refusing to pull their head out of the sand. And we tend to
expect CTs to be able to explain their logic, and even be persuasuve.
Telling others what to think and demanding they fall in line have
traditionally been LNT stances.
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 8 Jan 2010 16:42:39 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15173
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15218
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15217
>
> >enjoyable to see at times, such as some of the recent battles between
> >Josiah Thompson and Jim Fetzer (linked above).
>
> >Thompson wins each round, but only because nobody in the world can rival
> >Dr. Fetzer in the "Kookiest Of The Conspiracy Kooks" category, whether it
> >be this year or any other year.
>
> >I particularly enjoyed the strained logic of Dr. Fetzer during one portion
> >of his persistent argument in favor of the Zapruder Film having been
> >altered, with Fetzer apparently thinking that during the very brief
> >1.6-second interval when Jean Hill and Mary Moorman are visible in Mr.
> >Zapruder's home movie, ALL of the following things should be seen in the
> >Z-Film:
>
> > "I advance an 11-page study of Jean's [Hill] interview with Len
> >Osanic and thereby establish a convergence in her testimony with that of
> >Mary Moorman, which not only indicates they were in the street at the same
> >time but that, if the Zapruder [Film] were authentic, it would show (a)
> >Mary handing her photos to Jean, (b) Jean coating them with fixative, (c)
> >the limo moving to the left (toward them), (d) Mary and Jean both stepping
> >off the curb and into the street, (e) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!"
> >and all that, (f) Mary taking her picture, (g) both stepping back onto the
> >grass, (h) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (h) [FETZER
> >MEANT TO SAY "I" HERE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK "H" FOLLOWS "H"] Jean
> >remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of
> >which is shown in the film." -- James H. Fetzer; March 27, 2009
>
> >--------------
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15173&hl=Tink
>
> Fetzer attacking Thompson:
>
> <quote on>
>
> Thus, more than forty years after the event, the specifics of your
> position about the assassination are still unanswered. As I have
> observed, it cannot have escaped your notice that the McClelland
> diagram, which appears on page 107 of your book, shows a blow out to
> the rear of the head, while the crucial frames of the film--313
> through 316--show a blow out to the right-front. Surely, as the author
> of a "micro study" of the assassination based upon your study of the
> film, it had to capture your attention. After all, it provides prima
> facie proof that the film is a fabrication. Yet for all these
> intervening years, when the authenticity of the film has been in
> doubt, you have relentlessly attacked research that tends to show it.
> Well, the time has come for you to address the question and explain
> how it is possible that you did not relentlessly pursue this question.
> <quote off>
>
> Yes, that is a fundamental problem with SSID.
>
> The diagram that Tink got McClelland to approve flatly contradicts the
> Z-film.
>
> Fetzer, like Aguilar and other loons, wants to use the diagram to
> impeach the Z-film.
>
> IOW, to do the typical buff thing and impeach more reliable evidence
> with less reliable evidence!
>
> As Tony Marsh has pointed out, when McClelland got to draw his own
> diagram for TMWKK, it was very different.
If Tink, who is an appeaser to the Zapruder films, published a diagram
that contradicts it, doesn't that raise a red flag? Has it occurred
to any of the non-alterationists that even now, after all this time,
nobody seems to know exactly what is going on? LOL.
Sandy McCroskey
> On 1/12/2010 4:50 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "Think folks will bite you if you use your real name, Whiskey Joe?"
> > <<<
>
> > Joe has made his full real name (Joe Elliott) available for everybody here
> > to see. It's right here in his profile, just one easy click away:
>
>
> > So, Joe's not hiding his identity. But even if he did want to hide it, so
> > what? Some LNers hesitate to post using their real names (esp. at the acj
> > asylum). Bud is one such example. He thinks it's much wiser to use an
> > alias, because he never can tell what the "kooks" will do. And I can
> > certainly appreciate and understand that point-of-view (even if I don't
> > practice it myself).
>
> He doesn't use his real name in his e-address, nor does he sign his
> messages with his real name. And how do you know Joe Elliott is his real
> name? Sounds suspicious to me, doubling both the "L" and the "T."
How very interesting that you see something "suspicious" in that...
There are very many people who have the name "Elliott" with two Ls,
two Ts.
(and I mean besides Elliott Abrams, Elliott Gould and all the other
people who have it as a first name).
In the Manhattan phone book there are a few hundred (I can see only
the first hundred right now at Whitepages.com, and #100 is "Elanor T
Elliott").
LOL.
/sm
jfk...@gmail.com
> >>> "We should put all that behind us and log on to the Education Forum and give him our support. I am sure he would much appreciate it." <<<
>
> Sorry.
>
> But I've been trying to get Duncan MacRae to copy-&-paste my top post
> in this thread to the Edu. Forum for Fetzer to see.
>
> I have a hard time believing that Fetzer could possibly believe that
> ALL of the things he thinks should be in the Z-Film (re: Hill &
> Moorman) could be shoehorned into 1.64 seconds of Z-Film space.
>
> Deep down, he cannot possibly really believe such idiocy....can he?
>
> ~shrug~
>
> ADDENDUM:
>
> I'd love to see a few of the LNers here join Simkin's Edu. Forum. (I'd
> really like to see how long they last before their common sense gets
> them kicked out of the place by Simkin.)
Simkin is pretty mellow; I would think you would have had to really cross
a line to actually get kicked out of there.
How anyone can objectely examine all the information we have about the
Zapruder films and not ask questions is beyond me. Is this just a giant
shell-game, or a hoax? Don't you want to know?
jfk...@gmail.com
What is visible on this version of the Z-films is much larger than and of
different composition and shape than what is shown on the autopsy photos.
Ironic, that the autopsy photos, whose provenance has also been
questioned, were not available to the WC, so they were not able to make
that comparison for themselves.
Bud
Usually they exhibit no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
> And we tend to
> expect CTs to be able to explain their logic, and even be persuasuve.
> Telling others what to think and demanding they fall in line have
> traditionally been LNT stances.
We aren`t fans of the "anything that pops into your head is valid"
school of thinking.
David Von Pein
>>> "[John] Simkin [the top dog at "The Education Forum"] is pretty
mellow; I would think you would have had to really cross a line to
actually get kicked out of there." <<<
LOL. Oh, come now "Pam". You aren't really that naive, are you? No LNer
lasts very long there. Ask Brendan Slattery.
AFAIK, there isn't a single LNer posting there right now. At least not any
regular posters that I have seen. Not one.
To be perfectly clear (and fair) here:
I was ejected from Simkin's forum in July of 2006 (after posting for 4
days), and "officially" the reason I was given for my dismissal was
because I had not added a photograph of myself to my profile. (John has a
rule where every member who posts at the Edu. Forum must have a photo of
himself/herself; it "personalizes" the experience for other readers, per
Mr. Simkin.)
Several other long-time members as of that time (in July 2006) were not
complying with the "photo" rule, which I pointed out to John Simkin, which
made John crack down on the rule immediately after my joining. He had been
lax in enforcing the rule up to that time.
I was e-mailing John back and forth a couple of times, trying to work out
a compromise of some kind regarding the "personal photo" rule, because I
did not have a photo of myself that I could use at all. (And I still don't
have one to this day.)
If I recall correctly, John seemed to be willing to compromise (of sorts)
on the picture rule for a certain period of time, allowing me to possibly
use a "filler" picture until I could obtain and upload a decent picture of
myself (which ain't easy with a mug like mine). ;)
So, I continued to post for 2 more days (posting lots of actual evidence
and cites from the witnesses and common sense, etc.), when suddenly I was
banned from the forum permanently via a very short and terse e-mail from
Mr. Simkin.
So, make of that what you will. But, IMO, the brevity of my stay at The
Education Forum was based more on the "LN" content of my posts than it was
the silly "Photo" rule.
YMMV.
>>> "How anyone can objectely examine all the information we have about
the Zapruder films and not ask questions is beyond me." <<<
Well, "Pamela", you and all other people who even BEGIN to suspect that
Abraham Zapruder's home movie has been "faked" or "tampered with" SHOULD
be asking yourself the $64,000 question (to which there is no logical and
reasonable and SANE answer whatsoever if the film was faked to ELIMINATE
ALL SIGNS OF A CONSPIRACY; and what other possible reason could there be
for anybody to want to fake the film other than that?):
WHY IS THE REAR HEAD SNAP STILL VISIBLE IN EVERY SINGLE COPY OF
THE ZAPRUDER FILM THAT EXISTS TO THIS DAY?
I await a logical, reasonable, and BELIEVABLE answer to the above
inquiry.
To date, I've yet to hear such an answer.
Ray
[You] SHOULD be asking yourself the $64,000 question (to which there
is no logical and
reasonable and SANE answer whatsoever if the film was faked to
ELIMINATE
ALL SIGNS OF A CONSPIRACY;
WHY IS THE REAR HEAD SNAP STILL VISIBLE IN EVERY SINGLE COPY OF THE
ZAPRUDER FILM THAT EXISTS TO THIS DAY?
David: So you admit that the HEAD SNAP is POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY?
slats
news:31c383df-2cf1-413c...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
Never should have used my real name over there. Simkin's not entitled to
that kind of information anyway. Unless you're hopelessly paranoid,
there's no good reason why forum members can't discuss this controversy
intelligently behind aliases. And Lord knows using my real name didn't
deter others from impugning my "motives" (whatever that means) or accusing
me of being a paid disinformation agent (LOL). Thank God I submitted a
fake photo.
Anthony Marsh
Oh please. Stop trying to flatter me. You'll ruin my reputation. It's
not that I am shocked or annoyed by the kooky theories. It's just so
boring when we've discussed them and debunked them a few million times
over the last few years.
David Von Pein
>>> "David: So you admit that the HEAD SNAP is POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY?" <<<
On simply "kneejerk" and "uninformed about the overall facts" levels
-- yes.
That rear head snap as seen in the Zapruder Film is certainly the #1
thing that led to the formation of the HSCA in 1976. Without doubt.
And yet many conspiracists seem to think that the film that Bob Groden
showed to the world in March 1975 on ABC-TV is a FAKED FILM -- i.e.,
it's a film that was manipulated by conspirators long before 1975 in
order to get rid of all notions that people might have that would
suggest that President Kennedy was shot from the front!!
Those film-fakers were idiots, weren't they?
There are only three letters left to write here:
LOL.
WhiskyJoe
Joe Eliot is my real name. I just use Joe Elliott
as an alias to throw people off. Arguing over my
name is fine. I just hope I don't have what happened
to Thompson and have people start arguing that I
am not really a LNer.
WhiskyJoe
> Exactly. In addition, we tend to anticipate that
> a CT will have an open mind to consider all
> information that is available, rather than
> doggedly refusing to pull their head out of the sand.
Exactly where are these CTers?
Over at the Education Forum?
> And we tend to expect CTs to be able to explain their
> logic, and even be persuasuve.
I am still waiting for a logical explanation of
the anti SBT diagrams used by Wecht,
> Telling others what to think and demanding they
> fall in line have traditionally been LNT stances.
Fetzer and his allies are telling everyone
what to think about Thompson. To them there
is no debate.
pjsp...@aol.com
As I recall, Brendan, you weren't kicked out for being an LN, but for
repeatedly attacking Jack White, including declaring that you could
hardly wait for him to die. Not exactly civil.
I also recall that on more than one occasion you received support from
CTs. As I recall, I ended up siding with you in a discussion of the
Secret Service. So it's not exactly honest to portray the Forum as a
CT circle jerk, to which no LN is welcome.
While it's true there are few LNs over there, most LNs who were
members, like Mel Ayton, simply ran away after getting kicked around a
bit. There are, however, a couple of high-profile agnostics, including
Evan Burton, Craig Lamson and Len Colby, who devote themselves not to
arguing conspiracy/no conspiracy, but to arguing against what they
perceive to be wackiness in the CT community. They provide the forum a
balance it might otherwise lack.
It was this very balance, in fact, that led to a mass defection of die-
hard CTs a year or so ago. They couldn't stand these agnostics' near-
constant attacks on White and/or Fetzer, and ran off to start the Deep
Politics Forum--a Forum devoted to the belief that conspiracy has
already been proven and is therefore not worth arguing about, and that
the only remaining questions are who did it and why.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 13, 5:58 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> [You] SHOULD be asking yourself the $64,000 question (to which there
> is no logical and
> reasonable and SANE answer whatsoever if the film was faked to
> ELIMINATE
> ALL SIGNS OF A CONSPIRACY;
>
> WHY IS THE REAR HEAD SNAP STILL VISIBLE IN EVERY SINGLE COPY OF THE
> ZAPRUDER FILM THAT EXISTS TO THIS DAY?
>
Because they could count on paid disinformation agents to argue it away.
Anthony Marsh
Because you seeing the glare.
jfk...@gmail.com
It hardly looks like *glare*, more like a big pulsating extra
brain...certainly bears no resemblance to anything in the autopy
photos that I have seen...
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 1/12/2010 10:08 PM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11 Jan 2010 21:13:27 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Certainly the Z-films should be able to stand up to scrutiny, not to
mention the asking of rather obvious questions?
slats
news:2d90ad42-6b44-4706...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 13, 7:26?pm, slats <o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote
>> innews:31c383df-2cf1-413c-991f
> -fb813e...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>> > ? ? ? WHY IS THE REAR HEAD SNAP STILL VISIBLE IN EVERY SINGLE COP
> Y OF
>> > THE ZAPRUDER FILM THAT EXISTS TO THIS DAY?
>>
>> > I await a logical, reasonable, and BELIEVABLE answer to the above
>> > inquiry.
>>
>> > To date, I've yet to hear such an answer.
>>
>> >http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/zapruder.html
>>
>> Never should have used my real name over there. Simkin's not entitled
>> to that kind of information anyway. Unless you're hopelessly
>> paranoid, there's no good reason why forum members can't discuss this
>> controversy intelligently behind aliases. And Lord knows using my
>> real name didn't deter others from impugning my "motives" (whatever
>> that means) or accusing
>> me of being a paid disinformation agent (LOL). Thank God I submitted
>> a fake photo.
>
> As I recall, Brendan, you weren't kicked out for being an LN, but for
> repeatedly attacking Jack White, including declaring that you could
> hardly wait for him to die. Not exactly civil.
>
> I also recall that on more than one occasion you received support from
> CTs. As I recall, I ended up siding with you in a discussion of the
> Secret Service. So it's not exactly honest to portray the Forum as a
> CT circle jerk, to which no LN is welcome.
I see you dabble in revisionist history. We've been over this before, Pat,
so let me recycle a post of mine from a few months ago:
Whom did I accuse of exhibiting signs of Alzheimer's? Jack White? The man
who serially and bizarrely accused me of being a "paid provocateur"? The
man who sees a Sherman Tank in every Dealey Plaza snapshot? If so, I'd say
I'm on pretty solid ground with that diagnosis. Please note that detecting
signs of encroaching senility is not the equivalent of "wishing death"
upon someone. Moreover, if personal attacks are verboten, then I hope that
Bill Kelly is no longer a member in good standing, because the snarling
senior citizen once threatened physical violence against me. Naturally,
lone nutters like David and myself were held to a radically different
standards. But what do you expect from a place that's about as fair as a
Soviet show trial?
In short, if CT smear merchants like White and Kelly are still active
members whose posts aren't "screened" or "reviewed" for approval before
they show up on the forum, then Simkin has some explaining to do.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Has it occurred to you that what you see in frame captured from a film
at and immediately after a bullet opened up someone's head will also
show material exiting that wound, hanging onto and falling off of that
wound too?
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Amen to that. Pamela is getting more and more out there on the Zfilm
given her recent trend on the Ed forum.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Tink has considered more information in his decades of deep
involvement in this research than you and I and any number of other
people will collectively see in our lifetimes. You can't explain your
logic on anything, and fall far short of being persuasive on anything
.... but then you keep your head in the sand and eax on airily, so
that is really hard to assess, I reckon. Telling people what to think,
or else they don't measure up to what you consider is a good CT, is
your stock in trade. What nonsense. Perhaps you can take the lead in
showing us how to get one's had out of the sand by thoughtfully
considering what others have to offer and persuading us with your
reasoning.
But that is not what you do. Ever!
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
The people who have bothered to actually address the questions raised
about the Z film want to know. You don't listen. You don't evaluate.
Lord knows you never reach a conclusion or express an opinion ... not
on the evidence issue anyway. You just express opinions, mostly cast
aspersions, on people who do these things. Is there some value in that
for the research community that we are all missing?
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
My theory is that someday, somewhere, some eye doctor is going to
discover that you have some sort of red flag shaped anomaly in your
eye. Gotta be. You see nothing but "red flags" ... everywhere.
pjfk
> On 1/12/2010 1:07 AM, jfk2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 8:13 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/11/2010 5:00 PM, pjfk wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 10, 2:34 pm, WhiskyJoe<jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Also, Simkin has pretty much accused me of being a
> >>>>> CIA spook, so I'm not keen on giving any support to
> >>>>> his forum.
>
> >>>> I'm sure any of us who supported Thompson at Simkin
> >>>> would be pegged as a CIA spook, if we aren't already.
>
> >>>> Of course, maybe Thompson is a spook. How else could
> >>>> he have cycled that Carcano rifle at an impossibly
> >>>> fast rate.
>
> >>>>> But if anybody wants to go over there and intervene,
> >>>>> more power to them.
>
> >>>> I would support him, but he has never done me any harm,
> >>>> so I won't.
>
> >>>>> but if I did, I would e-mail him and tell him he
> >>>>> demeans himself either bothering with the crazies
> >>>>> on the Simkin forum.
>
> >>>> is. His points about the Zapruder alteration theory
> >>>> were rather good. He can think rationally.
>
> >>>> But though Fetzer and perhaps Thompson do demean
> >>>> themselves, they do make the world a brighter place.
>
> >>> LIFE/CIA certainly created an elite researcher in Tink, whether he was
> >>> aware of what was going on around him or not. To have him on the LNT side
> >>> would not be controversial at all -- it is his insistence on trying to
> >>> play ball as a CT that causes some of us to ask questions.
>
> >>> How anyone can spend so much time looking at the Zapruder and not wonder
> >>> where 'the blob' came from I can't imagine. I also wonder how someone in
>
>
> > Well, that 'extra brain' that flops out of JFK's head after Z313.
> > Please tell me you have noticed it.
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z335.jpg
>
> You are pulling a Cooper. You see something and you don't know what it
> is so you jump to conclusions.
I beg to differ. I see something on this version of a Z-film that I
do not recall from the screening in 1964 and I am asking questions.
I am currently using the MPI scans from the Costella site. I agree
that they are not very detailed.
> There is no "blob" there.
What is the provenance of the version of the Z-films are you using?
What would you like to call a flesh-colored mass that covers the right
side of JFK's face? How can you equate that with the small flap of
one or two-inches of skin that appears in the autopsy photos?
>
>[...]
Anthony Marsh
Which is why I said that the conspiracy believers have more to fear from
the WC defenders.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Exactly. In addition, we tend to anticipate that
>> a CT will have an open mind to consider all
>> information that is available, rather than
>> doggedly refusing to pull their head out of the sand.
>
> Exactly where are these CTers?
> Over at the Education Forum?
>
>> And we tend to expect CTs to be able to explain their
>> logic, and even be persuasuve.
>
> I am still waiting for a logical explanation of
> the anti SBT diagrams used by Wecht,
>
Logical explanation? He used what he had available, which at the time
was not precise. Neither are the WC defender diagrams. Pot-kettle.
Anthony Marsh
Well, it wouldn't be the first time that conspirators were idiots and
overlooked the obvious, like the guy who fooled the CIA with the fake
letters from Niger. Or the Nixon/Ruby memo from 1954 with the Zip code in
the address.
And they could count on useful idiots to argue away any hint of
conspiracy.
Robert Harris
David, there is no doubt about the existence of massive damage to the
BOH. And you don't have to trust McClelland or anyone else. Your best
witness is David Von Pein.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
When that area was fully laid open, there was a godawful mess that
made it nearly impossible for even experienced doctors to pinpoint the
location of the damage.
Read what Boswell said about it in his testimony to the ARRB.
You need to absord that David, before you summon the courage to deal
with the fact that that damage did NOT occur at 313.
Robert Harris
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:23:17 -0600, John McAdams
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 8 Jan 2010 16:42:39 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Joe Eliot is my real name. I just use Joe Elliott as an alias to
throw people off." <<<
LOL!
David Von Pein
>>> "Because they could count on paid disinformation agents to argue it
[the rear head snap] away." <<<
Why in the world Tony Marsh is answering my question regarding the "rear
head snap" is anyone's guess, since that question was aimed only at CTers
who think the Z-Film has been faked.
Have you turned into a "Z-Film Alterationist", Anthony?
If not, then who is the "they" in your above sentence?
David Von Pein
>>> "You need to absor[b] that David, before you summon the courage to
deal with the fact that that damage did NOT occur at 313." <<<
Forgive me, but I can't help but do this right now:
LOL!!!
&
ROFL!!!
"Summon the courage."
(LOL reprise.)
pjfk
> David, there is no doubt about the existence of massive damage to the
> BOH. And you don't have to trust McClelland or anyone else. Your best
> witness is David Von Pein.
>
> http://www.jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
>
> When that area was fully laid open, there was a godawful mess that
> made it nearly impossible for even experienced doctors to pinpoint the
This closeup of Z337 shows what I am calling 'the blob' pretty
clearly, in addition to what looks like the absense of the BOH.
Anthony is attempting to equate this large area of quivering
jellyfishlike-flesh to the small flap that is visible in the autopsy
photos:
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/kennedy-side.jpg
Pamela
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Because they could count on paid disinformation agents to argue it
> [the rear head snap] away."<<<
>
> Why in the world Tony Marsh is answering my question regarding the "rear
> head snap" is anyone's guess, since that question was aimed only at CTers
> who think the Z-Film has been faked.
>
I think someone asked a hypothetical question about why would anyone want
to alter the Zapruder film when it shows the backwards head movement. So I
answered that hypothetical question. It's hard to tell when you
intentionally snip out the context. That's one of your favorite tactics to
misrepresent.
> Have you turned into a "Z-Film Alterationist", Anthony?
>
You make a common mistake. Just because I can explain why someone would do
something does not mean I believe they did it. For example I can explain
why a WC defender might want to tell the truth some day, but that does not
mean that I think he will.
> If not, then who is the "they" in your above sentence?
>
>
They are the conspirators if the hypothetical argument is about the
conspirators altering the Zapruder film or the cover-up if that is who is
supposed to alter the Zapruder film.
pjfk
There are a number of people on the Ed Forum toeing the party line on
issues such as the sanctity of the Z-film, and even a hardy few determined
to shut down all of Fetzer's research, and none of them are being booted.
They are either just barely tolerated or ignored.
Perhaps you need to at least pretend to compromise on one or two of your
positions, and then you could join the crowd as a 'sheep-in-
wolves-clothing', so to speak.
Of course, you'd have to change your name. Or use your real name.
Robert Harris
wrote:
>
>
Yes, David. And you corroborate my accusation by snipping the questions
that you are evading.
Also, you need to be clear about what you are trying to ridicule. Are you
claiming that there was no damage in the BOH, as we see here?
http://www.jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
Or that you believe this damage was inflicted at 313?
Have you considered the amount of force that was required to blowup major
portions of the skull? Do you honestly believe that the broken skullpiece
at the top of the head, resisted that force, but not the forces that
followed??
Robert Harris
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 15 Jan 2010 15:53:59 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>>> "You need to absor[b] that David, before you summon the courage to
>>deal with the fact that that damage did NOT occur at 313." <<<
>>
>>Forgive me, but I can't help but do this right now:
>>
>>LOL!!!
>>
>>&
>>
>>ROFL!!!
>>
>>"Summon the courage."
>>
>>(LOL reprise.)
>>
>
>Yes, David. And you corroborate my accusation by snipping the questions
>that you are evading.
>
>Also, you need to be clear about what you are trying to ridicule. Are you
>claiming that there was no damage in the BOH, as we see here?
>
>http://www.jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
>
>Or that you believe this damage was inflicted at 313?
>
There is no damage visible at Z-337, Bob.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
What screening in 1964?
> I am currently using the MPI scans from the Costella site. I agree
> that they are not very detailed.
>
>> There is no "blob" there.
>
> What is the provenance of the version of the Z-films are you using?
>
The MPI release and Groden's.
> What would you like to call a flesh-colored mass that covers the right
> side of JFK's face? How can you equate that with the small flap of
> one or two-inches of skin that appears in the autopsy photos?
>
An optical illusion. Just as Cooper sees the light reflecting off the
top of Kellerman's head and claims it's a gun.
I didn't say anything about skin. I said the piece of skull sticking out.
>>
>> [...]
>
Anthony Marsh
That's what an optical illusion is.
pjfk
Did you read "SS-100-X" in the copy of CAR CRASH CULTURE I sent you?
I talk about it there.
>
> > I am currently using the MPI scans from the Costella site. I agree
> > that they are not very detailed.
>
> >> There is no "blob" there.
>
> > What is the provenance of the version of the Z-films are you using?
>
> The MPI release and Groden's.
Thanks. Is Groden's more clear? The MPI frames don't seem to zoom
well.