info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fetzer and his chiropractor buddy, humiliating themselves at the EF
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Len Colby
May 16, 2012, 11:38:10 PM5/16/12
to
EF
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19099
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19089
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19084
Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19099
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19089
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19084
Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
Ace Kefford
May 18, 2012, 9:37:32 AM5/18/12
to
On May 16, 11:38 pm, Len Colby <lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19099http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19089http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19084
by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
> EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19099http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19089http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19084
>
> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
Definitely similar posting on JFKLancer, but very effectively refuted
> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
Anthony Marsh
May 18, 2012, 10:28:19 AM5/18/12
to
WC defender. Fetzer devoted a whole web page to calling me a professional
disinformation agent just because I pointed out a typo in his book, which
Mantik later confirmed needed to be correction. The guy threatened to sue
me and beat me up for daring to correct him.
aeffects
May 18, 2012, 1:16:49 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 7:28 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
...
beating for a while now... get a grip!
...
The guy threatened to sue
> me and beat me up for daring to correct him.
yeah sure he did, yeah un-huh.... c'mon Marsh you've been taking a
> me and beat me up for daring to correct him.
beating for a while now... get a grip!
aeffects
May 18, 2012, 7:32:00 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 6:37 am, Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 11:38 pm, Len Colby <lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
> On May 16, 11:38 pm, Len Colby <lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> Definitely similar posting on JFKLancer, but very effectively refuted
> by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
> believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
> solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
ahh Lancer, that bastion of conspiracy believers JFKLancer (warmed over
> > Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> Definitely similar posting on JFKLancer, but very effectively refuted
> by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
> believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
> solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
AAJ) this board alt.conspiracy.jfk is the LAST place for unfettered,
denunciation of the WCR. And all the lone nut, SBT, WCR supporting trolls
can do is whine... Carry on!
aeffects
May 18, 2012, 7:32:21 PM5/18/12
to
On May 16, 8:38 pm, Len Colby <lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19099http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19089http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19084
'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
around here FAILED to do?
> EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19099http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19089http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19084
>
> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
perhaps Len instead of advertising you can do the 45 questions,
> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
around here FAILED to do?
Jason Burke
May 18, 2012, 7:41:12 PM5/18/12
to
water YEARS ago.
Come up with some more nonsense. Please?
Ben Holmes
May 18, 2012, 9:39:15 PM5/18/12
to
In article <77ac27a8-f80a-4b00...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
He's crossposting, but he doesn't dare show up in this forum. Too many people
know the lies he's told.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
aeffects says...
know the lies he's told.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Sam McClung
May 19, 2012, 9:26:41 AM5/19/12
to
imagine the wee ones having to go to an uncensored university! (shudder)
isn't democrazy wunnerful?
isn't democrazy wunnerful?
Sam McClung
May 19, 2012, 9:30:02 AM5/19/12
to
oh no!
an uncensored university!
free thought!
run!
(not heard at mu, ever)
an uncensored university!
free thought!
run!
(not heard at mu, ever)
LenBrazil
May 19, 2012, 12:26:56 PM5/19/12
to
On May 18, 7:32 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 8:38 pm, Len Colby <lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
> On May 16, 8:38 pm, Len Colby <lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> perhaps Len instead of advertising you can do the 45 questions,
> 'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
> around here FAILED to do?
Still waiting for you to find an expert who what you and your buddies
> > Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> perhaps Len instead of advertising you can do the 45 questions,
> 'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
> around here FAILED to do?
proposed would have been possible in 1963
LenBrazil
May 19, 2012, 12:27:03 PM5/19/12
to
On May 18, 7:32 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
>
> > Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> perhaps Len instead of advertising you can do the 45 questions,
> 'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
> around here FAILED to do?
So Davy you've been strangely silent on the EF, why don't you come to
> > Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> perhaps Len instead of advertising you can do the 45 questions,
> 'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
> around here FAILED to do?
Fetzer's defense? And if you disagree Why don't you say so?
Anthony Marsh
May 19, 2012, 9:40:24 PM5/19/12
to
About what?
Anthony Marsh
May 19, 2012, 9:40:32 PM5/19/12
to
Len Colby
May 20, 2012, 11:36:20 AM5/20/12
to
made to Z-film. Do you dispute that?
Len Colby
May 20, 2012, 11:36:27 AM5/20/12
to
On May 19, 9:40 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
David normally acts as the professor's guard dog over at the EF, so he
is conspicuous by his absence on the Cinque circus there.
Anthony Marsh
May 20, 2012, 7:00:14 PM5/20/12
to
and one of few who explain in detail why the alterationist proposals are
ridiculous.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/zapruder.htm
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/amateurs.htm
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/anomalies.htm
Get back to me AFTER you have read all three articles.
Ben Holmes
May 20, 2012, 7:22:47 PM5/20/12
to
In article <4fb96051$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
make "ridiculous" proposals.
Right below I've included the complete post where I demolish one of his website
articles.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/zapruder.htm
>
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/amateurs.htm
>
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/anomalies.htm
>
>Get back to me AFTER you have read all three articles.
Get back to me, Tony Marsh, AFTER you've responded to this:
This is a golden oldie that should be reposted for all to read... at the time
this was posted, Tony was still pretending to be a CT'er. I might point out that
Tony has provably ran from this post. Here's a link to the original post, so
everyone can see that *TONY MARSH* ran like a yellow coward...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1af1686e976e94a
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony has posted the following on his website... I thought it would be a good
idea to critique it here:
************************************************************
Mantik's Misuse of Witnesses Who Said That the Limousine Stopped
On page 274 of the book Assassination Science Dr. David Mantik uses a list of
witnesses to advance the notion that the limousine had stopped on Elm Street and
because we can not see that happen in the Zapruder film that therefore the
Zapruder film must have been edited. There are several problems with that
argument. First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before
or after Zapruder had filmed the limousine.
************************************************************
It's silly to think that it could have been *after* Zapruder stopped filming the
limousine - that argument isn't worth the words to debate. But the argument
that the limo may have stopped *before* Zapruder started filming is worth
debunking...
Charles Brehm: "...almost came to a halt AFTER THE FIRST SHOT..."
Erle Brown: "...WHEN THE SHOTS WERE FIRED it [the car] stopped."
James Chaney: "AFTER THE FIRST SHOT RANG OUT, the car stopped completely"
J.W. Foster: "IMMEDIATELY AFTER [JFK] WAS STRUCK... the car... pulled to the
curb."
Robert MacNeill: "The President's driver slammed on the brakes - AFTER THE THIRD
SHOT"
Bill Newman: "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop AFTER THE FINAL SHOT"
There's more, but that should be enough to make Tony's argument complete
nonsense. *ALL* the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two. Does Tony argue that
the first shot was before Zapruder captures the limo in his film???
********************************************************
Zapruder only started picking up the limousine at Z-133, so if the limousine had
stopped prior to Z-133, his film would not have shown it.
*******************************************************
In other words, Tony has to argue that the first shot was *BEFORE* Z-133.
How silly!!
*************************************************************
From Z-1 to Z-132 Zapruder had only filmed the lead cycles, mistakenly thinking
that the motorcade was about to round the corner from Houston onto Elm Street.
When he realized his mistake, he stopped filming at Z-132 and began filming
again when he actually saw the Presidential limousine coming down Elm Street
which started the continuous sequence at Z-133.
*************************************************************
And yet, eyewitnesses to the early Z-Film describe the limo turn on to Elm.
Another eyewitness discrepancy with the current Z-Film;
Dan Rather: Well let me tell you then, give you a word picture of the motion
picture that we have just seen. The President's automobile which was proceeded
by only one other car containing Secret Service Agents ... the President's open
black Lincoln automobile ... made a turn, a left turn off of Houston Street in
Dallas onto Elm Street, this was right on the fringe area of the downtown area.
This left turn was made right below the window from which the shot was fired ...
as the car made the turn completed the turn went below the window from which
this shot was fired ... went on past the building keep in mind the window was on
the sixth floor ...
In another broadcast: Dan Rather: "The films show President Kennedy's open,
black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the
fringe of downtown Dallas, a left turn made just below the window in which the
assassin was waiting."
I'll leave it to lurkers to spot the "errors" in this description.
It might be worth pointing out that Dan Rather does *NOT* state that the limo
slowed or stopped... he several times made that point.
Dan Rather: The car never stopped, it never paused.
**************************************************************
If Zapruder had filmed continuously from the time he saw the lead cycles, he
feared that he would run out of film before he could have filmed the limousine
going down Elm Street. There is no indication that there was an edit between
Z-132 and Z-133 and every indication that there was not an edit at that time.
***************************************************************
Tony doesn't admit any evidence of editing in this film anyway...
***************************************************************
Other films and photos taken from other angles do not show the limousine
stopping before Z-133. Could the limousine have stopped after Zapruder stopped
filming? Yes, but such a stop would not advance Mantik's argument. If the
limousine had stopped inside the triple underpass, it could not have been seen
from Zapruder's viewpoint. Thus there would have been nothing on his film to
edit out. Films and photos taken from other angles show that the limousine did
not stop in the underpass.
****************************************************************
A silly point, that doesn't really deserve any response.
****************************************************************
Another problem with Mantik's approach is that eyewitness testimony is
unreliable.
****************************************************************
This, of course, is a basic LNT'er argument, one that has been disproven in the
studies on eyewitness testimony.
As Elizabeth Loftus, in Eyewitness Testimony, showed that when subjects
considered what they were observing to be significant, they were 98% accurate
and 98% complete with respect to their observations.
Common sense also negates such a silly argument. A necessary one, of course,
since if you believe what the eyewitnesses said they saw and heard, you'd be
forced to admit a conspiracy that day.
The idea that eyewitness testimony is unreliable - but we just happen to have a
few dozen eyewitnesses saying basically the same thing... well, I'm glad that
*I'm* not on that side of the argument...
*******************************************************
One can simply not point out a statement by a witness and accept that as
absolute proof of a fact. It needs to be corroborated,
**********************************************************
And many of the eyewitness accounts indeed corroborated each other.
*********************************************************
especially with physical evidence such as photographic evidence.
*********************************************************
Which, as Tony well knows, is not accepted above eyewitness testimony in a court
of law *UNLESS* it has been corroborated by eyewitnesses.
Anyone who's ever watched a Hollywood movie knows how easily photographs and
videos can reflect imagination, rather than reality.
***********************************************************
And some authors, in their haste to prove a pre-conceived conclusion,
***********************************************************
It might be worth the time to examine Tony's "pre-conceived conclusions" about
this book. I'll detail his own words down below...
*************************************************************
misuse the eyewitness testimony they select, or select only the eyewitness
testimony which supports their conclusion. For example, Mantik quotes both
motorcycle officers Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped. But
Baker was only stating what Chaney had told him, as Sylvia Meagher points out in
her book Accessories After the Fact on page 4, which is quoted here:
4 ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT
Lane's allegation about Chaney is corroborated in the testimony of another
motorcycle officer, M. L. Baker. Baker testified on March 24, 1964 that his
fellow officer, James Chaney, had told him:
He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at the time
the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up
and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men
were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from
the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to
the left and stopped. . . . Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it
stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely. (3H 266)
**********************************************
Yep... no doubt a poor use of testimony... Unfortunately for Tony, a single
solitary 'hearsay' corroboration won't rebut the tremendous numbers of
eyewitnesses that reported a slowdown/stop of the limo.
************************************************
There is nothing wrong with the use of such hearsay to corroborate Chaney's
statement, but it is a misuse of research method to cite both as separate
witnesses to the same fact.
************************************************
Yep... one of the few statements that Tony has made that I agree with
whole-heartedly. Accurate citation is all that's needed to prove conspiracy.
****************************************************
One could easily puff up the number of witnesses by adding in everyone who had
heard the original witnesses state something. But why would Mantik need to use
Baker's hearsay when he quotes Chaney's statement and even cites it as Warren
Commission (WC) testimony? Because Chaney NEVER testified before the Warren
Commission.
**************************************************
Something, I might point out, that LNT'ers run away from when I ask them to
defend this.
The *CLOSEST* non-limo eyewitness, never testifies... how can this be defended?
Not even Tony will dare to defend this.
******************************************************
The reference to the WC hearings at (3H221) is totally fictitious. When you look
at page 275, you can see that (3H221) is Truly's WC testimony, which does not
even mention Chaney. It appears that the attribution of (3H221) to Chaney was a
simple tabulation error.
******************************************************
Actually, a poor use of citation, no doubt, but it *does* illustrate what Chaney
went on to say: "Now I have heard several of them say that Mr. Truly was
standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped
completely"
The citation does indeed refer to Mr. Truly's observation that the limo stopped.
So although it's certainly unclear here, and a poor use of citation without
Chaney's *full* comments; anyone who was *truly* trying to find the truth would
figure out what went on here.
********************************************************
Either Mantik or his source probably just wrote down the wrong citation on
separate lists and did not carefully compare and fact check them. If the error
was Mantik's then we should expect a quick and simple correction. If Mantik had
merely copied someone else's error, this points up one major problem in this
area of research. Too many researchers make the mistake of taking for granted
the "facts" presented by a fellow researcher who happens to belong to the same
clique, without bothering to double-check the facts for themselves.
**********************************************************
This brings to mind the infamous double burn parties by Dr. Humes, which, of
course, Tony has *NEVER* cited for or corrected. Tony repeatedly asserted that
Dr. Humes had burned paperwork on both Saturday morning (for which there is *NO*
evidence), and Sunday (for which there is.)
Tony has, to this day, refused to retract or cite for his lie.
**************************************************************
They don't want to risk angering fellow clique members by questioning their
work. This is how simple errors are perpetuated into "facts." Another common
misuse of eyewitness testimony is to misquote or quote out of context what the
witness actually said, in order to create a false impression. Mantik, as well as
others, has done this with the testimony of Patrolman Brown. He only quotes the
portion of WC testimony where Brown said, "when the shots were fired, it
stopped." (6H233) Mantik should have included the next few sentences where Brown
backed off that absolute statement and could only state for sure that the
limousine slowed down:
Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped. . . . After
it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.
Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?
Brown: That, I couldn't swear to.
Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?
Brown: Yes; slowed down. (6H 233)
So, in his zeal to puff up the list of witnesses, Mantik has included people who
did not actually state that they had seen the limousine stop.
********************************************************
Rather dishonestly, Tony doesn't admit that Mantik isn't arguing that the limo
*stopped*. He's arguing, and allow me to *QUOTE* his words: "All of these
comments are in obvious conflict with the film. No abrupt slowing of the
limousine in seen and it certainly does not stop."
Mantik quotes those who said it stopped, AS WELL AS those who said it only
slowed down.
Mantik is *NOT* arguing solely that the limo stopped. He's arguing that what
eyewitnesses report - a slowdown OR a stop, is not seen in the film.
And, he *makes* that point. Tony has only two defenses, both of which he's
used... that the Z-Film doesn't show the slowdown/stop because it occurred
before or after Zapruder filmed - (Demolished by the actual testimony)
or that eyewitnesses are "unreliable". Despite the fact that so many testified
or asserted virtually the same thing. Tony evidently believes that there was a
conspiracy of eyewitnesses, or a mass hallucination...
************************************************************
Yes, several people stated that they saw the limousine stop, but not as many as
Mantik has suggested.
***********************************************************
Several??? Tony himself puts the number as 14! That's just a tad more than
"several".
Again, a rather dishonest use of Mantik's actual words. He *NEVER* attempted
the argument based on a limo stop - but rather on what the eyewitnesses ACTUALLY
said, which was a slowdown OR a stop. Mantik is being accurate, Tony is
dishonestly slanting the argument.
**************************************************************
And we already know from other witness statements that some witnesses were
simply mistaken when they stated that they saw something, such as Jean Hill
seeing a dog in the back seat of the limousine.
**************************************************************
Factoids like this keep zooming around the LNT'er community, even when they've
been overturned:
----------------------------------------
1. The "white, fluffy dog."
Many in the critical community had also dismissed this part of Ms. Hill's
story, and so Wallace Milam startled quite a few people at the 1993 ASK
conference when he showed two video sequences taken at Love Field
documenting the presence of a "white, fluffy dog" in the Presidential
limousine!
The first sequence showed the President and his wife from the rear, shaking
hands with the crowd; a young girl reaches up and hands Jackie a white,
stuffed dog. The second sequence is taken from the driver's side of the
limousine as Jackie enters, gripping the stuffed dog along with the roses
in her hand; she sets both down on the seat between herself and her
husband, says something to him, and he looks down at the seat. Following
this, I searched through photos taken at Love Field, and found that the
stuffed dog also partly appears in a color photo taken by a UPI
photographer (which appears in cropped form on the cover of Mr. Posner's
book). I would say this is indicative that Ms. Hill was rather sharp-eyed
rather than undermining her other testimony. - Martin Shackelford
---------------------------------------
**********************************************************
Another problem in this research area is when an author misuses other
researchers' work. The way that Mantik characterizes Vince Palamara's article
from The Third Decade (page 51) leaves the impression that Palamara claimed (and
that Mantik concurs) there were at least 48 witnesses who said that the
limousine stopped on Elm Street. This is incorrect.
*********************************************************
Of *course* it's incorrect. It's a lie. Mantik, as I've already quoted, is
*NOT* arguing that the limo stopped. He's arguing, correctly, that many
eyewitnesses asserted that the limo SLOWED *OR* STOPPED.
I invite everyone to grab their copy of Assassination Science, and review pages
273-276.
Then, ponder Tony's own words: "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."
Just like the Warren Commission, Tony already had his mind made up, and cannot
judge the arguments objectively. His only goal is to rip apart the book, and
must, as a result, employ dishonest arguments to do so.
***************************************************************
When you actually read Vince's article for yourself, you can see that Vince
clearly admits at the beginning of the article that he is lumping together ALL
witnesses, including some who said that the limo had come to a complete stop,
some who said that the limo had slowed down, and those who said that the limo
did not accelerate until after the head shot. Mantik did not dare to quote
Vince's article so that you could find this out for yourself. I will:
***************************************************************
Tony did not *dare* to quote Assassination Science accurately, so I encourage
everyone to review for themselves just what Mantik was saying.
******************************************************************
". . . the vast number of witnesses who testified that the Presidential
limousine, driven by veteran Secret Service driver William R. Greer,
slowed, stopped or, at the very least, failed to accelerate until only
after the fatal head shot had found its mark."
*******************************************************************
Mantik: "All of these comments are in obvious conflict with the film. No abrupt
slowing of the limousine in seen and it certainly does not stop."
Mantik: "Several arguments against a stopped (OR NOTICEABLY SLOWED) limousine
have been advanced."
Tony must resort to dishonesty in order to 'rebut' Mantik. Mantik *HIMSELF*
recognizes the difference in the testimony. Indeed, he even points out that the
*closest* eyewitnesses asserted that the limo had stopped, rather than slowed.
Why make such a point if he isn't aware of the difference in eyewitness
statements???
****************************************************************
So, out of 47 witnesses listed in Vince's article, how many actually stated that
the limousine made a complete stop?
**************************************************************
(Up to 59 eyewitnesses now... Google 'Palamara limo stop')
A statement that is the classic "strawman" argument. Mantik doesn't rely on
only "stop" eyewitnesses, THE LIMO IS NOT SEEN TO SLOW DOWN EITHER!!
And although Tony and other LNT'ers have argued that the Z-Film does indeed show
a "slowdown", it's only visible with close and detailed analysis. *NO-ONE* who
merely views the film will comment that the limo "slowed down". I DEFY Tony to
put this to a poll.
Take any 25 people who have no clue about the JFK case, and let them view the
film as many times as they want - then have them answer a series of questions,
one of which will be about the speed of the limo. Tony will *NEVER* dare do
this, for he knows just as anyone who's ever viewed the film that it does *NOT*
show a slowdown of the limo that is visible to the naked eye.
*****************************************************************
I went through his article and noted how many actually stated that the limousine
made a complete stop. I had to throw out a few witnesses because it was not
clear that they meant the limousine when they talked about the 'party' or the
'cavalcade' stopping. We know that some witnesses were referring only to the
rest of the motorcade, and the photographic evidence shows that several cars
further back in the motorcade did stop in the middle of Elm Street. Out of the
remaining 41 witnesses, only 14 actually stated that the limousine stopped. 19
of the 41 only stated that the limousine had slowed down, and 8 of the 41 only
stated that the limousine had waited until after the head shot to accelerate. I
have drawn up a chart (see below) which places the witnesses in the various
categories. The chart has no statistical significance, but it seems evident that
more witnesses only stated that the limousine slowed down than those who were
sure that it stopped. The Zapruder film itself, as well as other films,
corroborates that the limousine was going very slowly when it rounded the corner
onto Elm Street. And the Zapruder film itself, as shown by the Alvarez study,
corroborates that the limousine had suddenly slowed down at about Z-300 from
about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH.
*******************************************************
Note here that Tony must reference a *STUDY* of the film - he can't merely point
to the film and say: "There it is, the slowdown that the eyewitnesses reported".
********************************************************
Mantik's obvious errors are another reason why a book like Assassination Science
suffers from the lack of proofreading and fact checking (just like Posner's Case
Closed). The innocent reader would not have the means to spot such obvious
errors and thus would be impressed by the false conclusions based on faulty
data.
********************************************************
A statement that applies far more to Tony's "critique" than it does to Mantik's
statements. As I think I've shown. I invite comment...
**********************************************************
41 witnesses | limo stopped (14) | limo slowed down (19) |limo waited (8)
______________________________________________________________________________
After the |Chaney, Mrs. Cabell, |Brown, Harkness,Moorman, |
first shot |Woodward, Truly |Hawkins,Brehm, Yarborough|
(13) | (4) |Jean Hill, Ready, Similas|
| | (9) |
_____________________________________________________________________________
At the time of|Hargis, Foster, Smith|Campbell, Holmes, Clark, |Kinney, Hill,
the head shot |Broeder, Mrs. Willis |Clay, Powers |Bennett, Nellie,
(18) | (5) | (5) |Altgens, Chism,
| | |O'Donnell,
| | |Connally (8)
______________________________________________________________________________
At underpass | Betzner, Newman (2) | |
______________________________________________________________________________
Unspecified | Martin, Burney, Orr |Jackson, Johns, Lawson, |
(8) | (3) |Holland, Simmon (5) |
______________________________________________________________________________
*********************************************************
I had planned on an article detailing how the eyewitnesses reported something no
longer seen in the Z-Film as evidence of Z-Film alteration. It seems that I can
make the same point by a critique of the LNT'ers argument *against* this stance.
It's clear that *many* eyewitnesses reported either a slowdown or a stop, and
it's *also* clear that the Z-Film shows no such thing. Another example that in
this rather unique case, you must pay closer attention to the eyewitnesses than
to the "physical" evidence.
While not conclusive *by itself*, when added to all the other evidence of Z-Film
alteration, it is persuasive.
>
>On 5/20/2012 11:36 AM, Len Colby wrote:
>> On May 19, 9:40 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2012 12:26 PM, LenBrazil wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 18, 7:32 pm, aeffects<aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 16, 8:38 pm, Len Colby<lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
>>>
>>>>>> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>>>
>>>>> perhaps Len instead of advertising you can do the 45 questions,
>>>>> 'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
>>>>> around here FAILED to do?
>>>
>>>> Still waiting for you to find an expert who what you and your buddies
>>>> proposed would have been possible in 1963
>>>
>>> Why don't you tell us what YOU think they proposed?
>>
>> They proposed that various virtually undetectable alterations were
>> made to Z-film. Do you dispute that?
>>
>
>
>Yes. In fact I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic
>and one of few who explain in detail why the alterationist proposals are
>ridiculous.
Of course, he can't explain why he runs away from those people whom he claims
>On 5/20/2012 11:36 AM, Len Colby wrote:
>> On May 19, 9:40 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2012 12:26 PM, LenBrazil wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 18, 7:32 pm, aeffects<aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 16, 8:38 pm, Len Colby<lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
>>>
>>>>>> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>>>
>>>>> perhaps Len instead of advertising you can do the 45 questions,
>>>>> 'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
>>>>> around here FAILED to do?
>>>
>>>> Still waiting for you to find an expert who what you and your buddies
>>>> proposed would have been possible in 1963
>>>
>>> Why don't you tell us what YOU think they proposed?
>>
>> They proposed that various virtually undetectable alterations were
>> made to Z-film. Do you dispute that?
>>
>
>
>Yes. In fact I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic
>and one of few who explain in detail why the alterationist proposals are
>ridiculous.
make "ridiculous" proposals.
Right below I've included the complete post where I demolish one of his website
articles.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/zapruder.htm
>
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/amateurs.htm
>
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/anomalies.htm
>
>Get back to me AFTER you have read all three articles.
This is a golden oldie that should be reposted for all to read... at the time
this was posted, Tony was still pretending to be a CT'er. I might point out that
Tony has provably ran from this post. Here's a link to the original post, so
everyone can see that *TONY MARSH* ran like a yellow coward...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1af1686e976e94a
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony has posted the following on his website... I thought it would be a good
idea to critique it here:
************************************************************
Mantik's Misuse of Witnesses Who Said That the Limousine Stopped
On page 274 of the book Assassination Science Dr. David Mantik uses a list of
witnesses to advance the notion that the limousine had stopped on Elm Street and
because we can not see that happen in the Zapruder film that therefore the
Zapruder film must have been edited. There are several problems with that
argument. First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before
or after Zapruder had filmed the limousine.
************************************************************
It's silly to think that it could have been *after* Zapruder stopped filming the
limousine - that argument isn't worth the words to debate. But the argument
that the limo may have stopped *before* Zapruder started filming is worth
debunking...
Charles Brehm: "...almost came to a halt AFTER THE FIRST SHOT..."
Erle Brown: "...WHEN THE SHOTS WERE FIRED it [the car] stopped."
James Chaney: "AFTER THE FIRST SHOT RANG OUT, the car stopped completely"
J.W. Foster: "IMMEDIATELY AFTER [JFK] WAS STRUCK... the car... pulled to the
curb."
Robert MacNeill: "The President's driver slammed on the brakes - AFTER THE THIRD
SHOT"
Bill Newman: "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop AFTER THE FINAL SHOT"
There's more, but that should be enough to make Tony's argument complete
nonsense. *ALL* the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two. Does Tony argue that
the first shot was before Zapruder captures the limo in his film???
********************************************************
Zapruder only started picking up the limousine at Z-133, so if the limousine had
stopped prior to Z-133, his film would not have shown it.
*******************************************************
In other words, Tony has to argue that the first shot was *BEFORE* Z-133.
How silly!!
*************************************************************
From Z-1 to Z-132 Zapruder had only filmed the lead cycles, mistakenly thinking
that the motorcade was about to round the corner from Houston onto Elm Street.
When he realized his mistake, he stopped filming at Z-132 and began filming
again when he actually saw the Presidential limousine coming down Elm Street
which started the continuous sequence at Z-133.
*************************************************************
And yet, eyewitnesses to the early Z-Film describe the limo turn on to Elm.
Another eyewitness discrepancy with the current Z-Film;
Dan Rather: Well let me tell you then, give you a word picture of the motion
picture that we have just seen. The President's automobile which was proceeded
by only one other car containing Secret Service Agents ... the President's open
black Lincoln automobile ... made a turn, a left turn off of Houston Street in
Dallas onto Elm Street, this was right on the fringe area of the downtown area.
This left turn was made right below the window from which the shot was fired ...
as the car made the turn completed the turn went below the window from which
this shot was fired ... went on past the building keep in mind the window was on
the sixth floor ...
In another broadcast: Dan Rather: "The films show President Kennedy's open,
black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the
fringe of downtown Dallas, a left turn made just below the window in which the
assassin was waiting."
I'll leave it to lurkers to spot the "errors" in this description.
It might be worth pointing out that Dan Rather does *NOT* state that the limo
slowed or stopped... he several times made that point.
Dan Rather: The car never stopped, it never paused.
**************************************************************
If Zapruder had filmed continuously from the time he saw the lead cycles, he
feared that he would run out of film before he could have filmed the limousine
going down Elm Street. There is no indication that there was an edit between
Z-132 and Z-133 and every indication that there was not an edit at that time.
***************************************************************
Tony doesn't admit any evidence of editing in this film anyway...
***************************************************************
Other films and photos taken from other angles do not show the limousine
stopping before Z-133. Could the limousine have stopped after Zapruder stopped
filming? Yes, but such a stop would not advance Mantik's argument. If the
limousine had stopped inside the triple underpass, it could not have been seen
from Zapruder's viewpoint. Thus there would have been nothing on his film to
edit out. Films and photos taken from other angles show that the limousine did
not stop in the underpass.
****************************************************************
A silly point, that doesn't really deserve any response.
****************************************************************
Another problem with Mantik's approach is that eyewitness testimony is
unreliable.
****************************************************************
This, of course, is a basic LNT'er argument, one that has been disproven in the
studies on eyewitness testimony.
As Elizabeth Loftus, in Eyewitness Testimony, showed that when subjects
considered what they were observing to be significant, they were 98% accurate
and 98% complete with respect to their observations.
Common sense also negates such a silly argument. A necessary one, of course,
since if you believe what the eyewitnesses said they saw and heard, you'd be
forced to admit a conspiracy that day.
The idea that eyewitness testimony is unreliable - but we just happen to have a
few dozen eyewitnesses saying basically the same thing... well, I'm glad that
*I'm* not on that side of the argument...
*******************************************************
One can simply not point out a statement by a witness and accept that as
absolute proof of a fact. It needs to be corroborated,
**********************************************************
And many of the eyewitness accounts indeed corroborated each other.
*********************************************************
especially with physical evidence such as photographic evidence.
*********************************************************
Which, as Tony well knows, is not accepted above eyewitness testimony in a court
of law *UNLESS* it has been corroborated by eyewitnesses.
Anyone who's ever watched a Hollywood movie knows how easily photographs and
videos can reflect imagination, rather than reality.
***********************************************************
And some authors, in their haste to prove a pre-conceived conclusion,
***********************************************************
It might be worth the time to examine Tony's "pre-conceived conclusions" about
this book. I'll detail his own words down below...
*************************************************************
misuse the eyewitness testimony they select, or select only the eyewitness
testimony which supports their conclusion. For example, Mantik quotes both
motorcycle officers Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped. But
Baker was only stating what Chaney had told him, as Sylvia Meagher points out in
her book Accessories After the Fact on page 4, which is quoted here:
4 ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT
Lane's allegation about Chaney is corroborated in the testimony of another
motorcycle officer, M. L. Baker. Baker testified on March 24, 1964 that his
fellow officer, James Chaney, had told him:
He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at the time
the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up
and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men
were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from
the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to
the left and stopped. . . . Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it
stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely. (3H 266)
**********************************************
Yep... no doubt a poor use of testimony... Unfortunately for Tony, a single
solitary 'hearsay' corroboration won't rebut the tremendous numbers of
eyewitnesses that reported a slowdown/stop of the limo.
************************************************
There is nothing wrong with the use of such hearsay to corroborate Chaney's
statement, but it is a misuse of research method to cite both as separate
witnesses to the same fact.
************************************************
Yep... one of the few statements that Tony has made that I agree with
whole-heartedly. Accurate citation is all that's needed to prove conspiracy.
****************************************************
One could easily puff up the number of witnesses by adding in everyone who had
heard the original witnesses state something. But why would Mantik need to use
Baker's hearsay when he quotes Chaney's statement and even cites it as Warren
Commission (WC) testimony? Because Chaney NEVER testified before the Warren
Commission.
**************************************************
Something, I might point out, that LNT'ers run away from when I ask them to
defend this.
The *CLOSEST* non-limo eyewitness, never testifies... how can this be defended?
Not even Tony will dare to defend this.
******************************************************
The reference to the WC hearings at (3H221) is totally fictitious. When you look
at page 275, you can see that (3H221) is Truly's WC testimony, which does not
even mention Chaney. It appears that the attribution of (3H221) to Chaney was a
simple tabulation error.
******************************************************
Actually, a poor use of citation, no doubt, but it *does* illustrate what Chaney
went on to say: "Now I have heard several of them say that Mr. Truly was
standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped
completely"
The citation does indeed refer to Mr. Truly's observation that the limo stopped.
So although it's certainly unclear here, and a poor use of citation without
Chaney's *full* comments; anyone who was *truly* trying to find the truth would
figure out what went on here.
********************************************************
Either Mantik or his source probably just wrote down the wrong citation on
separate lists and did not carefully compare and fact check them. If the error
was Mantik's then we should expect a quick and simple correction. If Mantik had
merely copied someone else's error, this points up one major problem in this
area of research. Too many researchers make the mistake of taking for granted
the "facts" presented by a fellow researcher who happens to belong to the same
clique, without bothering to double-check the facts for themselves.
**********************************************************
This brings to mind the infamous double burn parties by Dr. Humes, which, of
course, Tony has *NEVER* cited for or corrected. Tony repeatedly asserted that
Dr. Humes had burned paperwork on both Saturday morning (for which there is *NO*
evidence), and Sunday (for which there is.)
Tony has, to this day, refused to retract or cite for his lie.
**************************************************************
They don't want to risk angering fellow clique members by questioning their
work. This is how simple errors are perpetuated into "facts." Another common
misuse of eyewitness testimony is to misquote or quote out of context what the
witness actually said, in order to create a false impression. Mantik, as well as
others, has done this with the testimony of Patrolman Brown. He only quotes the
portion of WC testimony where Brown said, "when the shots were fired, it
stopped." (6H233) Mantik should have included the next few sentences where Brown
backed off that absolute statement and could only state for sure that the
limousine slowed down:
Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped. . . . After
it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.
Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?
Brown: That, I couldn't swear to.
Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?
Brown: Yes; slowed down. (6H 233)
So, in his zeal to puff up the list of witnesses, Mantik has included people who
did not actually state that they had seen the limousine stop.
********************************************************
Rather dishonestly, Tony doesn't admit that Mantik isn't arguing that the limo
*stopped*. He's arguing, and allow me to *QUOTE* his words: "All of these
comments are in obvious conflict with the film. No abrupt slowing of the
limousine in seen and it certainly does not stop."
Mantik quotes those who said it stopped, AS WELL AS those who said it only
slowed down.
Mantik is *NOT* arguing solely that the limo stopped. He's arguing that what
eyewitnesses report - a slowdown OR a stop, is not seen in the film.
And, he *makes* that point. Tony has only two defenses, both of which he's
used... that the Z-Film doesn't show the slowdown/stop because it occurred
before or after Zapruder filmed - (Demolished by the actual testimony)
or that eyewitnesses are "unreliable". Despite the fact that so many testified
or asserted virtually the same thing. Tony evidently believes that there was a
conspiracy of eyewitnesses, or a mass hallucination...
************************************************************
Yes, several people stated that they saw the limousine stop, but not as many as
Mantik has suggested.
***********************************************************
Several??? Tony himself puts the number as 14! That's just a tad more than
"several".
Again, a rather dishonest use of Mantik's actual words. He *NEVER* attempted
the argument based on a limo stop - but rather on what the eyewitnesses ACTUALLY
said, which was a slowdown OR a stop. Mantik is being accurate, Tony is
dishonestly slanting the argument.
**************************************************************
And we already know from other witness statements that some witnesses were
simply mistaken when they stated that they saw something, such as Jean Hill
seeing a dog in the back seat of the limousine.
**************************************************************
Factoids like this keep zooming around the LNT'er community, even when they've
been overturned:
----------------------------------------
1. The "white, fluffy dog."
Many in the critical community had also dismissed this part of Ms. Hill's
story, and so Wallace Milam startled quite a few people at the 1993 ASK
conference when he showed two video sequences taken at Love Field
documenting the presence of a "white, fluffy dog" in the Presidential
limousine!
The first sequence showed the President and his wife from the rear, shaking
hands with the crowd; a young girl reaches up and hands Jackie a white,
stuffed dog. The second sequence is taken from the driver's side of the
limousine as Jackie enters, gripping the stuffed dog along with the roses
in her hand; she sets both down on the seat between herself and her
husband, says something to him, and he looks down at the seat. Following
this, I searched through photos taken at Love Field, and found that the
stuffed dog also partly appears in a color photo taken by a UPI
photographer (which appears in cropped form on the cover of Mr. Posner's
book). I would say this is indicative that Ms. Hill was rather sharp-eyed
rather than undermining her other testimony. - Martin Shackelford
---------------------------------------
**********************************************************
Another problem in this research area is when an author misuses other
researchers' work. The way that Mantik characterizes Vince Palamara's article
from The Third Decade (page 51) leaves the impression that Palamara claimed (and
that Mantik concurs) there were at least 48 witnesses who said that the
limousine stopped on Elm Street. This is incorrect.
*********************************************************
Of *course* it's incorrect. It's a lie. Mantik, as I've already quoted, is
*NOT* arguing that the limo stopped. He's arguing, correctly, that many
eyewitnesses asserted that the limo SLOWED *OR* STOPPED.
I invite everyone to grab their copy of Assassination Science, and review pages
273-276.
Then, ponder Tony's own words: "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."
Just like the Warren Commission, Tony already had his mind made up, and cannot
judge the arguments objectively. His only goal is to rip apart the book, and
must, as a result, employ dishonest arguments to do so.
***************************************************************
When you actually read Vince's article for yourself, you can see that Vince
clearly admits at the beginning of the article that he is lumping together ALL
witnesses, including some who said that the limo had come to a complete stop,
some who said that the limo had slowed down, and those who said that the limo
did not accelerate until after the head shot. Mantik did not dare to quote
Vince's article so that you could find this out for yourself. I will:
***************************************************************
Tony did not *dare* to quote Assassination Science accurately, so I encourage
everyone to review for themselves just what Mantik was saying.
******************************************************************
". . . the vast number of witnesses who testified that the Presidential
limousine, driven by veteran Secret Service driver William R. Greer,
slowed, stopped or, at the very least, failed to accelerate until only
after the fatal head shot had found its mark."
*******************************************************************
Mantik: "All of these comments are in obvious conflict with the film. No abrupt
slowing of the limousine in seen and it certainly does not stop."
Mantik: "Several arguments against a stopped (OR NOTICEABLY SLOWED) limousine
have been advanced."
Tony must resort to dishonesty in order to 'rebut' Mantik. Mantik *HIMSELF*
recognizes the difference in the testimony. Indeed, he even points out that the
*closest* eyewitnesses asserted that the limo had stopped, rather than slowed.
Why make such a point if he isn't aware of the difference in eyewitness
statements???
****************************************************************
So, out of 47 witnesses listed in Vince's article, how many actually stated that
the limousine made a complete stop?
**************************************************************
(Up to 59 eyewitnesses now... Google 'Palamara limo stop')
A statement that is the classic "strawman" argument. Mantik doesn't rely on
only "stop" eyewitnesses, THE LIMO IS NOT SEEN TO SLOW DOWN EITHER!!
And although Tony and other LNT'ers have argued that the Z-Film does indeed show
a "slowdown", it's only visible with close and detailed analysis. *NO-ONE* who
merely views the film will comment that the limo "slowed down". I DEFY Tony to
put this to a poll.
Take any 25 people who have no clue about the JFK case, and let them view the
film as many times as they want - then have them answer a series of questions,
one of which will be about the speed of the limo. Tony will *NEVER* dare do
this, for he knows just as anyone who's ever viewed the film that it does *NOT*
show a slowdown of the limo that is visible to the naked eye.
*****************************************************************
I went through his article and noted how many actually stated that the limousine
made a complete stop. I had to throw out a few witnesses because it was not
clear that they meant the limousine when they talked about the 'party' or the
'cavalcade' stopping. We know that some witnesses were referring only to the
rest of the motorcade, and the photographic evidence shows that several cars
further back in the motorcade did stop in the middle of Elm Street. Out of the
remaining 41 witnesses, only 14 actually stated that the limousine stopped. 19
of the 41 only stated that the limousine had slowed down, and 8 of the 41 only
stated that the limousine had waited until after the head shot to accelerate. I
have drawn up a chart (see below) which places the witnesses in the various
categories. The chart has no statistical significance, but it seems evident that
more witnesses only stated that the limousine slowed down than those who were
sure that it stopped. The Zapruder film itself, as well as other films,
corroborates that the limousine was going very slowly when it rounded the corner
onto Elm Street. And the Zapruder film itself, as shown by the Alvarez study,
corroborates that the limousine had suddenly slowed down at about Z-300 from
about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH.
*******************************************************
Note here that Tony must reference a *STUDY* of the film - he can't merely point
to the film and say: "There it is, the slowdown that the eyewitnesses reported".
********************************************************
Mantik's obvious errors are another reason why a book like Assassination Science
suffers from the lack of proofreading and fact checking (just like Posner's Case
Closed). The innocent reader would not have the means to spot such obvious
errors and thus would be impressed by the false conclusions based on faulty
data.
********************************************************
A statement that applies far more to Tony's "critique" than it does to Mantik's
statements. As I think I've shown. I invite comment...
**********************************************************
41 witnesses | limo stopped (14) | limo slowed down (19) |limo waited (8)
______________________________________________________________________________
After the |Chaney, Mrs. Cabell, |Brown, Harkness,Moorman, |
first shot |Woodward, Truly |Hawkins,Brehm, Yarborough|
(13) | (4) |Jean Hill, Ready, Similas|
| | (9) |
_____________________________________________________________________________
At the time of|Hargis, Foster, Smith|Campbell, Holmes, Clark, |Kinney, Hill,
the head shot |Broeder, Mrs. Willis |Clay, Powers |Bennett, Nellie,
(18) | (5) | (5) |Altgens, Chism,
| | |O'Donnell,
| | |Connally (8)
______________________________________________________________________________
At underpass | Betzner, Newman (2) | |
______________________________________________________________________________
Unspecified | Martin, Burney, Orr |Jackson, Johns, Lawson, |
(8) | (3) |Holland, Simmon (5) |
______________________________________________________________________________
*********************************************************
I had planned on an article detailing how the eyewitnesses reported something no
longer seen in the Z-Film as evidence of Z-Film alteration. It seems that I can
make the same point by a critique of the LNT'ers argument *against* this stance.
It's clear that *many* eyewitnesses reported either a slowdown or a stop, and
it's *also* clear that the Z-Film shows no such thing. Another example that in
this rather unique case, you must pay closer attention to the eyewitnesses than
to the "physical" evidence.
While not conclusive *by itself*, when added to all the other evidence of Z-Film
alteration, it is persuasive.
aeffects
May 21, 2012, 8:55:07 AM5/21/12
to
nonsense, even from you, so, why does that seem "strangely"? In any
case, I haven't made many posts there last 2 years or so... and, more
to the point: there's no one there qualified to discuss Z-film
alteration, simple as that.....
Ben Holmes
May 21, 2012, 9:01:34 AM5/21/12
to
In article <71798fdc-7946-47af...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 19, 9:27=A0am, LenBrazil <len.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 18, 7:32=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 16, 8:38=A0pm, Len Colby <lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D19083http:/=
refuse to debate the issue.
Doug Horne is rapidly becoming the new "Mark Lane" - everyone wants to label him
a nutcase, or a liar; yet no-one can refute the evidence he brings to the table.
aeffects says...
>
>On May 19, 9:27=A0am, LenBrazil <len.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 18, 7:32=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 16, 8:38=A0pm, Len Colby <lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D19083http:/=
>/edu...
>>
>> > > Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>>
>> > perhaps Len instead of advertising you can do the 45 questions,
>> > 'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
>> > around here FAILED to do?
>>
>> So Davy you've been strangely silent on the EF, why don't you come to
>> Fetzer's defense? And if you disagree Why don't you say so?
>
>Lenster, I don't fall for lone nut, WCR-LHO-SBT theory support
>nonsense, even from you, so, why does that seem "strangely"? In any
>case, I haven't made many posts there last 2 years or so... and, more
>to the point: there's no one there qualified to discuss Z-film
>alteration, simple as that.....
And quite clearly, no-one in the censored forum qualified either... since they
>>
>> > > Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>>
>> > perhaps Len instead of advertising you can do the 45 questions,
>> > 'search this group' is your friend? Can you do what lone nut regulars
>> > around here FAILED to do?
>>
>> So Davy you've been strangely silent on the EF, why don't you come to
>> Fetzer's defense? And if you disagree Why don't you say so?
>
>Lenster, I don't fall for lone nut, WCR-LHO-SBT theory support
>nonsense, even from you, so, why does that seem "strangely"? In any
>case, I haven't made many posts there last 2 years or so... and, more
>to the point: there's no one there qualified to discuss Z-film
>alteration, simple as that.....
refuse to debate the issue.
Doug Horne is rapidly becoming the new "Mark Lane" - everyone wants to label him
a nutcase, or a liar; yet no-one can refute the evidence he brings to the table.
Len Colby
May 21, 2012, 12:16:20 PM5/21/12
to
chiropractor sidekick are pushing the notion it's LHO not Lovelady on the
TSBD steps in Altgens. This has nothing to do with LNT v. CT or the
Z-film. In fact most the criticism they and their theory has faced has
come from CTs including alterationists. If you agree with them you should
lend them your support. If you disagree you should say so as well.
PS - TONY
Still awaiting your reply on various threads
timstter
May 21, 2012, 4:24:11 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 11:01 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <71798fdc-7946-47af-b30b-8222c8658...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
LOL! Oh sure thing, Holmes.
You claim Lane's nonsense has never been debunked?
That's simply because you're a liar just like Lane, Benny.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> In article <71798fdc-7946-47af-b30b-8222c8658...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
You claim Lane's nonsense has never been debunked?
That's simply because you're a liar just like Lane, Benny.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
timstter
May 21, 2012, 4:28:18 PM5/21/12
to
On May 19, 11:39 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <77ac27a8-f80a-4b00-b3a9-b6897df5b...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>,
Why should he be bothered by you, Holmes?
You'd be too busy skulking behind your killfilter to respond to
anything anyway.
> In article <77ac27a8-f80a-4b00-b3a9-b6897df5b...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>,
You'd be too busy skulking behind your killfilter to respond to
anything anyway.
Anthony Marsh
May 21, 2012, 4:51:53 PM5/21/12
to
Zimmerman with his spinning turkey shoot or his magic moving metal dot?
jfk...@gmail.com
May 26, 2012, 12:03:26 AM5/26/12
to
On May 18, 9:28 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 9:37 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 11:38 pm, Len Colby<lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
> On 5/18/2012 9:37 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 11:38 pm, Len Colby<lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> > Definitely similar posting on JFKLancer, but very effectively refuted
> > by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
> > believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
> > solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
>
> But if a fellow conspiracy believer refutes a kook, the kooks call him a
> WC defender. Fetzer devoted a whole web page to calling me a professional
> disinformation agent just because I pointed out a typo in his book, which
> Mantik later confirmed needed to be correction. The guy threatened to sue
> me and beat me up for daring to correct him.
"be correction"? Don't fall prey to the pot calling the kettle black...
> >> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> > Definitely similar posting on JFKLancer, but very effectively refuted
> > by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
> > believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
> > solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
>
> But if a fellow conspiracy believer refutes a kook, the kooks call him a
> WC defender. Fetzer devoted a whole web page to calling me a professional
> disinformation agent just because I pointed out a typo in his book, which
> Mantik later confirmed needed to be correction. The guy threatened to sue
> me and beat me up for daring to correct him.
Anthony Marsh
May 26, 2012, 4:31:44 PM5/26/12
to
an obvious typo and move on.
LenBrazil
May 27, 2012, 1:07:50 PM5/27/12
to
On May 26, 12:03 am, "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 9:28 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/18/2012 9:37 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>
> > > On May 16, 11:38 pm, Len Colby<lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
>
> > >> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> > > Definitely similar posting on JFKLancer, but very effectively refuted
> > > by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
> > > believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
> > > solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
>
> > But if a fellow conspiracy believer refutes a kook, the kooks call him a
> > WC defender.Fetzerdevoted a whole web page to calling me a professional
> On May 18, 9:28 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/18/2012 9:37 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>
> > > On May 16, 11:38 pm, Len Colby<lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
>
> > >> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> > > Definitely similar posting on JFKLancer, but very effectively refuted
> > > by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
> > > believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
> > > solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
>
> > But if a fellow conspiracy believer refutes a kook, the kooks call him a
> > disinformation agent just because I pointed out a typo in his book, which
> > Mantik later confirmed needed to be correction. The guy threatened to sue
> > me and beat me up for daring to correct him.
>
> "be correction"? Don't fall prey to the pot calling the kettle black...
Do you really think making a typo in a Usenet post is comparable to
> > Mantik later confirmed needed to be correction. The guy threatened to sue
> > me and beat me up for daring to correct him.
>
> "be correction"? Don't fall prey to the pot calling the kettle black...
making one in a book?
OTOH one has to wonder about Marsh's repeated claims of being
threatened with violence by other JFK researchers.
LenBrazil
May 27, 2012, 3:32:51 PM5/27/12
to
> On May 18, 9:28 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/18/2012 9:37 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>
> > > On May 16, 11:38 pm, Len Colby<lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
>
> > >> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> > > Definitely similar posting on JFKLancer, but very effectively refuted
> > > by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
> > > believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
> > > solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
>
> > But if a fellow conspiracy believer refutes a kook, the kooks call him a
> > WC defender.Fetzerdevoted a whole web page to calling me a professional
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/18/2012 9:37 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>
> > > On May 16, 11:38 pm, Len Colby<lenbraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> EFhttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19083http://edu...
>
> > >> Apparently there are similar threads on Lancer and the DPF
>
> > > Definitely similar posting on JFKLancer, but very effectively refuted
> > > by several other posters (most of whom are declared conspiracy
> > > believers, so this is so far out that not even "which side are you on"
> > > solidarity will keep people from recognizing it is nonsense).
>
> > But if a fellow conspiracy believer refutes a kook, the kooks call him a
> > disinformation agent just because I pointed out a typo in his book, which
> > Mantik later confirmed needed to be correction. The guy threatened to sue
> > me and beat me up for daring to correct him.
>
> "be correction"? Don't fall prey to the pot calling the kettle black...
> > Mantik later confirmed needed to be correction. The guy threatened to sue
> > me and beat me up for daring to correct him.
>
> "be correction"? Don't fall prey to the pot calling the kettle black...
aeffects
May 27, 2012, 9:27:33 PM5/27/12
to
(a failed standup comic), when can we expect you to debunk the
evidence Doug Horne has put forth? When your visa to Fresno runs out?
You're a joke hon.... LMFAO!
Samantha Brown
May 27, 2012, 9:40:39 PM5/27/12
to
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:722d2540-8348-4cc5...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Word to the wise Junkie.............that horse has already bolted.
aeffects
May 28, 2012, 12:53:25 AM5/28/12
to
On May 27, 6:40 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
sniff, sniff, sniff.... still stinky, turdless..... carry on! LMFAO!
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Samantha Brown
May 28, 2012, 1:36:32 AM5/28/12
to
news:a475f514-2929-46e4...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
Again Crackpipe it's "YMFAO". Don't worry you'll get it one day poodle. Any
evidence yet Junkie? Tick tock...................
evidence yet Junkie? Tick tock...................
aeffects
May 28, 2012, 1:47:04 AM5/28/12
to
Samantha Brown
May 28, 2012, 2:00:49 AM5/28/12
to
news:ea692db0-3933-4fa7...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...
That's your wig, try rinsing it under a tap once in a while........Quick!
Chubs is posting over on Amazon, you'd better get over there and shove your
head up his arse. Snivelling little weasel. Where's your dignity Junkie?
Seriously.
Chubs is posting over on Amazon, you'd better get over there and shove your
head up his arse. Snivelling little weasel. Where's your dignity Junkie?
Seriously.
Anthony Marsh
May 28, 2012, 10:12:11 AM5/28/12
to
Proofreading is a lost art.
Typing the wrong word is not the same thing as getting the whole point
wrong.
0 new messages