Re: Fetzer Has One Good Point
Robert Harris
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?
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
curtjester1
> 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?
Always interesting to see people that profess utmost interest and
expertise in a topic, become seemingly always 'absent,' when debates like
these are hotly discussed items in the Education Forum. Ahem ACJ and AAJ.
CJ
lazu...@webtv.net
lone nutter...or at the very least an obsructionist...which is splitting
hairs..why would someone who is in his 70's that has written an
outstanding book for the time(1967) which shows the official story can't
be true, be reduced to defending the ZFilm, no hole in the
windshield,the authenticity of the critical exhibits, etc..if JFK was
shot from the front, and his book makes a very good case for this &
ostensibly this is what he still believes, then again obviously the
evidence showing this has to be altered.that is the ain theme of Horne's
work..Laz
David Von Pein
>>> "Fetzer, Weldon, White and others are making Thompson look like a goddamn lone nutter...or at the very least an obsructionist...which is splitting hairs. Why would someone who is in his 70's that has written an outstanding book for the time (1967) which shows the official story can't be true, be reduced to defending the ZFilm, no hole in the windshield, the authenticity of the critical exhibits, etc." <<<
Laz,
Maybe it's because Josiah Thompson has at least a small bit of common
sense left in him (even though he is a conspiracist).
Just because a person is a CTer doesn't mean he has to jump on every
silly conspiracy-oriented bandwagon that comes down the street (like
the ultra-stupid "Fake Z-Film" nonsense, or Judyth Baker's lies, etc.).
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
It's unfortunate, and those who were 'first on the scene' seem to have invested
a great deal of time in what has turned out to be forged and altered evidence.
This means that many researchers who were 'second generation' have a huge
advantage, for many of the 'first generation' began with the ordinary acceptance
of the authenticity of the evidence. And are now wedded to that...
Nowadays, I suspect that this is the stance taken by government shills... Tony
Marsh is a good example.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <9407-4B8CD8DB-1...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>
> >Fetzer, Weldon, White and others are making Thompson look like a goddamn
> >lone nutter...or at the very least an obsructionist...which is splitting
> >hairs..why would someone who is in his 70's that has written an
> >outstanding book for the time(1967) which shows the official story can't
> >be true, be reduced to defending the ZFilm, no hole in the
> >windshield,the authenticity of the critical exhibits, etc..if JFK was
> >shot from the front, and his book makes a very good case for this &
> >ostensibly this is what he still believes, then again obviously the
> >evidence showing this has to be altered.that is the ain theme of Horne's
> >work..Laz
>
> It's unfortunate, and those who were 'first on the scene' seem to have invested
> a great deal of time in what has turned out to be forged and altered evidence.
YOU seem to have a lot invested in it too as YOU believe most of it!
> This means that many researchers who were 'second generation' have a huge
> advantage, for many of the 'first generation' began with the ordinary acceptance
> of the authenticity of the evidence. And are now wedded to that...
LOL!! YOU mean like this???
“YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
CE-139.” (Robert)
“Untrue.” (Ben Holmes—2/4/10)
And:
“Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that
LHO owned C-139.” (Ben Holmes—2/12/10)
> Nowadays, I suspect that this is the stance taken by government shills... Tony
> Marsh is a good example.
It is funny how you lable Tony a shill (and he may be) but when YOU do
the SAME THING you are a CTer, huh?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Mar 2, 9:33=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9407-4B8CD8DB-1...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
>> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Fetzer, Weldon, White and others are making Thompson look like a goddamn
>> >lone nutter...or at the very least an obsructionist...which is splitting
>> >hairs..why would someone who is in his 70's that has written an
>> >outstanding book for the time(1967) which shows the official story can't
>> >be true, be reduced to defending the ZFilm, no hole in the
>> >windshield,the authenticity of the critical exhibits, etc..if JFK was
>> >shot from the front, and his book makes a very good case for this &
>> >ostensibly this is what he still believes, then again obviously the
>> >evidence showing this has to be altered.that is the ain theme of Horne's
>> >work..Laz
>>
>> It's unfortunate, and those who were 'first on the scene' seem to
>> have invested a great deal of time in what has turned out to be
>> forged and altered evidence.
<moderated>
>> This means that many researchers who were 'second generation' have a huge
>> advantage, for many of the 'first generation' began with the ordinary
>> acceptance of the authenticity of the evidence. And are now wedded to that...
<moderated>
(Sadly, some kooks believe that because I follow the ordinary meaning of the
word "evidence", that it's a good reason to stalk me.)
>> Nowadays, I suspect that this is the stance taken by government shills...
>> Tony Marsh is a good example.
<moderated>
curtjester1
> Fetzer, Weldon, White and others are making Thompson look like a goddamn
> lone nutter...or at the very least an obsructionist...which is splitting
> hairs..why would someone who is in his 70's that has written an
Why would it be just merely splitting hairs? It's a smoking guns of
all smoking guns if the Z film is altered. Thompson defending that
has to put him in a suspicious light, and who knows him being so close
to the Z film action early on could have even being suspected as some
sort of shill.
> outstanding book for the time(1967) which shows the official story can't
> be true, be reduced to defending the ZFilm, no hole in the
It was a good book for then, but he obviously didn't deal strongly
with issues that have been looked at a lot more since then.
> windshield,the authenticity of the critical exhibits, etc..if JFK was
> shot from the front, and his book makes a very good case for this &
> ostensibly this is what he still believes,
Which is ok in itself...
then again obviously the
> evidence showing this has to be altered.that is the ain theme of Horne's
> work..Laz
And why Thompson needs to shut up or put up, and that's why he is so
vehemently confronted.
CJ
lazu...@webtv.net
stance...laz
lazu...@webtv.net
doggedly determined in obtaining documents, didn't get it on the medical
evidence either...Laz
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>Right Ben-Weisberg as great as he was in showing conspiracy, and
>doggedly determined in obtaining documents, didn't get it on the medical
>evidence either...Laz
Oh, I don't blame Weisberg for not digging in to the medical evidence... it just
happens to be *my* favorite area of interest.
Don Willis, for example, seems far more competent than I on what happened in the
first few hours or that weekend... what everyone was doing, why some things
aren't what they seem. I wouldn't dare discount his insights simply because they
aren't on the topic of the 6.5mm virtually round object, or the extant Z-film.
But people who *have* delved into the medical evidence, then try to claim that
the evidence is authentic, are going to get called on it. For the deeper you
delve into the medical evidence, the more clearly it's seen that Lifton nailed
it. (And Doug Horne finished it...)
I still enjoy going back through Weisberg's books...
curtjester1
> CJ- I didn't mean splitting hairs regarding the ZFilm, but Thompson's
> stance...laz
Well, his stance is certainly of controversy. When you take on CT'ers
who have dwelved quite a bit into the films of JFK, and you get one
talking down to them, it's going to get some fireworks, and some good
discussions. It's much more when issues are discussed, rather than
just having a 'CT side of things', or just a mere 'CT Generic' as
being enough. Evidence rules!
CJ
lazu...@webtv.net
been altered, beyond the splices...Once one understands we had a coup,
instead of a rogue conspiracy..things become much more clear...laz