The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles,

I am reading this as a very gracious concession that your attacks on me over the use of the word "mastermind" were not well-founded. If so, I am grateful to you for saying as much. That certainly would go a long way in restoring my faith in you to a large extent, so I hope that I am right in my interpretation. That would display intelligence and integrity on your part.

I let Charles attack stand as an IQ test of the research abilities of the members of this forum. No one bothered to ask if the position that Charles was attacking was the position I was defending, which it manifestly is not.

Thanks, Jim, and God bless.

Now get some rest, old friend; you've earned it.

[James H. Fetzer]

Haven't I responded to you in post #137 and again in post #139? Isn't enough enough? Doesn't anyone here care about JFK research? Albert goes somewhere else to find people who don't understand what we have been arguing to proclaim we are wrong, but he provides no proof! Dawn has no idea what has been going on with study of the Zapruder film, which has passed her by, and does not respond when I explain. The Doorway Man and the Zapruder film issues are central to JFK research. So why am I not detecting ANY RATIONAL RESPONSE from those who post on these JFK threads? Isn't anyone interested in real research? And of course my posts on JFK are directed to those who participate about JFK.

Is Don Jeffries THE ONLY ONE who appreciates the brutality of the treatment that I--and now Ralph Cinque--have received here for posting our research? AND NO ONE HAS SHOWN THAT EITHER OF US IS WRONG. I find that personally offensive and unprofessional for a forum that has, in the past, prided itself on rising above nasty personal attacks. Why isn't it obvious that I am VERY PISSED OFF for being attacked IN IGNORANCE OF MY ACTUAL POSITIONS on the meaning of "mastermind", on Zapruder film fakery, and even on the occurrence of video fakery on 9/11? I had expected better from the members of this forum, especially those who are posting here about JFK, some of whom I have long known. Think about it.

Do you see my point yet James?????

Apparently NOT.......

[Jan Klimkowski]

CD's question: "Do you accept the so-called 'confession' of E. Howard Hunt as a completely truthful statement made without hidden agendas to deceive and disinform?"

JF's answer: "It was basically truthful, of course, since he was unburdening his conscience to his son as he was approaching death."

Jim - having analyzed all that is known about E Howard Hunt - his life, his known actions, his extensive fictional forays, his ruthlessness - is this your considered, informed, position on his 'confession'?

NB Prof Fetzer's answer is longer, and can be seen in this thread, but the above is the first sentence of his response to the question.

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

I am reading this as a very gracious concession that your attacks on me over the use of the word "mastermind" were not well-founded. If so, I am grateful to you for saying as much. That certainly would go a long way in restoring my faith in you to a large extent, so I hope that I am right in my interpretation. That would display intelligence and integrity on your part.

I let Charles attack stand as an IQ test of the research abilities of the members of this forum. No one bothered to ask if the position that Charles was attacking was the position I was defending, which it manifestly is not.

Thanks, Jim, and God bless.

Now get some rest, old friend; you've earned it.

No, Jim, there is no concession being offered.

My request for a blessing was and remains most sincere.

Although I find your tone to be friendly and kind-spirited, and it makes me yearn for a return to the time when we could respect each other.

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles,

This is acutely distressing. You MADE UP a position that you ATTRIBUTED TO ME and then attacked, without bothering to PROVE THAT IT BORE ANY RESEMBLANCE TO MY ACTUAL POSITION. I was on the verge of burying this hatchet, but your behavior continues to be reprehensible. I thought we might be able to set this one aside, at least, but now I can see that, again, I took you for your better. Is there no end to the duplicity and deceit RIGHT HERE ON THE DPF? Your conduct is simply inexcusable.

Jim

Charles,

I am reading this as a very gracious concession that your attacks on me over the use of the word "mastermind" were not well-founded. If so, I am grateful to you for saying as much. That certainly would go a long way in restoring my faith in you to a large extent, so I hope that I am right in my interpretation. That would display intelligence and integrity on your part.

I let Charles attack stand as an IQ test of the research abilities of the members of this forum. No one bothered to ask if the position that Charles was attacking was the position I was defending, which it manifestly is not.

Thanks, Jim, and God bless.

Now get some rest, old friend; you've earned it.

No, Jim, there is no concession being offered.

My request for a blessing was and remains most sincere.

Although I find your tone to be friendly and kind-spirited, and it makes me yearn for a return to the time when we could respect each other.

[James H. Fetzer]

Albert,

While one of us may have been "finished off", that one is not me:

(1) Lovelady was wearing either a checkered shirt or a striped shirt.

(2) Doorway Man was obviously not wearing a striped shirt.

(3) Doorway Man was less-obviously not wearing the checkered
shirt either, because its features are not the same as Doorway Man's.

(4) Therefore, Doorway Man is not wearing Lovelady's shirt.

(5) The very features that show that Doorway Man's shirt is not one
of Lovelady's (checkered or striped) shirts show that they are the
same features found on the VERY DISTINCTIVE shirt Oswald was
wearing.

(6) The face of the man to the right/front was obfuscated as was
his shirt. There must have been good reasons to go take the pains
and run the risks of changing the Altgens photo.

(7) Given the shirt evidence, by far the most--and even the only--
plausible explanation for these defects in the photograph is that
(a) the moved the face onto Oswald's figure and (b) obfuscated
both the face and the shirt so the game would not be given away.

Unless Albert Doyle can cope with this argument, he has no basis
for claiming that it is WE who are unwilling to admit we are wrong
when both logic and the evidence are on our side. Q.E.D.

In respect to Dawn (and common sense) both Dr Fetzer and Dr Cinque were just very quickly finished-off in the thread on Lancer. I'm satisfied anyone of normal cognitive skills would see that and rest my case.

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

This is acutely distressing. You MADE UP a position that you ATTRIBUTED TO ME and then attacked, without bothering to PROVE THAT IT BORE ANY RESEMBLANCE TO MY ACTUAL POSITION. I was on the verge of burying this hatchet, but your behavior continues to be reprehensible. I thought we might be able to set this one aside, at least, but now I can see that, again, I took you for your better. Is there no end to the duplicity and deceit RIGHT HERE ON THE DPF? Your conduct is simply inexcusable.

Jim

Jim,

Cut the bullshit!

All that you've "exposed" are your own infirmities.

Was LBJ the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination or was he not?

Speak English. Was LBJ the "mastermind"??? Define the fucking word.

The word is "mastermind"!!!

Cut the bullshit!

Spare us the offended school marm self-righteousness.

Cut the bullshit!

Do you believe E. Howard Hunt?

Cut the bullshit!

Or take your onanistic bleatings elsewhere.

[Dawn Meredith]

Is EVERYONE on this forum IGNORANT about the major research on the Zapruder film since 1996? Dawn, has it ever crossed your mind that maybe it is getting a lot of attention because it is more than FRAMES THAT WERE TAKEN OUT? that the HEAD SHOT SHOWN did not occur?

(1) Greer pulled the limo to the left and STOPPED.

(2) JFK was hit TWICE IN THE HEAD during the stop.

(3) NO ONE reported the "back and to the left" motion.

(4) The stop WAS TAKEN OUT/THE WOUNDS WERE ALTERED.

(5) The blow-out to the back of his head was painted over in black.

(6) The "blob" of brains bulging forward and blood spray were painted in.

(7) Clint Hill pushed Jackie down and lay across their bodies before reaching the TUP.

(8) Officer Chaney motoring forward to inform Chief Curry was also taken out.

(9) The motionless bystander images were taken from an earlier film.

There is more, but I am stunned that you do not have even a vague understanding of what we have discovered, in spite of my having published article after article about it, including, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" No wonder I am not welcome here!

The about half the film has been falsified and, because of the "ghost panel" problem--each of the frames is linked with other frames by double-exposures in the sprocket hole areas-- they actually had to reshoot the frames (in the CIA lab in Rochester) to make it come out right:



They are just below the sprocket holes. Had they simply removed frames, the deception would have been obvious. That is why John Costella calls the film "a fabrication". About half the film has been falsified using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects.



Here you can see rather clearly where the blow-out has been painted over in black and the "blob" was painted in. Do you think I would publish a 500-page book about a few missing frames? I am learning more and more about the incompetence of members of this forum.

Seamus and Doyle PLEASE stop. This forum is starting to look like EF. Let them both have the last word. I am so sick of Z film arguments. I do not read them. So there were frames taken out. I don't have a problem with that viewpoint. The problem I have it that it gets repeated over and over to the point of madness....Same with the Doorway man pic. The conspiracy does not rest on who is in that pic. Personally I have had over the years a problem with the LoveLady story, but then so many witnesses saw Harvey on the second floor. Regardless it is irrelevent because he was not on the damn SIXTH floor with a MC firing at JFK. Simarily re the Z film, frames removed to slow the car stopping or Connally turning more are equally irrelevent to me because the head shot is left in, showing that there is no doubt that the kill shot came from the front.

This sniping back and forth over personal and ego issues WILL stop or the parties engaging in it will be dealt with. Some people just have to have the last word. So let them.
No-one here "worships" CD. That is absurd. We, the founders of this forum, happen to agree with him on this issue. So please take your petty fights and overly inflated egos elsewhere.

Respectfully,

Dawn

I am aware of most of the above except the headshot being "fake". I have not heard that before and just becasue Dan-I'd- Rather not didnot report it does not mean it did not occur. Tons of witnesses saw it. Just like tons of witnesses saw the second plane in NY. Jim I don't have the time or inclination to argue further with you. I wish you well. I just do not believe Bob Groden would be promoting a film that was THAT faked. You were not in Dallas so you did not see what happened to the president's head. I have read many witness accounts, including Abe Zapruder's. I have also talked with people who saw a plane hit the tower in New York. I was not in NY that day and I doubt you were either.
I have nothing further to say on the subject.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Dawn,

Jim is not arguing that a head shot -- or shots -- did not occur.

He is arguing that the head shot AS SHOWN in the Z-film did not occur -- a position with which I tend to agree.

[Dawn Meredith]

Dawn,

Jim is not arguing that a head shot -- or shots -- did not occur.

He is arguing that the head shot AS SHOWN in the Z-film did not occur -- a position with which I tend to agree.

Obviously there were head shots. It is what killed him. The neck wound was likely not fatal. All the doctors describe a head shot that blew off his head. Then the autopsy pics have it put back together. Body alteration? Perhaps. Lifton made a good argument for it. Or fake pics, which would be a lot easier. No I have not read his work. I have read hundreds of books on the assassination of JFK. But I also work full time. I have no expertise in photo analysis and so I keep away from all of that. A lot of the time it is arguing over blobs that no one can really decifer. I have looked at the pic of the person some say is Bush in Dallas. It does look like him, but is also too faint and far away to really tell.

So to be clear CD you agree with Jim that there was no back and to the left shot? (I am finding this dizzying).

Dawn