17-04-2010, 09:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 19-04-2010, 10:21 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
All,
Anyone who wants to see how far-off base this guy can be should simply watch my opening presentations at the Z-film conference I organized and moderated in Duluth in 2003. They are as straightforward, objective, and scientific as any presentation could be. I am quite convinced that his research on Judyth is just as competent as his research on me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtZqautUPPw...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0vayhmQNU...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tsoLRI4tE...feature=related
Another source, of course, is THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which I am sure this guy cannot abide either. And, if he were remotely up-to-date, he would be aware of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), which I discuss in "U.S. Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...5772.shtml
Jim
[quote name='Robert Harris' post='189904' date='Apr 17 2010, 08:25 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189895' date='Apr 17 2010, 06:10 PM']
JIM, HOWARD, AND JUDYTH COMMENT ON ROBERT HARRIS
If every there were a contributor to this thread who does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is Robert Harris. Notice he has only joined the forum in the last two days. How could this guy be standing on the sidelines with his "dynamite" refutation of Judyth over more than 1,200 posts and not become involved before this? And I am quite certain that he has not even bothered to read them. This guy is as phony as they come. The gratuitous swipe at me over the Zapruder film is especially revealing, since the presentations he must be talking about are simply ones in which I show and discuss four different versions of the film which differ with respect to how much of the scene is presented in them, which is even supported by a mathematical analysis of their relative informational content. Anyone who would buy into the La Fontaine's feeble attempt to mislead the public about the identity of "the tramps" has discredited himself.[/quote]
Dr. Fetzer, I posted about Judyth nine years ago, and my total postings on this subject over the years can probably be counted on one hand. I don't spend much time on the topic because it doesn't even make the bottom of my priority list. Judyth said exactly what I claimed. There is no confusion here on my part. "Anita" is the ONLY woman she even mentioned in regard to this issue. And she did say the woman double dated with her and Oswald. She admits that she told me about Anita, but she hasn't even come up with an alternative explanation for why she mentioned her.
If "anita" could corroborate her story in some other way, then surely you and Mr. Platzman have tracked her down by now. I mean, if she has a postcard, she at least has a maiden name which should allow you to track down her employment records. And surely, she told all of you about Anita a long time ago. What did you/they find out??
Or is it possible, that Anita only gets evoked as a co-worker whenever I show up??
And I noticed that she does not deny having told me about how sorry she felt for Marina, being left at home alone every night. Has she explained to you, why her story morphed into a daylight affair, after I corrected her? And if Mary La Fontaine had been wrong, then Judyth could have simply said so. But instead, she completely changed her story about the affair, from that day forward.
Dr. Fetzer, I have no dogs in this race. I have no money from books, movies, TV, hanging in the balance. And we all know, that if I had posted a message supporting Judyth, you would see me as God's gift to the research community, rather than as the human sewage you portray.
If you were right about Judyth and honestly believed you were right, you wouldn't need to resort to this "take no prisoners" strategy. You could discuss the issues rationally and objectively, instead of sounding like a ranting madman. I notice that you treat all skeptics, pretty much the same way. I doubt that you care, Dr. Fetzer, but when you promote things like this and your luny Zapruder film theories, you do far more damage to our credibility than the Posners and Bugliosi's of the world.
Whenever the nutters start accusing us of being lunatics, they always point to one guy as the ultimate example. Now, who do you suppose that is?
Robert Harris
[/quote]
Anyone who wants to see how far-off base this guy can be should simply watch my opening presentations at the Z-film conference I organized and moderated in Duluth in 2003. They are as straightforward, objective, and scientific as any presentation could be. I am quite convinced that his research on Judyth is just as competent as his research on me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtZqautUPPw...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0vayhmQNU...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tsoLRI4tE...feature=related
Another source, of course, is THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which I am sure this guy cannot abide either. And, if he were remotely up-to-date, he would be aware of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), which I discuss in "U.S. Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...5772.shtml
Jim
[quote name='Robert Harris' post='189904' date='Apr 17 2010, 08:25 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189895' date='Apr 17 2010, 06:10 PM']
JIM, HOWARD, AND JUDYTH COMMENT ON ROBERT HARRIS
If every there were a contributor to this thread who does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is Robert Harris. Notice he has only joined the forum in the last two days. How could this guy be standing on the sidelines with his "dynamite" refutation of Judyth over more than 1,200 posts and not become involved before this? And I am quite certain that he has not even bothered to read them. This guy is as phony as they come. The gratuitous swipe at me over the Zapruder film is especially revealing, since the presentations he must be talking about are simply ones in which I show and discuss four different versions of the film which differ with respect to how much of the scene is presented in them, which is even supported by a mathematical analysis of their relative informational content. Anyone who would buy into the La Fontaine's feeble attempt to mislead the public about the identity of "the tramps" has discredited himself.[/quote]
Dr. Fetzer, I posted about Judyth nine years ago, and my total postings on this subject over the years can probably be counted on one hand. I don't spend much time on the topic because it doesn't even make the bottom of my priority list. Judyth said exactly what I claimed. There is no confusion here on my part. "Anita" is the ONLY woman she even mentioned in regard to this issue. And she did say the woman double dated with her and Oswald. She admits that she told me about Anita, but she hasn't even come up with an alternative explanation for why she mentioned her.
If "anita" could corroborate her story in some other way, then surely you and Mr. Platzman have tracked her down by now. I mean, if she has a postcard, she at least has a maiden name which should allow you to track down her employment records. And surely, she told all of you about Anita a long time ago. What did you/they find out??
Or is it possible, that Anita only gets evoked as a co-worker whenever I show up??
And I noticed that she does not deny having told me about how sorry she felt for Marina, being left at home alone every night. Has she explained to you, why her story morphed into a daylight affair, after I corrected her? And if Mary La Fontaine had been wrong, then Judyth could have simply said so. But instead, she completely changed her story about the affair, from that day forward.
Dr. Fetzer, I have no dogs in this race. I have no money from books, movies, TV, hanging in the balance. And we all know, that if I had posted a message supporting Judyth, you would see me as God's gift to the research community, rather than as the human sewage you portray.
If you were right about Judyth and honestly believed you were right, you wouldn't need to resort to this "take no prisoners" strategy. You could discuss the issues rationally and objectively, instead of sounding like a ranting madman. I notice that you treat all skeptics, pretty much the same way. I doubt that you care, Dr. Fetzer, but when you promote things like this and your luny Zapruder film theories, you do far more damage to our credibility than the Posners and Bugliosi's of the world.
Whenever the nutters start accusing us of being lunatics, they always point to one guy as the ultimate example. Now, who do you suppose that is?
Robert Harris
[/quote]