04-04-2011, 12:28 AM
Robert,
Your answer to my earlier post and the questions Monk has raised are
extremely telling. I used to think that you were a serious student
of JFK. To fault the brilliant chapter by David Mantik on the film in
ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), for example, as you have done, tells
me that I have misjudged you. And to list THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM
HOAX (2003) on your list of the worst books on JFK is simply absurd.
Since MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) also discusses the Zapruder
issue, I suppose you don't like it either. As a commentator on one
of your posts on amazon.com has observed, you excluded all three of
these books from a list you gave of "good books" on the assassination.
I expect that from Tink, but not from you. Even Bugliosi acknowledged
they are the only three "exclusively scientific" studies of his death.
Any student of JFK could learn more about the case--the serious side
of the case--from the Preface and the Prologue of HOAX by themselves
than from your collected works! The Prologue, for example, offers a
dozen or more examples of fraud in the evidence, which may be the key
issue for understanding the case. And for you to trash this book when,
by your own admission, you "have no studied the issue at length" is an
affront and an insult to those of us who have. At the very least, you
should acknowledge that you don't know enough to take a stand, not put
it on you list of "bad books". I am sorry to say that, on this basis, I
no longer regard you as being a competent scholar of the death of JFK.
For those who do "have time" to study one of the most contentions and
important issues in JFK research, here are some additional resources.
Over and beyond the articles cited below, I have several interviews
on the film with Rich DellaRosa on "The Real Deal", who, like Monk,
has seen "the other film" on multiple occasions. John Costella has
just done an interview with Len Osanic on "Black Op Radio" and a new
interview with Greg Burnham about the film will be broadcast on the
http://revereradio.net from 5-7 PM/CT, where the first hour features
Jesse Ventura discussing his new book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT
DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (2011), where the "63" was chosen because
1963 was the year in which JFK was taken out. Here are some links,
where anyone who studies EVEN ONE will know more than Robert Morrow:
ON THE FAKING OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM:
"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_...fk_fil.htm
"Mary in the Street - Revisited"
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/
"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zaprude...24-48.html
"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"
http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994
"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html
"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/...ll-or.html
"Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/...-film.html
Plus John Costella has a nice tutorial into to Z-film fakery:
"THE JFK ASSASSINATION FILM HOAX: AN INTRODUCTION"
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
and there is a 66-part series about the Duluth conference I organized under
the title, "Zapruder Fakery", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY
[quote name='Greg Burnham' date='03 April 2011 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1301848300' post='222685']
Robert Morrow Said:
Question Robert:
How would you regard a "researcher" who claimed the following:
What could you determine, if anything, about the value of such a researcher's methodology? Keep in mind, this is NOT about "the researcher's ultimate conclusion" at this stage. Rather, it is first about the soundness of the means employed to reach said conclusion. Moreover, how would you regard a researcher who further placed a book on the "best or worst of list" even though, by their own admission, they have not thoroughly studied the issue sufficiently enough to offer any rebuttal to the salient points raised in that book?
[/quote]
Your answer to my earlier post and the questions Monk has raised are
extremely telling. I used to think that you were a serious student
of JFK. To fault the brilliant chapter by David Mantik on the film in
ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), for example, as you have done, tells
me that I have misjudged you. And to list THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM
HOAX (2003) on your list of the worst books on JFK is simply absurd.
Since MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) also discusses the Zapruder
issue, I suppose you don't like it either. As a commentator on one
of your posts on amazon.com has observed, you excluded all three of
these books from a list you gave of "good books" on the assassination.
I expect that from Tink, but not from you. Even Bugliosi acknowledged
they are the only three "exclusively scientific" studies of his death.
Any student of JFK could learn more about the case--the serious side
of the case--from the Preface and the Prologue of HOAX by themselves
than from your collected works! The Prologue, for example, offers a
dozen or more examples of fraud in the evidence, which may be the key
issue for understanding the case. And for you to trash this book when,
by your own admission, you "have no studied the issue at length" is an
affront and an insult to those of us who have. At the very least, you
should acknowledge that you don't know enough to take a stand, not put
it on you list of "bad books". I am sorry to say that, on this basis, I
no longer regard you as being a competent scholar of the death of JFK.
For those who do "have time" to study one of the most contentions and
important issues in JFK research, here are some additional resources.
Over and beyond the articles cited below, I have several interviews
on the film with Rich DellaRosa on "The Real Deal", who, like Monk,
has seen "the other film" on multiple occasions. John Costella has
just done an interview with Len Osanic on "Black Op Radio" and a new
interview with Greg Burnham about the film will be broadcast on the
http://revereradio.net from 5-7 PM/CT, where the first hour features
Jesse Ventura discussing his new book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT
DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (2011), where the "63" was chosen because
1963 was the year in which JFK was taken out. Here are some links,
where anyone who studies EVEN ONE will know more than Robert Morrow:
ON THE FAKING OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM:
"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_...fk_fil.htm
"Mary in the Street - Revisited"
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/
"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zaprude...24-48.html
"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"
http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994
"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html
"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/...ll-or.html
"Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/...-film.html
Plus John Costella has a nice tutorial into to Z-film fakery:
"THE JFK ASSASSINATION FILM HOAX: AN INTRODUCTION"
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
and there is a 66-part series about the Duluth conference I organized under
the title, "Zapruder Fakery", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY
[quote name='Greg Burnham' date='03 April 2011 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1301848300' post='222685']
Robert Morrow Said:
Quote:"I do not currently believe that the Zapruder film was significantly altered. I am in the camp of Robert Groden who I highly respect. I have not studied the issue at length."
Question Robert:
How would you regard a "researcher" who claimed the following:
Quote:"I do not currently believe that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. I am in the camp of Bugliosi who I highly respect. I have not studied the issue at length."
What could you determine, if anything, about the value of such a researcher's methodology? Keep in mind, this is NOT about "the researcher's ultimate conclusion" at this stage. Rather, it is first about the soundness of the means employed to reach said conclusion. Moreover, how would you regard a researcher who further placed a book on the "best or worst of list" even though, by their own admission, they have not thoroughly studied the issue sufficiently enough to offer any rebuttal to the salient points raised in that book?
[/quote]