10-01-2012, 12:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2012, 06:52 AM by Seamus Coogan.)
Well Said Vasilios. But theres more, oh so much more.
That last Ruby quote is utterly hilarious. How little does Jim Fetzer understand about Black op's and covert operations. Has Fetzer ever heard of compartmentalisation? Has Fetzer ever heard of the terms cutouts and false sponsors? No because he believes every man and his dog was involved and also getting photographed in Dealey Plaza that day. That's how good an understanding of covert ops Mr Fetzer has.
It's as staggering as his comparisons between Jim Di and John Hankey. As if he sits in judgement of them both. How utterly bizarre is this guy? Jim DiEugenio is multi-platinum the man Mr Fetzer is. Secondly even Hankey hasn't gone as far as you have on a number of claims. I guess that makes Hankey a better researcher than you Mr Fetzer. Hows them apples?
You cannot even justify why you made your comments in your article. You still havent explained how I am wrong for saying Kennedy's body was not smuggled off the plane at Edwards? Why am I suddenly saying there were 'no multiple shooters' when I critique Hankey's production methods? What has Zap film authenticity got to do with Hankey's comments. He believed in the Zap film as well.
Tell me why you think it's passable for him too A) Splice connelly's interviews. B) Saying both agents had turned around when in the film in discussion they did not. C) So in your world Jim, some people can believe that the film is unaltered. But only if they are opposed to myself!
That's amazing and your a master of logic!
Before you start going off on tangents front up with some real answers to your deceptions please Mr Fetzer.
As for your comments to Vasilios. What is the point in reading someone like you? Because we actually read your stuff, yet we know that you do not read our published material and yet you persistantly ask for 'evidence' on forums. Like a classic troll. This even when evidence is posted for you to read. What sort of person demands you their material, but don't show common courtesy back. I know why because JF your the messiah. Sheeeesh I finally figured it out.
The medical evidence (and you should know this through somehow getting a PHD in philosophy) is open to all manner of interpretation. Roger Feinman, Harold Weisberg, Bobby Groden and Harry Livingstone tore the whole body alteration in the plane angle to shreds. As for the Zap film, I believe there's a good chance it's okay because Bob Groden a guy you dislike tell's me it's kosher. I like him more than you, thus I like his opinions. He's been working with the film for a very long time. It's pretty simple arithmetic really. However, I still find Jack White interesting. Nor I would I completely put alteration out of my head. But hey who needs the Zap film to prove conspiracy anyhow? You obviously do. Further that none of you alterationists believe in a coherent narrative for alteration. You all see different things. But hey you can see what ever you want I'm not opposed. But you Mr Fetzer can't see the wood for the trees.
As said if you want to work something out with CTKA let's join together and find out the identity of Ron on the bridge. It'll be a great bonding exercise.
Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:This joke isn't funny any more. the whole thing with Professor Fetzer and his persistence with "LBJ mastermind" according to the gospels of Brown, Nelson, Bill Sol Estes, McClellan and E.H.Hunt reminds me of a hamster's wheel. We spin round and round and we are stuck in the same position, repeating the circle over and over again. We keep repeating ourselves so i won't bother to explain him again my disagreements. But to believe E.H.Hunt,it is something that he should not be proud of and i don't know why he refuses to see it.[/QUOTE]
I would like to think that his intentions are noble but unfortunately the results lead us to two disturbing conclusions:
1. He propagates the LBJ mastermind lie, so he is "helping" wittingly or unwittingly to cover up the true sponsors of the crime, so he plays their game
2. His persistence about the Z-film hoax increases the cognitive dissonance among researchers and as Charles have said "The enemy's goal is not to settle this argument, but to prolong it." so again wittingly or unwittingly serves their purpose. I would refer him to Salandria's words, like i said to Cinque 3 times, but he did not get it either.
who has mysteriously disappeared for good i hope.
As for Hankey his research is flawed and to compare his work and contribution with that of Jim DiEugenio was totaly wrong. I would suggest Hankey to read DiEugenio's book "The Assassinations", i am sure he will have a lot to learn from this book.
Regarding the Z-film i would refer him to my answer in another thread[URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?9362-The-Danger-Of-The-Fetzer-Assassination-School&highlight=cinque"]
[/URL]https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ght=cinque
That last Ruby quote is utterly hilarious. How little does Jim Fetzer understand about Black op's and covert operations. Has Fetzer ever heard of compartmentalisation? Has Fetzer ever heard of the terms cutouts and false sponsors? No because he believes every man and his dog was involved and also getting photographed in Dealey Plaza that day. That's how good an understanding of covert ops Mr Fetzer has.
It's as staggering as his comparisons between Jim Di and John Hankey. As if he sits in judgement of them both. How utterly bizarre is this guy? Jim DiEugenio is multi-platinum the man Mr Fetzer is. Secondly even Hankey hasn't gone as far as you have on a number of claims. I guess that makes Hankey a better researcher than you Mr Fetzer. Hows them apples?
You cannot even justify why you made your comments in your article. You still havent explained how I am wrong for saying Kennedy's body was not smuggled off the plane at Edwards? Why am I suddenly saying there were 'no multiple shooters' when I critique Hankey's production methods? What has Zap film authenticity got to do with Hankey's comments. He believed in the Zap film as well.
Tell me why you think it's passable for him too A) Splice connelly's interviews. B) Saying both agents had turned around when in the film in discussion they did not. C) So in your world Jim, some people can believe that the film is unaltered. But only if they are opposed to myself!
That's amazing and your a master of logic!
Before you start going off on tangents front up with some real answers to your deceptions please Mr Fetzer.
As for your comments to Vasilios. What is the point in reading someone like you? Because we actually read your stuff, yet we know that you do not read our published material and yet you persistantly ask for 'evidence' on forums. Like a classic troll. This even when evidence is posted for you to read. What sort of person demands you their material, but don't show common courtesy back. I know why because JF your the messiah. Sheeeesh I finally figured it out.
The medical evidence (and you should know this through somehow getting a PHD in philosophy) is open to all manner of interpretation. Roger Feinman, Harold Weisberg, Bobby Groden and Harry Livingstone tore the whole body alteration in the plane angle to shreds. As for the Zap film, I believe there's a good chance it's okay because Bob Groden a guy you dislike tell's me it's kosher. I like him more than you, thus I like his opinions. He's been working with the film for a very long time. It's pretty simple arithmetic really. However, I still find Jack White interesting. Nor I would I completely put alteration out of my head. But hey who needs the Zap film to prove conspiracy anyhow? You obviously do. Further that none of you alterationists believe in a coherent narrative for alteration. You all see different things. But hey you can see what ever you want I'm not opposed. But you Mr Fetzer can't see the wood for the trees.
As said if you want to work something out with CTKA let's join together and find out the identity of Ron on the bridge. It'll be a great bonding exercise.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992