NOTE: I have noticed that, in reviewing the shot sequence, I misstated the name of the person who I believe fired the shot that entered the right temple, an Air Force expert named "Jack Lawrence", not "(Jim) Lewis", who has been traveling around the South firing bullets through junked cars at dummies in the back. A slight simpler version can be found in "Revisiting Dealey Plaza: What Happened to JFK?", which is archived at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.
I urge folks with enough time to look at Jim's great presentation, in
which he talks extemporaneously for more than an hour at top speed
without taking a breath...giving one of the most accurate basic
JFK presentations around. It almost exactly tracks the four hour
slide presentation that I used to do, which he had no access to;
he independently came to many of the same conclusions that I did.
Of course, I still disagree with him about two of the tramps, although
he did offer much new information about Chauncey Holt. All-in-all
it is a must-see presentation on a venue much superior to YouTube.
Everyone should switch films to this venue, which allows NON-STOP
viewing instead of ten-minute segments.
Thanks, Jim...great work.
Jack
(I FIRST POSTED THIS MESSAGE IN THE WRONG THREAD. WATCH
BOTH VIDEOS.)
Your work, your opinions, and your good name have found yet another home at the Deep Politics Forum.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I've had the honor to be asked by Jim to work with him both on the founding of his Assassination Research website ( http://www.assassinationresearch.com ) and as a speaker at his first Minnesota conference on JFK.
Of course this is not to say that we march in lockstep on all issues. Rather, I recognize in Jim's work the dignity and compassion that only rarely surfaces in our extended community.
Elsewhere on the Internet Jim has taken on and exposed one of the most vile, insidious disinformation entities. For his troubles, the post in which he "outs" this creature was promptly removed by its acolytes.
This forum has not and will not provide safe haven to the conspirators. We remain at war. Jim Fetzer knows this. He is the truth's ally.
Charles, Thanks for your warm welcome. I have just about run out of patience with the absurdities at The Education Forum, as I gather many of you did long ago. Some of those who are most active there have no interest in the truth but only obfuscation. I have the impression that is not the case here, which gladdens me. It is difficult enough to figure out what happened in these complex cases without having to deal with constant harassment and dissembling. I am delighted to be here and look forward to joining you in common cause, not only related to JFK but 9/11 and Wellstone, too. Jim
Great to see you here Jim. Your talk is just incredible. Your command of the evidence in this case is stunning. Perfect for a novice and equally so for someone at any level of comprehension of the vast amount of evidence of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.
I daresay you will be greeted here with the respect you have so rightly earned.
20-12-2009, 01:55 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2009, 05:02 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
My videographer had warned me that he would have to change tapes at 1.5 hours into the program, but I had not anticipated that it would leave out so much interesting material. I was explaining that Lucien Conein, notorious CIA assassin and collaborator with Edward Lansdale, had been photographed in Dealey Plaza, where his head appears directly above that of JFK. Since it was omitted here, I asked Jack to post the missing frames for me to discuss.
The pattern of these photos is 1 (top left), 2 (top right), 3 (second left), 4 (second right), 5 (third left), 6 (third right). Allan Eaglesham has been trying to convince me and others that the person in Dealey Plaza whose face appears directly above that of JFK (1) is not really Lucien Conein but instead Richard Adams, who even received a plaque for being caught in this photograph. I told him that this was either someone who looked a great deal like Conein or was Conein himself.
I asked Jack to determine whether the two were the same person. Jack produced multiple studies--two of which are shown here, (2) and (3)--establishing that they are not the same. Even the plaque is a fake (4). The other missing slides include "Familiar Faces" at Houston and Main (5), where six CIA officials were gathered, apparently to pay their last respects. I then discussed other images of some of those involved in the assassination (6).
The evidence of fakery in relation to the plaque is blatant. It doesn't even have the right day of the week or date of the month! That Eaglesham would be promoting something flimsy like this bothers me tremendously. Because he was so persistent about this, when the evidence contradicts him, I no longer consider him to be a reliable source on these matters.
I continue to believe in James Richards, however, whom I mention in relation to the identification of the Dal-Tex shooter. He told me that Nestor A. "Tony" Izquierdo had been identified by him and by Gary Patrick Hemming, as I observed in the presentation. And thanks to Jack White, whom I continue to admire for this diligence and perseverance in spite of adversity. Well done, Jack! And thanks to Dawn for her warm welcome, too. I am delighted to be here.
20-12-2009, 08:55 AM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2009, 08:58 AM by Bernice Moore.)
dr.jim I am very pleased to find you within these walls posting without the neocon DOGS on your heels...but i must speak my mind as you have encouraged me to do down through the years when i differ...and be honest within my own thoughts and findings within the research...
in reference to what you have posted above about allan eaglesham imo he is and has been one of the most honest and open sharing researchers i have ever had the priveledge of knowing and working with in the jfk research ..in reference to his new findings he presented re conein are we and have we not been encouraged to folllow what could be new leads within the research resulting in possible new information within the studies that is how this came about..he was contacted with what could possibly lead to new findings within and as a researcher should he have followed the trail to competion as he did and then openly presented or are we and he to throw such new leads to possible new findings aside and now in doing so he is and has been critized and you say not reliable any longer.. imo that is certainly not fair.and i certainly differ with your opinion...and i do believe this is possibly the first time this has actually happened ...in future if any possible new leads come along then lord forbid all should ignore for fear if presented after following through we also will be accused similarly..allan i repeat is a very good and a very honest man and researcher...and that i feel i must make very clear in fact there are not too many around that i could point to and stand up for and say the same without a hesitation..publicly..of course as you know i wish you all the very best and a carry on... b...:heeeelllllooooo:
20-12-2009, 04:54 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2009, 05:15 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Bernice, You may be right. Perhaps I am being too hard on the man. But he and I and Jack had several exchanges about this, where Jack produced more than enough studies, in my opinion, to demonstrate that DealeyPlazaMan and Richard Adams are not one and the same. Jack also observed that he had never heard of someone receiving a plaque for having been in a photograph, with which I agree. Yet Allan Eaglesham persists in his claim that DealeyPlazaMan is Adams! If you take a look at the plaque, however, it could hardly be a more obvious fake. It has its second paragraph PASTED IN and compliments him for having been photographed in Dealey Plaza on THURSDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 1963, which is quite frankly absurd. I even featured Allan on "The Real Deal" on 27 February 2009 and James Richards on 6 March 2009, interviews which are archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. I certainly wish it were not the case, but having pointed out the difficulties with the identification he promotes and not changing his mind, I have had my confidence in him shaken. Our subjective degrees of rationality of belief can be compared with objective measures of evidential support to determine our degrees of irrationality by the divergence between them. The plaque fakery is so blatant and Jack's studies so definitive that his rationality in continuing to support this claim requires an explanation. I am willing to grant that he may simply be making a mistake in this instance, but if that is the case, then it still shakes my confidence in his reliability, because he ought to know better. You, of course, are not required to share my beliefs about this, but you certainly need to take a closer look at what I have presented--(1) through (6)--if you want to persist in the belief that he is right about Adams being DealeyPlazaMan. I admire you for speaking out about this, Bernice. You are a wonderful person who continues to make valuable contributions to this case and I would not want there to be any misunderstanding between us. I am glad that you've challenged me to clarify my position in greater detail. His reliance upon the plaque bothers me the most. No one of his sophistication should be taken in.
