09-01-2012, 06:27 PM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2012, 10:32 PM by Seamus Coogan.)
[/QUOTE] I do not disagree with any of those statements, except possibly 23, and that is just speculation on my part. I tried to find Hankey's video on JFK jr yesterday and could only find a piece on you tube. That piece dealt with many of the above statements, and I agree there is no evidence. The flight instructor issue is interesting if the valve was truned in a suicide mode, but he offers no proof that there was such a flight instructor except to say that John always flew with one. On other JFK Jr sites I have seen statements that say there was an explosion in the sky right where John's plane would have been. So yes I agree that Hankey makes mistakes that overall nearly destroy the value of his work. But I still think Baker did a good job on his Bush evidence. And the book overall. One of your concerns was that he did not go into certain areas, that you felt to be very relevent. One can always find this kind of fault with any book. My main complaint is that you, Seamus and others seem to be trying to ignore the role of the Bush family in these matters. I knew almost zero about Bush when Ford made him head of the CIA but that alone greatly aroused my suspicion given Ford's role in covering up the assassination of JFK. I will at some point re-read Baker's book together with your review.
Dawn[/QUOTE]
Cheers Dawn for going and re-evaluating some of the stuff. I'm prepared to have some back and forth when you get the time. I think the problem is that as you have said the facts in the case are sadly obscured by the arguments involved. So I understand where someone in your position is coming from. I'm just a bit of a sanguine lol. Anyhow, here's the Hankey stuff.
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.
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"]
This forum is full of denials and sweeping claims, but very few proofs. I have given many links that PROVE the Zapruder film is fake. I have also offered a great deal of evidence--here and other other threads--that implicates Lyndon as the pivotal player in the death of JFK. Now if you have any proof that I am wrong, PRODUCE IT. Explain my position (so I can tell you have it right) and DISPROVE IT. I take it you write with such assurance that this should be a piece of cake. STOP DENYING I AM RIGHT AND PROVE THAT I AM WRONG. And don't forget to quote Jack Ruby when he said that, if someone else had been vice president, "all of this" would not have happened.
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.
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"]
I have offered my views in various threads and i am still waiting on your answer to my question in another thread "Do you believe that LBJ was the man who ultimately decided, authorized and ordered the execution of President Kennedy?" You will not change your mind regardless of what i say, trying to pursuade you will be a fruitless effort, so let you carry on what ever you wish to believe. History is a harsh judge and we will neither escape it's verdict.
I have explained above why you are wittingly or unwittingly serve the enemy's cause. anyway if you insist to circle the hamster's wheel it is your choise, i refuse to stuck there with you. In the mean time you should accept Drago's challenge.
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.
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.
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"]
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
I haven't posted here in a while, but wanted to comment on a few of the threads I perused tonight, including this one.
Jim Fetzer knows what I think of him. He is sometimes unbearably bombastic and lashes out way too quickly at those who disagree with him. However, I find myself usually agreeing with him. His data is sound, and anyone who has studied the significant political issues of our time must ultimately agree with him that most all of them have been explained inadequately. He's produced a lot of great work and I think he's become overly thin-skinned primarily because he's been under attack for a long time, by so many fellow researchers. Kind of like the quarterback who has been getting battered behind a horrible offensive line- he flinches and goes into defensive mode even when he's not under pressure.
I also want to say, in defense of John Hankey, that he was one of the few voices on the internet (certainly there were none at all in the mainstream media) who investigated the holes in the official story of JFK, Jr.'s death. There is little question in my mind that JFK, Jr. was assassinated, just like his father and uncle. I found his video on JFK, Jr. and Bush to be quite entertaining. Whether it's Fetzer, Hankey, or any other researcher, I don't feel comfortable in dismissing them as individuals, or declaring they have no credibility, simply because others feel that some of their views are too "extreme." Alex Jones is another guy who gets lambasted in this fashion, when in reality he is a huge force for good. Unless you're willing to label people indiscriminately as "disinfo" agents, then I think you have to acknowledge that people like Jim Fetzer and John Hankey are trying to expose wrong as they see it. I certainly won't question their motivations in doing so.
I don't think there is any rational reason to be so emphatic in stating that body alteration is or isn't a fact, that film alteration did or didn't occur, or that LBJ could or couldn't have been one of the masterminds behind the assassination. Personally, I tend to be agnostic on body alteration, lean towards at least some of the films having been altered, and think LBJ definitely had foreknowledge of the assassination but was not one of the primary forces behind it. But I could easily be wrong. That't the point so many in the research community refuse to admit- any of us could be wrong about our pet theories and hunches as well.
The only absolutes in JFK assassination research, imho, are that there WAS a conspiracy, there WAS a massive coverup and significant policy changes occurred because of the assassination. I don't have all the answers, and neither do any of you. We have common enemies in government officials and virtually every mainstream media reporter, however, who lie and distort the truth about the JFK assassination, 911 and countless other crucial events. If only we could turn all this passion and vitriol towards that common enemy, who not only don't acknowledge the absolutes in this case, but continue to perpetuate an impossible, deadly myth.
Jim Fetzer is one of the good guys- stop treating him like he's Bugliosi.
Don Jeffries Wrote:I don't think there is any rational reason to be so emphatic in stating that body alteration is or isn't a fact, that film alteration did or didn't occur, or that LBJ could or couldn't have been one of the masterminds behind the assassination. Personally, I tend to be agnostic on body alteration, lean towards at least some of the films having been altered, and think LBJ definitely had foreknowledge of the assassination but was not one of the primary forces behind it. But I could easily be wrong. That't the point so many in the research community refuse to admit- any of us could be wrong about our pet theories and hunches as well.
[Emphasis added by Drago.]
Don, I could not be in more fervent disagreement with you on this point.
I write again: The killers of JFK continue the cover-up not to eliminate doubt, but rather to PRESERVE doubt.
Doubt is what empowers them. Doubt is the foundation of their minority rule.
At some point -- and I argue that we're well past it -- we must take stands if we are to win the day.
We must not believe in conspiracy. We must KNOW that JFK was killed by conspirators, and we must present evidence that we KNOW proves our case.
I pity the country that has to choose between Jim Fetzer and Vince Bugliosi. Both have made some excellent social commentaries
but neither should have involved themselves with the assassination. Oddly enough their good calls and bad ones almost balance each other out. I'd only have JF by a nose.
How appalling is that?
Gerald McKnight, Jim Di, CD, Jim Douglas would lap Bug repeatedly.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Thanks for introducing a note of sanity in (what has turned into) the lunatics asylum. The charges against me--which have been raised time after time--appear to be three: that I have endorsed Phil Nelson's conception of Lyndon as "the mastermind" of the assassination; that I have subverted JFK research by promoting the theory that the Zapruder film was recreated; and that I have also undermined 9/11 research by advancing the position that video fakery of some kind was employed in New York on 9/11. The problem I have is that no one here has bothered to take the time (1) to understand my positions on these issues or (2) prove that I have any of them wrong. I am especially taken aback by the latest intellectual atrocity from Charles Drago, whom I regard as the Director of the Asylum. I have taken my time in responding to see if anyone on the forum, which advertises itself as devoted to research on the death of JFK, had asked the crucial question: Does Jim subscribe to, promote, or defend the five propositions Charles presents? No one has.
It is well-know among attorneys that if the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you argue the law; and if the law and the facts are against you, appeal to the emotions. A counterpart here is that if the evidence is against you, argue the logic; if the logic is against you, argue the evidence; and if the evidence and logic are against you, commit fallacies and hope no one will notice. I have been astonished that Charles Drago would commit blatant fallacies in arguing about Lyndon Johnson's role in the assassination, in particular, he commits the fallacy of equivocation, by taking the word, "mastermind", and defining it to suit himself, without regard for whether I or anyone else has ever endorsed such a conception; which he combines with the straw man, by appealing to a highly exaggerated version of my actual position in order to make it easier to attack. The fact is that neither Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol Estes, Barr McClelland, Nigel Turner or E. Howard Hunt subscribe to, promote or defend the five propositions that Charles presents--nor of course do I:
"In your informed opinion, was Lyndon Baines Johnson the prime mover and architect of the conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy?"
"Did LBJ possess the power and authority to order the JFK assassination and to have his order implemented by powerful assets within U.S. civilian and military intelligence agencies and other areas of the national/international power structure?"
"Was LBJ capable of crafting the JFK assassination conspiracy in all its complexity -- including the cover-up?"
"Do you agree with Phillip Nelson's assessment of LBJ as the 'mastermind' of the JFK assassination?"
"Do you accept the so-called 'confession' of E. Howard Hunt as a completely truthful statement made without hidden agendas to deceive and disinform?"
What Drago has done is analogous to defining "the Dallas Cowboys" as America's team (as a biased definition with a positive slant) or "the Republican Party" as the party of the rich (as a biased definition with a negative slant). The second example may be LESS BIASED AND CLOSER TO THE TRUTH than the first, but, since I know no one in the JFK research community who would assent to all five of the proposition Drago has combined to create his definition of "mastermind" (as a baised definition that is based upon exaggeration), just compare my actual position in relation to these questions, which anyone on this forum could have easily ascertained BY SIMPLY READING MY PAST POSTS. This is not the first time that Charles and I have crossed swords on this question, but it is certain the first in which his willingless to commit fallacies because logic and evidence are not on his side has led to such a stunning illustration of bias:
[FONT=&]
CD's question: "In your informed opinion, was Lyndon Baines Johnson the prime mover and architect of the conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy?"
JF's answer: "Lyndon and his cronies knew they could not beat JFK for the nomination in 1960, but that, if they could get Lyndon on the ticket, they could plan to take him out. The origins of the assassination appear to have originated at that time. An excellent source on this is Phil Nelson, LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION (2011)."
CD's question: "Did LBJ possess the power and authority to order the JFK assassination and to have his order implemented by powerful assets within U.S. civilian and military intelligence agencies and other areas of the national/international power structure?"
JF's answer: "Lyndon had the right connections with J. Edgar, the Secret Service, and other interest groups, including the CIA and the Joint Chiefs. His involvement was indispensable to carry out any such plan with impunity, since he would succeed JFK and be in the position to control the investigation. His pivotal role is well characterized by Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997). In relation to the cover-up sending the Lincoln limousine back to Ford to be competely stripped to bare metal and have its windshield replaced required authorization at the highest levels of the American government equal to that of J. Edgar or Lyndon himself. Doug Weldon has an excellent study of this aspect of the cover-up in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)."
CD's question: "Was LBJ capable of crafting the JFK assassination conspiracy in all its complexity -- including the cover-up?"
JF's answer: "This is like asking if the CEO mops the floors and empties the waste baskets! No one in their right mind would imply such a thing. He did not have to 'craft the JFK assassination conspiracy in all its complexity'! Hewas not a mechanic (shooter) or a Secret Service agent (where members of the agency set him up for the hit) or a medical officer at Bethesda (like John Eberole, M.D.) The Chiefs, the CIA, the Secret Service, the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas Sheriff's Department took care of the details. Next you are going to tell us that he had to have changed the oil in the Lincoln limousine! He had plenty of help, as Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), and Barr McClelland, BLOOD, MONEY & POWER (2003), both explain, where Noel examines the big picture of complicity between the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Secret Service and LBJ, while Barr focuses upon a small but illuminating piece of a complex conspiracy."
CD's question: "Do you agree with Phillip Nelson's assessment of LBJ as the 'mastermind' of the JFK assassination?"
JF's answer: "Yes, of course I do. He event sent his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, down to Dallas to make sure that all of the arrangements of the assassination were in place, as Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND (2004) explains. And he was the key player at the ratification meeting that took place the night before the assassiation at the home of Clint Murchison, which was attended by J. Edgar, Richard Nixon, John J. McCloy, George Brown, and other heavy hitters, as Madeleine Duncan Brown has explained, TEXAS IN THE MORNING (2004), where this meeting was substantiated by Nigel Turner in the final installment of 'The Men who Killed Kennedy."
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. He of course identified LBJ, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and David Sanchez Morales as having been involved, for which we have a great deal of corroborating evidence. Moralses also appears to have been involved with Bobby's assassination with Gordon Campbell and George Joannides, as I explain in 'RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador', Veterans Today. I would add that I believe he was circumspect with regard to the living, where he could also have delineated the complicity of George H.W. Bush, which appears to have been far more substantial than is generally understood."
Drago adds, "Don't screw around with the wording of the questions, Jim." But why in the world would I "screw around with the questions", when it is the formulation of the questions that demonstrates, beyond any resonable doubt, that Charles has gone off the deep end and completely lost his judgment and objectivity. He is committing fallacies I spent 35 years teaching freshment to avoid. "Don't be selective; ask each and every one of your contributors, Jim." But there is no reason to ask any contributor, because no one, including myself, believes these propositions as you have fashioned them. What stuns me is that Charles Drago would make such a production of this fantasy of his, which results from combining the fallacy of equivocation with the straw man fallacy.
If he were serious and not operating as a propagandist, he would have realized that he had a logically prior scholarly obligation, namely, to demonstrate that I or anyone else I have cited, including Noel Twyman, Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol Estes, Barr McClellan, Nigel Turner, or E. Howard Hunt actually subscribe to, endorse or promote the propositions he has combined to effect his slanted definition of the meaning of the word "mastermind" in this context. He didn't even try, because he knew that none of us hold the five propositions he enumerates. And for him to suggest that this should be reduced to a matter of voting shows the shallowness of his approach and utter disregard for logic and evidence. This was a stunt by a man who appears to have lost his way.
[/FONT][FONT=&]
[B]THE ZAPRUDER FILM[/B][/FONT][FONT=&]
For those who want to understand the issues here, in addition to the multiple links I have already provided to studies of the film that prove it has been reconstructed, especially to remove the limo stop, which was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity, and to alter the wounds to make them resemble what might have been caused by shots from behind, a fascinating thread is occurring on another forum. Those who want to learn more should review the entire thread, where the following post, which I offer here in part, may be found on this specific page: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....602&st=180 The study of mine that might grant easiest access to these issues is "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" But there is much more to come, where the following should be read along with "US Government Official" JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", Veterans Today:
Martin Hay has stated he would be interested in hearing my opinions on whether or not the Zapruder Film has been altered, and he has pointed me to this thread. I am new to the boards, and I think I should introduce myself as far as my "credentials" go for discussion on matters relating to old fashioned physical film.
I've mostly been involved with drawing and writing the "classic" Disney characters for the past 20 years. Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, and their family members and antagonists. I work in pencil, pen and paint, all of it the non-computer, old school way.
I have collected animation/comic art for almost 30 years. I've owned background art, cels, drawings, multiplane setups from the whole history of traditional animation, from Gertie the Dinosaur up to The Little Mermaid. I've worked to restore some of the early Snow White material. I am intimately familiar with paint on celluloid.
I love movies, and early in my teens, I was torn between becoming a movie director or comic artist.
The illustrator in me eventually won out, but in my teens, and in college, I was constructing super 8 films with friends, editing them on my own equipment. In college, I got my hands on 16 mm equipment by taking film classes. I took film history classes, made short films and belonged to the college film program while also staffing the college newspaper as the official cartoonist.
In school I tested extremely highly in abstract reasoning and mechanical comprehension. I've always had the ability...the passion, really, for visualizing any three dimensional constructions in my head. This ability extends to written plans- I'm great with directions for putting that complicated toy together that frustrates everyone else. I have the knack for intuitively understanding what something on paper looks like when built. I have extremely good focus.
Most important to this thread, because of my long interest in the Kennedy Assassination, and my working in the industry that I do, I was offered the opportunity nearly two years ago to view the exposure-neutral HD scan of the individual frames of the 35mm dupe negative created from the forensic copy of the Zapruder Film from the National Archives and Records Administration.
I've compared frames from this new digital copy to frames from the Costella Edit, and also to the MPI Frames. Both of these older copies are inferior in that they apparently have been modified to make them more visually attractive and the details have been considerably muddied- they are much less crisp than in this new digital scan. I am frankly still amazed at the difference in visible detail, and I am quite surprised no other private researcher has not broken down and spent the money to have this done before in order to acquire the very best possible copy.
It should be pointed out that I am not one the "Hollywood Group" mentioned in Doug Horne's book. I am just an independent party who happens to love film and work for Disney who lucked into this opportunity as a casual researcher.
I spent many hours looking at the pertinent frames around 310-340 and after a lot of thought about it, I got permission from the owner of this splendid copy of the Zapruder Film to show frames from it in a casual setting to a friend of mine. This friend is the Director of what today is what is regarded as probably the finest special and visual effects film studio in the world. I've known him for ten years, and he is one of the most straightforward and sensible people I've ever met. I didn't ask him his opinion about the assassination. I gave him no background whatsoever about the medical witnesses and the hole on the rear of the President's head, or anything else. All I did was offer him a blind-look at a few frames of the new, digital copy of the Z film starting at frame 311 to see what he had to say as a neutral, but expert party.
His reaction was exactly the same as mine. He was horrified at the obviousness of the black painted-in artwork present on frame 317. He went from interested professional casually examining a colleagues curious request to a man who suddenly was faced with alteration to this vital evidence which sits in the National Archives of the United States of America. (read more)
[B]VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11
[/B][/FONT]For a summary of the evidence that supports video fakery, see "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" and "9/11: New Proof of 9/11 Duplicity". Video fakery, as I used the term (lest Drago or others appeal to the fallacy of equivocation again), entails any use of videos to mislead or misinform the American people about, in this case, what happened on 9/11. The evidence strongly suggests it occurred:
(1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on) have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates). While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer of the Boeing "shaker system," has recently explained in the video entitled, "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed," which is archived here While Anthony Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is clearly not diving.
(2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the building. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage and other component parts all remain intact. It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building, as early critics and late -- from the Web Fairy to Morgan Reynolds -- have been maintaining for years now. So this is yet another physical impossibility.
(3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied. According to the third, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if these are real objects and real interactions.
(4) Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete in the form of the "cut-outs" that subsequently appear at the time they were allegedly being "caused" by the planes' impacts there. A study of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut-out in the North Tower. Indeed, an extension of the right wing's cut-out was even "penciled in." Take a look at the study of this phenomenon under "9/11 Amateur, Part 2." It is fair to infer that the same technique was employed to create the cut-out images in the South Tower.
(5) The same student of the videos has examined the Evan Fairbank's footage and found ample grounds to dispute it. Certainly, it shows the same smooth entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris from the encounter. However, it goes further in considering the angle of the shot and how he came to take it, which suggests that he is lying through his teeth. He claims he saw a "white flash" and was able to determine it was a jet. But the time line is so brief that this explanation appears to be a complete fabrication. View this study at "9/11 Amateur, Part 3." Killtown has now extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank's video, as can be observed in the very first image currently archived on his site, killtown.blogspot.com.
As three proofs that I am hardly alone in my position, which received support from multiple forms of
proof (as I have outlined them here), Pilots for 9/11 Truth has made some major contributions to the
analysis of this issue, the most recent of which include the following. The first of these confirms that
the speed shown for Flight 175 in the New York 9/11 videos exceeded its aerodynamic capabilities:
The second esablishes that, while Flight 93, which purportedly crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was
in the air, it was in the vicinity Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Champaign, Illinois, of a location far removed
from Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at the time it has been reported by our government to have crashed:
[FONT=&]The third esablishes that, while Flight 175, which purportedly crashed into the South Tower in New York,
was in the air, it was in the vicinity Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a location far removed
from New York, New York, at the time it has been reported by our government to have hit the tower:[/FONT][FONT=&]
While I do not presume that other members of this forum have taught logic, critical thinking or scientific
reasoning for 35 years, I do presume that they can grasp that the same plane cannot have been in two
locations at the same time on 9/11. Not only has Pilots confirmed that Flight 93 did not crash as we have
been told, but that the Flight 175 observed hitting the South Tower had to be some form of video fakery,
where even the speed that it was calculated to be flying on the basis of the films is not aerodynamically
possible. And we have here additional proof that the kinds of criticism to which I have been subjected on
this forum has no basis in evidence or logic, where it follows that my critics have no idea what they have
been talking about and where the leader of the band has made up his target of criticism, which is a form
of dishonesty and deception as far removed from serious scholarship as Flight 175 from the South Tower.
Don Jeffries Wrote:I haven't posted here in a while, but wanted to comment on a few of the threads I perused tonight, including this one.
Jim Fetzer knows what I think of him. He is sometimes unbearably bombastic and lashes out way too quickly at those who disagree with him. However, I find myself usually agreeing with him. His data is sound, and anyone who has studied the significant political issues of our time must ultimately agree with him that most all of them have been explained inadequately. He's produced a lot of great work and I think he's become overly thin-skinned primarily because he's been under attack for a long time, by so many fellow researchers. Kind of like the quarterback who has been getting battered behind a horrible offensive line- he flinches and goes into defensive mode even when he's not under pressure.
I also want to say, in defense of John Hankey, that he was one of the few voices on the internet (certainly there were none at all in the mainstream media) who investigated the holes in the official story of JFK, Jr.'s death. There is little question in my mind that JFK, Jr. was assassinated, just like his father and uncle. I found his video on JFK, Jr. and Bush to be quite entertaining. Whether it's Fetzer, Hankey, or any other researcher, I don't feel comfortable in dismissing them as individuals, or declaring they have no credibility, simply because others feel that some of their views are too "extreme." Alex Jones is another guy who gets lambasted in this fashion, when in reality he is a huge force for good. Unless you're willing to label people indiscriminately as "disinfo" agents, then I think you have to acknowledge that people like Jim Fetzer and John Hankey are trying to expose wrong as they see it. I certainly won't question their motivations in doing so.
I don't think there is any rational reason to be so emphatic in stating that body alteration is or isn't a fact, that film alteration did or didn't occur, or that LBJ could or couldn't have been one of the masterminds behind the assassination. Personally, I tend to be agnostic on body alteration, lean towards at least some of the films having been altered, and think LBJ definitely had foreknowledge of the assassination but was not one of the primary forces behind it. But I could easily be wrong. That's the point so many in the research community refuse to admit- any of us could be wrong about our pet theories and hunches as well.
The only absolutes in JFK assassination research, imho, are that there WAS a conspiracy, there WAS a massive coverup and significant policy changes occurred because of the assassination. I don't have all the answers, and neither do any of you. We have common enemies in government officials and virtually every mainstream media reporter, however, who lie and distort the truth about the JFK assassination, 911 and countless other crucial events. If only we could turn all this passion and vitriol towards that common enemy, who not only don't acknowledge the absolutes in this case, but continue to perpetuate an impossible, deadly myth.
Jim Fetzer is one of the good guys-
[/FONT]
Don Jeffries Wrote:[FONT=&]stop treating him like he's Bugliosi.[/FONT]
11-01-2012, 02:06 AM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2012, 07:50 AM by Seamus Coogan.)
Is it a bird is it a plane? Well it' neither cos it's a hologram!
A mindless Fetzer monologue. Fabtabulous
I have a nagging suspicion that Yahweh has a towel as a cape and wear's his undies outside his jeans.
Jim Fetzer still fails to confront my arguments, nor does he confront grim realities with his evidence.
He's acting like an infant. So why the hell am I not allowed? How come he gets the special
treatment? Well, I'll probably get in some big trouble for this. Indeed I'll probably get slung in the Bear Pit.
But all I can say folks is that it was totally worth it. I've earned my little tantrum. Have you guys seen Tron Legacy?
I swore I saw this guy in it.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
![[Image: 10yndbm.jpg]](http://i42.tinypic.com/10yndbm.jpg)
![[Image: 2e38gtk.jpg]](http://i44.tinypic.com/2e38gtk.jpg)
![[Image: sf8k6b.jpg]](http://i42.tinypic.com/sf8k6b.jpg)