acebaker

Jul 24 2009, 03:22 PM

There are critics of my work. In my opinion, none of the criticism stands up to scrutiny

JimFetzer

Jul 26 2009, 10:37 PM

The idea of being able to explain who killed JFK in three words is rather strange. I suppose I could point in the right
direction by "CIA", "LBJ", and "Mafia", but that doesn't quite capture the moment. A couple of my articles make the
existence of the conspiracy and cover-up difficult to deny ("Reasoning about Assassinations") and what we know now
about the case reasonably accessible ("Review of Reclaiming History"), both of which are archived on assassination-
science.com. (For more, scroll down to the "Introductory Seminar on JFK", including especially the section entitled,
"The JFK Assassination Film Hoax" by John P. Costella, with whom I co-edit an on-line journal for advanced study of
the death of JFK at assassinationresearch.com.) I presume you are familiar with the three books I have edited about
this case: ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM
HOAX (2003). A new book by James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE (2008) has now appeared, which is quite
excellent on the motives and the individuals who wanted him taken out. That book together with MURDER provide a
powerful combination for those who want a short course on what happened to JFK and why. So, Thanks for asking!

shure

Jul 25 2009, 12:34 AM

As much as I don't think all the people who took a picture, video or said the saw a plane on 9/11 are liars and part of the 9/11 coverup, I don't think Jim or many others mentioned are "psy-operators". I think it has much more to do with difference of opinions, egos and attention seeking.

Jim, for example, entertains many ideas that at first sound plausible such as September Clues or a planted engine. He seems to take peoples word alot of times instead of looking into the information himself, where if he did, he would see that alot of the stuff people say doesn't stand up to the evidence.

I think Ace truely believes he is right about his compositing theory, but turns a blind eye to anything that would refute what he believes. If Ace was being honest with himself he would admit that there is alot of information he has overlooked to come up with his conclusion.

Its similar with Simon Shack, he has enjoyed all the attention he has got over September Clues and lately with his total fakery stuff. There are alot of people that believe it, but Simon knows he is wrong and if he admitted it he would be left with nothing.

Too bad everybody couldn't just drop all the nonsense and work together to find out what actually happened instead of trying to feed their own selfish desires.

Quote:

 

By November 1996, Prof. Fetzer was leading the charge of those advocating that the Zapruder film had been altered: He unveiled a seven-part video overview of the assassination; he was promoting Dr. Mantik, a medical researcher, as "the world authority on the Zapruder film; and he had gathered a few others who believed in alteration (Jack White, Roy Schaeffer, David Lifton, etc.) to join them on a totally one-sided double panel arguing their case. Just to make certain that things would go his way, he took complete control, juggled panel members around, and gave long-winded introductions essentially telling the audience what they were expected to believe at the end of the presentations (I wonder if this is how he lectures at the University of Minnesota at Duluth?)

Again, there seemed a lot of nonsense, but a few points worth pursuing. Livingstone decided to have nothing to do with the extreme alterationists, though he remained on good terms with Dr. Mantik, with whom he had worked on medical evidence issues.

The Zapruder panels gained the kind of attention Prof. Fetzer had been looking for. There were heated debates in private e-mail lists, then on Internet newsgroups. In 1997, the book Prof. Fetzer edited, Assassination Science, was released, with a long chapter by Dr. Mantik on Zapruder film alteration, as well as a few others on the topic.

Around the same time, Noel Twyman came out, somewhat less fervently, for alteration in his book, Bloody Treason. This was the peak, and the alterationists rode the wave for a while.

There had always been those who were skeptical of the bulk of the alterationist claims. As the debate continued, more of the "anomalies" were explained, and the points which had seemed worth pursuing began to fall by the wayside, but the alterationists had a tendency to do three things:

1) A phenomenon I call "Anomaly of the Week," which meant that no matter how many alterationist claims were proven wrong, new ones cropped up like weeds, some of them increasingly far-fetched, and quickly discarded in the face of evidence;

2) A tendency to wait until the controversy over something had died down, and then resurrect it as though it were "new evidence;" and

3) An increasing tendency to launch personal attacks on unbelievers, accusing them of being "Lone Nutters," or "disinformation agents," or "anti-conspiracy" (as though theirs was the only valid conspiracy theory), or "too dumb" to understand the "startling evidence" which had "already proven" alteration true.

The Assassination Records Review Board looked into the alteration allegations, concluded the film was authentic, and made sure to preserve all available Archive copies. The Zapruder family worked with MPI video to release a high-resolution digital copy for study, in video and DVD formats. Robert Groden had already released a video which included a variety of Zapruder films (a 35mm copy of the damaged original, an intact Secret Service copy, an early bootleg, etc.). Then the ARRB released the 600 page technical reports and documentation by retired Kodak 8mm expert Roland Zavada, which an alterationist described as "devastating" to proponents of alteration.

The alteration proponents, as even some of them conceded, suffered a blow at the 1998 JFK Lancer conference's Zapruder film panel, the first time they had to publicly face opponents of their views in a forum. Prof. Fetzer made a scene, and effectively eliminated the question and answer period. Since the conference, a fissure has developed between the "realist" alterationists and the "ideological" alterationists, with some bitterness resulting. Jack White has released a videotape which the "ideological" wing believes to be overwhelming evidence that the film was altered, and which the "realist" wing feels is unconvincing, an embarrassment, and a setback to those who believe there is genuine evidence of alteration, but are having doubts.
http://www.jfk-info.com/martin2.htm

Quote:

 

From Jack White:

David Lifton was the first prominent JFK researcher to investigate the fakery of the Zapruder film very early.
On my own, as soon as I got good images of film frames, I decided the film was not genuine, and began
saying so in my JFK slide lectures. As early as the 1980s, Jim Marrs wrote in his book CROSSFIRE"...



When Jim became familiar with the studies of me and Lifton, he adopted the film as a CAUSE to be investigated.
He recruited me, Lifton, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. John Costella to collaborate with him on producing his book.
I was flattered that he chose the title of a video that I had done THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX as the
title for the book.


I am also pleased that Jim finds all of my 911 research logical and credible.


Jack

Jack White

 

I am also pleased that Jim finds all of my 911 research logical and credible.

shure

Jul 29 2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

 

By November 1996, Prof. Fetzer was leading the charge of those advocating that the Zapruder film had been altered: He unveiled a seven-part video overview of the assassination; he was promoting Dr. Mantik, a medical researcher, as "the world authority on the Zapruder film; and he had gathered a few others who believed in alteration (Jack White, Roy Schaeffer, David Lifton, etc.) to join them on a totally one-sided double panel arguing their case. Just to make certain that things would go his way, he took complete control, juggled panel members around, and gave long-winded introductions essentially telling the audience what they were expected to believe at the end of the presentations (I wonder if this is how he lectures at the University of Minnesota at Duluth?)

Again, there seemed a lot of nonsense, but a few points worth pursuing. Livingstone decided to have nothing to do with the extreme alterationists, though he remained on good terms with Dr. Mantik, with whom he had worked on medical evidence issues.

The Zapruder panels gained the kind of attention Prof. Fetzer had been looking for. There were heated debates in private e-mail lists, then on Internet newsgroups. In 1997, the book Prof. Fetzer edited, Assassination Science, was released, with a long chapter by Dr. Mantik on Zapruder film alteration, as well as a few others on the topic.

Around the same time, Noel Twyman came out, somewhat less fervently, for alteration in his book, Bloody Treason. This was the peak, and the alterationists rode the wave for a while.

There had always been those who were skeptical of the bulk of the alterationist claims. As the debate continued, more of the "anomalies" were explained, and the points which had seemed worth pursuing began to fall by the wayside, but the alterationists had a tendency to do three things:

1) A phenomenon I call "Anomaly of the Week," which meant that no matter how many alterationist claims were proven wrong, new ones cropped up like weeds, some of them increasingly far-fetched, and quickly discarded in the face of evidence;

2) A tendency to wait until the controversy over something had died down, and then resurrect it as though it were "new evidence;" and

3) An increasing tendency to launch personal attacks on unbelievers, accusing them of being "Lone Nutters," or "disinformation agents," or "anti-conspiracy" (as though theirs was the only valid conspiracy theory), or "too dumb" to understand the "startling evidence" which had "already proven" alteration true.

The Assassination Records Review Board looked into the alteration allegations, concluded the film was authentic, and made sure to preserve all available Archive copies. The Zapruder family worked with MPI video to release a high-resolution digital copy for study, in video and DVD formats. Robert Groden had already released a video which included a variety of Zapruder films (a 35mm copy of the damaged original, an intact Secret Service copy, an early bootleg, etc.). Then the ARRB released the 600 page technical reports and documentation by retired Kodak 8mm expert Roland Zavada, which an alterationist described as "devastating" to proponents of alteration.

The alteration proponents, as even some of them conceded, suffered a blow at the 1998 JFK Lancer conference's Zapruder film panel, the first time they had to publicly face opponents of their views in a forum. Prof. Fetzer made a scene, and effectively eliminated the question and answer period. Since the conference, a fissure has developed between the "realist" alterationists and the "ideological" alterationists, with some bitterness resulting. Jack White has released a videotape which the "ideological" wing believes to be overwhelming evidence that the film was altered, and which the "realist" wing feels is unconvincing, an embarrassment, and a setback to those who believe there is genuine evidence of alteration, but are having doubts.
http://www.jfk-info.com/martin2.htm

Quote:

 

From Jack White:

David Lifton was the first prominent JFK researcher to investigate the fakery of the Zapruder film very early.
On my own, as soon as I got good images of film frames, I decided the film was not genuine, and began
saying so in my JFK slide lectures. As early as the 1980s, Jim Marrs wrote in his book CROSSFIRE"...



When Jim became familiar with the studies of me and Lifton, he adopted the film as a CAUSE to be investigated.
He recruited me, Lifton, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. John Costella to collaborate with him on producing his book.
I was flattered that he chose the title of a video that I had done THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX as the
title for the book.


I am also pleased that Jim finds all of my 911 research logical and credible.


Jack

Quote:

 

I guess Prothink's Radio show

Jenny

Aug 5 2009, 09:27 PM

Right--first point of order: only dead irresponsible or extremely nasty people post other people's email addresses unedited on a public forum. Unless Babs can prove every email listed was published publicly by that person themselves some where, either she or the moderators have a lot of editing to do. If any innocents get shite because of this(and we all know these spam lists are a mix of disruptors and innocents) I will personally make sure they get help finding Ms. Babbles. My suggestion-- start acting like a responsible adult, Babs--nowish.

Second point:

Quote:

 

I guess Prothink's Radio show

Why is anyone suggesting Prothink? WTF? PROTHINK! These are the worst of the worst racist antisemitic pieces of shite working over time to conflate 911truth--and other valid issues-with Holocaust denial. Here's some broken links--because I'm not giving them ranks-

www.prothink. org
www.myspace. com/prothink
therealprothink. blogspot.com
www.prothink. tv/2009/03/11/prothink-encourages-activism
(great bit on Aryan nobility )

Is there any good reason prothink and khansverese(prothink supporter)--both, incidentally, myspace friends of Kunttown and his girlfriend(they probably call it "free speech")--should be anywhere on a list addressed to real 911 truthers?

Third: Eric Hufschmid = Prothink lite.

What are you doing even talking to these wankers, Babs? I'm sure this is supposed to be proof you feel Fezter is dodgy. But another question rises--why do you email them? Or they email you? They're either idiots or worse. If you really think they're up to no good--block their email accounts and move on.

But cheers for showing how deep the racist s*** goes in some circles--

DrBabs

Aug 6 2009, 03:26 AM

Yeah, you do have a good point about those other people's email
addresses. I didn't think about it when I posted the message.

col.j

 

Right--first point of order: only dead irresponsible or extremely nasty people post other people's email addresses unedited on a public forum. Unless Babs can prove every email listed was published publicly by that person themselves some where, either she or the moderators have a lot of editing to do. If any innocents get shite because of this(and we all know these spam lists are a mix of disruptors and innocents) I will personally make sure they get help finding Ms. Babbles. My suggestion-- start acting like a responsible adult, Babs--nowish.

col.j

 

Cheers for fixing it. It was the decent thing to do.