Sunday, April 8, 2018

Now, let's discuss James Norwood.

He wrote the following in response to Brian Pete. 

But, I'm sure he wrote that after seeing this photo because I know he reads my blog:
So, isn't James interested it it? Doesn't he want to talk about it? Apparently not. Well, I am putting you on the spot, James. What do you think of the photo? Do you defend it? Do you try to justify what it shows? State your position. 

He, like Brian Pete, accuses Jim Fetzer of using circular reasoning, but it's not true. Jim Fetzer described the following as a photographic alteration.

What is circled there is supposed to be a man, and no matter what you think he was doing, that image is unlike and totally foreign to every natural photograph we have ever seen in our lives. There is no other photograph in the world that looks like that. Even if you believe it is a man shielding his eyes from the sun, using his hand as a visor, there are plenty of photos of men doing that, and they look nothing like that circled image. 

How many do I have to put up? Is it necessary for me to put up any to establish that this is not a natural photographic capture?

Anyone claiming that it is a natural, unaltered photographic capture has the means of proving it: they merely have to reproduce it OR at least find other images from the wide world of photography that match it, that look like it, that are comparable to it. That's the way to challenge Jim Fetzer- not to accuse him of circular reasoning. 

The point is that the image, itself, makes the case that it was altered, since it deviates so much from the standards of photography of which we are all familiar. 

And again, anyone who begs to differ needs to put forward other photographic images, captures of men, that look like this, that are comparable to it. That is the way- the only way- to dispute that it is an altered image- and there is no other way. To accuse Jim Fetzer of circular reasoning is pure sophistry. 

In a word, the way to defend the image is to vet it. It's strange enough, singular enough, and weird enough to question its validity. But, the only way to vet it is to either reproduce it without resorting to photographic manipulation or to find unaltered photos that look like it.

Now, why should I have to spell that out to a college professor? 

Norwood accuses me of making "personal threats to others." That is not true. I have never threatened to travel to another state to vandalize someone's vehicle or invade his property or install a tracking device on his truck. And I have certainly never threatened anyone with physical harm. So, what is James Norwood talking about? I've said I would expose someone's failure and incompetence and lack of integrity (as I am doing now) but that's not a crime. It's not a "threat". You can't report it to the police. So, what is he talking about?  

And you want to talk about threats? What about this one, James?

Norwood has the nerve to accuse me of "disgraceful conduct"? Of making threats?  Of having a lack of "common courtesy"?  And yet, he pays regular homage and gives praise to the guy who wrote that?????? Why would he have anything to do with such a person? James Norwood is supposed to be a college professor. So, why would he associate with such a vile person? 

Then, James Norwood refers to those who attack me, including himself, as believing that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing President Kennedy. But, bpete isn't one of those people. He has never said that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing President Kennedy, and he has spent his time attacking those who say Oswald was innocent. When has he ever attacked anyone who claims that Oswald was guilty? Never.  This is what bpete wrote just this last Saturday, James:

 If Oswald shot Kennedy, he had every reason to lie. Which makes you wonder why he did lie later on about several things he was questioned about.

So, he called Oswald a liar. And he created a syllogism. He said that if Oswald shot Kennedy, he had every reason to lie. Then, without citing anything, he claimed that Oswald lied several times when questioned. And then, the "ipso facto" which is implied is that he lied because he shot Kennedy. 

So why, James, would you associate yourself and align yourself with someone who is clearly not an Oswald defender, but rather, an Oswald accuser? And I would ask the same thing of Joseph Backes. Why, if he believes Oswald was innocent, would he align himself with someone who espouses that Oswald was guilty? Even someone who is just open to the idea that Oswald was guilty, who says that it's possible he may have done it,  even that person is someone you should be running and fleeing and distancing yourself from. That is, if you are a real Oswald defender. 

You are a disgrace, James Norwood; a disgrace to your profession, a disgrace to the cause of Oswald innocence and JFK truth, and a betrayer of principles and standards that you probably once held dear.  You've thrown it all away, and for what? 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.