Sunday, April 1, 2018

The tell-tale sign of an Op:  

James H. Fetzer, PhD, is pulling out his trump card. Whenever a film or picture shows something that doesn't go with Fetzer's narrative, he claims that something was altered. He's done it with the Zapruder film, autopsy photos and various other photos taken around Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination. 

So, Jim Fetzer maintains the Zapruder film was altered, does he? Probably half the JFK world now maintains that the Zapruder film was altered. Have you listened to Doug Horne? Here is Doug talking about it: 

So, why doesn't the Punk go after Douglas Horne? The short answer is: because he's a punk. He falsely makes it sound like Zapruder film alteration is a Jim Fetzer idea, that it started with Jim, and that Jim uniquely does it. I suppose he views Jim as an easy mark, in contrast to Doug, rather like the way the United States attacks Iraq and Afghanistan but wouldn't dare attack Russia. 

But then, the Punk made an outright false statement, and really his brazenness is quite startling, although I think it's part of the whole Op thing. But, here he puts forth the idea that this reference to Oswald's lunch was an alibi for the shooting, which is not true.

Why would anyone think that Oswald was claiming to have eaten lunch in the presence of Jarman and Norman during the assassination? We know where Jarman and Norman were during the assassination: on the 5th floor. So, why would Oswald say he was eating lunch at that time and that they were around? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. That was not his alibi for the shooting. He was referring to eating lunch in the 1st floor lunch room BEFORE the assassination when Jarman and Norman were around. And even though Fritz didn't write down "1st floor lunch room", other did, such as Bookhout. So, that was definitely not his alibi for his whereabouts at 12:30. But, just remember what a disinformationist does: he spreads disinformation. 

It's true that Fritz went on to lie about it, but who are you going to believe? Fritz or Oswald? Oswald DEFINITELY did not use that as his alibi. Fritz only said that because he did not want to state the truth of what Oswald said: that he was out with Bill Shelley in front. 

The irony is that there were liars then and there are liars now, and the current liars proffer the historical liars as if they weren't liars. And I suppose that is to be expected from a liar. 

But, I am curious to know who would believe it, that testimony of Fritz, that Oswald said he was eating with black employees during the shooting, and where his interrogator Joseph Ball wasn't even interested in finding out who the black employees were. What about you, James Norwood? Do you believe it? I'm asking you a question. I'm asking you if you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald told Will Fritz that he was eating with black employees during the assassination of John F. Kennedy. 

 Now, we get to this image of the doorway:

First, you need to know that that is not a legitimate image. It is a photoshopped image. And I am using the word photoshopped generically. I have a non-digital image of the Altgens photo. It's in the October 1964 LIFE magazine, and it even has a blowup of the doorway. The "white blotch" as I call it (in the center) was here made to look like an elbow, like the guy was visoring his eyes. It has no such form in the magazine. It just looks like a totally amorphous white blotch. Somebody put a dab of the photographic equivalent of Wite-out there. Then later, it was converted into an elbow. But that is NOT an elbow. That man has both arms crossed across his chest. So unless, he had three arms, he could not have been visoring his eyes. You see his left hand and wrist, don't you? What do you think that hand is doing? It is grabbing the right elbow. As I said, he's got both arms crossing his chest. And nobody would just hold one arm across his chest. The whole idea is to create a sling-like effect, where each arm is supporting the other like two kids balanced on a see-saw. The only guy who did it with one arm was Napolean, and he stuffed his hand in his pants rather than hold it up. 

The Punk is no more going to find an image of someone crossing his chest with one arm then he is going to find a perfectly centered, balanced, symmetrical chin shadow. He is really a very stupid man, and I'm not talking about Napoleon. 

So, here is "Obfuscated Man, as we call him again, showing that his right arm was going down.

So, that is his right arm going down, meeting the left arm. So, what's that other thing? It's art. Somebody tried to convert a smudge into an object. And then they attached a lie to it, and then they brought out a liar to tell the lie.

Here is what he seized on...a person shielding their eyes from the sun. Doing precisely what the person below them on the steps, is doing. 

That is ridiculous. On the woman, we can see her elbow; we can see her arm, and it all looks mechanically correct. On the other guy, there is complete disorientation and non-association between his so-called forearm and his arm. It's an absolute mess, and there is no comparison between the two. 

And then, oh my God, it just gets worse- for the Punk. He actually cited Bookhout's ridiculous claim that Oswald said he ate lunch AFTER the assassination. He obviously didn't, and why would he say he did? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. And remember who Bookhout is: he's the guy who played the role of shooting Oswald in the garage, pretending to be Jack Ruby. So, why would you believe anything he said?

Listen, there is a very basic fundamental issue here that needs to be aired: Just as we absolutely need to view JFK assassination photographs and films with an awareness of the possibility of alteration, likewise and necessarily, we need to view police testimonies and other testimonies, and especially people like Shelley who worked at that spy front, with an awareness of the possibility, the likelihood, and in some cases the certainty of lying. 

What good is it, really, to engage in a discussion with someone about the JFK assassination who automatically makes honorable assumptions about principals in the case who are highly suspicious? And he acts oblivious to it. He acts as though he has the ability to force the assumption on us. He has no such ability. He has no abilities. He is just a punk.

I said I was going to bolster the OIC website in response to this jerk's blather, but in this case, it's hardly necessary. But, I do like this image, so I will add it:

No comments:

Post a Comment

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