JFK Assassination And The Israeli Connection!

[AntiPharisee]

research upgraded:
www.realityreviewed.com/JFK%20murder.htm

[Wimpy]

Antipharisee, look at the moving video clip where Jackie blows a hole John's head.  Study it closely, again and again, to see where someone jiggered the frame of Jackie supposedly dumping the gun down the back of the seat.  There is a repeat of her movements, like a hiccup.  I think this is doctored and, if so, it's a lie.

[Christopher Marlowe]

see where someone jiggered the frame of Jackie supposedly dumping the gun down the back of the seat.  There is a repeat of her movements, like a hiccup.  I think this is doctored and, if so, it's a lie.

I think the film was edited and is therefore not evidence of anything. There is an excellent youtube video pointing out many of the anomalies in the Zapruter footage. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

Good Points: 1) People in the background are NOT looking at the presidential limo. You go to see JFK and then he passes and you're looking at the car with LBJ? What? Is he juggling flaming torches?
2) Stemmons Fwy sign placed into frame to cover up first shot & change in timing of shot.
3) People in the background are too big for perspective.
4) Man in background moves feet apart in one frame: 1/18 of a second. Only the Flash or Superman could do that. Maybe the Hulk if Hulk really mad.
5) Bystanders blurred, but their shadows are sharp.
6) Driver turns his head around faster than humanly possible. If a human being moved his head that fast, his brain would fall out and he would start liking TV again.
7) People in limo are reacting to a breaking motion, lurching forward, but the limo's speed is smooth throughout.
A motorcycle pulls up to the limo at the same time people are lurching forward, suggesting that the limo slowed.

So many errors make me believe the film has been faked. If it has been faked then it is not evidence of anything IMHO, except perhaps that the fix is in at very high levels in government.

There are a lot of other videos on youtube and elsewhere discussing this alteration.

[MikeWB]

see where someone jiggered the frame of Jackie supposedly dumping the gun down the back of the seat.  There is a repeat of her movements, like a hiccup.  I think this is doctored and, if so, it's a lie.

I think the film was edited and is therefore not evidence of anything. There is an excellent youtube video pointing out many of the anomalies in the Zapruter footage. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

Good Points: 1) People in the background are NOT looking at the presidential limo. You go to see JFK and then he passes and you're looking at the car with LBJ? What? Is he juggling flaming torches?
2) Stemmons Fwy sign placed into frame to cover up first shot & change in timing of shot.
3) People in the background are too big for perspective.
4) Man in background moves feet apart in one frame: 1/18 of a second. Only the Flash or Superman could do that. Maybe the Hulk if Hulk really mad.
5) Bystanders blurred, but their shadows are sharp.
6) Driver turns his head around faster than humanly possible. If a human being moved his head that fast, his brain would fall out and he would start liking TV again.
7) People in limo are reacting to a breaking motion, lurching forward, but the limo's speed is smooth throughout.
A motorcycle pulls up to the limo at the same time people are lurching forward, suggesting that the limo slowed.

So many errors make me believe the film has been faked. If it has been faked then it is not evidence of anything IMHO, except perhaps that the fix is in at very high levels in government.

There are a lot of other videos on youtube and elsewhere discussing this alteration.

Ugh... hate to break it to you but this whole YouTube analysis is nonsense. It's nonsense because he's clearly using the processed movie (stabilized, motion and speed adjusted) to do analysis on and not the original footage. Original footage is jerky and unmistakeable when you see it. He's pointing out the flaws of optical flow algorithm that was used in processing! Most of this ghosting are just artifacts of the whole process. Go on YT and Wikipedia and search for optical flow to find out more.

Whoever made that movie should be ashamed for spreading nonsense and fooling others.

[Tomas O'Crohan]

Whoever made that movie should be ashamed for spreading nonsense and fooling others.

Whoever made that movie should be ashamed for spreading nonsense and fooling others.

This crap is like the zombies in "The Night of the Living Dead." No matter how many times you kill it, it keeps coming back. There is a highly salutary aspect to these propaganda pieces however: the criminals know that we know that their murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is the lynchpin of all their subsequent crimes and all these attempts to continue to cover up this lynchpin demonstrates how fearful they are that we are finally getting them centered in the crosshairs of our scopes.

I asked some very simple questions the last time this crap was foisted on us which (of course) were never answered. Did Jackie cause the throat wound and if so what is the evidence for that? Did Jackie cause the back wound and if so what is the evidence for that? Did Jackie cause the entrance wound to the right temple and if so what is the evidence for that? If she caused none of these wounds and instead the claim is that she shot him in the left side of the head, where are the x-rays demonstrating a left side head injury or if you have none, quote the Parkland doctors who reported such an injury. You see, there is no such evidence which is why my questions were never answered. Okay then, without such evidence to back up this claim, should we just make up "facts" like our sworn enemy does? If we don't have evidence but we just love the "theory" why don't we just make up the "facts." We don't just make up the facts because above all else, we seek the truth. It's the truth we're after wherever that truth takes us. This is what distinguishes us from our sworn enemy. They peddle lies, we seek the truth wherever that truth takes us. We don't care if Santa Claus murdered John Fitzgerald Kennedy if that's where the evidence points. If so, we'll march on the North Pole and hang him from the rafters in his toy factory. Before we do so however we require one thing: EVIDENCE that he was responsible.


The whole point of these propaganda exercises is to produce a reaction in the American public that "the JFK assassination is so complicated, we'll NEVER know the truth." Then, as the prophet Bill Hicks said, the next desired reaction is: "Honey, is American Gladiator on yet?" In other words, "move on folks, nothing to see here, your government is fully in control and will tell you everything you need to know, you have no need to figure out anything for yourselves, we've taken care of that for you."

"AntiPharisee" you keep pushing this crap but have consistently failed to answer the basic questions I've asked. Where is the evidence (line and verse) to support the assertion that Jackie shot John Fitzgerald Kennedy ANYWHERE ON HIS BODY? You cited this propaganda piece as your "evidence" the first time I asked this question. Sorry, it's not good enough to support a theory by doing a circle jerk reference back to the propaganda piece objected to in the first place. Quote the Parkland physicians who treated JFK on 11/22/63 and who reported examining injuries to him consistent with a left side shooter. You haven't done so because it doesn't exist.
For those whose wish to learn about the heroic efforts of the American research community into this most vile of crimes for which retribution will be made in full measure, listen to Len Osanik's [sp. ?] audio files at Black Op radio:

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html


He regularly interviews the most outstanding researchers who describe in great detail the results of their labor with the EVIDENCE they have uncovered.

[Tomas O'Crohan]

For OpEdNews: Jim Fetzer – Writer
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/oped ... fk_fil.htm


Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 — The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes.  (The Nix film was taken from the opposite side looking toward "the grassy knoll.")  Both were subject to extensive alteration to fabricate evidence of the crime and keep the truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza from the American people.  Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, observed that the films are authentic only if the visible events they record correspond to the actual sequence of events at the time.  "This proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough."
The evidence emerged as an unexpected outcome of the collation of eyewitness reports in Dealey Plaza conducted by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who co-edits assassinationresearch.com with Fetzer.  Costella earned his Ph.D. in physics with a specialty in electromagnetism, including the physics of light and of moving objects.  What he discovered were multiple, consistent and reinforcing reports that James Chaney, a motorcycle patrolman who was to the right rear of the presidential limousine, rode forward to tell Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police—who was in the lead car with the head of the Secret Service in Dallas, Agent Forrest Sorrels, and a second Secret Service Agent, Winston Lawson—that the President had been shot. This led Chief Curry to issue instructions for the limousine to be escorted to Parkland Hospital, where the President would be pronounced dead 30 minutes later.  Bobby Hargis, a motorcycle patrolman riding on the left rear, confirmed Chaney's report.  But this sequence is in neither the Zapruder film nor the Nix film.
During the past dozen years, substantial evidence of the Zapruder film's alteration has accumulated in a research effort that became serious in 1996 during a symposium at the JFK Lancer Conference in November.  Fetzer brought together numerous experts on the film, including Jack White, David W. Mantik, and Noel Twyman, the author of Bloody Treason (1997), which includes scientific studies of the film's authenticity.  Twyman, a retired engineer, had noticed that the driver of the President's limousine, SSA William Greer, had turned to look at JFK and then turned back with preternatural speed.  He hired a professional tennis player to study how fast human head turns could be made and determined that Greer's head turns were approximately twice as fast as humanly possible.  That might not sound like much initially, but it would be like converting a 4 minute mile into a 2 minute mile.  Based upon this research, Twyman had discovered objective evidence of the removal of frames from the film.
Studies published in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), provide overwhelming additional proof of alteration, including technical studies by Costella.  For example, Frame 232, which had previously been published in LIFE magazine, turned out to have optically impossible features.  He also discovered that, in recreating the film, which had to have its frames re-shot using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects—in order to avoid disclosing the deception via "ghost images" in the sprocket area, which cannot be reproduced—the conspirators had made mistakes during their reinsertion of images of the Stemmons Freeway sign and of a lamppost.  Moreover, Erwin Schwartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, reported seeing JFK's brains blown outward to the left and to the rear, while several agents of the Secret Service had reported being nauseated by the blood and the brains splattered across the trunk of the car.  Neither is visible today in "the Zapruder film".  A visual seminar of Costella's research is archived at assasssinationscience.com.  
Part of the power of Costella's new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved:
   *  James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine):  "I went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by."
   *  Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine):  "The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney.  He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot."
   *  Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine):  "A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot.  Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident."
   *  Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): "A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, 'Is anybody hurt?', to which the officer responded in the affirmative."
   *  Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine):  ". . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, 'Yes,' and I said 'Has somebody been shot?"  And he said, 'I think so.'"
There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom.  Costella's study provides additional citations.
This stunning new proof of the fabrication of the two most important films of the assassination focuses attention on the agency in immediate control of the most important evidence in the assassination, which was the Secret Service.  Indeed, there are more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting up JFK for the hit, including leaving two Secret Service agents at Love Field; ordering the vehicles in the wrong sequence, with the President's first instead of in the middle of the motorcade; not welding manhole covers; not covering the open windows; allowing the crowd to spill out into the street; ordering the 112th Military Intelligence unit to "stand down"; directing the accompanying motorcycle officers to not ride forward beyond the rear wheels; taking an improper motorcade route; not responding when shots began to be fired; pulling the limo to the left and to a halt to insure he would be killed; using a bucket of water and sponge to clean blood and brains from the back seat at Parkland Hospital; sending the limo back to Ford Motor Company to be dismantled and rebuilt; and removing autopsy photos and X-rays from Bethesda, making them unavailable during preparation of the autopsy report.  The fabrication and distortion of the photographic record is the final missing piece of the complex puzzle of the cover-up in the assassination.
These are not the only indications of Secret Service complicity, Fetzer said. In the wake of the enormous resurgence of interest in the assassination following the release of Oliver Stone's "JFK", Congress passed a JFK Records Act creating a five-member civilian board entrusted with the responsibility of declassifying documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations, where the panel's decisions could only be overridden by the President himself, who was then Bill Clinton.  Although Clinton never intervened to stop the release of evidence, when the Secret Service learned that the panel wanted copies of Presidential Protection Records for other motorcades involving President Kennedy, instead of releasing them it destroyed them.  "I can't imagine a more telling indication of consciousness of guilt," said Fetzer, who has edited three books and chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the death of JFK.
Among the most important proofs of film alteration have been those provided by Doug Horne, who became Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the civilian board (technically, the Assassination Records Review Board or the "ARRB"), and by Rich DellaRosa, who reports having viewed the unaltered film on three occasions.  Horne interviewed Homer McMahon, who was then in charge of the color photo section of the National Photo Interpretation Center, who told him that an agent identifying himself as "William Smith" brought him a copy of the film the night of the assassination, asking him to prepare a briefing board for an unidentified official.  He said he had viewed the film at least ten times and determined that there had been six to eight impacts from at least three different directions.  Horne's report appears in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000) along with studies of the medical evidence demonstrating that JFK was hit four times:  once in the throat (from in front), once in the back (from behind), and twice in the head (from behind and from in front).  So if Connally was hit as many as three times (from the side), there were as many as seven impacts from three directions.
Another fascinating source of information has come from Rich DellaRosa, who today moderates a research site at JFKresearch.com.  He reports having seen what appears to be the original film on three occasions.  He observed the limo driver steer to the left.  The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants.  This observation is confirmed by close study of the Zapruder film itself, where frames show passengers being thrown forward immediately after the head shot at Frame 313.  This indicates that the sequence of events has been reversed.  There were actually two head shots before the vehicle resumed its forward movement.  DellaRosa's report can be found as Appendix E of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), which includes a color photo section that reveals the massive blow-out to the President's head, which is visible in Frame 374.  It corresponds closely to diagrams from physicians and Mantik's study of the alteration of the cranial X-rays.  These fabrications were used to discount witness reports (at least 40, including at Parkland and at Bethsda) of such a blowout.
That Greer pulled the limo to the left and stopped was such powerful proof of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. Jack White, a legendary photo-analyst, has detected dozens and dozens of anomalies in the photos and films from the assassination and has been the most consistent critic of the presumption of authenticity of the film in the history of its study.  "The Zapruder film was a necessary part of the plot so the conspirators could control the official story," White observed.  "The motorcade stopping and anything associated with that sequence had to be removed.  The lead car pulled to the curb, along with the other cars, and Chaney rode forward to advise Curry.  Any actual film of the motorcade at that moment would show chaos—conflicting with the needs of the official story. It had to be massively edited to keep control."
Earlier studies of the film's authenticity have included disagreements between eyewitnesses and the film; disagreements between early viewers of the film in November 1963 versus what is currently available; disagreements between the film and other photographs and movies; disagreements between the film and the first two reenactments; and internal inconsistencies in the film. In Assassination Science (1998), David W. Mantik,  Ph.D., M.D., laid out a summary of the evidence then available of Zapruder alteration. He observed that Milicent Cranor, an independent investigator, had noticed reports that Chaney had traveled to the lead car, which is not present in the Nix film in PROBE (November-December 1997).  Costella's independent research thus substantiates and corroborates earlier studies by Mantik and Cranor, which were not fully appreciated at the time.
In The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), Mantik, who earned a Ph.D. in physics from Wisconsin and an M.D. from Michigan, demonstrated that an early study by Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, often cited in support of the film's authenticity, involved the selective use of evidence, and that an analysis of the Muchmore film¬—another of perhaps a half-dozen most important films covering various parts of the assassination—showed that it, too, had been subjected to alteration and could not be taken to be authentic. Those who attempt to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film by contending that its alteration would have required alterations to these other films have lost their presumption that the other films have not been altered.  Costella's proof not only demonstrates the alteration of the Zapruder film in a fashion that even non-experts can see with their own eyes, but also adds the Nix film to the list of those whose authenticity has been impeached.
"The official account presented in The Warren Report (1964) and in Gerald Posner's Case Closed (1992)," Fetzer said, "is predicated upon the 'magic bullet' theory and the authenticity of the films and photographs." The "magic bullet" theory, however, is not only provably false but not even anatomically possible as his study, "Reasoning about Assassinations" (2005), assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf , explains.  "I have been stunned by the lengths to which some have gone in their attempts to defend the Zapruder film from criticism.  Josiah Thompson, author of Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), an analysis based on the film, recently appeared in 'Oswald's Ghost,' an obvious work of disinformation, and asserted, 'The Zapruder film is the basic evidence in this case'!  That is not only an abuse of language—since, as David Lifton, author of Best Evidence (1980), has emphasized, the body is the best evidence—but we have conclusive evidence that the film has been faked."
Fetzer also expressed disillusionment with Noam Chomsky, who has dismissed the very idea that JFK was taken out by a conspiracy.  "Major policy issues were involved here, including withdrawing our advisors from Vietnam, reforming or abolishing the Fed, cracking down on organized crime, and cutting the oil depletion allowance.  LBJ wanted to be 'President of all the people' and his chance was slipping through his fingers.  Even Nixon was quoted in the Dallas paper that morning speculating that he would not be on the ticket in 1964.  Discoveries like these indicate high-level complicity by elements of various agencies, including the Secret Service and the FBI.  I hope that skeptics like Chomsky and zealots like Thompson finally come to their senses.  Not only is the Zapruder film a fake but other films and photographs, such as the Nix and Muchmore, have been altered to conform to it."

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Hey AntiPharisee,

I put together my research on this at on this link. You might find some things of interest.

One thing I'm certain about is that the Jew Jesus Angleton was deeply involved in JFK's murder in all aspects from the patsy handling,  to pre-planning, to fateful operations on the day, press coverups, planting stories, killing off insiders that knew (even years afterwards), etc.

As a Zionist and Counter-Intel assassination specialist for the CIA, Angleton was directly wrapped up in the plan. I see JFK's murder as no different than 9/11 -- all types of dual loyalist Jews in the CIA/FBI/US Govt. and Jew mafia covering up info after they planned the hit. The Jew poison surrounding Kennedy's murder stinks to high heaven.  :

viewtopic.php?t=1743

[Tomas O'Crohan]

P.S. Until the prostitutes and puppets put into "law" the unlawful "Patriot Act", the so-called "Secret Service" was part of the Treasury Department, in turn controlled by none other than the "Federal Reserve", itself controlled in turn by the AshkenNAZI criminal organization. John Fitzgerald Kennedy's "protection" on 11/22/63 was "provided" by none other than the AshkenNAZI criminal organization. The so-called "Secret Service" was complicit in his murder and cover-up and neither would have been possible without such complicity. There's your AshkenNAZI connection in bold print, capital letters, centered and underlined. The AskenNAZI criminal organization used its subsidiary known as the "Secret Service" to carry out this murder and then cover it up, of course with the aid of another of its criminal subsidiaries known as the "Main Stream Media." As I said the first time this zombie piece came up many months ago, you don't need the wife to show the AshkenNAZI orchestration of this most vile of crimes. Throwing the wife in WITHOUT EVIDENCE serves only to obfuscate the centrality of the AskenNAZI criminal organization's role through the employment of its subsidiary known as the "Secret Service".

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Throwing the wife in WITHOUT EVIDENCE serves only to obfuscate the centrality of the AskenNAZI criminal organization's role through the employment of its subsidiary known as the "Secret Service".

Interesting comment there Thomas. I'm thinking that if frames were removed from the Zapruder film, then there was likely a slower "stashing" or thrusting of whatever Jackie put behind the backseat (maybe just her hand only?).  Clearly, the frames where the bystander's feet separate in barely a split second, indicates the Zapruder film was doctored before released to the press. It isn't totally clear the depth of Jackie's involvement, but the Zapruder film was doctored therefore there will never be really enough "frames" to prove her as an accomplice of any kind.  She did marry the Jew Onassis afterward the killing of JFK, and within a short time frame, so I can't totally rule her out. The interview by Epstein with Angleton where he waxed fervently and idiot Jewishly over how methodical and precise the North Korean Assassin teams  setup the hit on S. Korean Generals in Burma back back in the early 1980s, just proved to me that Angleton is the sick Jew with the most blood on his hands for JFK's murder compared with anyone else in the US government.   Since the Jew Zios, got away scot free over JFK, they felt they could do 9/11 without the US public really catching on to who really did it, IMHO...

[Tomas O'Crohan]

Exactement Monsieur CSR. That's why we always come back to 11/22/63, it's the key to everything that has followed. The perps know this as well which is why they still regularly put out ongoing cover-up pieces even though this is 46 years later. Bugliosi's 1600 page ode to the cover-up commission, even though no one has bought this piece of trash book except for use as a door stopper, is being made into a film by the AshkenNAZIS starring Tom Hanks and will be broadcast on the 50th anniversary. They know that we know and hope to prevent a critical mass of knowledgeable, gun wielding Americans from finally meting out the long overdue justice. Bear in mind, the time to determine whether or not they "got away with it" hasn't run yet.

The fact that Jackie married an AshkenNAZI doesn't make her guilty of murder although it does make her guilty of exceptional bad taste, to say the least. How about Caroline, should we charge her with the crime as well since she did the same?

Did you know that the criminal zionist entity has a statute or plaque dedicated to Angleton? Quite fitting, non?

To understand that the film is illegitimate all one needs to do is watch the head of the murderer William Greer, the "Secret Service" driver. His head snaps faster than the demon in "The Exorcist". Put yourself in the perps shoes, would you leave unaltered a record of what actually happened? Another "official story" would fail instantly had they done that.

[scorpio]

I think that it is totally implausible that an assassination of that magnitude would be entrusted to a woman who had never killed anyone before.
Things like that are given to professionals, as the cost of failure or a mistake is far too high.

There was another theory that William Cooper and John pushed that the driver turned around and shot Kennedy (also pure BS)
We may never know, which shooter killed Kennedy, and it doesn't really matter.
As MikeWB said, the Zapruder was clearly doctored before it was ever released to the public.

 CSR is correct: the Kennedy Assassination was a lynchpin event  that allowed the Ziotribe to take control of the reigns of power in this country.
Michael Collins Piper's book Final Judgement does a good job on giving the Israeli connections to the assassination.
Kennedy was bound and determined to stop Israel from getting nuclear weapons. David Ben Gurion put the plan into action and the rest is history.

[§N9sh2bj]

Jackie behaved and has the vibe of a two-minded jewess, sorry to burst anyone's bubble to the contrary.
I see similarities between that story and the one of Mary-Todd, married to Abraham, popping him off with her derringer (what man would use a one-shot pistol to kill the President of the U.S. corporation?), which caused the stand-in for John-Wilkes, hired to nab Abraham, and also Mary-Todd's dealer, to jump from the balcony, declaring what happened to Abe to the neighbours in the next booth. Neighbours who were both immediately put in a mental institution.

Jewess, derringer, big mess of head everywhere. Worked once, why not duplicate it?

And in William's movie analysis, while the driver shooting is an obviously not good idea in such a public venue, I feel like William was trying to show us possibilities of what might be true, and draw our own conclusions. I have not seen mentioned in this thread, he does show the clear outline of a man in the bushes, rifle, hat, etc, which evidently went overlooked in the edits of the film Abraham shot. It's very clear once it's pointed out; clearer than jesus on toast.

Doctored films worked once for John's assassination, why not duplicate it?

These people don't seem to change, and there may be something to their satanic mindset where these particular types of killings, duplicated time after time on Hollywood (jew) films, are part of the ritual. Consider the lover-woman who is actually an agent and shoots the hero, as on 'They Live'.

[scorpio]

Jewess, derringer, big mess of head everywhere. Worked once, why not duplicate it?

I am going to put a little dose of reality into this conspiro-fantasy.
I have a 22 derringer as well as several other guns and rifles.
There is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that a 22 bullet can blow a chunk that size out of your head - even at point blank range.
It is far too small of a bullet with not nearly enough powder behind it.
I have shot rats and other vermin with 22's - it makes a very small hole and rarely even exits the body.
JFK was shot with a high powered rifle of some kind.
I mean come on, a huge chunk of the back of his head was blown right off.
There is no way that a 22 can do that.
Pure and simple!

[jai_mann]

I am going to put a little dose of reality into this conspiro-fantasy.
I have a 22 derringer as well as several other guns and rifles.
There is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that a 22 bullet can blow a chunk that size out of your head - even at point blank range.
It is far too small of a bullet with not nearly enough powder behind it.
I have shot rats and other vermin with 22's - it makes a very small hole and rarely even exits the body.
JFK was shot with a high powered rifle of some kind.
I mean come on, a huge chunk of the back of his head was blown right off.
There is no way that a 22 can do that.

100% agreed. From every thing that I can tell, this notion of Jackie shooting him came after the public presentation of the notion that the limo driver took a shot at him. I don't know how much truth there is to either but I have little doubt that he was taken out with a .30 caliber or higher, high powered rifle probably from that grassy knoll given the direction of momentum his head took upon impact.

I can't wait to start clearing the fuckers out of this land. Until it happens they will continue to plot and thieve and behave as slave masters.

[abduLMaria]

I think that it is totally implausible that an assassination of that magnitude would be entrusted to a woman who had never killed anyone before.
Things like that are given to professionals, as the cost of failure or a mistake is far too high.

agreed, 101%.

[Tomas O'Crohan]

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/

This is the link to an astounding audio of an interview by Jim Fetzer of Douglas Horne who worked for 4 years for the ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) and who has written a five volume series about the JFK medical evidence and the Z film hoax. It turns out that the subsidiary of the criminal organization currently choking the world which calls itself the "CIA" had a secret facility called "Hawkeye" at the Kodak headquarters in Rochester, NY where the Z film was taken on 11/23/63 and re-worked into the fiction we now know as the "Zapruder Film". What's on this audio is a lengthy description of real evidence backed up by verifiable facts. Jim Fetzer gets nearly apoplectic towards the end of the audio in describing with great umbrage all the efforts of the propagandists to peddle this work of fiction created in a CIA lab as an accurate portrayal of the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. After listening to this audio, only the mentally challenged or the propagandists themselves can continue to claim that the "Secret Service" orchestrated murder of JFK was not obfuscated by the blatant alteration of the Z film.

As an aside, how was it that an ashkenazi just happened to occupy the prime space atop a pedestal overlooking the killing field armed with the latest motion picture camera available to the general public? Who told him to be there and what to bring?

How was it that another ashkenazi by the name of Jacob Rubinstein (I grind my teeth whenever I hear someone refer to him as "Jack Ruby" because this is part of the cover-up in hiding real identities and therefore the real perps and their real motives) just happened to be in the police department basement armed with a revolver at just the right moment to silence forever the patsy. Who told him to be there, assisted his entry into this "secured" area and told him what to bring?

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Thanks Tomas!

This was a good interview.
 Confirms my own suspicions that the Zapruder film was intentional mis-direction by the Jew run hit team. It is amazing to chronicle how hundreds of "other" assassinations occurred around the world in the first 60 years of 20th Century, and then to look at JFK's hit and then wonder why it is so difficult to figure out. The edited Zapruder film is the key. Interesting that we had to wait for computer graphics technology to catch up editing technology of the 1960s to really confirm this.

[Christopher Marlowe]

There is a lot of content in that interview, but Fetzer is not a good interviewer. He is able to string together complex sentences and he is a genial host, but he doesn't set it up will with the audience. Fetzer throws out a lot of information without explaining a lot of it. I realize there is a lot history and detail, but he gets so caught up in the minutia that he loses the forest. I found my way through it, but I had to start and stop a couple of times.

Just to give an example, I listened to Piper today, and he is so smooth.  His 1/25 show was about the JFK assassination and he put in all the details and told the story really well. Fetzer probably is dealing with more info, but its a dearth of riches, if you know what I mean. Sometimes more is less. I feel like Fetzer is trying to impress people too much with his PhD in philosophy.
--------------

There are several youtube videos that show point-by-point how the Z film is shite: people moving too quickly, LBJ's hat, driver's motions, etc... Just proving that the film is crap shows that there is a MASSIVE conspiracy.  There's a guy, Jack White, that Fetzer also talks about, and apparently White did a lot of the original work on "the film is shit" theory.
-------------------

But I don't think people will wake up until they are out of a job and getting government debt cards for dollar meals at McDonalds.

[Tomas O'Crohan]

If one is familiar with the subject matter. it's quite easy to follow what Fetzer is saying. In fact, he refreshes one's recollection of a variety of facts that are pertinent to the discussion underway. By way of contrast, I like to listen to Piper from time to time but find myself thinking: "Okay Mike, I got your drift 15 minutes ago now please get to the fucking point." You never have to do this Fetzer because he's got to the point on 50 different things in the same time span.

This interview by Fetzer kills the purported legitimacy of the "Zapruder Film" from 360 degrees. For that reason, it's one of the most important audios out there IMHO.

[Christopher Marlowe]

If one is familiar with the subject matter. it's quite easy to follow what Fetzer is saying.

Exactly. But when you consider the dozens, if not hundreds of books, and thousands of articles on the JFK assassination, how many people have read enough to be considered familiar with the subject matter?

I do appreciate the number of topics covered by Fetzer, and his amazing recall, but this is not a substitute for basic presentation skills. It doesn't take long to give a brief explanation of field sprocket drift, or whatever the hell. If pressed for time Fetzer could cut down on the amount of ass-kissing he does for his guest. Also Fetzer wastes time talking about these personal battles he has had with the Propagandists. The history of the struggle to bring out the Truth of the JFK assassination is not the story. The story is the assassination and the cover-up.  

I'm sorry if my first comment sounded a little harsh. There was a lot of information presented here.  My point is that Fetzer could have organized it better. If the Truth is presented in a way that only experts can understand, Fetzer will have made the Truth esoteric, which I feel is not the point.

I think a good example of what I am talking about is DBS and Rafeeq talking about finance. That is certainly an arcane subject, but they do a great job of BREAKING IT DOWN for the listener. I remember once trying to explain CDOs and CDSs to a lady, and after I left the room she complained to my brother that I was trying to show off how smart I was confusing her. That wasn't my point at all. (I hope.) I thought I was trying to convince her of the need for banking reform, but all she heard was "blah, blah, blah." I didn't do a good job of breaking it down and I didn't convince anyone.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

I should have said "good" interview in quotes.  I was actually more interested in what his guest had to say than Fetzer. And it was important to find the films basically doctored. I agree that Fetzer did spike good dialogue and was not that easy to follow.  I think he was trying to impress an audience of people very familiar with all the all the little details. I figure most Americans under 40 really couldn't care less about JFK's murder.  He's obviously talking to the "core" of JFK researchers. He did redeem his deep dives by covering the Zapruder film as a CIA (Angleton) prop rag.  That came out well.  You are both right, a lot more probably could have came out if Fetzer would just shut the hell up and let his guest speak.

I do agree:

I do appreciate the number of topics covered by Fetzer, and his amazing recall, but this is not a substitute for basic presentation skills. It doesn't take long to give a brief explanation of field sprocket drift, or whatever the hell. If pressed for time Fetzer could cut down on the amount of ass-kissing he does for his guest. Also Fetzer wastes time talking about these personal battles he has had with the Propagandists. The history of the struggle to bring out the Truth of the JFK assassination is not the story. The story is the assassination and the cover-up.

[Father Brown]

I agree completely with Christopher. I got through an hour and a half and I still have no idea what they were talking about.

That guy who came out of retirement at Kodak was presented for a long time as some kind of guy who cracked the case. At least that was how my mind was trying to put it together and try to make some sense out of it.

Can someone explain what that sprocket stuff was all about in English? And how about the film be sliced or cut? They used a word that made it seem like it might not mean cut. I forgot.

Anyone has to start with the big picture. Then proceed into details and then minutae. You have to tell where audience what they will see, you show it to them, then you explain what they saw with increasing detail. Pretty simple.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

By the way, Fetzer is a 9/11 shill from this report below. He might be a shill for Kennedy's murder as well. With Fetzer, I figure if any evidence comes out indicting Israel or anybody but the "CIA-Bush-Nazis-Mafia" ala Jim Marrs, he will likely shut them down or take them on lost tangents in the evidence. Fetzer is caught up so much in the "how" that he doesn't want to address "the who did it and why".  Some of his guests just reveal the truth and facts as they know it in Fetzer's interviews for all to hear despite Fetzer's sloppy handling, lost tangents, mis-directions, needless minutiae, and attempts at "ownership".   IMHO. He gets people on his show who have the real "goods", but Fetzer tries to leave the waters muddied with him explaining it all. More I think about it, it kind of reminds me of A.J.?
 
That's a typical "Shill" M.O.

---------

"Meet the New Boss - Same as the old boss"    

The Perception Management of 9/11 Evidence

Andrew Johnson

November 2008

http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/ind ... &Itemid=60

It seems that 9/11 was arguably the biggest crime against humanity in modern history. Those who planned and executed it also worked out a cover story which was good enough to fool most of the population. However, they also realised that people think in different ways, ranging from those who accept something at "face value" to those who are more analytical. Additionally, even though there are many people who are analytical, and whose job it is to review data and draw conclusions, they are sometimes prone to discarding a conclusion on the grounds that it would take them into "uncharted territory". This is perhaps because "the bigger the lie, the more the people will believe it" (a saying attributed to both Adolf Hitler and Joesef Goebbels). I would argue that this idea can be extended - few would believe that seemingly decent, honest people are actually engaged in an ongoing and often subtle effort to keep the cover up of 9/11 in place. The reason for this is that 9/11 is a "nexus point"- not just because of its political ramifications, but also because of its technological ones.

Having written a series of these articles, I am conscious that some people may think adding another one to the series may be "over-doing it". Statements such as "you're promoting 'infighting' instead of 'harmony'" may be made. However, weighed against that, there appears to be a need to document the ongoing effort to discredit serious research, and the strategy of misdirecting the focus of attention from the core of this same research. Please forgive me for my attempts in trying to accurately document what I consider to be the harder-to-perceive aspects of the 9/11 and free energy cover up. As ever, in all of these matters, the reader is advised to "keep their wits about them" and watch out for misdirection, subtle false statements or points where true information and false information may be being mixed together – both in what is written here, and elsewhere.

Asking the Big Questions - Managing Perception

Once it is realised that advanced technology - almost unknown in the "white world" of military hardware - was used on 9/11, people will begin to ask questions such as "Who has access to this technology? Where did it come from? What is it capable of?"

One way to prevent or slow down the questioning process is to keep people in a state of confusion, doubt and/or fear. If a person is in one of these states, it reduces the likelihood of them taking some kind of positive or effective action to change the status quo. Deliberately creating these states of doubt, fear and uncertainty could therefore be seen as a specific strategy for maintaining the cover up of 9/11 (and other crimes against humanity).

The "game" is therefore one of managing the perception of 9/11 by ordinary people. When this idea is considered in more depth, one can see, on a daily basis, how much perception management is a part of so many aspects of our lives.

9/11 – Promoting The Key Evidence

On Nov 11th 2006, Jim Fetzer, on his RBN programme "Non-Random Thoughts", interviewed Dr. Wood with regard to her research concerning the use of Directed Energy Weapons in the destruction of the WTC Complex. Fetzer was complimentary and very positive. However, previously, he had asked Dr. Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Judy Wood to "leave" the Scholars group largely because of the reaction their ongoing research generated. (Strangely, however, in July 2008, Fetzer posted an article about video fakery – related to the formerly controversial "no planes" research.)

After the original RBN Interview with Dr Judy Wood on Nov 11th, Fetzer was quick to pick up Dr Wood's research – he even discussed it in his Tucson presentations (excerpt here) on 12 & 13 November 2006 and he also mentioned it in a related PBS broadcast. What made Fetzer change his mind and become so much warmer and enthusiastic to this research?

Fetzer continued to promote Dr. Wood's research throughout 2007, and most people assumed he was doing this for the "right reasons". His attitude began to shift, however, as Dr. Wood's research broke further new ground – in early 2008.

Since about January 2008, Dr. Judy Wood has posted evidence linking 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect, and I have written about this in previous articles. Not long after she made this correlation, she came across something quite startling - the presence of a Hurricane in the Atlantic. I have been involved in writing summaries for the Hutchison Effect and Hurricane Erin studies that Dr. Wood has posted and, partly because of that, I have been keen to review reaction to them. One way of getting reaction was through Dr. Wood's appearances on radio programmes.

On 28th Feb 2008, Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison finally appeared together on Jim Fetzer's radio programme, to discuss this information. Analysis of this has been posted in the article 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect - Handling the Truth. A few days later on Mar 3, 2008, Fetzer sent an e-mail to Dr. Wood, in which he said:

Just between us, if Judy were to back off her relations with Hutchinson, whom I consider to be a fraud, I think her standing can be salvaged."

At that point, Dr. Wood more or less concluded it was not worth speaking any more with Jim Fetzer on his radio programme, despite several invites he sent. (Again, here, I ask who is Fetzer to be making such statements? Does he consider himself to be some authority on unconventional experiments?)

However, in July 2008, when Jim Fetzer suggested that Dr. Wood and I do a broadcast on his radio slot, while he was unavailable or otherwise occupied, we decided to take up the invite to enable us to freely explore and comment on some of the issues raised in this article, and other aspects of her research. Readers, of course, will probably think that offering two consecutive slots on his programme was a very magnanimous gesture by Fetzer. I would argue, based on evidence gathered later, that the main reason he did this was to try and maintain a "perceived connection" to - or even a "perceived ownership" of - Dr. Wood's research, even though he had already threatened her reputation. This connection allows him to publicly state he is "a supporter" of the research, whilst privately, he seems to act in certain ways which contradict this position.

----
Andrew nails it here. Fetzer is SHILL Central.  This is the classic Jew "Salinsky Approach" as well. I've experienced this myself actually:

Look into my Eyes! Look into my Eyes! (Not around the eyes...)

I recently described Fetzer's M.O. ("mode of operation" or "modus operandi") thus. (It may sound a bit harsh, but I think this is accurate.)

 

1)       He gets puffed up with academic credentials (but ignores these when it suits him – for example, we do not know if Ace Baker has a science degree, but values Ace's judgement of science and materials in relation to the Hutchison Effect over Dr. Wood's, for example).

2)       He is very articulate, a good orator (listen to the Syrett broadcast to see how rapidly, fluently and succinctly he can deliver information). He is clearly a competent writer.

3)       He takes an issue like 9/11 - pretends to analyse it or "consult" about it, then basically can't draw any firm conclusions about anything (this is quite similar to what Kevin Barrett, and David Ray Griffin also seem to do) except when it comes to the work of John Hutchison.

4)       He mixes things around and muddles things up.

5)       He stokes the fighting from time to time (e.g. calling me a child, saying "shame on you" to Dr. Wood).

 

These actions can prevent people from seeing the real truth - the real evidence - because they are so distracted by his false authority. i.e. "I am clever, but I can't make a decision about what happened on 9/11 - so neither can you."

 

When this mask starts to slip, he does one of the following:

 

1)       Plays the victim

2)       Calls people stupid or picks a fight

3)       Ignores the issue and distracts/diverts onto something else.

4)       Laughs

He can create confusion in the evidence where there had been none and create indecision where there are definitive answers.  It's very effective when done well - and is entirely compatible with "freedom of speech and expression" – but people then don't know who's telling the truth...

 

So in summary, I would suggest that what Fetzer is doing is very subtle. You can't see it unless you look carefully. He also "turns nice" after being nasty.

Drs. Wood and Reynolds have attempted to prosecute NIST's contractors for wilful blindness. It now seems to me that, having looked at the evidence, that Fetzer is also being "wilfully blind" – over Hutchison Effect evidence and Hurricane Erin-related Evidence.
Why this is all important

Some might suggest that the information and commentary I have posted here is trivial or irrelevant – or "damaging" in some way. However, I would try to remind the reader of what is at stake. Thanks to Dr. Wood's diligent study, I put it to the reader that we have conclusive evidence that advanced "free energy" and weather modification technology was being used in the horrendous black operation that was 9/11. I put it to you that we have conclusive evidence that seemingly the cover up of this truth is being carefully managed, by people that you may seem reluctant to scrutinise, because they appear to be wearing "white hats" and tell you, "just trust me". The 9/11 truth movement is being controlled and directed right before our eyes. Perhaps we should remember the words of "Won't Get Fooled Again" – "The men that spurred us on sit in judgement of our wrong" and "Meet the new boss.... same as the old boss".

[Tomas O'Crohan]

CSR: To quote the coffee cup holding supervisor in "Office Space", "Ah, yeah, I think I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there."

You actually bring up a subject that I want to contribute my 2 cents on and that is calling out people as shills. I don't know Jim Fetzer personally and of course know nothing about what goes on in his head except what is revealed by the prodigious amount of work he has done on the vile murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, our last real president, and 9/11. His voice has been raised loudly and indignantly against the official fairytales in both cases for a very long time now. If you listen to the audio of his interview with "Zan the Man" who had the balls to stand out in front of a civic center in California with a sign that said "Israel, not Arabs did 9/11" you'll discover that Jim Fetzer has no reservations about declaring the obvious complicity of the genocidal zionist entity, its intelligence agency and the dual citizen "American" neocons in carrying out 9/11. I don't know about you but I have a hard time calling anyone a shill who tells the truth about the genocidal zionist entity and its 5th column agents here in this country.

Anyone who is out on the front lines in this battle is open to attack from others and these attacks are often designed to bring confusion, not light. Look at our own Ogster being called various and sundry things by the snipers from the sidelines. I agree that shills should be outed but I firmly believe that all of us who seek the truth above all else must be very circumspect and extremely cautious in doing so. Fat Boy was easy once he declared that Hollywood was run by the Arabs and the fact that he never mentioned "jews" in his list of boogiemen. The problem we face is that these criminals always step all over the crime scene they perpetrated and they do this to create as many dead-ends and rabbit holes as possible. People will inevitably choose one rabbit hole over another and internal sniping is then launched by others who prefer different rabbit holes. It's our job to recognize that this is the very reason why the crime scene has been stomped on in the first place and disagreement about the details does not constitute evidence of one being a shill.

As always, we need to be alert to those whose job it is to spread disinformation, however, we need to be just as circumspect about calling someone a shill without irrefutable evidence to support such a charge. In the case of Fetzer, I know of few people who have done more to shed light on these two horrific crimes than he has. I don't need to agree with him about every detail nor do I conclude from any perceived personal peccadilloes that he's a shill. This thread started out with the wild assertion that Jackie Kennedy murdered John Fitzgerald Kennedy with absolutely no evidence offered to support such an assertion except what some wanker did with a computer program using the thoroughly discredited "Zapruder Film." After we've all spent a great deal of energy in response to this assertion, there shouldn't now be any credible doubt that this assertion only served to obfuscate the central role of the criminal ashkenazis in this most vile of crimes. Jim Fetzer helped us get here. We likewise shouldn't make any assertions about his motives without some verifiable evidence that goes beyond what someone snipes from the sidelines.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Well Tomas,

Fetzer brings new info to the table but he is kind of Shill as Andrew Johnson describes in the classic communist Sal Alinsky style. It is Jew to the core. What I find more interesting is that a whole group of "JFK" murder specialists have crossed over into "9/11" specialists like Fetzer and Jim Marrs.  For me, either you see it as "Jews" and "Israelis" did both 9/11 and JFK or they didn't do either.  Fetzer seems to hedge this which to most observant people is total Shill B.S. for a guy speaking as an expert on both subjects.  MCP nails both to the wall. Fetzer kind of shills both IMO.  Jews should recuse themselves from both investigations since AFAIK Jews pulled both Jobs (9/11, JFK) and the USA is under an idiot Jew ZOG because of both acts of treachery.  

BTW, Jackie was hopped up on Speed and and she did marry a Greek Jew Onassis after JFK's murder. I wouldn't be surprised if she did carry a piece in her purse as well. I can't say it was used because the Zapruder film is corrupted by the Jew Angleton who had a special team for this type of doctoring. Maybe they cut the fateful frames? All I can say is that there is not enough evidence in the doctored film to indict her.   So, Zapruder's film can't point to her doing any action since the film is discredited but if she did find out, it appears she probably didn't care after hooking up with her new Greek Jew husband with whom she likely had an affair with during a long sail in the Mediterranean. That's fact.
Again, Fetzer is a Shill. He should just calm the hell down and let people speak on his shows. I get a feeling he's afraid something like "The Jews like you, Fetzer, did it" is going to spill out and then he'll really go really squirrelly.

Jews pulled both jobs... don't ham fist it, hem and haw about it, and not recuse yourself if you are a Jew in these investigations -- otherwise you are a Shill causing confusion. That's the way I see it.  Zapruder is faked but we didn't need Fetzer to know this.
Jackie probably knew who did it but since she had a new Jew Billionaire hubby probably didn't care to tell others about it.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Here Tomas,

She's not a Christian Maria, here is the Jackie you don't know and totally deep in typical Jew Sh*t:

Naked Jacqueline Onassis Photo Found With Warhol's Junk

RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI | 08/19/09 11:41 AM | AP


And how did Warhol come to possess a naked poster of Jackie O signed, "For Andy, with enduring affection, Jackie Montauk"?

As it happens, says Wrbican – who along with other researchers authenticated the signature through handwriting comparisons – Onassis was a frequent visitor to Warhol's Montauk, N.Y., beachfront estate.

So, after her second husband, Aristotle Socrates Onassis, got a paparazzi to take pictures of her skinny-dipping and it landed in the hands of Larry Flynt, who turned it into a poster for his porn magazine, Hustler, Jackie O sent a copy – likely as a joke – to Warhol, Wrbican said.

"I really doubted it was her signature at first," he says. "But it really matches her writing."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 62822.html

[Tomas O'Crohan]

CSR: Not to belabor the point but I can't tell from your post if you're saying that Fetzer is a jew or not. My information through someone who knows him well is that he's German and doesn't have a speck of jew in him. I don't trust jews, not one of them, so if I thought he was self-chosen, I wouldn't listen to any of his audios or read a thing he writes. As for Jackie's bloodline, as I've said before, I've never researched her genealogy so have no opinion on whether she's self-chosen or not, I just don't know.

My only point is that we should be happy to get whatever help we can get from all those willing to contribute time and talent so long as they're not self-chosen and so long as they're not undeniably shills like Fat Boy. Perhaps we should leave it that I'm slower to squeeze the shill trigger than you are although I'm certain that when the time comes, you and I will both be engaged in literal rapid fire against these criminals and their helpers and in that respect, everything else is besides the point and should be marked: "For Entertainment Purposes Only".  

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

CSR: Not to belabor the point but I can't tell from your post if you're saying that Fetzer is a jew or not. My information through someone who knows him well is that he's German and doesn't have a speck of jew in him. I don't trust jews, not one of them, so if I thought he was self-chosen, I wouldn't listen to any of his audios or read a thing he writes. As for Jackie's bloodline, as I've said before, I've never researched her genealogy so have no opinion on whether she's self-chosen or not, I just don't know.

My only point is that we should be happy to get whatever help we can get from all those willing to contribute time and talent so long as they're not self-chosen and so long as they're not undeniably shills like Fat Boy. Perhaps we should leave it that I'm slower to squeeze the shill trigger than you are although I'm certain that when the time comes, you and I will both be engaged in literal rapid fire against these criminals and their helpers and in that respect, everything else is besides the point and should be marked: "For Entertainment Purposes Only".  

Well, I don't really follow the guy that closely or his research. He seems to be a figure for TV stations to Interview the "Truth" movement -- a movement which is riddled with Shills of all calibers who go on TV.  In fact these days, anybody I see who has been on multiple TV interviews and calls themselves a Scholar for "Truth" without connecting the dots back to Israel for the crimes, or makes a briefly forgettable acknowledgment of the ZOG crime-coverup machine (Marrs, AJ, Fetzer) -- I get very suspicious.  He comes across like "It's okay not to be upset about the NeoCons scamming you and your children for Israel... now.. if you look at item B film, it had minute sprocket holes on the left side before sending it back to the lab"..etc...(ad naseum).  He wants his message to be politically digestible by everyone in the audience.  I guess if he wants to keep his show, he has to play nice and leave it "dots-unconnected".  

MCP doesn't do this.

 Much of what I've seen from Fetzer on JFK and 9/11 seems not to be "Clear Cut" either in Print or during Interviews.   He was in the US military so who really knows about him other than his PhD? The CIA used to use a lot of US Professors in the Cold War propaganda which in many ways was every bit as sophisticated as the current 9/11 disinfo campaigns.  

BTW, I did know of a "Fetzer" who was Jewish (Ukrainian) so I put James Fetzer in that camp without a thorough vetting and research of his genealogy. My bad on that one for assuming he was J-Tribe...  I had a few drinks when I posted that so the accusations on who is criminal J-Tribe tend to fly faster after a few brews.

Looks like he does make some weak attempts at stopping the march of the J-Tribers. Here he backs up Kevin MacDonald after and attack by the SPLC.

At around the same time, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES), of which MacDonald was then a board member, began an investigation into his work. A forum, to be held at the group's annual meeting, was organized by Dan Kriegman, founder of the Psychoanalytic Couple and Family Institute of New England and a faculty member at the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis, that featured two other specialists in evolutionary psychology, one of them Pinker. Although the panel was critical of MacDonald's work, James Fetzer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, at one point defended MacDonald with a call for academic free speech.

http://www.alternet.org/story/51338/cal ... pID=654381

[Christopher Marlowe]

I'm very hesitant to call someone a shill. I'm more likely to believe that someone is blinded to the truth by their ego or similarly by something that they want: radio listeners, money, respect...

It's funny that Fetzer's opposition to Judy Wood would make CSR think Fetzer was disinfo.  I wouldn't pretend to know as much about science as CSR, on account of he seems to know about Calculus and physics and I don't know shit, BUT Judy Woods has always struck me as being a diversion. I don't recall her talking about zionists and all the science, I don't understand it but it sounded hoaxy. And the "Hutchison effect" video I say looked like a hoax.

Speaking of alternative explanations to the WTC destruction, CSR, if you're reading, I'd be interested to know if you've ever heard of this guy: Christopher Brown.  His page is at: http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

In short, he thinks that the WTC towers were built to be destroyed. He says this same technology was built into many structures during the cold war, like submarine bases. He says there was a video made that backs him up. It was a PBS video from around 1990 called: "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". It used to be offered for sale one the PBS site and now it has been completely disappeared.

CB has experience in construction and demolition and knows how to read plans. He sounds knowledgeable and not full of shit. He says the plans to the WTC that were released are fakes and he shows anomalies or artifacts that he discovered on the plans when he magnified them. CB says the central core of the WTC towers we concrete reinforced with rebar, and that there was a demolition system built into that core.

Check it out.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11disinfo-sitemap.html

Good link Christopher M. Many thanks.  Pretty straightforward.

I wouldn't disregard Dr. Judy Wood as Junk Science just yet though despite the author's one paragraph comment.

In fact, from my research I'll do a reputational "make" or "break" right here. I truly believe that Dr. Judy Wood has helped reveal the final riddles to 9/11. Most people are probably either poorly informed about her work, or just find it too unbelievable, or find it too conflicting with the semi-official line of "nano-thermite" to take it seriously -- but they should look at it objectively and consider it.  

Also, I see people like  Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Steven Jones probably acting as either unwitting shills... like early JFK researchers watching the Zapruder over and over again in the 1970s before we got digital analyis with computers.  Kind of like trying to find the keys to entry without an understanding of the building they are trying to enter.

So, in sum, As ChecktheEvidence.com suggests, Fetzer is a shill (wittingly or unwittingly).  

Dr. Wood on the other hand just kind of came into 9/11 research, not connected with some things to lose like a career and reputation, so I tend to believe her analysis just because she doesn't really have any kind of payoff in it except "speaking up" and just being straight up with what she knows.  My current concern is that if the F***ing Zionist leaders really have a DEW type type weapons, and pulled of 9/11 with a Jew'd Up NeoCon-Bush Administration, with or without the US Black Military Ops people. These Zios may just very well think they have an Ark of the Covenant -- likely stolen or bought from Lockheed.
Dr. Jones knows her material when it comes to interferometry - a field not that deeply studied by most in physics.

Don't forget that cold plasmas have only recently been commercialized. With the proper Z-pinch effect and other electrostatics, I would not at all totally disregard a DEW at this point.  Dr. Woods provides inexplicable photos that would agree with "field effects" with an interferometry type weapon. Hutchinson's work first got stolen during the US's Star Wars programs by US intelligence agents.  Hutchinson even hints that his work may have been used on 9/11 and he's not like out in front really bragging about.

Also, keep in mind this example, Birkeland Currents were largely ignored and disparaged until the 1970s.  But, they can scale to the apparently inter-galactic.
---------


The complex self-constricting magnetic field lines and current paths in a Birkeland current that may develop in a plasma[12]

I was a little skeptical of Dr. Judy Wood-Hutchinson until this interview sealed for me. Here, Boyd Bushman from Lockheed discusses John Hutchinson's findings very seriously.  Please keep this in mind.
---------

[youtube:1pdlkyca]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv8WwnWJDmw[/youtube]1pdlkyca]

----------