Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Printable Version +- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora) +-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html) +--- Thread: Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? (/thread-8580.html) |
Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Vasilios Vazakas - 29-12-2011 Hi Seamus The question was "Do you believe that LBJ was the man who ultimately decided authorized and ordered the execution of President kennedy?" Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Seamus Coogan - 29-12-2011 Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:Hi Seamus Well if he turns up here I'll let you ask him lol. Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Seamus Coogan - 06-01-2012 I came across this comment from JF over at the Ed Forum. "A common technique in disinformation is for one op to post an article or other false claim and for another to "discover it" and reinforce it by citing it. John McAdams, for example, has been touting Tink's book as the most important of all the conspiracy books. That is ridiculous on its face, since the analysis of three shooters and four shots that he presents in SIX SECONDS (1967) was superseded by Richard Sprague's more painstaking analysis in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970). But it makes excellent sense if the point is to puff him up so that his denunciation of conspiracy in the death of JFK can be touted as a "major event", when it is anything but. Even then, I doubt that I am aware of any less valuable contributors to JFK than Seamus Coogan and Jim Phelps. Time spent on either of them, in my view, is wasted. But I certainly find it interesting that Phelps is touting Coogan. It does fit a particular pattern. Coogan, by the way, is not even talking about this presentation but attacking John Hankey, who has more to contribute than either of them. The moderators seem to be handling him appropriately." Now I really don't know about you guys, but what is Mr Fetzer talking about? Jim Phelps is not everyones cup of tea and to his credit he knows it. I'll also add he drives me bonkers at times. But despite that he is actually a pretty decent (if driven) bloke and when he relaxes on stuff he can be pretty helpful. Phelps, saw my piece here asking for a reply. Now despite my writing some rather rough stuff about him in the past. He was man enough to put it behind him and stuck it up on the Ed Forum under Fetzer's latest post (note that I also posted on Fetzers thread here and he did not reply). Thus I was quite humbled by this gesture from Jim. So cheers, I don't know if I am in thrall enough to stop CD giving him a tickling here or indeed anyone else lol. But it's good to get a lesson every now and again, that it's the ideas and not the person you should attack or dislike. Ultimately Jim was the bigger person than myself. But it's what JF say's here which is very misleading. I am not really 'attacking' anyone, least of all Hankey whom I give about a paragraph or two too. Fetzer is now hiding behind the issue of Hankey. Its as if he never involved himself in it. As said in an earlier post. As much as I differ from Mr Fetzer, I don't think of him as being a dishonest person. At least I don't want too think it. But after these comments I really do have some serious questions. To reiterate. My concerns are simply about Mr Fetzer's misleading and confusing comments he made about myself and CTKA. An organisation he called CITKA in his original article. I would like those concerns I posted addressed. It is really that simple. Note his comment about the Moderators handling him appropriately. Ahhhh, come again Jim? Indeed the mods here have done brilliantly by letting me post. I am sure that were my tone and manner inappropriate, that I would be pinged. As it stands-I know a few people very interested in seeing if JF will reply. If someone here felt slighted or wanted an explanation or a clarification on a point I have made I would give it, even if it mean't I had to clarify a point in a debate or indeed admit I was wrong or apologise. Is it to much too want the same thing? Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - James H. Fetzer - 08-01-2012 All, If anyone wants to know why I prefer to no longer deal with this Seamus Coogan, I would liken reading what he writes--and I cannot bring myself to call it "research"--to the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's hand in a garbage disposal. Several students of the case who are more competent than Seamus Coogan have written to me about him. The first observes, He's not a very coherent writer, but he disputes what you and Hankey say about Bush's and Nixon's whereabouts. But, what you say, many say. Then, he argues about the number of shots, but he also admits that he's not sure how many there were. Then, he wants to argue about whether the Zapruder film was altered, but he also says he never said it was authentic. But then the weirdest thing of all is that he admits that there was some "hanky panky with the head the brain" yet he wants to dispute your claim that the body was diverted and altered before the Bethesda autopsy. But, multiple witnesses reported that at the official autopsy, the body was removed from a simple, grey, military-style casket and not the ornate brown casket from which it left Dallas. That proves, by itself, diversion and tampering. Bottom line: in finding fault with you, he found very little fault with you, and he was mostly on the defense. This has caused him to "wonder how many avowed CTs are really just disinformationists. And I'm not saying he is; I think he's just an egotistical hothead and fool. He just wants to be in the limelight. But, there may be some outright fakes," and he mentions one, whom I think is not actually a fake but simply a very dim bulb. The second writes, Was glad to hear your interview on Black Op radio the other week. Always enlightening. I was further pleased to hear that the works of John Hankey have been posted on your "Veterans Today" site. While I too have noticed some factual errors in John's work I still believe that he is an effective and sincere provider of good research and captivating videos. Like yourself John was one of my early and most impressive purveyors of assassination science reporting. As you said (in the Black Op show) John was really cut apart by CTKA's Seamus Coogan. I felt that the tone and spirit of Coogan's remarks were unfortunate and way over the top. Some were important observations of course, but the pure vitriol was unnecessary. That and the nitpicking of minor details. Coogan failed to note the importance of Hankey's work in that he seems to have reached a broad audience. Also that most of John's work is true. . . . Once I read that Hankey felt that DiEugenio was a "tool" like Gary Mack and Vince Bugliosi are. . . . At the time I first heard those words though I chalked it up to some kind of personal feud (between Hankey and DiEugenio). Perhaps some well earned animosity that Hankey had towards DiEugenio due to the hostile critiques his CTKA had published. Would seem likely and only natural that Hankey wouldn't have a high opinion of DiEugenio. However at this time I'm sort of on the fence about DiEugenio. On one hand he is capable of exhaustive and detailed research such as you yourself are well known for. But I can not say with certainty that DiEugenio is not a tool for the opposition. That someone may have "got to him". At any rate his nitpicking and overly zealous critiques seem counter-productive. . . . Thus I seek your feedback when you have a chance. Neither of these men is a personal friend. They appear to me to be balanced and objective, where my concerns about Seamus Coogan are well-illustrated by the poorly researched and seriously flawed attack he launches here, where I shall offer links to evidence that demonstrates his incompetence for those more serious than he. It pains me profoundly to grasp the depths to which The Deep Politics Forum has sunk. The motives that led to its founding--of civil discourse, fair play, and reasoned exchange--have long since been abandoned, since I had the temerity to suggest that the evidence implicates Lyndon as the pivotal player in the assassination. Pity! Seamus Coogan Wrote:MY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS DIATRIBE APPEAR BELOW IN CAPS. Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Dawn Meredith - 08-01-2012 I have long been troubled by the attacks on authors who trash the amazing amount of research that connects Bush to both the assassination of JFK and the CIA decades before Warren Commissoner Gerry Ford appointed him head of the Company. I personally know people who refuse to read Russ Baker's fine book based totally on Jim D's review. I have addressed this with Jim and still do not understand his attack. Same with John Hankey. I have not seen JFK 11 and it's literally been years since I saw the first video but I recall that there was much to recommend it. Sure there were flaws, some huge ones, like the sugestion that W had JFK Jr. killed based on where he was or was not that day. Or that it was a father son killing. (ie Poppy killed JFK and W killed JFK jr- that is shoddy journalism.) I do not believe Jim D. or Coogan to be disinformationists, nor do I believe JF to be such. Honest disagreements can and do exist. And huge egos. To the utter detriment of our cause. Dawn Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Peter Lemkin - 08-01-2012 Amen, as in 'talk it lady!' Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Jan Klimkowski - 08-01-2012 James H. Fetzer Wrote:It pains me profoundly to grasp the depths to which The Deep Politics Forum has sunk. The motives that led to its founding--of civil discourse, fair play, and reasoned exchange--have long since been abandoned, since I had the temerity to suggest that the evidence implicates Lyndon as the pivotal player in the assassination. Pity! Complete nonsense. Jim - you have launched numerous vitriolic attacks on members - some as part of a crude bunfight, eg with Seamus, and some purely because members dared to provide evidence countering yours. The default position of the mods here at DPF has been to assume that almost any thread in which you are involved will get nasty and personal, and out of ennui we let you get on with it.... Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Charles Drago - 08-01-2012 Jan Klimkowski Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:It pains me profoundly to grasp the depths to which The Deep Politics Forum has sunk. The motives that led to its founding--of civil discourse, fair play, and reasoned exchange--have long since been abandoned, since I had the temerity to suggest that the evidence implicates Lyndon as the pivotal player in the assassination. Pity! "Temerity," Jim? No. Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence AND who lays claim to the title deep political scientist who goes on to argue that LBJ was the "mastermind" or "pivotal player" of/in that crime opens him/herself to ridicule and other forms of disrespect. "Nonsense," Jan? Yes. We are at war with JFK's killers. And when Jim Fetzer or anyone else appears on these pages and, wittingly or otherwise, endeavors to protect the assassinations's true Sponsors by attempting to promote false Sponsor status for LBJ and/or others, they will be dealt with appropriately -- that is, severely. "Ennui," Jan? I suppose ... Anything good to eat around here? Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Jan Klimkowski - 08-01-2012 Charles Drago Wrote:"Ennui," Jan? With the sheer quantity of snake oil being aggressively peddled in these parts, it's hardly surprizing that some acts as a soporific..... Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer? - Seamus Coogan - 09-01-2012 Dawn Meredith Wrote:I have long been troubled by the attacks on authors who trash the amazing amount of research that connects Bush to both the assassination of JFK and the CIA decades before Warren Commissoner Gerry Ford appointed him head of the Company. I personally know people who refuse to read Russ Baker's fine book based totally on Jim D's review. I have addressed this with Jim and still do not understand his attack. Same with John Hankey. I have not seen JFK 11 and it's literally been years since I saw the first video but I recall that there was much to recommend it. Sure there were flaws, some huge ones, like the sugestion that W had JFK Jr. killed based on where he was or was not that day. Or that it was a father son killing. (ie Poppy killed JFK and W killed JFK jr- that is shoddy journalism.)<br><br> <br> Lol I have to disagree Dawn. The research on GWB has been very indepth at CTKA. Before I did Hankey mate, I really thought that GWB had a chance of being involved. Seriously, I only got into it too disprove the bogus idea of Hankeys that Prescott Bush was running the CIA. I effectively did that but as I got into it I realised how far gone even the Bush JR being involved was. As far as collossal ego's. Well that's unfair. I for a fact can admit fault, I can also admit I have been foolish or egotistical. Indeed I can also admit I get stuff wrong. So can Jim Di. Now, I do not think Mr Fetzer has any self reflection. So yeah, I truly think that Jim and I are no where near the Professors levels and it's a shame you view us like that. <br> <br> Nonetheless please take a look at the Bush stuff again when you get some time. Their really is a difference between reading theJFK material and going through the nuts and bolts taking notes as you well know being a lawyer. But yeah it's only way to really resolve and see where the issues are. <br> <br> But cheers for the comments. Your keeping us all honest as per usual. <br> <br> As for that lad Lemkin, he'll keep lol. I'm dying for a beer at the moment I wonder what he drinks? |