Don Jeffries Wrote:Albert,

Why would you consider Fritz's notes to be credible? I don't accept that Oswald said anything he is alleged to have said in those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Of course the case for conspiracy doesn't rest on Oswald being in the doorway at the time of the shooting. There is far more concrete evidence of conspiracy, obviously. However, that is no reason to just accept that Lovelady has been proven to definitely be the figure in the doorway. Just because Cinque and Fetzer are pushing an unpersuasive theory doesn't mean the question has been settled.

Quote:Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?
Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place...

Quote:Fetzer is nuts. He reminds me of the women Freud examined who were sure their father had raped them.

Quote:Hysteria was so common among women that if his patients' stories were true, and if his theory were correct, he would be forced to conclude that what he call "perverted acts against children" were endemic, not only of the proletariat of Paris, where he had first studied hysteria, but also among the respectable bourgeois families of Vienna, where he had established his practice. This idea was simply unacceptable. It was beyond credibility. Faced with dilemma, Freud stopped listening to his female patients.... Out of the ruins of the traumatic theory of hysteria, Freud created psychoanalysis. The dominant psychological theory of the century was founded in the denial of women's reality. (emphasis added)

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Quote:Fetzer is nuts. He reminds me of the women Freud examined who were sure their father had raped them.

Albert,

There is plenty of statement is false. My source: Trauma and Recovery: The aftermath of vioence--from domestic abuse to political abuse to political terror by Judith Herman, M.D. In Freud's The Aetiology of Hysteria, he acknowledges its traumatic origins of hysteria caused by premature sexual experience. He in fact was researching what we now call PTSD. He soon rejected his own research when he realized its implication: he would have to confront, alone, entrenched social reality.

Quote:Hysteria was so common among women that if his patients' stories were true, and if his theory were correct, he would be forced to conclude that what he call "perverted acts against children" were endemic, not only of the proletariat of Paris, where he had first studied hysteria, but also among the respectable bourgeois families of Vienna, where he had established his practice. This idea was simply unacceptable. It was beyond credibility. Faced with dilemma, Freud stopped listening to his female patients.... Out of the ruins of the traumatic theory of hysteria, Freud created psychoanalysis. The dominant psychological theory of the century was founded in the denial of women's reality. (emphasis added)

Think about it. The entire edifice of the psychoanalysis, the repression of of our sexuality, and its consequent reaction formation was a lie based on a more or less conscious decision to identify with the perpetrator of child rape.

Charles Drago Wrote:

Don Jeffries Wrote:Jan,

I only used the term "CTer" because that's what commonly used in the research community to distinguish one from an "LNer." I am all too aware that the term is used disparagingly by the mainstream media to demean seekers of the truth. We'll have to come up with another term- maybe we can just use Truthers and apply it to JFK researchers.

Don,

To hell with "common usage." It's killing the truth.

"CTer" is damaging not only because it was created and is being skillfully wielded as a weapon to disparage us and lampoon our efforts.

It also characterizes the truth that has been revealed thanks to our historic, courageous work as mere theory.

It implicitly supports the misconception that said truth and the Lone Nut lie are equally viable theories that must be argued with academic dispassion and mutual respect.

Worst of all, it accomplishes the enemy's main goal: preserve doubt.

And "Truthers" is a more overtly sarcastic and disparaging term than "CTer."

Again: Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The same statement is valid for and must be made about the assassinations of MLK and RFK.

No more "theory." No more disparaging epithets.

Proclaim truth. Defend truth. Set free the truth so that it may set us free.

Quote:Sceptics should probe for "inconsistencies in the official narrative", but then apply a "balance of probabilities" test with the alternative explanations on offer. Troofers demand "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" because they already have another view fixed in their minds. Most of us already know the telltale signs when someone tells us that they are "increasingly troubled by some of the details about how many people actually died in the Holocaust" and shut the conversation down immediately. I think that we probably need to start treating 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a similar way.

Quote:The sole contribution of Conor Foley to this debate is to replace the pejorative phrase "conspiracy theorist" with the new, and explicitly neanderthal, formulation of "troofer", as if everyone who questions the official account of major world events is illiterate and stupid. Thanks Conor, how very patronisingly academic of you. As a card-carrying NUJ member, and staff producer at the BBC for more than a decade, I was taught to look at the evidence with a critical, rather than a subservient, eye.

Imo it is the responsibility of all of us - whatever our vocation - to look at events, research them, and if there are serious doubts see if there is evidence which contradicts official claims. Because often the media simply colludes with some mainstream, consensus, version of events. As an example, when Blair was droning on about how 9/11 had changed the world, and we had to achieve regime change in Iraq to protect the world from terrorist threats, why did no single lobby correspondent ask him ,"um, Tony, what's the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein?" The lobby hacks didn't ask him because they would have had their lucrative accreditation withdrawn. And Blair frequently stated that claims the Iraq war was about oil were "conspiracy theories". Well, dear old "troofer" Alan Greenspan, has just admitted that it was absolutely "all about oil". So, Conor Foley, just remember that when you come up with patronising phrases like "troofer", you are actually closing down intelligent debate in this country.

Don Jeffries Wrote:I had no idea "truther" was considered a derogatory term. On the surface, it certainly seems flattering- to be a "truther" sounds like being labeled as one who seeks the truth. I doubted the official story of 9/11 as soon as the first tower fell, but have never joined any organized efforts. Do all those who disbelieve the official fairy tale feel offended by the term "truther?"

Quote:I don't let the enemy define me, but I really was not aware these terms were considered offensive by anyone.

Quote:How would you then collectively define those who know Oswald didn't do it, or that 19 "terrorists" weren't responsible for the events of 9/11? Independent thinkers? I'm reminded of when I was a teenager, and certain kids would make sure you didn't say this because that was cool. I don't think either term is bad; yes, obviously the best researchers aren't "theorizing," and thus it's literally inaccurate to call them conspiracy theorists.

Quote:I will be more careful about how I collectively describe people, but I think this is largely semantics.