Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

I am now certain that the person posting under the name of Albert Doyle, may well be Jim Fetzer himself!

If another individual(s), whether Albert Doyle or not, they are doing so in a further attempt to completely sever from our collective memory the past good work of Jim Fetzer by mimicking his style nearly without flaw. The individual most certainly knew that their subterfuge would be exposed; indeed, they counted on it.

If it is Jim Fetzer, this is disgraceful and would histrionically display how far from grace he has fallen. If not, it is an interesting operation to be sure.

It is becoming a doppelganger gambit. I further believe it is destructive to the research community as a whole no matter the source.

Bravo, Greg.

[Don Jeffries]

Charles,

It doesn't take very "deep" thought to recognize the huge differences in tone and style between Albert Doyle's posts and Jim Fetzer's myriad of posts and articles that are widely available on the internet. I'm quite familiar with the way Jim posts, and his posts don't deviate much from a particular style. I don't have your confidence that Albert Doyle is now allowing someone else to post under his name, but whoever this Doyle is, I am quite certain it isn't Jim Fetzer.

Again, my argument isn't so much with you declaring that Doyle isn't Doyle, it's that you are now stating as a fact that Jim Fetzer is posting under Doyle's name. Deep thinking would require that you factor in Fetzer's past eagerness in being a minority of one; everything about him would indicate he would not shy away from promoting Piper any more than he has backed down from siding with Baker, Cinque, etc.

I believe Jim Fetzer is now about 70 years old. Unless you are willing to postulate that he has always been a disinfo agent, why would he now, at such an age, decide to become one? Why would he choose someone like Albert Doyle, who was vehemently opposed to his Cinque arguments about Oswald in the doorway, for this mysterious, seemingly pointless bit of impersonation? Why would Doyle permit someone he disagreed with to post under his name? Yes, you can urge me to read all the past posts in this thread, but your thesis here is mind boggling. You are inferring that both Fetzer and Doyle never were mere posters on a forum, but in fact some kind of intel assets. How are you comfortable with putting out that kind of allegation publicly under your name?

You are the one who is not thinking deeply here. You are lashing out at Albert because you object to the fact he thinks Israel was a primary mover behind the assassination. Then you further attempt to tie him in with someone else you have recently had a fallout with, primarily over his association with Cinque. You're letting your personal bias cause you to forumate theories that are, to use your own term, laughable.

[Greg Burnham]

Charles,

It doesn't take very "deep" thought to recognize the huge differences in tone and style between Albert Doyle's posts and Jim Fetzer's myriad of posts and articles that are widely available on the internet. I'm quite familiar with the way Jim posts, and his posts don't deviate much from a particular style. I don't have your confidence that Albert Doyle is now allowing someone else to post under his name, but whoever this Doyle is, I am quite certain it isn't Jim Fetzer.

First off Don, you are far and away LESS familiar with Jim Fetzer than am I--not only with his writing style, but with him as a person and as a friend. Would you care to compare our respective experiences with him to make sure? He was a very close friend of mine.

Again, my argument isn't so much with you declaring that Doyle isn't Doyle, it's that you are now stating as a fact that Jim Fetzer is posting under Doyle's name. Deep thinking would require that you factor in Fetzer's past eagerness in being a minority of one; everything about him would indicate he would not shy away from promoting Piper any more than he has backed down from siding with Baker, Cinque, etc.

Perhaps you failed to read my previous post or fully comprehend it. I offered two alternatives: Either it is Jim posting OR it is an attempt to create that impression. If the latter, wouldn't you agree that it is being done for a reason. A very DEEP reason?

I believe Jim Fetzer is now about 70 years old. Unless you are willing to postulate that he has always been a disinfo agent, why would he now, at such an age, decide to become one? Why would he choose someone like Albert Doyle, who was vehemently opposed to his Cinque arguments about Oswald in the doorway, for this mysterious, seemingly pointless bit of impersonation? Why would Doyle permit someone he disagreed with to post under his name? Yes, you can urge me to read all the past posts in this thread, but your thesis here is mind boggling. You are inferring that both Fetzer and Doyle never were mere posters on a forum, but in fact some kind of intel assets. How are you comfortable with putting out that kind of allegation publicly under your name?

I find your reasoning intolerably shallow.

You are the one who is not thinking deeply here. You are lashing out at Albert because you object to the fact he thinks Israel was a primary mover behind the assassination. Then you further attempt to tie him in with someoerne else you have recently had a fallout with, primarily over his association with Cinque. You're letting your personal bias cause you to forumate theories that are, to use your own term, laughable.

I will not buy your book. I fear it will be monumentally disappointing based on your inability to accept the possibilty of things you find too repugnant to even consider in a rational manner. The falling out that I had with Fetzer has nothing to do with my choosing to expose this ruse. I have not figured out if it is Jim or if it is a clever attempt by those who would wish us to throw out his entire body of work. They may be taking this opportunity due to his having left himself wide open because of the absurdity of his recent claims.

[Don Jeffries]

Monk,

I don't claim to know Jim Fetzer at all, beyond his posts, some personal messages and an appearance on his radio show. However, his posting style is perhaps the most recognizable that I have ever seen over all my years on the internet. You may be right about Doyle's style changing, but his posts sound nothing like anything I've ever read from Jim Fetzer. Do I have a right to voice that opinion here?

I have no dog in this fight. I'm honestly stating that Fetzer's posts sound nothing like Doyle's, imho. If that doesn't make me as "deep" as you or Charles, so be it. It doesn't change the quality of my life one bit if what you and Charles allege is true. I certainly understand that powerful forces want to infiltrate forums like this with trolls and disinfo agents. Cass Sunstein acknowledged that this is an actual goal of the Obama administration. That doesn't mean, however, that I have to be comfortable with people accusing particular individuals of being disinfo agents. I've given my reasons why I don't think this accusation makes any sense at all.

And if you and Charles are wrong, and it can be proven, wouldn't you feel ashamed that you made such a reckless accusation on a public forum? How would you feel if someone kept referring to "Greg" in quotes, and belittled you as being fake? How would you react if a forum you hadn't posted at in a while had discussions about you posting dishonestly in someone else's name? And if anyone ever does accuse you of that, I promise I'll be there to defend you.

As for my book, it's your choice to buy it or read it. Someone has to publish it first. I find it odd that you just inserted "I won't buy your book" into a discussion that has nothing to do with it.

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

I don't claim to know Jim Fetzer at all, beyond his posts, some personal messages and an appearance on his radio show. However, his posting style is perhaps the most recognizable that I have ever seen over all my years on the internet. You may be right about Doyle's style changing, but his posts sound nothing like anything I've ever read from Jim Fetzer. Do I have a right to voice that opinion here?

I have no right to dictate to anyone what they have a right to post here. Why would you ask me if you have such a right? Another stupid question. However, as at the JFKresearch Forum, none of us have the right to post here at all. Posting is a priveledge for all who participate here! If I am mistaken about that I'm sure that I will be corrected by Charles or Magda.

I have no dog in this fight. I'm honestly stating that Fetzer's posts sound nothing like Doyle's, imho.

Perhaps your opinion is uninformed based on your own admissions. There is no sin in that as long as you acknowledge the limitations inherent to same. And based on your admission of being less knowledgeable about these matters, why would you argue as if it was otherwise?

If that doesn't make me as "deep" as you or Charles, so be it. It doesn't change the quality of my life one bit if what you and Charles allege is true. I certainly understand that powerful forces want to infiltrate forums like this with trolls and disinfo agents. Cass Sunstein acknowledged that this is an actual goal of the Obama administration. That doesn't mean, however, that I have to be comfortable with people accusing particular individuals of being disinfo agents. I've given my reasons why I don't think this accusation makes any sense at all.

Fascinating. If you recall Fetzer has been the champion of labeling others as disinformation agents for committing the sin of disagreeing with him! He was censured by Aguilar, Lifton, Wecht, and even David Mantik, et al--over a decade ago--for making such unfounded accusations.

And if you and Charles are wrong, and it can be proven, wouldn't you feel ashamed that you made such a reckless accusation on a public forum?

If I am wrong? About which part? That the posts appearing under Doyle's name are now of a nature diametrically opposed to his traditional offerings? That can not be disproved as it is the case. That you don't see it is a function of your admitted deficits. I have made no wreckless claims. I feel no shame about making observations that might otherwise go unnoticed.

How would you feel if someone kept referring to "Greg" in quotes, and belittled you as being fake? How would you react if a forum you hadn't posted at in a while had discussions about you posting dishonestly in someone else's name? And if anyone ever does accuse you of that, I promise I'll be there to defend you.

First off, if I knew the forum in question was not reputable I would simply avoid it. If it was reputable, I would DENY the charge. Immediately. If I was not believed I would probably go away. But, a forum like this one does not tolerate baseless accusations anymore than they were tolerated at JFKresearch Forum. These are not baseless charges.

As for my book, it's your choice to buy it or read it. Someone has to publish it first. I find it odd that you just inserted "I won't buy your book" into a discussion that has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it! If I had known the author of "My God I'm Hit" was a loon before I had bought the book, I wouldn't have done it. However, he didn't post on forums until it was too late.

[Don Jeffries]

Do you not sense the irony in you pointing out, quite correctly, that Jim Fetzer was prone to claim those who disagreed with him are disinfo agents, or at least not legitimate in some way? If you are not alleging Jim Fetzer is a disinfo agent, I apologize. However, what other rationale would there be for him to post under Albert Doyle's name?

So now I am a "loon?" I remember that being one of Fetzer's favorite terms of endearment. Because I believe it's irresponsible to accuse someone of being an imposter, I am not mentally sound?

Both you and Charles need to examine the way you deal with honest disagreement. You have a lot more in common with Jim Fetzer, wherever he may be, than you realize.

[Mark Stapleton]

As for my book, it's your choice to buy it or read it. Someone has to publish it first. I find it odd that you just inserted "I won't buy your book" into a discussion that has nothing to do with it.

I didn't know you were writing a book, Don.

Good luck with it.

[Dawn Meredith]

The thing that is most curious to me is that not once has "Albert" denied outright that there is more than one of him. Telling also that it should be a post by "Rago" that "he" would single out as "worth reading".

Albert where do you live? Not your home address just the town/city.

What is really going on here?

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

It doesn't take very "deep" thought to recognize the huge differences in tone and style between Albert Doyle's posts and Jim Fetzer's myriad of posts and articles that are widely available on the internet.

But since you admitted, earlier on this thread, that you "don't have the expertise that some of you have regarding Albert Doyle's writing style," you have no basis on which to draw this conclusion. In other words, you both acknowledge and trumpet your ignorance.

And to which "Albert Doyle" do you refer?

Again, my argument isn't so much with you declaring that Doyle isn't Doyle, it's that you are now stating as a fact that Jim Fetzer is posting under Doyle's name.

I neither made nor make any such statement. I indicate the striking polemical similarities between the posts of at least one of the "Albert Doyle" personalities and much of Jim Fetzer's signed later output. Greg is spot-on: If we're not reading Fetzer as "Doyle," then we're reading someone who is either influenced by Fetzer or consciously attempting to ape him. Or both.

Deep thinking would require that you factor in Fetzer's past eagerness in being a minority of one; everything about him would indicate he would not shy away from promoting Piper any more than he has backed down from siding with Baker, Cinque, etc.

Don, in this exchange alone you've made it quite clear that your authority as a critic of deep political analysis is the equivalent of mine as a critic of quantum theory.

And how might we compare your superficial knowledge of Fetzer's psyche and Greg's deep understanding of a long-time friend and colleague?

And it gets better: You describe Jim Fetzer, the bold, loquacious champion and ally of the likes of charlatans and/or disinformation agents Philip Nelson and Ralph Cinque, as demonstrating "past eagerness in being a minority of one." And what of the Jim Fetzer of old, who stood publicly and proudly with a host of noble researchers on numerous issues of great importance to our work.

You're not posting on EF, Don. This nonsense you're spouting will not go unnoticed or unanswered here on the Deep Politics Forum.

I believe Jim Fetzer is now about 70 years old. Unless you are willing to postulate that he has always been a disinfo agent, why would he now, at such an age, decide to become one? Why would he choose someone like Albert Doyle, who was vehemently opposed to his Cinque arguments about Oswald in the doorway, for this mysterious, seemingly pointless bit of impersonation? Why would Doyle permit someone he disagreed with to post under his name? Yes, you can urge me to read all the past posts in this thread, but your thesis here is mind boggling. You are inferring that both Fetzer and Doyle never were mere posters on a forum, but in fact some kind of intel assets. How are you comfortable with putting out that kind of allegation publicly under your name?

Your "reasoning" here is so flawed, so absent even the most rudimentary understandings of the subjects you've allegedly studied for years and about which you now have the audacity to publish a book-length analysis, that I just don't know where to begin to tear it apart.

You ascribe to me conclusions I have not reached and allegations I have not made. You proffer psychoanalysis of a man you do not know. You focus on the "is it Fetzer?" issue at the expense of examining the most important matter at hand.

And I must add that, to even a modestly gifted student of Deep Politics, the operation we're examining presents as anything but pointless.

You are lashing out at Albert because you object to the fact he thinks Israel was a primary mover behind the assassination.

You haven't the foggiest idea about my position vis a vis Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination for the simple reason that nowhere on this thread have I discussed it.

Further, you misrepresent the position of the "Albert Doyle" entity on the "primary mover" business -- a position that eliminates "Israel" from Sponsor status.

Other than that -- great analysis, Don!

Then you further attempt to tie him in with someone else you have recently had a fallout with, primarily over his association with Cinque. You're letting your personal bias cause you to forumate [sic] theories that are, to use your own term, laughable.

Your ignorance now extends to the nature of my long-standing problems with Jim Fetzer. In other words, you excrete this shit and then try to sell it as chocolate.

[Albert Doyle]

This is crazy. As I posted in my last entry this thread hijack is obviously being driven by the overt restriction of any objective discussion of Piper. There are obviously some people who believe their viewpoint on Piper is gospel and cannot be discussed or analyzed. Once the evidence becomes clearly in favor of Piper these people will resort to extreme measures to avoid admitting that. Fetzer is a person who, in order to prove his theories, will resort to imaginary things to make-up for his failures. I daresay it is not I who is doing that here since I know for a fact I have been the only person posting. So to see embarrassing attempts to describe evidence of different posters being detected only heightens this absurdity and the cause for it. Like I said, if Charles really thought there were numerous people posting under my name he wouldn't have recognized the 'real' Albert like he did. For if there was a real Albert then that would mean he was somehow allowing other people to post under his name without protesting. And if that were the case then there wouldn't be any 'real' Albert would there? Instead of answering this Charles says I'm finished here. Hmm. I think Charles' entry that he can't figure out why the real Albert would allow this is the ridiculous entry that it is and internally disproves itself. The answer is the real Albert wouldn't allow that so Charles' statement is self-disproving. Realizing that he then furthers the ridiculousness by accusing me of being an agent provocateur. All because I (Mark, really) forced David off his bogus arguments. And Don correctly notices that while I am having another ridiculous Salem witch-hunt accusation of being Fetzer himself aimed at me the accusers forget I am one of the most outspoken critics of Fetzer. Again, we see who the real Fetzers are here. But all this business is just taking the bait and enabling the thread hijack. There's obviously an arbitrary subject restriction here involving Israel, and that's exactly why I'm interested in it. It's amazing what some people will do to avoid objective discussion of Piper. Funny, I never had any accusations of being Rago-like until I discussed Israel. And this from people who haven't uttered single word over Piper's actual evidence. Seems we now have witch subjects and non-witch subjects. No, this is deliberate gratuitous aggression designed to provoke a response that is then used to justify a premeditated polarization. This is evidenced by the fact that not only are the accusations false but their makers haven't participated in the debate.

The on-topic subject matter shows that David was so wrong that he was forced to abandon the debate. What David jumped ship over was the fact the evidence he had exactly backwards, and blew up in his face, showed that Kennedy enforced his nuclear restriction by drastically cutting Israel's military budget only one month before his assassination. This is right in line with Kennedy's efforts as detailed in 'The Unspeakable'. I dare ask if this would be more likely to make Echevarria's statement more connected or less connected to the motivations behind the assassination?