01-02-2016, 12:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2016, 01:15 AM by Matthew Poe.)
A friend of mine likened Fetzer's show with Kevin Barrett, "False Flag Report," to two farmers doing a "hog report." Its certainly as useful to real researchers. They work backwards with embarrassing surety that all big tragic news events are somehow concocted, which at the very least lessens the credibility of their ensuing analysis. Fetzer's constructs are puzzling and even painful to watch--sometimes, when debating an opponent, in the thick of his rhetoric, he emits strange tics and groans, straining under the weight of his unwitting imposture. I too believe he is to be pitied.
Jim, I only have had time to skim the material but as usual I credit your vast and deep knowledge of JFK matters, along with (here specifically) your trenchant formulation that the steep reduction of MSM news gathering abilities and concomitant decline in credibility has created a vacuum for alternative narratives, while unfortunately some of the actors engaged in these alternatives are equally lacking in credibility whether b/c they are emotionally ill-equipped, spread to thin or, perhaps, corrupted.
But reading that you don't follow 9/11 research full stop I'm pulled up short and made curious to know more about your position. Do you mean that its not your speciality or that you are incurious about the event because you are satisfied with the mainstream consensus version of that event? Or that you are suspicious of it but fear it a quagmire that might take you away from your highly developed specialty? I would expect that to someone with a mind grown attuned to the deep political as yours (if nothing else from so many years studying the skullduggery around 11/22/63) the alleged Al-Qaeda attacks must set off some alarm bells? But I might be mistaken in that assumption.
Jim, I only have had time to skim the material but as usual I credit your vast and deep knowledge of JFK matters, along with (here specifically) your trenchant formulation that the steep reduction of MSM news gathering abilities and concomitant decline in credibility has created a vacuum for alternative narratives, while unfortunately some of the actors engaged in these alternatives are equally lacking in credibility whether b/c they are emotionally ill-equipped, spread to thin or, perhaps, corrupted.
But reading that you don't follow 9/11 research full stop I'm pulled up short and made curious to know more about your position. Do you mean that its not your speciality or that you are incurious about the event because you are satisfied with the mainstream consensus version of that event? Or that you are suspicious of it but fear it a quagmire that might take you away from your highly developed specialty? I would expect that to someone with a mind grown attuned to the deep political as yours (if nothing else from so many years studying the skullduggery around 11/22/63) the alleged Al-Qaeda attacks must set off some alarm bells? But I might be mistaken in that assumption.