01-02-2016, 04:07 AM
Jim,
I'm aware of Fetzer's 9/11 theories. They don't surprise me, as it is part of his personality to go for the most "extreme" explanation possible, regardless of how absurd it sounds to most of us. As for the Gary Webb case, I included a section in my book on that. I would submit that, Michael Ruppert notwithstanding, it is incredibly difficult to shoot one's self in the head twice. Webb told both Alex Jones and Freeway Ricky Ross that he'd been threatened, followed, and seen strange figures outside his house. Given the nature of his work, and the enemies he made, I think it's no "conspiracy theory" to believe he was silenced, even without an extra bullet hole in his head.
I've always been a fan of your work- you know that. But we disagree on the extent of the corruption, the number of conspiracies if you will. I'm a fan of Alex Jones and I know you're not. I think the official stories of Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing and virtually every other widely-reported event in the past few years are frankly less credible than the most outlandish conspiracy theory one can find. I take what I think is valuable from a lot of sources. For instance, I could ignore Hankey's ridiculous "Bush did it" aspect of his film while recognizing the important evidence about the JFK, Jr. case he unearthed. From investigating that case and writing about it myself, I'm all too aware that the only people researching it for years were people like Hankey. Certainly no professional journalists did.
Our differences in perspective on this doesn't diminish my admiration for your article The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy. I mentioned it in my book and have referred to it in interviews. We seem to be about the only two researchers out there who don't buy into the Campbell-Exner-inspired portrait of JFK as a sickly, mafia-friendly sexual fiend.
I just instinctively blanch at the notion that some things are too "far out" to explore. We can all draw our own lines, but once intellectual discourse has been limited, as it has increasingly been in the mainstream media and other organs of polite society, then it becomes difficult to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. This doesn't mean I endorse Paul is dead, or the laser beams/ no planes 9/11 theory. I try to be as much of a First Amendment purist as possible.
I'm aware of Fetzer's 9/11 theories. They don't surprise me, as it is part of his personality to go for the most "extreme" explanation possible, regardless of how absurd it sounds to most of us. As for the Gary Webb case, I included a section in my book on that. I would submit that, Michael Ruppert notwithstanding, it is incredibly difficult to shoot one's self in the head twice. Webb told both Alex Jones and Freeway Ricky Ross that he'd been threatened, followed, and seen strange figures outside his house. Given the nature of his work, and the enemies he made, I think it's no "conspiracy theory" to believe he was silenced, even without an extra bullet hole in his head.
I've always been a fan of your work- you know that. But we disagree on the extent of the corruption, the number of conspiracies if you will. I'm a fan of Alex Jones and I know you're not. I think the official stories of Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing and virtually every other widely-reported event in the past few years are frankly less credible than the most outlandish conspiracy theory one can find. I take what I think is valuable from a lot of sources. For instance, I could ignore Hankey's ridiculous "Bush did it" aspect of his film while recognizing the important evidence about the JFK, Jr. case he unearthed. From investigating that case and writing about it myself, I'm all too aware that the only people researching it for years were people like Hankey. Certainly no professional journalists did.
Our differences in perspective on this doesn't diminish my admiration for your article The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy. I mentioned it in my book and have referred to it in interviews. We seem to be about the only two researchers out there who don't buy into the Campbell-Exner-inspired portrait of JFK as a sickly, mafia-friendly sexual fiend.
I just instinctively blanch at the notion that some things are too "far out" to explore. We can all draw our own lines, but once intellectual discourse has been limited, as it has increasingly been in the mainstream media and other organs of polite society, then it becomes difficult to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. This doesn't mean I endorse Paul is dead, or the laser beams/ no planes 9/11 theory. I try to be as much of a First Amendment purist as possible.