01-02-2016, 07:07 AM
As I detail in my book, the establishment, both "left" and "right," despised (and continue to despise) the Kennedys. William Kuntzler, for instance, publicly declared that the country was better off for them being assassinated. They are looked at quite differently than other "liberal" politicians. With Rob Reiner's recent movie, even LBJ is now getting better press than JFK.
FDR and his administration utilized the services of mob bosses Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky during WWII. However, the public doesn't associate FDR with the mob the way it does the Kennedys, even though in reality JFK was the only president to target the mafia. And yet, all those mob connected witnesses are accepted at face value. FDR also had several mistresses, including his own cousin. But again, it is JFK, with almost all the "evidence" stemming from the ever-changing tales of Judith Campbell Exner, who is portrayed as an incorrigible adulterer.
Matthew, I agree with you completely about all these events being connected; indeed, it's one of the central premises of Hidden History. You can't have so many unimportant events written off with nonsensical, fairy tale explanations, and no free country can remain free with a kept press like ours. This is probably the essential disagreement between myself and most of the JFK assassination research community.
Professional journalists have never, from the moment NBC agreed to broadcast only those items "in consonance with the FBI" shortly after the assassination, investigated the JFK assassination. As Mark Lane pointed out early on, the lack of an honest investigation was providing "fertile ground for speculation." Jim Fetzer, like the rest of us, is filling the void left by professional journalists.
The same thing goes for 9/11, or Sandy Hook, or a host of other important events. When the official narratives are easily disproved by independent souls on the internet, there will be speculation. Some of it will be ridiculous.
These kinds of personal battles are why I spend much less time on these forums now. Fetzer thinks Jim D. and most of those who disagree with them are disinfo agents. Many of those who disagree with him think he is a disinfo agent. As John Kelin demonstrated in his book, the research community has always been like this. The internet just makes it more obvious to everyone.
Even if Jim Fetzer and all the other researchers our community believes are the least credible disappeared and went away, the mainstream media is never going to accept our central proposition. They, like the state they shill for, are fully vested in these myths. So are the establishment historians, who will never admit they've been wrong for decades about any of these events. Both the government and the court historians are still fighting the exhumations of both Meriweather Lewis and John Wilkes Booth. Does anyone really think they're going to admit their work on these much more recent events was a pack of lies?
The JFK assassination wasn't just a momentary lapse on the part of our government, and our media, into massive corruption and conspiracy.
FDR and his administration utilized the services of mob bosses Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky during WWII. However, the public doesn't associate FDR with the mob the way it does the Kennedys, even though in reality JFK was the only president to target the mafia. And yet, all those mob connected witnesses are accepted at face value. FDR also had several mistresses, including his own cousin. But again, it is JFK, with almost all the "evidence" stemming from the ever-changing tales of Judith Campbell Exner, who is portrayed as an incorrigible adulterer.
Matthew, I agree with you completely about all these events being connected; indeed, it's one of the central premises of Hidden History. You can't have so many unimportant events written off with nonsensical, fairy tale explanations, and no free country can remain free with a kept press like ours. This is probably the essential disagreement between myself and most of the JFK assassination research community.
Professional journalists have never, from the moment NBC agreed to broadcast only those items "in consonance with the FBI" shortly after the assassination, investigated the JFK assassination. As Mark Lane pointed out early on, the lack of an honest investigation was providing "fertile ground for speculation." Jim Fetzer, like the rest of us, is filling the void left by professional journalists.
The same thing goes for 9/11, or Sandy Hook, or a host of other important events. When the official narratives are easily disproved by independent souls on the internet, there will be speculation. Some of it will be ridiculous.
These kinds of personal battles are why I spend much less time on these forums now. Fetzer thinks Jim D. and most of those who disagree with them are disinfo agents. Many of those who disagree with him think he is a disinfo agent. As John Kelin demonstrated in his book, the research community has always been like this. The internet just makes it more obvious to everyone.
Even if Jim Fetzer and all the other researchers our community believes are the least credible disappeared and went away, the mainstream media is never going to accept our central proposition. They, like the state they shill for, are fully vested in these myths. So are the establishment historians, who will never admit they've been wrong for decades about any of these events. Both the government and the court historians are still fighting the exhumations of both Meriweather Lewis and John Wilkes Booth. Does anyone really think they're going to admit their work on these much more recent events was a pack of lies?
The JFK assassination wasn't just a momentary lapse on the part of our government, and our media, into massive corruption and conspiracy.