22-03-2010, 02:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-03-2010, 03:01 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
This list of complaints from Adrian Mack appears to be quite peculiar given that, in relation to the Judyth thread, my role has been rather modest. While I created the thread, virtually my entire involvement has been to perform minor edits of Judyth's emails and post them on her behalf. I have also invited my psy ops expert to offer his observations, where, once again, apart from even more limited edits, his contributions have been posted as he sent them to me. My role here, apart from responding to his attempts to distract the course of the thread, has actually been quite restrained.
The only times that I have advanced my views has been in relation to Adrian's attempts to derail the threat by practices that are typical of trolls and shills, especially by finding some very minor matter, such as a reference in passing to Eustice Mullins (of whom I had previously never heard), and turning it into a grand contretempts. And that appears to have been his intent: to disrupt, to distract and to derail one of the most fascinating threads in any forum's history! Based upon his list of purported objections, however, it is obvious that something else has been going on.
His latest post, no doubt, reveals his deeper objective, which is to trash me. Given my modest role here in posting on behalf of Judyth and my psy ops expert, nothing inherent to this thread could possibly justify what he declares he is about. What it tells me is that my inference that he had an agenda was right on the mark. He has been attempting to subvert this thread, even though--in my view as well as those of others--it is historic and sheds enormous light upon one of the most mysterious figures in American history and his role in one of our most consequential historical events.
His characterizations of me are virtually completely unsupported, even though he holds them with extreme intensity. His hostility toward me is palpable. But have I committed the offense he asserts, which is the only one that matters here: if Jim Fetzer was authentic, he wouldn’t piggyback his theories onto Judyth Vary Baker’s words. That is my point, in a nutshell. It's an interesting claim if it were true, but I am at a loss as to what "theories" I am supposed to be imposing upon Judyth's story? I have been as fascinated to learn what she has to say next as everyone else!
Just to make it obvious that this guy is blowing smoke, WHAT THEORIES AM I SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PROMOTING AT JUDYTH'S EXPENSE? Presumably, of course, they have to do with JFK. Having done as much work as I have on this subject, I have drawn many conclusions and published many articles to support them. But the preponderance of my work has been on the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. I have a chapter about Oswald in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), but that discusses the absence of evidence that could have been used to convict him in a court of law, which would have been impossible.
Apart from that, however, my knowledge of Lee has been virtually non-existent--apart from the obvious indications that he was recruited by ONI, was acting on behalf of the government in his pseudo-defection to the USSR, and other rather common knowledge about his role in these events. So I have been learning a tremendous amount about the alleged assassin from a unique and valuable source, which, of course, I have been sharing as I have been posting, never knowing where we would be going next, but always in the expectation that her next revelation might be more significant than the last.
Which means that I DON'T HAVE ANY THEORIES TO PIGGYBACK! Which means that, as I have observed in the past, Adrian Mack is a hack! While it gives me no pleasure to draw that inference, I have dealt with attack after attack from within the JFK community, especially by a small but dedicated group led by Josiah Thompson, which continues to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film long after the matter has been resolved. I would observe that, like Mack, Tink has obvious intellectual accomplishments with respect to his Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale. But also like Mack, he exaggerates, prevaricates, and makes allegations that he cannot substantiate BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE ISN'T THERE.
What could be a better example that this is a completely contrived attack than the fact that I cannot be "piggybacking" theories that I do not hold? I have many opinions about many matters involving JFK, Paul Wellstone, and 9/11, some of which are extremely controversial, especially to those who have never studied the evidence. It took me years to open my mind to the possibility of video fakery in New York, for example, but after featuring one student after another on my radio programs and reviewing the evidence in detail, I am convinced and even publish about it. (See, for example, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", which summarizes much of the evidence.)
As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, of course, I have dealt with many controversial issues and done my best to explain how the principles that define scientific reasoning are applicable to controversial cases like 9/11 and JFK. Indeed, my background in the philosophy of science has been the core reason why I have not become involved in study of the personalities, like Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald, who were involved, even though I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown and met and studied the role of Chauncey Marvin Holt, but they were special cases.
My approach to both of these cases is well-exemplified by "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which would become a chapter of my first book on 9/11, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE SCAMMING OF AMERICA (2007). (Like the article on video fakery, it, too, is accessible via google.) But I had not thought that this thread was the right place to discuss any of these issues, even though I am supposed to have "helped plunge 9/11 truth into ridicule" by not swallowing manifest absurdities about planes that can fly faster than is aerodynamically possible and melt into buildings with nary a trace in violation of Newton's laws of motion.
The idea that he wants "to make an honest man" of me is a fantasy! All of my difficulties with different individuals, like Josiah Thompson, and groups, like many in the 9/11 movement, has been because I will not compromise in the application of logic and critical thinking and scientific reasoning to the available, relevant evidence. After 35 years teaching students the principles of responsible reasoning, I will not countenance fallacious arguments in the pursuit of truth. And I find it offensive in the extreme that someone like Adrian Mack would advance his personal agenda to smear me by derailing the enormously important contributions of Judyth Vary Baker!
My honesty is not in doubt, but Adrian Mack has now revealed that he has had a covert agenda all along. He has formed opinions about me that have nothing to do with Judyth Baker, with Lee Oswald, or with my expert on ops. Indeed, he, too, concluded, long ago, that Adrian Mack was not an honest broker but had an agenda to subvert this thread. Now that we have it from Adrian Mack himself, let me suggest that these posts, which have nothing to do with the purposes of thread, be moved to a new one about James H. Fetzer. It would be my pleasure to mop the floor with the likes of Adrian Mack--but neither it nor he belongs on this thread, which is dedicated to Judyth's story.
The only times that I have advanced my views has been in relation to Adrian's attempts to derail the threat by practices that are typical of trolls and shills, especially by finding some very minor matter, such as a reference in passing to Eustice Mullins (of whom I had previously never heard), and turning it into a grand contretempts. And that appears to have been his intent: to disrupt, to distract and to derail one of the most fascinating threads in any forum's history! Based upon his list of purported objections, however, it is obvious that something else has been going on.
His latest post, no doubt, reveals his deeper objective, which is to trash me. Given my modest role here in posting on behalf of Judyth and my psy ops expert, nothing inherent to this thread could possibly justify what he declares he is about. What it tells me is that my inference that he had an agenda was right on the mark. He has been attempting to subvert this thread, even though--in my view as well as those of others--it is historic and sheds enormous light upon one of the most mysterious figures in American history and his role in one of our most consequential historical events.
His characterizations of me are virtually completely unsupported, even though he holds them with extreme intensity. His hostility toward me is palpable. But have I committed the offense he asserts, which is the only one that matters here: if Jim Fetzer was authentic, he wouldn’t piggyback his theories onto Judyth Vary Baker’s words. That is my point, in a nutshell. It's an interesting claim if it were true, but I am at a loss as to what "theories" I am supposed to be imposing upon Judyth's story? I have been as fascinated to learn what she has to say next as everyone else!
Just to make it obvious that this guy is blowing smoke, WHAT THEORIES AM I SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PROMOTING AT JUDYTH'S EXPENSE? Presumably, of course, they have to do with JFK. Having done as much work as I have on this subject, I have drawn many conclusions and published many articles to support them. But the preponderance of my work has been on the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. I have a chapter about Oswald in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), but that discusses the absence of evidence that could have been used to convict him in a court of law, which would have been impossible.
Apart from that, however, my knowledge of Lee has been virtually non-existent--apart from the obvious indications that he was recruited by ONI, was acting on behalf of the government in his pseudo-defection to the USSR, and other rather common knowledge about his role in these events. So I have been learning a tremendous amount about the alleged assassin from a unique and valuable source, which, of course, I have been sharing as I have been posting, never knowing where we would be going next, but always in the expectation that her next revelation might be more significant than the last.
Which means that I DON'T HAVE ANY THEORIES TO PIGGYBACK! Which means that, as I have observed in the past, Adrian Mack is a hack! While it gives me no pleasure to draw that inference, I have dealt with attack after attack from within the JFK community, especially by a small but dedicated group led by Josiah Thompson, which continues to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film long after the matter has been resolved. I would observe that, like Mack, Tink has obvious intellectual accomplishments with respect to his Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale. But also like Mack, he exaggerates, prevaricates, and makes allegations that he cannot substantiate BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE ISN'T THERE.
What could be a better example that this is a completely contrived attack than the fact that I cannot be "piggybacking" theories that I do not hold? I have many opinions about many matters involving JFK, Paul Wellstone, and 9/11, some of which are extremely controversial, especially to those who have never studied the evidence. It took me years to open my mind to the possibility of video fakery in New York, for example, but after featuring one student after another on my radio programs and reviewing the evidence in detail, I am convinced and even publish about it. (See, for example, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", which summarizes much of the evidence.)
As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, of course, I have dealt with many controversial issues and done my best to explain how the principles that define scientific reasoning are applicable to controversial cases like 9/11 and JFK. Indeed, my background in the philosophy of science has been the core reason why I have not become involved in study of the personalities, like Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald, who were involved, even though I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown and met and studied the role of Chauncey Marvin Holt, but they were special cases.
My approach to both of these cases is well-exemplified by "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which would become a chapter of my first book on 9/11, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE SCAMMING OF AMERICA (2007). (Like the article on video fakery, it, too, is accessible via google.) But I had not thought that this thread was the right place to discuss any of these issues, even though I am supposed to have "helped plunge 9/11 truth into ridicule" by not swallowing manifest absurdities about planes that can fly faster than is aerodynamically possible and melt into buildings with nary a trace in violation of Newton's laws of motion.
The idea that he wants "to make an honest man" of me is a fantasy! All of my difficulties with different individuals, like Josiah Thompson, and groups, like many in the 9/11 movement, has been because I will not compromise in the application of logic and critical thinking and scientific reasoning to the available, relevant evidence. After 35 years teaching students the principles of responsible reasoning, I will not countenance fallacious arguments in the pursuit of truth. And I find it offensive in the extreme that someone like Adrian Mack would advance his personal agenda to smear me by derailing the enormously important contributions of Judyth Vary Baker!
My honesty is not in doubt, but Adrian Mack has now revealed that he has had a covert agenda all along. He has formed opinions about me that have nothing to do with Judyth Baker, with Lee Oswald, or with my expert on ops. Indeed, he, too, concluded, long ago, that Adrian Mack was not an honest broker but had an agenda to subvert this thread. Now that we have it from Adrian Mack himself, let me suggest that these posts, which have nothing to do with the purposes of thread, be moved to a new one about James H. Fetzer. It would be my pleasure to mop the floor with the likes of Adrian Mack--but neither it nor he belongs on this thread, which is dedicated to Judyth's story.