12-04-2010, 12:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-04-2010, 04:54 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
JIM RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH, 9/11, AND INTEGRITY
This heated exchange with David Lifton, whom I have long admired for his brilliant research on the death
of JFK, was preceded by an earlier email in which I asked him to send me a copy of the cassette of his
recording of his (one and only) conversation with Judyth. Here is what I said to him in that email:
If you want to have a continuing relationship with me after making that
absurd post on the Judyth thread, then you have to send me a copy of the
cassette within the coming week. Send it to my home at 800 Violet Lane,
Oregon, WI 53575. Use FEDEX. If you don't do that, then just forget it.
Very, very pissed!
Jim
The problem, of course, is that Lifton has made many claims in his ongoing efforts to trash Judyth that I
could confirm or disconfirm by listening to the cassette, most obviously, the "Cancun/Kankun" matter,
where it is inconceivable to me how Lifton, not knowing of the previous history of the region, could have
been in the position to discriminate between her having said "KanKun" and his having heard "Cancun",
when they are phonetically indistinguishable! It appears to me that he wants to block any possibility
his claims about this could be subjected to any rational response by denying access to the evidence.
So my first objection to Lifton's conduct here is that he appears to be suppressing evidence in an effort
to make himself invulnerable to refutation. My second objection is that Lifton published only part of my
email to him, which obfuscated the context within which it was taking place. I am correcting his gross
omission by presenting here the paragraph from my prior email to him (above) which was the trigger
for his impassioned denial of granting me access to the tape recording. In both cases, Lifton violates a
basic requirement of research by presenting only some of the available relevant evidence, but not all.
That fallacy is know as "special pleading". Then in this irresponsible response to our exchange, he now
lashes out at me relative to the question of the events of 9/11! That is simply stunning, but also very
revealing his complete lack of scruples in dealing with me about all of this. I have done an enormous
amount of research on 9/11, while Lifton--and Doug Horne, for that matter--appear to have done none.
Not only did I found Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org) but I published the first book from
Scholars, organized its first conference, "The Science and Politics of 9/11", and produced its first DVD.
I have interviewed dozens and dozens of experts on different aspects of 9/11 in the course of my radio
programs, including a year-and-a-half co-hosting "The Dynamic Duo" with Kevin Barrett on the Genesis
Radio Network and now "The Real Deal" on revereradio.net. I have made hundreds of presentations,
lectures, and interviews on this subject, including being flown to Athens, Greece, in late 2006 to appear
on a 3 1/2 hour television program, which was broadcast worldwide by satellite, and to Buenos Aires,
Argentina (twice) for lectures on 9/11 in 2008 and then a symposium at The National Library in 2009.
Lifton, like Horne, appears to be completely oblivious of the massive evidence that undermines what we
have been told by our government about 9/11. One might have thought that, after having done so much
to expose chicanery by the government about JFK, they might both be the least bit skeptic about this "the
pivotal event of the 21st Century" which has been used to restrict civil rights and subvert the Constitution
by launching these wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan in violation of international law, the
UN Charter, and even the US Constitution, justified to the public based upon an alleged "terrorist attack".
Anyone who wants an introduction to research on 9/11 should read any of the books by David Ray Griffin,
my THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, or watch the DVD, "The Science and Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial,
What's Not", which are featured on the home page of Scholars at http://911scholars.org. While you are
there, visit "Why doubt 9/11?" in the upper-left-hand corner for a distillation of about 20 refutations of
the "official account" and then visit patriotsquestion911.com, which is linked to Scholars at the upper-
right-hand corner of the home page, where they will be able to access photographs, bio sketches, and
statements about 9/11 from an impresssive array of scholars and professionals across the spectrum.
That Lifton would attack me over 9/11 when he knows next-to-nothing about it parallels his involvement
on this thread when he has not been reading the posts! He withholds relevant evidence that could very
well falsify his efforts to trash Judyth and intrudes when he doesn't know what he is talking about, once
again! It has occurred to me that David Lifton believes that the only person smarter than David Lifton is
David Lifton--when he has his next brilliant idea! Which no doubt contributes to his intransigence when
confronted by someone like me who has the gall to question him about the evidence for his allegations.
So Lifton won't share the cassette of his recording. He isn't following the thread. He is posting without
staying abreast of the state of play on the forum. In attacking me over 9/11, he is perpetrating yet one
more fallacy, the appeal to popular sentiments, which argues that, because most people don't believe 9/11
was "an inside job", it follows that 9/11 was not "an inside job"! Anyone who wants massive evidence to
the contrary can also visit my blog at http://jamefetzer.blogspot.com. And while they are there, they can
also study several I have posted about Judyth, which will make them better informed about her than DSL.
Jim
P.S. And just to make one more point. Not only have I asked him to share a copy of his cassette for me
to review but I have invited him (several times now) to explain his position about HARVEY & LEE. That
his is not doing that troubles me profoundly. The issue makes a difference here. So not only is Lifton
suppressing evidence (by not sharing his recording) and practicing assorted fallacies in reasoning, such
as special pleading and the appeal to popular sentiments, where he doesn't know enough about 9/11 to
take a stand, but, in relation to HARVEY & LEE, he is not willing to share in a case where he knows what
he is talking about. This is not the conduct of a courageous scholar of great integrity, but the opposite.
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:33:20 -0500 [04/09/2010 08:33:20 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: The Taped Record of My March, 2000 conversation with Judyth
Heretofore I have been "four square" in your corner. I have probably had
a thousand times (a very conservative estimate) more contact with Judyth
than have you. Ed Haslam has interrogated her for around 1,000 hours. I
find it incredible offensive that you continue to refer to her using such
demeaning and degrading language. There is no way in the world that you
could have discerned the sound of "KanKun" from that of Cancun", which is
one telling indication that your entire rejection of Judyth is overblown.
Are you implying that I would put your conversation with her on the net?
That's a pretty crappy thing to suggest. I no longer believe you about
your conversation with her, especially when you are unwilling to share it.
I would not be investing so much time and effort on this woman had I not
become convinced that she is "the real deal". So if you don't want to
spend more time on her, THEN DON'T! But keep your nose out of where it
does not belong, if you don't mind. I have to deal with enough little
twits on the thread to have someone I largely admire come on to add more
logs to the fire. If you haven't been reading the thread, which I take
to be obvious, THEN STAY THE FUCK OFF IT! It is so typical of Judyth's
critics to drop some nasty and then ignore whatever she has to say about
it in response. Do something else, like the goddamned book you claim to
be writing, while I sort out matters with Judyth. How's that for a plan?
Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>:
>Jim,
>
>One topic at a time, so this will only be about Judyth (and I don't want to
>spend another minute of my valuable time on this subject).
>
>Some time ago, I consulted with my own attorney and others connected with
>the publication of my own work.
>
>Under no circumstances am I providing any copy of the tape of my
>conversation with Judyth to anyone. Even if I were willing to do so (which I
>am not) it would be a small project to find which box in which storage area
>that cassette is located, then get it copied, then arrange for a lawyer to
>draft a valid legal release etc etc. (Further: can you imagine the
>complications at that juncture: placing reliance on a legal release signed
>by someone I believe to be deluded?) But all of this is quite beside the
>point, because I am unwilling to go down that path, so I'm going to be very
>forthright about it: the answer is no, I'm not providing any such tape, and
>here are some additional considerations:
>
>First of all, I resent the notion of your continually repeating the idea
>that I criminally recorded a conversation, etc etc. Writers and journalists
>often record their interviews, and I considered myself to have been in just
>such a "first interview" situation. The construction you place on that is
>highly negative. That statement--repeated more than once by you--and by
>your associate Judyth, who (for all practical purposes) you now "represent"
>on the Internet--is a giveaway to your true attitude and the dynamic at play
>here, and I want no part of it.
>
>Second: That same attitude is also at play when you indiscriminately post
>Judyth's complete lies about me --and this concerns such rubbish as my work
>not being published on account of her book; or false and malicious
>statements about my filmed interview with Oswald's daughter. These are not
>matters I am going to debate, but they offer an accurate barometer of what
>Judyth is all about: malice, and manipulation, with no true regard for truth
>in history.
>
>Third--and perhaps most relevant: The Internet has changed everything since
>I had this conversation in March, 2004. Any email, any piece of audio, any
>film, any image--can be heard and/or seen around the world.
>
>For all the work you have done as an author and JFK researcher, you have now
>become--in effect--Judyth's "manager," or "handler on the Internet." That is
>a truly unfortunate state of affairs.
>
>As you know, I believe Judyth to be a pathological liar. Further, I do not
>believe her to be a valid witness to anything. She needs psychological help,
>but instead has found a new voice (you) to facilitate the dissemination of
>her fictions, and she even has a soon to be published book on Amazon.
>
>I want to be no part of any of this.
>
>I do not want my voice questioning her on the internet--or as the focus of
>any debate, as to whether she pronounced a particular word this way or that,
>and that is exactly what would happen if this tape were to be provided to
>any third party. Of course she said Cancun--I did not make that up--but I am
>unwilling to have the spurious side debate as to whether her pronunciation
>can be construed one way or another (which I understand to be the latest
>"excuse" she has constructed to avoid being impaled on this particular
>issue).
>
>On a more personal level: I have had to adjust to the fact that you--who I
>think should know better, much better--believe in this woman. Indeed, you
>have fallen for her legitimacy hook, line and sinker. But that doesn't mean
>I should be dragged further into any of this. I shall not, and will not.
>
>Finally, I see nothing wrong with my having complimented someone on the fact
>that they actually went to the Kennedy library, and spent the time necessary
>to retrieve a completely obscure letter written back in 1961. Tony Marsh did
>that, and he is to be commended. I found that admirable. For here is the
>actual fan letter Judyth wrote to President Kennedy, and that document is
>valid evidence and, to say the least, illuminating.
>
>While I don't want to spend further time debating these issues, I am not
>going to be muzzled as to expressing my opinions, when appropriate.
>
>DSL
>
>PS: I have not read Halsam's book, but I have read the threads about it on
>the Simkin Forum. At some point, I'll read it, but you should be aware that
>its entirely possible for Judyth to read such an account, and then "insert
>herself" into the story. That's exactly the way she functions. She reads,
>absorbs, her imagination then goes to work, and then she functions as an
>echo chamber in any existing legal or historical record.
[quote name='David Lifton' post='189440' date='Apr 11 2010, 10:48 AM']
Jim Fetzer is continuing his campaign of reaching into the gutter to stir the pot and attempting to sully my name, using
Judyth Baker as his chosen vehicle for disseminating false information about me.
He obviously does not like the fact that, based on my interactions with Judyth, I believe her to be a pathological liar,
a fraud, and a fantasist. But there are other dimensions to all this. Some months back, I made clear to Fetzer that I do not subscribe
to his ideas as a 9/11 Truther--specifically, I do not believe that the US Government was complicit in the destruction of the World Trade Center;
nor do I believe that a missile, and not a plane, hit the Pentagon.
I know that Doug Horne feels the same way--we see completely eye to eye on this subject--and Doug
has spelled this out very clearly in an Epilogue to his five volume work "Inside the ARRB." But Fetzer is like a bull in a china shop.
He seems not to care whom he offends, or how he goes about it.
He seems to think he is in charge, and is free to sling mud at anyone, anytime. Well, I have had enough of
him and his antics.
In the last 24 hours, and in response to my posting a brief statement complimenting Barb Junkkarinen (and
Tony Marsh) on finding a letter (at the JFK Library) that Judyth wrote to President Kennedy--and in general, supporting their
interpretation that this was nothing more than a fan letter, and that Ralph Dungan's response was completely
routine (and should not be invested with the overwrought interpretation(s) that Judyth has placed on it),
Fetzer sent me a very threatening email which reads, in part, as follows:
QUOTE:
I would not be investing so much time and effort on this woman had I not
become convinced that she is "the real deal". So if you don't want to
spend more time on her, THEN DON'T! But keep your nose out of where it
does not belong, if you don't mind. I have to deal with enough little
twits on the thread to have someone I largely admire come on to add more
logs to the fire. If you haven't been reading the thread, which I take
to be obvious, THEN STAY THE FUCK OFF IT!
UNQUOTE
In the immediate aftermath of this threat, Judyth then repeated her lies about me (and again,
this is all via postings made by Fetzer) to the effect that Rachel Oswald was not paid any money
when a snippet of a 1991 filmed interview I did with Rachel was used by the show HARDCOPY, a year later,
when in fact Rachel was paid a total of $ 4,000, and there are canceled checks to prove these transactions.
As I also stated previously, Rachel was furious--and rightfully so (as was I, by the way)--with the poor taste
shown by a particular HARDCOPY producer in his tasteless editing of the show.
Fetzer is now seeking to recycle that whole sorry episode. He is apparently using Judyth to carry on a smear campaign
against me, attempting to recycle what happened 18 years ago, in the year 2010.
As Joe McCarthy was asked,during the hearings: Have you no decency, sir? To which I would add:
Are there no limits to you stinking behavior?
With each passing day, I want less and less to do with Fetzer, his screwball beliefs,
and his highly unethical and out of control tactics.
Do I believe there was a major conspiracy in the JFK case? Yes, of course I do. Does Fetzer subscribe to that, too?
Yes, he apparently does. But so what. At some point, I simply do not care what someone believes about the Warren Report,
but have to focus on their behavior as a human being, and I not only have had enough of Judyth and her behavior, but
Fetzer as well.
DSL
4/11/10; 3:50 AM PDT
Los Angeles, CA[/quote]
This heated exchange with David Lifton, whom I have long admired for his brilliant research on the death
of JFK, was preceded by an earlier email in which I asked him to send me a copy of the cassette of his
recording of his (one and only) conversation with Judyth. Here is what I said to him in that email:
If you want to have a continuing relationship with me after making that
absurd post on the Judyth thread, then you have to send me a copy of the
cassette within the coming week. Send it to my home at 800 Violet Lane,
Oregon, WI 53575. Use FEDEX. If you don't do that, then just forget it.
Very, very pissed!
Jim
The problem, of course, is that Lifton has made many claims in his ongoing efforts to trash Judyth that I
could confirm or disconfirm by listening to the cassette, most obviously, the "Cancun/Kankun" matter,
where it is inconceivable to me how Lifton, not knowing of the previous history of the region, could have
been in the position to discriminate between her having said "KanKun" and his having heard "Cancun",
when they are phonetically indistinguishable! It appears to me that he wants to block any possibility
his claims about this could be subjected to any rational response by denying access to the evidence.
So my first objection to Lifton's conduct here is that he appears to be suppressing evidence in an effort
to make himself invulnerable to refutation. My second objection is that Lifton published only part of my
email to him, which obfuscated the context within which it was taking place. I am correcting his gross
omission by presenting here the paragraph from my prior email to him (above) which was the trigger
for his impassioned denial of granting me access to the tape recording. In both cases, Lifton violates a
basic requirement of research by presenting only some of the available relevant evidence, but not all.
That fallacy is know as "special pleading". Then in this irresponsible response to our exchange, he now
lashes out at me relative to the question of the events of 9/11! That is simply stunning, but also very
revealing his complete lack of scruples in dealing with me about all of this. I have done an enormous
amount of research on 9/11, while Lifton--and Doug Horne, for that matter--appear to have done none.
Not only did I found Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org) but I published the first book from
Scholars, organized its first conference, "The Science and Politics of 9/11", and produced its first DVD.
I have interviewed dozens and dozens of experts on different aspects of 9/11 in the course of my radio
programs, including a year-and-a-half co-hosting "The Dynamic Duo" with Kevin Barrett on the Genesis
Radio Network and now "The Real Deal" on revereradio.net. I have made hundreds of presentations,
lectures, and interviews on this subject, including being flown to Athens, Greece, in late 2006 to appear
on a 3 1/2 hour television program, which was broadcast worldwide by satellite, and to Buenos Aires,
Argentina (twice) for lectures on 9/11 in 2008 and then a symposium at The National Library in 2009.
Lifton, like Horne, appears to be completely oblivious of the massive evidence that undermines what we
have been told by our government about 9/11. One might have thought that, after having done so much
to expose chicanery by the government about JFK, they might both be the least bit skeptic about this "the
pivotal event of the 21st Century" which has been used to restrict civil rights and subvert the Constitution
by launching these wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan in violation of international law, the
UN Charter, and even the US Constitution, justified to the public based upon an alleged "terrorist attack".
Anyone who wants an introduction to research on 9/11 should read any of the books by David Ray Griffin,
my THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, or watch the DVD, "The Science and Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial,
What's Not", which are featured on the home page of Scholars at http://911scholars.org. While you are
there, visit "Why doubt 9/11?" in the upper-left-hand corner for a distillation of about 20 refutations of
the "official account" and then visit patriotsquestion911.com, which is linked to Scholars at the upper-
right-hand corner of the home page, where they will be able to access photographs, bio sketches, and
statements about 9/11 from an impresssive array of scholars and professionals across the spectrum.
That Lifton would attack me over 9/11 when he knows next-to-nothing about it parallels his involvement
on this thread when he has not been reading the posts! He withholds relevant evidence that could very
well falsify his efforts to trash Judyth and intrudes when he doesn't know what he is talking about, once
again! It has occurred to me that David Lifton believes that the only person smarter than David Lifton is
David Lifton--when he has his next brilliant idea! Which no doubt contributes to his intransigence when
confronted by someone like me who has the gall to question him about the evidence for his allegations.
So Lifton won't share the cassette of his recording. He isn't following the thread. He is posting without
staying abreast of the state of play on the forum. In attacking me over 9/11, he is perpetrating yet one
more fallacy, the appeal to popular sentiments, which argues that, because most people don't believe 9/11
was "an inside job", it follows that 9/11 was not "an inside job"! Anyone who wants massive evidence to
the contrary can also visit my blog at http://jamefetzer.blogspot.com. And while they are there, they can
also study several I have posted about Judyth, which will make them better informed about her than DSL.
Jim
P.S. And just to make one more point. Not only have I asked him to share a copy of his cassette for me
to review but I have invited him (several times now) to explain his position about HARVEY & LEE. That
his is not doing that troubles me profoundly. The issue makes a difference here. So not only is Lifton
suppressing evidence (by not sharing his recording) and practicing assorted fallacies in reasoning, such
as special pleading and the appeal to popular sentiments, where he doesn't know enough about 9/11 to
take a stand, but, in relation to HARVEY & LEE, he is not willing to share in a case where he knows what
he is talking about. This is not the conduct of a courageous scholar of great integrity, but the opposite.
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:33:20 -0500 [04/09/2010 08:33:20 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: The Taped Record of My March, 2000 conversation with Judyth
Heretofore I have been "four square" in your corner. I have probably had
a thousand times (a very conservative estimate) more contact with Judyth
than have you. Ed Haslam has interrogated her for around 1,000 hours. I
find it incredible offensive that you continue to refer to her using such
demeaning and degrading language. There is no way in the world that you
could have discerned the sound of "KanKun" from that of Cancun", which is
one telling indication that your entire rejection of Judyth is overblown.
Are you implying that I would put your conversation with her on the net?
That's a pretty crappy thing to suggest. I no longer believe you about
your conversation with her, especially when you are unwilling to share it.
I would not be investing so much time and effort on this woman had I not
become convinced that she is "the real deal". So if you don't want to
spend more time on her, THEN DON'T! But keep your nose out of where it
does not belong, if you don't mind. I have to deal with enough little
twits on the thread to have someone I largely admire come on to add more
logs to the fire. If you haven't been reading the thread, which I take
to be obvious, THEN STAY THE FUCK OFF IT! It is so typical of Judyth's
critics to drop some nasty and then ignore whatever she has to say about
it in response. Do something else, like the goddamned book you claim to
be writing, while I sort out matters with Judyth. How's that for a plan?
Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>:
>Jim,
>
>One topic at a time, so this will only be about Judyth (and I don't want to
>spend another minute of my valuable time on this subject).
>
>Some time ago, I consulted with my own attorney and others connected with
>the publication of my own work.
>
>Under no circumstances am I providing any copy of the tape of my
>conversation with Judyth to anyone. Even if I were willing to do so (which I
>am not) it would be a small project to find which box in which storage area
>that cassette is located, then get it copied, then arrange for a lawyer to
>draft a valid legal release etc etc. (Further: can you imagine the
>complications at that juncture: placing reliance on a legal release signed
>by someone I believe to be deluded?) But all of this is quite beside the
>point, because I am unwilling to go down that path, so I'm going to be very
>forthright about it: the answer is no, I'm not providing any such tape, and
>here are some additional considerations:
>
>First of all, I resent the notion of your continually repeating the idea
>that I criminally recorded a conversation, etc etc. Writers and journalists
>often record their interviews, and I considered myself to have been in just
>such a "first interview" situation. The construction you place on that is
>highly negative. That statement--repeated more than once by you--and by
>your associate Judyth, who (for all practical purposes) you now "represent"
>on the Internet--is a giveaway to your true attitude and the dynamic at play
>here, and I want no part of it.
>
>Second: That same attitude is also at play when you indiscriminately post
>Judyth's complete lies about me --and this concerns such rubbish as my work
>not being published on account of her book; or false and malicious
>statements about my filmed interview with Oswald's daughter. These are not
>matters I am going to debate, but they offer an accurate barometer of what
>Judyth is all about: malice, and manipulation, with no true regard for truth
>in history.
>
>Third--and perhaps most relevant: The Internet has changed everything since
>I had this conversation in March, 2004. Any email, any piece of audio, any
>film, any image--can be heard and/or seen around the world.
>
>For all the work you have done as an author and JFK researcher, you have now
>become--in effect--Judyth's "manager," or "handler on the Internet." That is
>a truly unfortunate state of affairs.
>
>As you know, I believe Judyth to be a pathological liar. Further, I do not
>believe her to be a valid witness to anything. She needs psychological help,
>but instead has found a new voice (you) to facilitate the dissemination of
>her fictions, and she even has a soon to be published book on Amazon.
>
>I want to be no part of any of this.
>
>I do not want my voice questioning her on the internet--or as the focus of
>any debate, as to whether she pronounced a particular word this way or that,
>and that is exactly what would happen if this tape were to be provided to
>any third party. Of course she said Cancun--I did not make that up--but I am
>unwilling to have the spurious side debate as to whether her pronunciation
>can be construed one way or another (which I understand to be the latest
>"excuse" she has constructed to avoid being impaled on this particular
>issue).
>
>On a more personal level: I have had to adjust to the fact that you--who I
>think should know better, much better--believe in this woman. Indeed, you
>have fallen for her legitimacy hook, line and sinker. But that doesn't mean
>I should be dragged further into any of this. I shall not, and will not.
>
>Finally, I see nothing wrong with my having complimented someone on the fact
>that they actually went to the Kennedy library, and spent the time necessary
>to retrieve a completely obscure letter written back in 1961. Tony Marsh did
>that, and he is to be commended. I found that admirable. For here is the
>actual fan letter Judyth wrote to President Kennedy, and that document is
>valid evidence and, to say the least, illuminating.
>
>While I don't want to spend further time debating these issues, I am not
>going to be muzzled as to expressing my opinions, when appropriate.
>
>DSL
>
>PS: I have not read Halsam's book, but I have read the threads about it on
>the Simkin Forum. At some point, I'll read it, but you should be aware that
>its entirely possible for Judyth to read such an account, and then "insert
>herself" into the story. That's exactly the way she functions. She reads,
>absorbs, her imagination then goes to work, and then she functions as an
>echo chamber in any existing legal or historical record.
[quote name='David Lifton' post='189440' date='Apr 11 2010, 10:48 AM']
Jim Fetzer is continuing his campaign of reaching into the gutter to stir the pot and attempting to sully my name, using
Judyth Baker as his chosen vehicle for disseminating false information about me.
He obviously does not like the fact that, based on my interactions with Judyth, I believe her to be a pathological liar,
a fraud, and a fantasist. But there are other dimensions to all this. Some months back, I made clear to Fetzer that I do not subscribe
to his ideas as a 9/11 Truther--specifically, I do not believe that the US Government was complicit in the destruction of the World Trade Center;
nor do I believe that a missile, and not a plane, hit the Pentagon.
I know that Doug Horne feels the same way--we see completely eye to eye on this subject--and Doug
has spelled this out very clearly in an Epilogue to his five volume work "Inside the ARRB." But Fetzer is like a bull in a china shop.
He seems not to care whom he offends, or how he goes about it.
He seems to think he is in charge, and is free to sling mud at anyone, anytime. Well, I have had enough of
him and his antics.
In the last 24 hours, and in response to my posting a brief statement complimenting Barb Junkkarinen (and
Tony Marsh) on finding a letter (at the JFK Library) that Judyth wrote to President Kennedy--and in general, supporting their
interpretation that this was nothing more than a fan letter, and that Ralph Dungan's response was completely
routine (and should not be invested with the overwrought interpretation(s) that Judyth has placed on it),
Fetzer sent me a very threatening email which reads, in part, as follows:
QUOTE:
I would not be investing so much time and effort on this woman had I not
become convinced that she is "the real deal". So if you don't want to
spend more time on her, THEN DON'T! But keep your nose out of where it
does not belong, if you don't mind. I have to deal with enough little
twits on the thread to have someone I largely admire come on to add more
logs to the fire. If you haven't been reading the thread, which I take
to be obvious, THEN STAY THE FUCK OFF IT!
UNQUOTE
In the immediate aftermath of this threat, Judyth then repeated her lies about me (and again,
this is all via postings made by Fetzer) to the effect that Rachel Oswald was not paid any money
when a snippet of a 1991 filmed interview I did with Rachel was used by the show HARDCOPY, a year later,
when in fact Rachel was paid a total of $ 4,000, and there are canceled checks to prove these transactions.
As I also stated previously, Rachel was furious--and rightfully so (as was I, by the way)--with the poor taste
shown by a particular HARDCOPY producer in his tasteless editing of the show.
Fetzer is now seeking to recycle that whole sorry episode. He is apparently using Judyth to carry on a smear campaign
against me, attempting to recycle what happened 18 years ago, in the year 2010.
As Joe McCarthy was asked,during the hearings: Have you no decency, sir? To which I would add:
Are there no limits to you stinking behavior?
With each passing day, I want less and less to do with Fetzer, his screwball beliefs,
and his highly unethical and out of control tactics.
Do I believe there was a major conspiracy in the JFK case? Yes, of course I do. Does Fetzer subscribe to that, too?
Yes, he apparently does. But so what. At some point, I simply do not care what someone believes about the Warren Report,
but have to focus on their behavior as a human being, and I not only have had enough of Judyth and her behavior, but
Fetzer as well.
DSL
4/11/10; 3:50 AM PDT
Los Angeles, CA[/quote]