Craig Zirbel's new book The Final Chapter On the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

[Seamus Coogan]

I embarrassed DiEugenio on the EF by demonstrating--based on his own
reply to a post of mine--that he does not understand either the medical,
the ballistic, or the photographic or film evidenced in this case, so he is
here to bellyache about it. He flipped out when I explained there were
shooters at six locations, which I have justified on the basis of the kinds
of evidence he does not understand. For those who want to understand
what DiEugenio has revealed that he does not, consider this presentation:

"Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?"
http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconferenc...pter30.pdf

In Fetzer Land what is not "an exceptional contribution"?

Phil Nelson's gibberish? Exceptional contribution, right up there with Jim Douglass.

Russ Baker's piece of pretension, is an exceptional contribtution.

Joe Farrell, fresh from Conspiracy LA LA Land, an exceptional contribution.

Madeline Brown, wonderful witness.

Judy Baker, a living saint.

DOug Horne, a tremendous contribution.

David Lifton, a brilliant book.

Nigel Turner, learned more as he went along.

What utter and demeaning crapola. The problem here is two fold.

Nigel Turner completely blew a fantastic opportunity. He had several hours to make a fine case with the best the research community had to offer at the last anniversary, the 40th.

What does the jerk put on? Of all people, all people, Judy Baker! He then doubles down and puts that loud mouthed blowhard Barr McClellan on.

But even that is not enough. He then puts on some Lifotnesque stuff about altering the body. This was one he got sued on. But even that is not enough. TO cap it off, he gives time to the Murchison party also!?

Please Jim. Please.

The worst part of his series was the fact that he completely wasted Aguilar and Mantik who got buried in the tin foil stuff. He never saw any of the cheap thrills that the likes of Judy Baker gave him.

That show was enough to set us back for a decade. That is how bad it was. THanks to Ventura we got a reprieve. But even Jesse had to go and put that idiot opportunist Saint John Hunt on, which as Seamus pointed out, almost ruined the show.

FInally, I don't condemn the right of anyone to change their minds in this field. I actually used to think that the King and RFK cases were not conspiracies.

But if you are going to actually be as wild and irresponsible as to tell the American public who was on the grassy knoll, you had better have some really good evidence--I mean really good. Or else why do it at all? Turner was clearly wrong here, as later research--which he should have done himself--proved.

THen, without blinking, he then says well, its not the COrsican Mafia, but LBJ and Mac Wallace etc. Without telling the viewer that McClellan's book says it was Wallce not on the GK, but on the Sixth FLoor, firing away RIGHT NEXT TO OSWALD!!!

Yeah Jim. That is what Turner has learned, Oswald was shooting at Kennedy. Or did you miss that?

You have become an apologist and publicist for every half-baked nonsensical snake oil salesman out there on this case. If you are positioning yourself for anything its maybe Alex Jones Jr.

Wow, what an ambition: "LBJ was ready to radio in the helicoptered Swat teams if JFK made it out of the Kill Zone."

Hey, in Fetzer Land, why not?

Phew. Look at the insults and tirades coming from Mr Fetzer.

I'd like to ask anybody here (in particularly the mods) to please compare my post to Mr Fetzers and compare his abusive tones to say Jim DiEugenio's. Indeed do it over a prolonged search throughout the Forum. Let's see whose abusive and bullying shall we?

Id like to ask Mr Fetzer what is particularly untrue about my post?

The point that most younger researchers (indeed all of them I communicate with) think the professors work is not of a standard is an extreme 'truism'. It's also truthful that Fetzer is mocked by a vast tract of people in the 9/11 community. I've even had 9/11 people ask why he's tolerated in JFK circles.

Again I can find evidence of all of this.

But lets continue. Does Mr Fetzer want evidence of numerous people believing that 'Ron' on the bridge (regardless of whether or not it is Fetzer and like I said chances are it's probably not him) is the sort of cock eyed attention seeking stunt that he'd pull? Certainly numerous people I have spoken too believed that the bogus CIA documents and their slanted information was the sort of mumbo jumbo mr Fetzer hawks.

Hence Fetzers glowing appraisal of the show on this very forum confirms he greatly enjoyed this banal sequence. After your embrace of Gregory Douglas Mr Fetzer:loco: It should be no insult too you that people believe yourself capable of such acts.

I'm looking forward to having you interview Paul Kangas and John Hankey on your show.

There's not enough comedy in the community nowadays!