31-03-2011, 06:32 PM
Here are my comments in bold. I appreciate Charles' last post.
jim dieugenio Wrote:in fetzer land what is not "an exceptional contribution"?
I was being deliberately provocative with that post because I
have been disillusioned with the resistance to Lyndon's role.
Phil nelson's gibberish? Exceptional contribution, right up there with jim douglass.
Jim Douglass explains how JFK antagonized the most powerful
special interests in the country, while Phil Nelson's explains
what they did about it, where Lyndon played the pivotal role.
Russ baker's piece of pretension, is an exceptional contribtution.
I'm not sure what Jim is referring to, but if it is his Family of
Secrets, I think that is an excellent study with some lapses.
Joe farrell, fresh from conspiracy la la land, an exceptional contribution.
So far as I am aware, I have yet to comment on this book. I do
have it and it does look interesting, but I am not yet in a position
to comment. Is this 'La La Land' comment supposed to pass for
an argument? Apparently DiEugenio presumes that he is entitled to
assail me for comments I have yet to make on a book I haven't read.
Madeline brown, wonderful witness.
Again, Jim apparently does not know that I had over one hundred
conversations with Madeleine, have read both of her books, and
even interviewed her at Lancer a few years back. What she had to
say has been confirmed by Billy Sol Estes, by E. Howard Hunt and by
Nigel Turner in the key 9th segment of 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'.
Her story 'hangs together' the right way with the rest of the evidence.
Judy baker, a living saint.
We all know where we stand on Judy. I believe in her, you don't.
So what? And in particular, what does this have to do with your
abysmal failure to know what you're talking about in attacking me?
Doug horne, a tremendous contribution.
Monumental. I know you don't understand the medical, ballistic or
photographic and film evidence, but Doug published a masterpiece.
That you would say this speaks volumes about your incompetence.
David lifton, a brilliant book.
I learned more about the case from Best Evidence than any other
single source and regard my own books as sequels to his brilliant
study, which focuses on the medical, ballistic, and film evidence.
Nigel turner, learned more as he went along.
That's the idea. We are all supposed to reassess our beliefs when
we acquire new evidence or new alternative hypotheses. Would you
better understood the nature of rationality and scientific inquiry. It
is comments like this that tell me that you're cognitively impaired.
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 liftonesque 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.
It's stunning to me that you continue to entertain doubts about the
Murchison party, which was confirmed by the chauffeur who drove
Mr. Hoover to the event and by one of the chefs who prepared it. I
am sorry you are so inept at evaluating evidence and understanding
key events like this, especially for one with pretensions as an historian.
The worst part of his series was the fact that he completely wasted aguilar and mantik who got buried in the tin foil stuff. I guess he never saw any of the cheap thrills--aka prat falls-- in them 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?
Look, Jim. You can't even get my views right when they are in the
public domain. You have no entitlement to act so self-righteous
when you are incompetent in so many crucial respects. They may
not have gotten everything right, but that's because the situation is so
complicated and complex. You can't even get my positions correct
when I have published them all over the place. That's quite pathetic.
You have become an apologist and publicist for every half-baked nonsensical snake oil salesman out there on this case. (and you initially fell for that lying forger gregory douglass.) if you are positioning yourself for anything its maybe alex jones jr.?
It's not true. You don't even know my positions. That is just dumb.
I've already discussed the situation with Gregory Douglas, where I
pursued it until I figured out the score. You can't even understand
the import of Madeleine and Billy Sol's testimony, which is stunning,
not to mention dozens of other blunders you have made here alone.
Wow, what an ambition: "lbj was ready to radio in the helicoptered swat teams if jfk made it out of the kill zone."
Sarcasm appears to be the best you can do. Logic and evidence are
not on your side. Like Tink, you think your cheap, petty, and nasty
attacks are going to endure you to others. But you have almost
everything wrong, which further reveals your incompetence with
regard to your attacks upon me, which are singularly without merit.
Hey, in fetzer land, why not?
In DiEugenio land, you can attack anyone you want, especially me,
no matter if you know where I stand or not. For someone posing
as an historian, you need to get a far better grip on the difference
between fantasy and reality, because your criticisms of my research
demonstrate--conclusively!--that, regarding me, you haven't a clue.