06-01-2012, 11:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2012, 07:42 PM by Seamus Coogan.)
I came across this comment from JF over at the Ed Forum.
"A common technique in disinformation is for one op to post an article or other false claim and
for another to "discover it" and reinforce it by citing it. John McAdams, for example, has been
touting Tink's book as the most important of all the conspiracy books. That is ridiculous on its
face, since the analysis of three shooters and four shots that he presents in SIX SECONDS
(1967) was superseded by Richard Sprague's more painstaking analysis in COMPUTERS AND
AUTOMATION (May 1970). But it makes excellent sense if the point is to puff him up so that his
denunciation of conspiracy in the death of JFK can be touted as a "major event", when it is
anything but. Even then, I doubt that I am aware of any less valuable contributors to JFK
than Seamus Coogan and Jim Phelps. Time spent on either of them, in my view, is wasted.
But I certainly find it interesting that Phelps is touting Coogan. It does fit a particular pattern.
Coogan, by the way, is not even talking about this presentation but attacking John Hankey, who
has more to contribute than either of them. The moderators seem to be handling him appropriately."
Now I really don't know about you guys, but what is Mr Fetzer talking about?
Jim Phelps is not everyones cup of tea and to his credit he knows it. I'll also add he drives me bonkers at times. But despite that he is actually a pretty decent (if driven) bloke and when he relaxes on stuff he can be pretty helpful. Phelps, saw my piece here asking for a reply. Now despite my writing some rather rough stuff about him in the past. He was man enough to put it behind him and stuck it up on the Ed Forum under Fetzer's latest post (note that I also posted on Fetzers thread here and he did not reply). Thus I was quite humbled by this gesture from Jim. So cheers, I don't know if I am in thrall enough to stop CD giving him a tickling here or indeed anyone else lol.
But it's good to get a lesson every now and again, that it's the ideas and not the person you should attack or dislike. Ultimately Jim was the bigger person than myself.
But it's what JF say's here which is very misleading. I am not really 'attacking' anyone, least of all Hankey whom I give about a paragraph or two too. Fetzer is now hiding behind the issue of Hankey. Its as if he never involved himself in it. As said in an earlier post. As much as I differ from Mr Fetzer, I don't think of him as being a dishonest person. At least I don't want too think it. But after these comments I really do have some serious questions.
To reiterate. My concerns are simply about Mr Fetzer's misleading and confusing comments he made about myself and CTKA. An organisation he called CITKA in his original article. I would like those concerns I posted addressed. It is really that simple. Note his comment about the Moderators handling him appropriately. Ahhhh, come again Jim? Indeed the mods here have done brilliantly by letting me post. I am sure that were my tone and manner inappropriate, that I would be pinged. As it stands-I know a few people very interested in seeing if JF will reply. If someone here felt slighted or wanted an explanation or a clarification on a point I have made I would give it, even if it mean't I had to clarify a point in a debate or indeed admit I was wrong or apologise.
Is it to much too want the same thing?
"A common technique in disinformation is for one op to post an article or other false claim and
for another to "discover it" and reinforce it by citing it. John McAdams, for example, has been
touting Tink's book as the most important of all the conspiracy books. That is ridiculous on its
face, since the analysis of three shooters and four shots that he presents in SIX SECONDS
(1967) was superseded by Richard Sprague's more painstaking analysis in COMPUTERS AND
AUTOMATION (May 1970). But it makes excellent sense if the point is to puff him up so that his
denunciation of conspiracy in the death of JFK can be touted as a "major event", when it is
anything but. Even then, I doubt that I am aware of any less valuable contributors to JFK
than Seamus Coogan and Jim Phelps. Time spent on either of them, in my view, is wasted.
But I certainly find it interesting that Phelps is touting Coogan. It does fit a particular pattern.
Coogan, by the way, is not even talking about this presentation but attacking John Hankey, who
has more to contribute than either of them. The moderators seem to be handling him appropriately."
Now I really don't know about you guys, but what is Mr Fetzer talking about?
Jim Phelps is not everyones cup of tea and to his credit he knows it. I'll also add he drives me bonkers at times. But despite that he is actually a pretty decent (if driven) bloke and when he relaxes on stuff he can be pretty helpful. Phelps, saw my piece here asking for a reply. Now despite my writing some rather rough stuff about him in the past. He was man enough to put it behind him and stuck it up on the Ed Forum under Fetzer's latest post (note that I also posted on Fetzers thread here and he did not reply). Thus I was quite humbled by this gesture from Jim. So cheers, I don't know if I am in thrall enough to stop CD giving him a tickling here or indeed anyone else lol.
But it's good to get a lesson every now and again, that it's the ideas and not the person you should attack or dislike. Ultimately Jim was the bigger person than myself.
But it's what JF say's here which is very misleading. I am not really 'attacking' anyone, least of all Hankey whom I give about a paragraph or two too. Fetzer is now hiding behind the issue of Hankey. Its as if he never involved himself in it. As said in an earlier post. As much as I differ from Mr Fetzer, I don't think of him as being a dishonest person. At least I don't want too think it. But after these comments I really do have some serious questions.
To reiterate. My concerns are simply about Mr Fetzer's misleading and confusing comments he made about myself and CTKA. An organisation he called CITKA in his original article. I would like those concerns I posted addressed. It is really that simple. Note his comment about the Moderators handling him appropriately. Ahhhh, come again Jim? Indeed the mods here have done brilliantly by letting me post. I am sure that were my tone and manner inappropriate, that I would be pinged. As it stands-I know a few people very interested in seeing if JF will reply. If someone here felt slighted or wanted an explanation or a clarification on a point I have made I would give it, even if it mean't I had to clarify a point in a debate or indeed admit I was wrong or apologise.
Is it to much too want the same thing?
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992