The Fetzer Challenge

[Greg Burnham]

And as for deciding the truth: If those scholars were unanimously to declare, absent presentation of compelling supporting evidence, that Hunt's "confession" should be accepted as a deathbed statement of facts as Hunt knew them and/or that LBJ was the "mastermind" or prime mover/initiator/Sponsor of the assassination, my positions would not change.

Hmmm. So, you are not seeking to be enlightened by this exercise. You have your mind already made up? Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your position, but that's what it sounded like. Are you simply attempting then to "save Fetzer from himself" by having his peers critique his findings? Yet, if his "credentials" for lack of a better word, are superior to yours by your own admission (you said you aren't his peer) and if his peers are therefore presumably also your superiors, why would you reject superior minds if they differ with your own? What if their reasoning is sound?

No offense intended, I am simply seeking to understand.

Greg,

Not only do I not take offense at your comments; I welcome and respect them and, yes, at times even learn from them.

Perhaps I was less than artful in my previous comment which you excerpt above. So let me try again.

Enlightenment -- personal and collective -- is precisely what I am seeking in my JFK/deep political work in general and the Fetzer challenge in particular. Please note my caveat, "absent presentation of compelling supporting evidence." To date, Jim has provided no such support for his LBJ (mastermind) and Hunt (truthful confession) claims, to name just two of his positions which I shall continue to contest. My hope is that the challenge will help settle these matters to our mutual satisfaction -- even if that means that I publicly stand corrected.

Also, let me clarify my "not a peer" statement. In making it, I acknowledge that the contributions by Jim and most of his chosen contributors quantitatively and, in some instances, qualitatively surpass my own contributions to our shared quests for truth and justice. I do not, however, make any such concession in terms of superiority of minds. Let's not reduce this to a "whip out your I.Q.s to see whose is biggest" circle-jerk contest. Forgive me if my ego is busting through, but I'll go toe-to-toe with any and all comers in terms of my insights into this case and my ability to express them.

Finally, I'd like you and all other interested parties to know that, given the state of war in which we operate, we damn well better make up our minds on certain critical issues and move on to take the appropriate action.

My mind is made up that: LBJ was not the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination; anyone who so describes co-conspirator and Facilitator LBJ's role in the plot is, wittingly or otherwise, strengthening the ongoing cover-up and preserving the doubt that is our enemy's greatest weapon; Hunt's deathbed "confession" was a final act of disinformation performed by a brutally effective master and accessory to JFK's murder. Extraordinary claims to the contrary demand extraordinary evidence -- none of which has yet to be presented by Jim or anyone else.

By all means let's continue this helpful, productive dialogue.

CD

Fair enough, Charles. I'm swamped right now and haven't enough time to comment further, but thanks for your response.