07-12-2012, 07:19 PM
Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:I cannot believe that you are still talking about the Doorway man. You have now reached page 41 of this
irrelevant, unimportant and disinformation thread. I wish you could spend 41 pages in more important threads. For example Vince Salandria's lunch with Specter is a very thought provoking subject that we
should have been discussing the moment that it appeared.
http://www.ctka.net/2012/salandria_Specter_meet.html
I don't blame Fetzer. Fetzer believes what he believes, i blame the rest of you who know better and yet you keep alive his dead subject in ER. In other words you have made what he says important, even if it is not. If there was a chance that you could make him realize his errors, i would say it is worthwhile. But he will not listen so you are wasting your words, time and effort. Fetzer's role has been exposed so he'll soon fade into the background since he has ceased to be useful.
Sir,
First off... from what I understand you are entitled to your opinion and to "switch channels" anytime the show is not to your liking.
What Jim is doing is no better than Bugliosi's book or DVP's online tactics. If Jim is not to blame for his own inability to be objective and DISCUSS the situation without believing he 50 for 50 with 100% certainty,
who is responsible?
DVP nor McAdams nor VB listens to anyone words... but the words still must be spoken.... WE conclude conspiracy and look into why and who... HE is making a mockery of every aspect of the research community...
He is offerring BAD analysis, with BAD analogies supported by even worse math to contrast what is PROBABLE to what is POSSIBLE.
That Jim Fetzer have become a public face of the JFK Conspiracy Research Community is VERY RELEVENT...
The WORDS Vasilio are NOT for Fetzer... but for all the unsuspecting interested parties out there that think anything he says is golden, factual and supportable.
Much like the Piper discussion, I now am done with this unless Jim finally addresses the issue and not the poster.
If he cannot show that Oswald did NOT change shirts or pants... he has no leg to stand on
If he cannot seperate one Fritz/Oswald comment from the next... and they render his conclusion impossible..... what does that say about the possiblity this type of "analysis and conclusion" technique is not used in all the other areas of "research and presentation" Jim partakes in?
What I don't understand is why THIS ISSUE is so terribly important in the overall picture.... enough so that Jim feels the need to stretch his already worn out neck so far out on it....
Movie deal?
TV special?
What's the motivation?... which of course brings us back around to DEEP POLITICS..... who is asking Jim to make a mockery of JFK assassination research?
DJ