31-03-2011, 05:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 31-03-2011, 11:31 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
As I have previously observed, if these guys couldn't pull stuff out of their ass, they would have nothing to say . . .
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 evidence 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. (How many times have I said during radio interviews that "JFK" is the most accurate, complete and comprehensive presentation of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 apart from being too simple by half, since it only shows three shooters when there were six!) For those who want to understand what DiEugenio has revealed that he does not--where he was attacking me for my views without knowing them--consider this very public presentation:
"Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?"
http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf
This is revealing because there had to have been shooters at six locations if you want to explain the wounds. But since DiEugenio does not understand the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic and film evidence, he though that sounded silly! Well, it sounded silly to DiEugenio because he really doesn't grasp the medical, the ballistic or the photographic evidence. Moreover, he was trashing me for my views when it was obvious he had no idea what they were--displayed by his stunned response to learning them, which meant his post was (a) not only based upon no knowledge of my actual views but (b) the incapacity to appreciate why they are true. For a guy who aspires to be an historian, I have been taken aback by his willingness to attack me when he doesn't know my views and on grounds that seem to reflect the limitations of his own imagination independent of logic and evidence.
Let me explain. JFK was hit in the throat (by a shot fired from an above-ground sewer opening half-way between the road way and the top of the Triple Underpass on the south side); he was hit in the back (a shot fired from the top of the County Records Building); and he was hit twice in the head (in the back of the head from the Dal-Tex and in the right temple by a shot from the parallel above-ground sewer opening on the north side of the Triple Underpass); while Connally was hit (from one to three times by shots fired from the west side of the Book Depository). There were also three misses, one from the Dal-Tex that injured James Tague; one from the knoll that missed; and one from the Dal-Tex that hit the chrome strip). So four to JFK, one to three to Connally, and at least three misses equals 8, 9 or 10 shots.
Now if you understood that JFK had four wounds from four locations and that Big John had one to three from the side, that there might have been at least one more--which was fired from the grassy knoll, no less!--would have been easily understood. But the fact that he expressed astonishment--which he and his thug reiterate, to their own amusement!--indicates that neither of them has any understanding of the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic and fllm evidence (which show the hole in the windshield and the hit on the chrome strip just above it). They are not only massively ignorant about my views but equally massively ignorant about JFK. No one familiar with the evidence would have faulted me on this score. Richard Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970), advanced a similar account and Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993), one with even more.
They make a lot of other baseless remarks, which reflects that they trade in rumor and speculation--even gossip--not serious research. I observed at the time that this shows DiEugenio is lazy, inattentive, and doesn't do his homework. But it is even worse with regard to 9/11. I have featured Judy Wood on my radio programs in the past because (1) she is the best qualified student of 9/11, with degrees in structural engineering, applied physics, and materials engineering science; (2) she has done more work on providing evidence about what effects were brought about at the WTC than anyone else (by far); and (3) she has an interesting theory about how it might have been done. I support research on different theories, such as mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation), lasers, masers, and plasmoids for the simple reason that we don't know how it was done. I encourage a "big-tent" approach because we don't want to exclude alternatives on the wrong ground.
No doubt, there are members of the 9/11 community who are unhappy with me because I take on the complex and controversial issues rather than avoid them. My work on video fakery, for example, has been lampooned by those who don't like my direct approach, yet it has been vindicated by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in their new documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", which demonstrates that a Boeing 767 could not have flown at 560 mph as shown in the videos of the plane hitting the South Tower because (a) it would have been aerodynamically impossible; (b) the plane would have been unmanageable; and © physically, it would have come apart. (It also makes an entry into the building in violation of Newton's laws and passes through its own length in doing so in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air!) So who's doing more to advance research on 9/11? My "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" or those who have attacked me for it?
I have also explained the evidence that substantiates that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There are those within the 9/11 community who want to suppress it, even though the evidence is overwhelming. See, for example, my "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", which has been complemented by CIT's "Pentacon" and "National Security Alert" and by Pilot's own "Pandora's Black Box". (Indeed, the conspirators even used special effects to intimidate the members of Congress when a phony report was given that the Capitol might be the next target by arranging for billowing black clouds of smoke to be seen across the Potomac, which were actually coming not from the building but from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of it!) But these guys have no idea whose right and whose wrong about these things, so if they find anyone who is willing to trash me, they take their word for it, regardless of the facts. About 9/11, no less than about JFK, DiEugenio and his thug have shown that they have no more idea of the difference between the true and the false about 9/11 than they do about JFK--and the fact of the matter is, they don't care!
The Gregory Douglas, REGICIDE, is one example. I was initially impressed by his book, which led me to post a favorable review on amazon.com. But, as I reflected on the stunning coincidence of the alleged translation of the Soviet's study of the assassination, which just happened to also feature a "three-shot scenario", it appeared to me that something was wrong. I made contact with Gregory Douglas and pursued this to the point where i was convinced that his book was a brilliant scam which probably featured an accurate account of how James Jesus Angleton became convinced that JFK was betraying the country to the Soviets but packaged in a fashion that would cause it to be discounted as a scam--rather like the retyping of George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard fitness report, which was completely accurate--Dan Rather had confirmed it with the officer who wrote it and the secretary who had typed it!--but it had been secretly retyped using a typeface that did not exist at the time it was written. So the public wrongly inferred that, if the letter was fake, it's contents were false. When I sorted it out, I revised my amazon.com review, but DiEugenio attacks me, as he has attacked Craig Zirbel, for revising my views based upon additional research as though that were a bad thing!
I have antagonized some lofty figures in 9/11 research, too, including a fellow by the name of Kevin Ryan. This appears to be because I have not been willing to accept the account that he and Steve Jones promote about something called "thermite" (in one of its versions) as having been the principal cause of demolition of the Twin Towers. (Thermite is actually an incendiary that is non-explosive but, like toothpaste, can be combined with explosives to have explosive effects.) When I recently published a rebuttal to an atrocious attack on the 9/11 movement by an investigative journalist named "Robert Parry", Kevin Ryan responded by attacking me! (Yes, it really is that bizarre in 9/11 research, too!) I replied with a piece entltled, "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan", where Allan Weisbecker, "A Response to Kevin Ryan (from a Mexican surfing Madman)", has also spoken out on my behalf! (Allen, in fact, is a very interesting guy and I was very glad when he told me he had something he wanted to publish in response to Kevin Ryan.)
Now just consider that, if I really were such a goof ball in JFK and 9/11 research, why would I be drawing so much flack? These attacks actually boomerang by revealing far more about their authors than they do about their target. They are doing a fine job of making their incompetence known to those who are smart enough to figure it out, who are the ones who matter. It is certainly true that I do not suffer fools gladly. Some have even written that I lose some arguments that I should win on the merits because readers are ruffled by my aggressive and argumentative style. That, no doubt, is true. But consider the vicious and petty nature of these attacks by DiEugenio and his goon. They are off-the-wall, based on rumor and gossip, and have very little to commend them. What I see here is the obverse of my unwillingness to suffer fools gladly, which is that those whom I expose do not take it very well and will do whatever they can to get even without letting the difference between fact and fiction get in their way. Fools do not take their exposure kindly. Fortunately, there are others who are still capable of sorting things out and of recognizing who is advancing the search for truth and who is not.
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 evidence 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. (How many times have I said during radio interviews that "JFK" is the most accurate, complete and comprehensive presentation of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 apart from being too simple by half, since it only shows three shooters when there were six!) For those who want to understand what DiEugenio has revealed that he does not--where he was attacking me for my views without knowing them--consider this very public presentation:
"Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?"
http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf
This is revealing because there had to have been shooters at six locations if you want to explain the wounds. But since DiEugenio does not understand the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic and film evidence, he though that sounded silly! Well, it sounded silly to DiEugenio because he really doesn't grasp the medical, the ballistic or the photographic evidence. Moreover, he was trashing me for my views when it was obvious he had no idea what they were--displayed by his stunned response to learning them, which meant his post was (a) not only based upon no knowledge of my actual views but (b) the incapacity to appreciate why they are true. For a guy who aspires to be an historian, I have been taken aback by his willingness to attack me when he doesn't know my views and on grounds that seem to reflect the limitations of his own imagination independent of logic and evidence.
Let me explain. JFK was hit in the throat (by a shot fired from an above-ground sewer opening half-way between the road way and the top of the Triple Underpass on the south side); he was hit in the back (a shot fired from the top of the County Records Building); and he was hit twice in the head (in the back of the head from the Dal-Tex and in the right temple by a shot from the parallel above-ground sewer opening on the north side of the Triple Underpass); while Connally was hit (from one to three times by shots fired from the west side of the Book Depository). There were also three misses, one from the Dal-Tex that injured James Tague; one from the knoll that missed; and one from the Dal-Tex that hit the chrome strip). So four to JFK, one to three to Connally, and at least three misses equals 8, 9 or 10 shots.
Now if you understood that JFK had four wounds from four locations and that Big John had one to three from the side, that there might have been at least one more--which was fired from the grassy knoll, no less!--would have been easily understood. But the fact that he expressed astonishment--which he and his thug reiterate, to their own amusement!--indicates that neither of them has any understanding of the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic and fllm evidence (which show the hole in the windshield and the hit on the chrome strip just above it). They are not only massively ignorant about my views but equally massively ignorant about JFK. No one familiar with the evidence would have faulted me on this score. Richard Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970), advanced a similar account and Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993), one with even more.
They make a lot of other baseless remarks, which reflects that they trade in rumor and speculation--even gossip--not serious research. I observed at the time that this shows DiEugenio is lazy, inattentive, and doesn't do his homework. But it is even worse with regard to 9/11. I have featured Judy Wood on my radio programs in the past because (1) she is the best qualified student of 9/11, with degrees in structural engineering, applied physics, and materials engineering science; (2) she has done more work on providing evidence about what effects were brought about at the WTC than anyone else (by far); and (3) she has an interesting theory about how it might have been done. I support research on different theories, such as mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation), lasers, masers, and plasmoids for the simple reason that we don't know how it was done. I encourage a "big-tent" approach because we don't want to exclude alternatives on the wrong ground.
No doubt, there are members of the 9/11 community who are unhappy with me because I take on the complex and controversial issues rather than avoid them. My work on video fakery, for example, has been lampooned by those who don't like my direct approach, yet it has been vindicated by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in their new documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", which demonstrates that a Boeing 767 could not have flown at 560 mph as shown in the videos of the plane hitting the South Tower because (a) it would have been aerodynamically impossible; (b) the plane would have been unmanageable; and © physically, it would have come apart. (It also makes an entry into the building in violation of Newton's laws and passes through its own length in doing so in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air!) So who's doing more to advance research on 9/11? My "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" or those who have attacked me for it?
I have also explained the evidence that substantiates that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There are those within the 9/11 community who want to suppress it, even though the evidence is overwhelming. See, for example, my "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", which has been complemented by CIT's "Pentacon" and "National Security Alert" and by Pilot's own "Pandora's Black Box". (Indeed, the conspirators even used special effects to intimidate the members of Congress when a phony report was given that the Capitol might be the next target by arranging for billowing black clouds of smoke to be seen across the Potomac, which were actually coming not from the building but from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of it!) But these guys have no idea whose right and whose wrong about these things, so if they find anyone who is willing to trash me, they take their word for it, regardless of the facts. About 9/11, no less than about JFK, DiEugenio and his thug have shown that they have no more idea of the difference between the true and the false about 9/11 than they do about JFK--and the fact of the matter is, they don't care!
The Gregory Douglas, REGICIDE, is one example. I was initially impressed by his book, which led me to post a favorable review on amazon.com. But, as I reflected on the stunning coincidence of the alleged translation of the Soviet's study of the assassination, which just happened to also feature a "three-shot scenario", it appeared to me that something was wrong. I made contact with Gregory Douglas and pursued this to the point where i was convinced that his book was a brilliant scam which probably featured an accurate account of how James Jesus Angleton became convinced that JFK was betraying the country to the Soviets but packaged in a fashion that would cause it to be discounted as a scam--rather like the retyping of George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard fitness report, which was completely accurate--Dan Rather had confirmed it with the officer who wrote it and the secretary who had typed it!--but it had been secretly retyped using a typeface that did not exist at the time it was written. So the public wrongly inferred that, if the letter was fake, it's contents were false. When I sorted it out, I revised my amazon.com review, but DiEugenio attacks me, as he has attacked Craig Zirbel, for revising my views based upon additional research as though that were a bad thing!
I have antagonized some lofty figures in 9/11 research, too, including a fellow by the name of Kevin Ryan. This appears to be because I have not been willing to accept the account that he and Steve Jones promote about something called "thermite" (in one of its versions) as having been the principal cause of demolition of the Twin Towers. (Thermite is actually an incendiary that is non-explosive but, like toothpaste, can be combined with explosives to have explosive effects.) When I recently published a rebuttal to an atrocious attack on the 9/11 movement by an investigative journalist named "Robert Parry", Kevin Ryan responded by attacking me! (Yes, it really is that bizarre in 9/11 research, too!) I replied with a piece entltled, "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan", where Allan Weisbecker, "A Response to Kevin Ryan (from a Mexican surfing Madman)", has also spoken out on my behalf! (Allen, in fact, is a very interesting guy and I was very glad when he told me he had something he wanted to publish in response to Kevin Ryan.)
Now just consider that, if I really were such a goof ball in JFK and 9/11 research, why would I be drawing so much flack? These attacks actually boomerang by revealing far more about their authors than they do about their target. They are doing a fine job of making their incompetence known to those who are smart enough to figure it out, who are the ones who matter. It is certainly true that I do not suffer fools gladly. Some have even written that I lose some arguments that I should win on the merits because readers are ruffled by my aggressive and argumentative style. That, no doubt, is true. But consider the vicious and petty nature of these attacks by DiEugenio and his goon. They are off-the-wall, based on rumor and gossip, and have very little to commend them. What I see here is the obverse of my unwillingness to suffer fools gladly, which is that those whom I expose do not take it very well and will do whatever they can to get even without letting the difference between fact and fiction get in their way. Fools do not take their exposure kindly. Fortunately, there are others who are still capable of sorting things out and of recognizing who is advancing the search for truth and who is not.