Fetzer Deemed "Not Credible" by Morley and Bradford; Accused of Spreading "Misinformation" and "Disi

[Vasilios Vazakas]

A major problem is starkly rendered here:

To my knowledge, Morley has yet to declare publicly that he acknowledges the fact of conspiracy in the death of JFK. Thus, Morley stands as a significant asset for those who would maintain and strengthen the cover-up.

For as we should know by now, the cover-up's primary goal is NOT to convince the world that LHO, acting alone, killed JFK. Rather, it is to maintain the doubt upon which the few base their control of the many.

If I'm wrong about Morley, please enlighten me ASAP with verifiable citationz of his statement(s) to the contrary.

Thank you.

Three years ago i read Morley's book, "Our Man in Mexico" and i contacted him to ask him some questions about the book.
I also asked him if he agreed with John Newman's conclusion that Angleton was the bad apple that designed the mexico incident.
He replied that Newman was right about Angleton. He does not agree with Lamar Waldron's C-day scenario and the Almeida story.
He does not believe that wealthy individuals have anything to do with the assassination, who no matter how much money they have,
they were not capable of such actions, and responsible are those with knowledge of psycological warfare and protected by official secrecy.

[Charles Drago]

A major problem is starkly rendered here:

To my knowledge, Morley has yet to declare publicly that he acknowledges the fact of conspiracy in the death of JFK. Thus, Morley stands as a significant asset for those who would maintain and strengthen the cover-up.

For as we should know by now, the cover-up's primary goal is NOT to convince the world that LHO, acting alone, killed JFK. Rather, it is to maintain the doubt upon which the few base their control of the many.

If I'm wrong about Morley, please enlighten me ASAP with verifiable citationz of his statement(s) to the contrary.

Thank you.

Three years ago i read Morley's book, "Our Man in Mexico" and i contacted him to ask him some questions about the book.
I also asked him if he agreed with John Newman's conclusion that Angleton was the bad apple that designed the mexico incident.
He replied that Newman was right about Angleton. He does not agree with Lamar Waldron's C-day scenario and the Almeida story.
He does not believe that wealthy individuals have anything to do with the assassination, who no matter how much money they have,
they were not capable of such actions, and responsible are those with knowledge of psycological warfare and protected by official secrecy.

Interesting.

Morley, if you are accurate in stating his assessment of "wealthy individuals," does not appear to conduct his JFK investigation based upon a viable conspiracy model.

Most "wealthy individuals" are not skilled boat builders, yet they own yachts.

And does Morley seriously suggest that the "wealthy individuals" of whom we speak are not "protected by official secrecy"?

[Vasilios Vazakas]

I said to him, that i agreed that prodessional intelligence officers were responsible, the same professionals who brought
down governments like Mossadeq in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala and Alliente in Chile on direct orders from wealthy individuals.

[Greg Burnham]

Forgive me for interjecting, but I'd like to make what I believe is an important distinction: Wealthy people do not necessarily equate with powerful people.
While wealth is most certainly required in order to empower on a deep political level, wealth does not necessarily and always corrupt. I have long rejected
the notion that certain famously wealthy individuals are necessarily suspect by virtue of their wealth alone. Don't just follow the money. It is much more
utilitarian to Follow their POWER. From that perspective one can perhaps gain insight into what motivates them to take action and what things they may
perceive to be a threat to their interests and, in some cases, a threat to their existence.

[Charles Drago]

Forgive me for interjecting, but I'd like to make what I believe is an important distinction: Wealthy people do not necessarily equate with powerful people.
While wealth is most certainly required in order to empower on a deep political level, wealth does not necessarily and always corrupt. I have long rejected
the notion that certain famously wealthy individuals are necessarily suspect by virtue of their wealth alone. Don't just follow the money. It is much more
utilitarian to Follow their POWER. From that perspective one can perhaps gain insight into what motivates them to take action and what things they may
perceive to be a threat to their interests and, in some cases, a threat to their existence.

Yes.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

ok powerful individuals and corporations that happened to be wealthy, outside the US Government but
represented within the Government. I don't know if this is a good explanation

[Charles Drago]

It's better than Morley's.

[Greg Burnham]

Way better.

[Phil Dragoo]

Alright, Morley dwells upon those with access to power and the immunity of government insidership.

He apparently dismisses "wealth" too readily--

--as described in Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil, by Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett:

In which we see the regimes of the region, and the tribes thereof were changed, replaced, pacified by financial pressure, diplomatic maneuver, use of CIA and Green Berets, to prepare for the exploitation of resources by the level of "wealth" represented by David Rockefeller--

--a person familiar with the use of power and certainly immune, but not "of" the government, in the manner of CIA and other intelligence-covert action professionals.

As to any use of the poisoned well McAdams, a thousand times no: the "professor" is a creature blind to any evidence threatening his obsession, is a propagandist practicing a black art.

One considers all the evidence--yet McAdams and his fellow zombies eschew any counter to their dogma, hence are spewers and polluters.

[Greg Burnham]