Fetzer gets a listing in Urban Dictionary: 'Fetzering' is a term for talking balls.

[Seamus Coogan]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...=fetzering

God I had to laugh when Frank Cassano showed me this.

[David Healy]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...=fetzering

God I had to laugh when Frank Cassano showed me this.

I'm sure you and Cassano did... I'm also sure you'd give your Fetzer's to prove Jim Fetzer wrong when he states: "the earth is round!" Keep dancing... :dancingman:

[Charles Drago]

This nonsense is part and parcel of a larger campaign to discredit the JFK and 9-11 research communities -- one that is being directed by Facilitators of the cover-ups.

That being noted, Jim Fetzer, with his absurd embraces of the likes of Ralph Cinque and Phillip Nelson, bears the ultimate responsibility for the damage.

Despite my condemnation of everything that Fetzer has become, I take no pleasure in this.

Smarten up, Seamus. Your gloating serves the enemy's purpose.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Wait a minute please.

There is a serious and personal point here.

Jim Fetzer had been a guy who, at one time, offered valuable insights into this case. He edited a couple of fairly decent books which I own. I did not like everything in Assassination Science, and Murder in Dealey Plaza, but there was some valuable work in them. He was invited to JFK conferences as a speaker.

Today, the guy is banned from this forum, and if you look at Spartacus, he cannot go on there without being attacked mercilessly. By many others. Not just one or two trolls like Lamson. But by respected researchers like Unger. And reportedly, roughly the same thing has happened with his work in 9-11. There he embraced the whole Judy Wood, "dustification" "the whole thing was hologram" idea as postulated by the likes of John Lear, Gordon Novel's buddy in Nevada.

So the question then becomes how did this happen? And how has he been listed in an online dictionary so that his name is now synonymous with a non too flattering idiom? I mean, even Greg B., who used to be his friend, has now abandoned him.

I think this is a really kind of depressing aspect of modern day research. I have been trying to pinpoint where it all started. I mean I know that I personally reached out to him when he tried to defend, ahem, Judy Baker, against at least a dozen people at Spartacus who did not buy her. If you recall, that thread set records for length and posts and time. I privately e mailed him and told him that this was a bad thing for him and his credibility. That he was not really offering anything new to counter the many cogent arguments assailing him. What he was doing was trying to counter them by labeling them as philosophic or rhetorical poses or techniques. I said this would not work, since many of them really did make substantive negative points about Baker which he did not address. ( I was one of these since I had seen the Garrison memos she was reworking into her own manufactured mosaic.) In fact, I actually pleaded with him more than once since I saw no positive development in this Baker defense for him.

He ignored me. And that thread went on even longer.

For me, that marked a kind of turning point for the way I looked at him. I had actually read and comprehended the underlying data that was being employed for these personal revisionist concepts by Baker and her backers. In fact, I had actually been to the place where the information on the memo originated from. It was a corner mini mall right next to McGehee's barber shop in Jackson. And I understood the history behind the memo, and why Garrison had changed his mind about it after further investigation. But somehow, all that firsthand, on site research--which is not easy to come by--did not register with Fetzer. To this day I do not understand why.

From here, he began to make similar stances which seemed to me to be outside the boundaries of normal evidence evaluation. Like his idea that it really was Morales and Johannides and Campbell at the Ambassador. Even when the actual originator of the idea, Shane O'Sullivan, admitted he was wrong. Fetzer now began to attack me, Morley and Talbot for agreeing with Shane admitting he had made a mistake.

Then there was the comparison of the Nelson book with JFK and the Unspeakable. No comment.

Then there was the Chaney motorcycle proving the Z film was false. When this was exposed by Unger and others as not being accurate, Fetzer insisted on alteration as being the reason it was not.

Then, of course, there was the Cinque angle, Lovelady vs. Oswald. And somehow this had been also selectively altered. This turned into a donnybrook to rival Judy Baker. But when it was all over, who had Fetzer convinced? No one that I could see.

To me this is all kind of so perverse that it is inexplicable. But there can be little doubt that Jim Fetzer has done himself little good with the stances he has advocated. The weird point is that he maintained them in the face of so much contrary data which clearly impeached his original backing, and he thereby divorced himself from former friends and allies.

I really don't know what to make of it. I think its kind of a waste of a once valuable contributor.

[Seamus Coogan]

Thanks Jim, it is clear that Fetzer and those who have manipulated his massive ego and rubbish analysis. Have made him into a massive blimp to take potshots at. I don't celebrate his demise in standing, I understand some people had some real attachments to the man. However, I for one am bloody glad he is gone. The problem is CD you fail to remember that I got 'smart' about Fetzer when I was looking at 9/11 stuff years ago. Light years before you did and that's the truth. There wasn't one piece of garbage that guy couldn't refuse. So rather than sit here and roar like a tin lion at a canary. Why not get onto the Urban Dictionary and put in a few entries for some lone nutters or least try and get some up there? I mean surely a man of your intellect could add 'Universally shunned by conspiracy advocates-yet deludes himself he is chief spokesperson'.

That would be a 'smart' experiment to do.

[Charles Drago]

The problem is CD you fail to remember that I got 'smart' about Fetzer when I was looking at 9/11 stuff years ago. Light years before you did and that's the truth.

What you fail to understand, Seamus, is that I couldn't care less when you got "smart" about Fetzer or anyone or anything else. The day that I measure the value of my insights into deep politics or anything else by comparing them to yours is the day I really do have problem.

So rather than sit here and roar like a tin lion at a canary. Why not get onto the Urban Dictionary and put in a few entries for some lone nutters or least try and get some up there? I mean surely a man of your intellect could add 'Universally shunned by conspiracy advocates-yet deludes himself he is chief spokesperson'.

Quite the tough little wallaby/wannabe, aren't you?

As always, Seamus, you celebrate your ignorance as you reinforce it with falsehood.

You haven't the slightest idea when I concluded that Fetzer's 9-11 work was fatally flawed. None whatsoever. And THAT is the truth.

Am I "universally shunned by conspiracy advocates"?

Have I described myself as a "chief spokesperson" for any group?

Care to share specifics, mate?

(Then again, you may have been referring to Fetzer. How could your butchery of the English language have confused me ... ?)

I think not. I think that, as usual, your courage is in a bottle and your head is up your arse.

Although your self-characterization as a "canary" is inspired, given your incessant, generally worthless mimicry of your hero and collaborator, Jim DiEugenio.

Shouldn't you be off getting loaded somewhere?

[Dawn Meredith]

This time CD's comments were truly earned. I was stunned by Coogan's post. And laughing....how on earth would he know when Charles saw theu the Fetz on 9-11?

Good points Jim....I think we all agree that Jim Fetzer's demise is quite sad.

[Cliff Varnell]

Today, the guy is banned from this forum, and if you look at Spartacus, he cannot go on there without being attacked mercilessly.

Fetzer claims that the Betzner and Croft photos were altered to show 6 inches of clothing fabric bunched up entirely above the base of the neck even though the photos clearly show JFK's jacket collar in a normal position at the base of his neck.

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality -- it couldn't be faked if you wanted to. But rather than stand up for the obvious, Jim Fetzer concedes this mind-boggling bullshit so he can press his pet theory about alteration.

Those who cast the pixie dust of uncertainty over the issue aren't any better in my book.

[Magda Hassan]

Am I "universally shunned by conspiracy advocates"?

Have I described myself as a "chief spokesperson" for any group?

Care to share specifics, mate?

(Then again, you may have been referring to Fetzer. How could your butchery of the English language have confused me ... ?)

He was referring to Fetzer.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Am I "universally shunned by conspiracy advocates"?

Have I described myself as a "chief spokesperson" for any group?

Care to share specifics, mate?

(Then again, you may have been referring to Fetzer. How could your butchery of the English language have confused me ... ?)

He was referring to Fetzer.

This was my take too.

This is still a shite thread.