The Decline and Fall of Jim Fetzer

[R.K. Locke]

Sandy Hook was certainly a deep event but Fetzer's "nobody died" stuff is horrible and hugely damaging. Nowadays he is basically just Ed Chiarini with an intellectual veneer.

[Dawn Meredith]

That is not at all an exaggeration about his book and Sandy Hook.

And I touch on his wild 9-11 stuff and what it did to that field.

Almost scary.

In private messages he goaded me because after watching all the videos about Sandy Hook I did NOT agree that no one died. As usual he used my profession to chide my "lack of logic". Even after I told him I personally know someone who lost someone that day he insisted that this person was lying. And don't even get me started on the Paul is dead bullshit. There was a movie about this floating around on the net a few years back and while interesting it fell very short. He's either an op or psychotic. imho.

[Jim DiEugenio]

See, the thing is Fetzer took two tracks on the whole Sandy Hook tragedy.

And I discuss them in Part 2.

His first angle was that the deaths happened but they were executed by a Mossad hit squad.

He then switched angles, when some very dubious sources produced an even more dubious document. He now said no one died and it was a FEMA exercise. (The whole FEMA exercise stuff has been around for decades.)

Fetzer is a like a wonderfully hydraulic transmission--he can shift gears silently and with little or no notice.

The problem here is that today too many people are on to him. He has had his Sandy Hook stuff completely vitiated to a point that Fetzer now looks like a cheap carnival barker selling tickets for a bad circus show. When you see this, it is really a disgrace.

[Ashley Wood]

After reading his Paul is dead stuff I had to reach the conclusion that he is a dangerous idiot who is now incapable of quality research and yet many people seem to believe that what he is saying in this regard is true. That probably says more about them than it does about him.
If he can explain how the imposter on the January 1969 Nagra reels is able to remember songs that Paul and John wrote together in the late 1950s and early 1960s but never published or recorded then I am all ears and you can measure them in a mis-dated photo to prove it::headbang::.
How long before we have to listen to him ranting that John Lennon is still alive ? Oh god please don't tell him i said that he might actually do it.

[Matthew Poe]

A friend of mine likened Fetzer's show with Kevin Barrett, "False Flag Report," to two farmers doing a "hog report." Its certainly as useful to real researchers. They work backwards with embarrassing surety that all big tragic news events are somehow concocted, which at the very least lessens the credibility of their ensuing analysis. Fetzer's constructs are puzzling and even painful to watch--sometimes, when debating an opponent, in the thick of his rhetoric, he emits strange tics and groans, straining under the weight of his unwitting imposture. I too believe he is to be pitied.

Jim, I only have had time to skim the material but as usual I credit your vast and deep knowledge of JFK matters, along with (here specifically) your trenchant formulation that the steep reduction of MSM news gathering abilities and concomitant decline in credibility has created a vacuum for alternative narratives, while unfortunately some of the actors engaged in these alternatives are equally lacking in credibility whether b/c they are emotionally ill-equipped, spread to thin or, perhaps, corrupted.

But reading that you don't follow 9/11 research full stop I'm pulled up short and made curious to know more about your position. Do you mean that its not your speciality or that you are incurious about the event because you are satisfied with the mainstream consensus version of that event? Or that you are suspicious of it but fear it a quagmire that might take you away from your highly developed specialty? I would expect that to someone with a mind grown attuned to the deep political as yours (if nothing else from so many years studying the skullduggery around 11/22/63) the alleged Al-Qaeda attacks must set off some alarm bells? But I might be mistaken in that assumption.

[Anthony Thorne]

Do you mean that its not your speciality

I think I remember Jim indicating something along those lines. There have certainly been enough researchers on Black Op Radio that have made passing acknowledgement of their dismay about the official 9/11 story while talking about JFK stuff.

There is an Israeli angle to 9/11 - curiously enough, Peter Dale Scott has a prescient chapter about Iran Contra figures maintaining ties to Israeli intelligence for future illegal activity in his late 80's Iran Contra volume - but Barrett inflates it to a religion, Fetzer dwells on it at unseemly length and the pair of them are like a nightmarish parody of conspiracy research.

Fetzer's current activities remind me just a little of Nico Haupt. Haupt did some good work years and years ago. Around 2006 he appeared in a New York Magazine article arguing and shouting at other researchers. Now Haupt argues the 'no plane' theory in public, holds up signs cheering the deaths of Americans to terrorism and seems curiously immune to police control whenever he pops up at Ground Zero starting physical fights with other protesters. There's a video online of some 9/11 activists in a suburban town holding up signs to cars as they drive by. Haupt amazingly found their location, had also brought a sign (arguing that the planes were magical holograms and the victims deserved to die, or similar), and paraded up and down the footpath to make the first group of activists look like nuts. A young female activist was interviewed and she said she was simply surprised that Haupt wasn't wearing a clown costume with a big red nose. I'm keen to read the second part of Jim's piece but it's fairly clear that Fetzer's work serves a different purpose than it did in the past.

[Matthew Poe]

Around 2006 he appeared in a New York Magazine article arguing and shouting at other researchers.

I remember that article well. I still marvel that Mark Jacobsen, with its obvious (if necessarily tempered) sympathy for the truth movement, was able to get that published in New York, a totem of the middle-brow establishment. Even then Haupt seemed like a provocateur. Interestingly, after that, Jacobsen, his curiosity sparked by deux e machina, spent a few years tracking down the illusory provenance of a human skin lampshade that was sent to him in the mail. The results of that hunt became The Lampshade.

As to any Israeli angle, that's beyond my pay-grade (and they would seem to me like a remote culprit), but even the consensus narrative, if discerned carefully, admits to Israeli Intel pre-knowledge. If not how to account for the now infamous "dancing Israelis" who were arrested and Odigo messages warning of the attack. Then there are those redacted pages of the 9/11 report.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Here is Part 2 :

http://www.ctka.net/2016/FetzerPart2.html

Read it and laugh--as Albert did over the Hankey stuff or the Conway stuff at the end.

Or cry about the Webb angle, or what Fetzer did in the 9-11 field or Sandy Hook.

Please follow the clicks on that part and then click through again. That was the shocking part for me about how low Fetzer has sunk.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I should reply to Mr. Poe.

I have stated more than once on BOR that my work on the sixties assassinations, plus my film and book reviews for Bob Parry are quite enough for me.

So I really do not want to enter another of these fields. Just too time consuming.

In fact, I have only read maybe two books on the subject.

[Don Jeffries]

As some of you may remember, I was one of the few who defended Jim Fetzer during his continual troubles on this and other forums. His blustery personality diminished the often solid research he presented. I was in agreement with him on many things. When you keep going down these rabbit holes, you can wind up too far down to get out. Imho, this has happened to Jim Fetzer.

Since being banned from all these forums, Jim seems to have drifted further and further into "the Jews are behind everything' camp. This has always been an unfortunate byproduct of the alternative/conspiracy world. The "Paul is dead" stuff is baffling to me. I don't understand it, and it certainly helps discredit his other work. The problem I have here is the inference that some issues are too "far out" to explore. Where do we draw the line? Intellectual curiosity should be unlimited. If research is considered irresponsible or outlandish, then everyone is free to discount it. At this point, very few people in our dysfunctional little community have failed to adopt a stance on Jim Fetzer.

As for Sandy Hook, the official narrative is as impossible as almost all official narratives are. Here's an article about it from my blog: https://donaldjeffries.wordpress.com/201...-question/

Anyone who has studied the events of 9/11 and believes the official 19 crazed Arabs with box cutters and plastic knives story is akin to a Warren Report apologist. When you investigate these events, and find again and again that you've been lied to about them, it is indeed difficult to draw a line, and not become trapped in those rabbit holes. The people who lied to us about the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations, Waco, Oklahoma City, 9/11 and so much more have no credibility. When events like Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing happen, and are reported with such a transparent agenda, and zero journalistic zeal, the best of us can be drawn into thinking that nothing is real, and that crisis actors are everywhere.

I haven't communicated with Jim Fetzer in years. In fact, he has never mentioned my book or contacted me about it. So I am not defending a friend here. Jim Fetzer is over 75 years old. He seems to thrive on controversy and being vilified by others. If I was an armchair psychologist, I would guess his stubborn nature has propelled him to seek out ever more "extreme" issues and opinions to endorse. He probably loves all the criticism. Or maybe he is a disinfo agent. We know they exist, but I've always refrained from focusing on them, since this is something that can never be proven. I would really not be surprised if he jumped on the Flat Earth bandwagon.

The reason why I find all debates over photo analysis ultimately unproductive is the subjective nature of human interpretation. Jim Fetzer unfortunately chose, years ago, to base much of his work on just these kinds of photographic debates. It's easy to be drawn into a belief that everything is fake, once we realize that the JFK autopsy photos and x-rays, for instance, must be fake. As I advised him more than once, there is a myriad of compelling evidence out there proving conspiracy, without these pointless debates over shadowy figures in photos or alleged alteration of the Zapruder film.

There are many possibilities here. Perhaps Jim Fetzer is just suffering from some kind of early stage dementia. Maybe he's just honestly mistaken about some things. He could have turned into a true anti-semite, which has influenced his entire perspective. Or maybe he's somehow right and we're all wrong. Very few people on this or any other JFK forum remain interested in his work, so I'm really not sure why he continues to draw interest here. Jim Fetzer is a difficult personality, but the entire conspiracy world is full of difficult personalities.