The Decline and Fall of Jim Fetzer

[Jim DiEugenio]

Don:

I don't understand this:

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.

Did you read my part 2? Do you really think that 9-11 was performed by space based energy beams, no planes, and therefore what was on TV was a giant hologram? Please do not say that Don.

Do you think Gary Webb was murdered? By who? For what? And why then did he leave all of those things in his residence? Why did he mail out the letters?

Do you think the CIA faked the family of a guy who does not even look like Joannides?

An downward and onward and downward.

What other person in the field uses his radio show to call out people who do not endorse him as begin part of Operation Mockingbird? That is not being a "difficult personality". That is what is called agent baiting, the equivalent of McCarthyite 'red baiting".

Its not a matter of being interested in Fetzer per se. I wrote the essay to delineate a line between what constitutes genuine research and writing in these fields and what is sheer fruitiness, an over the top sideshow. As I noted in Part 2, Fetzer was still being interviewed by alternative media at the 50th.

Further, Fetzer has become a conspiracy ambulance chaser. He is out of the gate the first day. Now there is a warning bell out about him before he infects the next controversial case.

[Don Jeffries]

Jim,

I'm aware of Fetzer's 9/11 theories. They don't surprise me, as it is part of his personality to go for the most "extreme" explanation possible, regardless of how absurd it sounds to most of us. As for the Gary Webb case, I included a section in my book on that. I would submit that, Michael Ruppert notwithstanding, it is incredibly difficult to shoot one's self in the head twice. Webb told both Alex Jones and Freeway Ricky Ross that he'd been threatened, followed, and seen strange figures outside his house. Given the nature of his work, and the enemies he made, I think it's no "conspiracy theory" to believe he was silenced, even without an extra bullet hole in his head.

I've always been a fan of your work- you know that. But we disagree on the extent of the corruption, the number of conspiracies if you will. I'm a fan of Alex Jones and I know you're not. I think the official stories of Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing and virtually every other widely-reported event in the past few years are frankly less credible than the most outlandish conspiracy theory one can find. I take what I think is valuable from a lot of sources. For instance, I could ignore Hankey's ridiculous "Bush did it" aspect of his film while recognizing the important evidence about the JFK, Jr. case he unearthed. From investigating that case and writing about it myself, I'm all too aware that the only people researching it for years were people like Hankey. Certainly no professional journalists did.

Our differences in perspective on this doesn't diminish my admiration for your article The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy. I mentioned it in my book and have referred to it in interviews. We seem to be about the only two researchers out there who don't buy into the Campbell-Exner-inspired portrait of JFK as a sickly, mafia-friendly sexual fiend.

I just instinctively blanch at the notion that some things are too "far out" to explore. We can all draw our own lines, but once intellectual discourse has been limited, as it has increasingly been in the mainstream media and other organs of polite society, then it becomes difficult to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. This doesn't mean I endorse Paul is dead, or the laser beams/ no planes 9/11 theory. I try to be as much of a First Amendment purist as possible.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I forgot: Charleston was a psy op also. According to Fetzer.

[Anthony Thorne]

I've followed 9/11 research closely since 2001. Jim hasn't, but I believe his 9/11 commentary in the Fetzer Pt. 2 piece is pretty on target. The only thing I'd add is David Shayler (from what I saw at the time) was originally a relatively sincere researcher and whistleblower. He was appearing in credible documentaries on 7/7 and 9/11, and had a number of sober and well-argued things to say. Then at a certain point (and I've only seen the details of this discussed a few years ago on a UK forum) David Shayler sought treatment for a marijuana addiction. The doctor/specialist who he saw was named on a UK forum and offered hypnotherapy as part of the treatment. The UK forum members dug up biographical details on the doctor, and he was linked to the UK intelligence and security services. Lo and behold, when David reappeared in public (at a UK public forum on 9/11) he claimed he was the messiah and decided he now preferred to dress in women's clothing. Guys like Colby at the Education Forum were gleeful and posted pics of Shayler in drag, and even The Guardian couldn't avoid noting how Shayler's rapid descent into weirdness appeared to help the people he had been speaking out against beforehand. Shayler's endorsement of the holograms/no planes theory began sometime after that. His theories were nowhere near as extreme beforehand. Shayler ended up squatting with some homeless people in a house in suburban Britain, and there are photos online from the day when the cops came and forcibly evicted him and threw him out into the street. Regardless of why, however, his commentary on 9/11 went from helpful, to unhelpful, much in the way that Jim described.

Stephen Jones tore Judy Wood's space laser articles to shreds in a couple of academic pieces, but Wood still gets named as a credible researcher by activists on Facebook and every second Amazon and YouTube listing related to 9/11 has 'reviewers' popping up suggesting people read Wood's book. A quick and dirty method to dumb down the movement. A documentary on Jones came out on YouTube a few years ago, and is linked here -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cfjYUHF8UE

The Judy Wood space laser stuff serves the same purpose as that book that came out a year or two ago suggesting that JFK was whacked by an accidental secret service shot intended for Oswald. Newcomers take it at face value - although I think 'newcomers' to 9/11 debate will obviously also hear Wood's theories and think that 9/11 researchers have gone around the twist.

Fetzer is not a pleasant topic to discuss, but I think it serves a purpose to point out disinfo or plain misleading research when it appears. Fetzer's positions may well stem from stubbornness but the end result is I believe harmful, and Jim's essays are a constructive response.

[Matthew Poe]

Mr. DiEugenio, with all due respect, thanks for the answer, but I was hoping for a little bit more. One doesn't need to be a specialist to comment on a stark turning point in our national history (a turning point whether we like it or not). The progression from the assassinations of the 1960's to the stolen election of 2000 then 9/11 and the ensuing never ending war on terror is a thread that is perilous to ignore. If the dream was killed with the Kennedys than the chance that the dream could be reclaimed was killed with 9/11.

But I understand, I really do. I hope Parry is paying you what you're worth for the book reviews. (And he's a good man too.)

Fetzer's 9/11 research is hopelessly beyond the pale. And its in that department where I fear he does the most damage.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I have learned through the years that in order to speak on these types of subjects one should have mastered them before one ventures forth.

I simply do not have the time to do that with these other cases.

And I actually do not want to do it. I would like to have a little bit of time for myself.

[Matthew Poe]

You're in good company, as no other journalist, or researcher of any stature seems to want to touch it either. (Fools rush in, etc...)


I just ordered your collection The Assassinations from an Amazon 3rd party because I was so impressed by the prescience of what was on the web of "The Posthumous Assassination of JFK." I hope, in the longer article you tie it in with the similarly timed respective push from the left that you mention. Like Hersh's, Cockburn and Chomsky's (even alas IF Stone's) record on JFK is abysmal and incomprehensible. It always made sense to me, as was implied by Salandria, I think, why Chomsky would make a political decision to concentrate on the War and avoid a quagmire or even third rail by delving to JFK's murder. But why go out of your way to denigrate the man's legacy?

[Don Jeffries]

As I detail in my book, the establishment, both "left" and "right," despised (and continue to despise) the Kennedys. William Kuntzler, for instance, publicly declared that the country was better off for them being assassinated. They are looked at quite differently than other "liberal" politicians. With Rob Reiner's recent movie, even LBJ is now getting better press than JFK.

FDR and his administration utilized the services of mob bosses Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky during WWII. However, the public doesn't associate FDR with the mob the way it does the Kennedys, even though in reality JFK was the only president to target the mafia. And yet, all those mob connected witnesses are accepted at face value. FDR also had several mistresses, including his own cousin. But again, it is JFK, with almost all the "evidence" stemming from the ever-changing tales of Judith Campbell Exner, who is portrayed as an incorrigible adulterer.

Matthew, I agree with you completely about all these events being connected; indeed, it's one of the central premises of Hidden History. You can't have so many unimportant events written off with nonsensical, fairy tale explanations, and no free country can remain free with a kept press like ours. This is probably the essential disagreement between myself and most of the JFK assassination research community.

Professional journalists have never, from the moment NBC agreed to broadcast only those items "in consonance with the FBI" shortly after the assassination, investigated the JFK assassination. As Mark Lane pointed out early on, the lack of an honest investigation was providing "fertile ground for speculation." Jim Fetzer, like the rest of us, is filling the void left by professional journalists.

The same thing goes for 9/11, or Sandy Hook, or a host of other important events. When the official narratives are easily disproved by independent souls on the internet, there will be speculation. Some of it will be ridiculous.

These kinds of personal battles are why I spend much less time on these forums now. Fetzer thinks Jim D. and most of those who disagree with them are disinfo agents. Many of those who disagree with him think he is a disinfo agent. As John Kelin demonstrated in his book, the research community has always been like this. The internet just makes it more obvious to everyone.

Even if Jim Fetzer and all the other researchers our community believes are the least credible disappeared and went away, the mainstream media is never going to accept our central proposition. They, like the state they shill for, are fully vested in these myths. So are the establishment historians, who will never admit they've been wrong for decades about any of these events. Both the government and the court historians are still fighting the exhumations of both Meriweather Lewis and John Wilkes Booth. Does anyone really think they're going to admit their work on these much more recent events was a pack of lies?

The JFK assassination wasn't just a momentary lapse on the part of our government, and our media, into massive corruption and conspiracy.

[Jim DiEugenio]

You're in good company, as no other journalist, or researcher of any stature seems to want to touch it either. (Fools rush in, etc...)


​Please do not even try and insinuate I won't study it because somehow I am afraid of what it would do to me. I mean, I understand what it is to be marginalized because of what I have chosen to do already. I have accepted that.

My reasons are just what I said. I mean do you know how many hours a week I spend on this stuff? Do you know how long it takes to write an article like the one on Fetzer? Do you know how long it takes to edit something like Seamus' essay on Hankey?

If I actually do want to have a few moments a day to do things for me and my personal life, I think I should have that right.

And BTW, Tony Summers is a journalist of stature is he not?

[Anthony Thorne]

no other journalist, or researcher of any stature seems to want to touch it either.

Joan Mellen, John Newman, Jim Marrs, Peter Dale Scott, James Douglass, Walt Brown and Dick Russell have all either written books or lectured on the subject of 9/11, and argued that they disbelieve the official story. (Newman's easy to miss lecture was at a Cynthia McKinney conference in 2005). They're all JFK researchers of varying degrees of stature. Doug Horne featured a page in his final INSIDE THE AARB volume arguing that most serious JFK researchers agree with the official 9/11 story, but counting through the above suggests the opposite. I'm sure if I scanned the interview summaries at Black Op Radio I could find a few more.

Counting journalists, former GUARDIAN journalist Nafeez Ahmed wrote an entire book on 9/11, THE WAR ON TRUTH, and that book received a big back-cover blurb of praise from John Pilger. Author Mark Crispin Miller has also been outspoken about the subject.

As for James DiEugenio's comments here - and I respect and sympathize with his reasons - there are a good number of 9/11 researchers still doing solid work on a regular basis - Kevin Ryan, the guy that runs the Shoestring 9/11 blog, a few others. And yet I can count the number of really good and reliable JFK sites on probably one hand, and I can count the number of people doing really long, detailed reviews of new JFK books on one hand and still have most of my fingers left over. If Jim decided to dump his JFK work and start blogging about WTC7 we'd lose probably the one guy with his finger in the dyke holding back the ongoing tsunami of crap from flooding the JFK research community and drowning us all.