The Decline and Fall of Jim Fetzer

[Jim DiEugenio]

Matt:

Its not my position that there was no SS involvement.

I think there was some involvement, if I had to give a name it would probably be Sorrels, and maybe Boring.

BTW, very nice post Ashley.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Matt:

Its not my position that there was no SS involvement.

I think there was some involvement, if I had to give a name it would probably be Sorrels, and maybe Boring.

BTW, very nice post Ashley.

And please, Jim, let us not forget the "Oswald in the Doorway Assassination of America" Convention he had 2 years ago in Santa Barbata with our little friend Ralph. It is a riot to watch GaryKing's videos showing what utter frauds they be. They have their major benefactors, as well as a well-defined demographic that parts with their money.

[Albert Doyle]

I don't think there will be any side-kick rebuttal to the fact Fetzer referred to photos that were taken years apart as being contemporary.

[Tracy Riddle]

To demonstrate the power of 3 years of research/fact-checking by Fetzer - google "Jim Fetzer Paul McCartney" for this howler

"Not only does this explain away the mystery, but a very straightforward comparison of the two was provided as well:

Wow, that's hilarious. Definitely 1964 and 1967, but maybe no one will notice and they'll believe they were taken the same year. Notice that the clothes are cropped in both shots because Paul definitely wasn't wearing suits anymore in 1967.

How to Discredit Yourself as a Researcher 101. And anyone who associates with you.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Matt:

Its not my position that there was no SS involvement.

I think there was some involvement, if I had to give a name it would probably be Sorrels, and maybe Boring.

BTW, very nice post Ashley.

And please, Jim, let us not forget the "Oswald in the Doorway Assassination of America" Convention he had 2 years ago in Santa Barbata with our little friend Ralph. It is a riot to watch GaryKing's videos showing what utter frauds they be. They have their major benefactors, as well as a well-defined demographic that parts with their money.

I actually saw some of those films. Incredible laugh riot. Are they still up? Maybe someone can provide a link.

[Ashley Wood]

Matt:

Its not my position that there was no SS involvement.

I think there was some involvement, if I had to give a name it would probably be Sorrels, and maybe Boring.

BTW, very nice post Ashley.

Jim, I've followed your work for many years at CTKA, in print and on Black Op Radio. If you ever need a 1960s UK pop celebrity haircut analyst I'm your man.

[Ashley Wood]

To demonstrate the power of 3 years of research/fact-checking by Fetzer - google "Jim Fetzer Paul McCartney" for this howler

"Not only does this explain away the mystery, but a very straightforward comparison of the two was provided as well:

Wow, that's hilarious. Definitely 1964 and 1967, but maybe no one will notice and they'll believe they were taken the same year. Notice that the clothes are cropped in both shots because Paul definitely wasn't wearing suits anymore in 1967.

How to Discredit Yourself as a Researcher 101. And anyone who associates with you.

Actually Tracy he does appear to have been wearing a suit that day. Certainly a suit jacket.
He was probably extremely stoned and made an easy to make mistake while trying to dress to impress Jimi Hendrix who also attended the premiere.
Paul is renowned for having access to fab "gear" and that black suit probably looked like rainbow unicorn purple paisley when using old English currency in 1967.
I'm willing to bet he thought his bright orange tie was a mellow black number just suitable for a film premiere.

[Matthew Poe]

It only gets worse for Fetzer when it comes to "Paul is Dead."

At the same time he was making these damning photographic comparisons, the eagle-eyed professor hit upon a published confession by Ringo that Paul had died and been replaced. He quickly took to the airwaves with the dynamite, which he found on a website called HollywoodInquirer.com. It was a bombshell that proved his research. There was only one problem, as a listener quickly pointed out. The story was a complete hoax and the website bunkum.

That did not deter Fetzer however. While he admitted that HollywoodInquirer.com being a "shell site" was "notable," his opponent was making an "elementary fallacy to judge the truth or falsity of a claim on the basis of its source." Fetzer called such faulty logic "a genetic fallacy." Couldn't his intellectually challenged opponents make the small leap in elementary dialectical reasoning necessary to conclude that it didn't matter whether Ringo's "confession" was "real." What was important was that this fiction "ties together all the loose ends of the case in a very tight package that I believe is complete, accurate and true."

This isn't the only time Fetzer has used such logical contortions to deny there's egg on his face. He once found a clip of the moon landing being faked and proceeded to trumpet it as a smoking gun. Only problem, it was comedic footage of a recent vintage. There again, the provenance didn't matter, the very fact that the footage of this moon landing skit looked so much what was broadcast to viewers as the Apollo Landings was proof that it could be easily faked. Ergo NASA's moon landings were fake.

I seriously don't know what to think. Is he truly crazy or is he a mole putting on a show? Any thoughts people? (If he is a good man who's gone over the edge, such musings as above may be construed as piling on.)

[Tracy Riddle]

Actually Tracy he does appear to have been wearing a suit that day. Certainly a suit jacket.
He was probably extremely stoned and made an easy to make mistake while trying to dress to impress Jimi Hendrix who also attended the premiere.
Paul is renowned for having access to fab "gear" and that black suit probably looked like rainbow unicorn purple paisley when using old English currency in 1967.
I'm willing to bet he thought his bright orange tie was a mellow black number just suitable for a film premiere.

I should have said "conventional suits" circa 1964. Here's the uncropped photo, which took many seconds of Googling, something Fetzer's research crew hasn't mastered. And yes, it's from How I Won the War.
http://beautiful-jane-asher.tumblr.com/page/9

[Albert Doyle]

The McCartney photos show differences caused by the equipment, perspective, and time that are being called evidence of different features. The photos were obviously selected because they could be used to suggest evidence of different features rather than really showing actual different features.