17-01-2011, 03:06 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2011, 07:46 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
Charles,
You are disgracing yourself. Your high-handed and authoritarian character has proven to be an insult to this forum and the principles it represents. I dare say the reverberations from this exchange are going to be deep-seated and enduring. It has never been my intention to embarrass you in front of your peers, but my commitment to truth dominates my commitment to friendship. Otherwise, as I have previously observed, there is only friendship and no truth. I have been and continue to be active in JFK research but, apart from your posts on this forum, I am unaware of anything you have done that advances our understanding of the death of JFK in the past few years. I am glad to be measured by my work, including my most recent:
In addition, of course, I host a two-hour radio program, three days a week, where the archives for the show can be found at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. And I continue to make appearances on many other public programs, including, for example, this on Skeptico at http://www.skeptiko.com/james-fetzer-jfk...n-science/ and many other presentations, such as, "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html Now, since you are making libelous allegations that I am the "dottering old fool" on this forum, why don't you provide a comparable list of your contributions to JFK research over a comparable period of time? What justifies your claim to prominence? One of us may be in decline, as you are wont to allege, Charles, but it ain't me.
And if your associates on this forum are unwilling to tell you, let me be the first: you have long since lost your way, Charles, and are now an embarrassment to assassination research in general and The Deep Politics Forum in particular. It may be that they won't tell you, so let me deliver the verdict: It is your retirement that is long past time, not mine. And your feeble attempts to defend yourself are pitiful. I am unaware of any policy that excludes me from membership on the ground that I have disagreed with one of its founding members. That is not a policy that would inspire confidence in the integrity of this forum. Step back, Charles, and seek advice from those who care about you most profoundly. Get a grip! We all hope you can find your way back to the intelligence and good sense for which we have admired you in the past.
With profound concern,
Jim
Charles Drago Wrote:
James H. Fetzer Wrote:I am sorry, Charles, but you are "living down" to my expectations as an emperor with no clothes! Rather fascinating, actually.
Jim,
You have become the dottering old fool of this community -- a laughing stock. We all hear it, some of us try to deny it. None of us can deny it. You have lost all credibility, and I no longer will apologize to you or for you or try to cover for you or otherwise attempt to convince others that you are not into your dotage.
No longer address me. Please remove my quote from the front page of your JFK site. Please disassociate me from all of your endeavors.
Your embraces of E. Howard Hunt's "confession" and Phillip Nelson's disinformation are just the latest expressions of a unique, oh so troubling dementia that I have struggled so hard to deny. But now you leave me no choice.
You're done, Jim. And someone has to have the courage to tell you so.
Do you remember when George Michael Evica and I resigned from your first JFK site? We made the excuse that we didn't have time to devote to the enterprise. In point of fact, we didn't want anything to do with your decline. We saw it, we mourned your loss, and we moved on.
There. I've said what I promised myself I never would reveal.
You are no longer welcome in my world of intelligent, sane inquiry. I've had it up HERE with your evasions and, dare I say it, your cognitive impairments.
You are a liability to those causes which you hold most dear. You are more like the Robert Morrows of the world than the old Jim Fetzer.
You broke my heart, Jim. Retire. Go quietly. Stop bringing embarrassment and shame to the communities and, more importantly, the causes you once championed.
You broke my heart, Jim. And the hearts of so many others.
LBJ announced he would not run on March 31, 1968. No way he could have been nominated in the D party much less elected. But as long as he remained prez, his JFK co-conspirators (Hoover, Dulles, Phillips, the usual suspects) had a free hand to knock off any "inconvenient" opposition leader given that LBJ was more "mobbed up" than any leader in the history of the western world. LBJ would have had little interest in reining this in unless he feared crimes being traced back to him, but he had little power as a truly-controlled mega-lame duck. He was in pure protective mode. So the shooter(s) got the signal to "do" MLK on April 4, 1968 from...J. Edgar? or...?, perhaps as many claim because of MLK's opposition to the Vietnam war and the MIC or just being an annoying, charismatic black man.
RFK follows on June 5 (died on 6th) most likely based on fear that RFK would open a real investigation of his brother's assassination, quickly bring the war to an end, and assorted threats to the PTB, etc. Of course, LBJ would have motive for (benefit from) RFK's death. LBJ wouldn't want any motivated "troublemaker" to succeed him as prez, but that aside, the PTB appears important in engineering a succession of establishment jerks beyond LBJ's stay in D.C. like Nixon (or HHH for that matter), Ford, interrupted by outsider Reagan, I believe, but Bush-Baker-crime-family attacked, then played like a fiddle by Bush-Baker. Then we had GWHB put in the presidency outright, followed by CFR controlled a**holes "W" and BHO.
None of this has any implication for or against the hypothesis of LBJ as central culprit in JFK's assassination.
If I could draw the attention of the posters in this thread to another thread running concurrently, not JFK related, but also dealing with the concepts of sponsors, mechanics etc. http://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/show...s-King-Rat
LBJ sure was one SOB and was up to his neck in all sorts of crimes including JFK's demise no doubt. Of course he would have had no moral qualms about his involvement and even if he did (highly unlikely) he would have had lots of encouragement to go along with it because of the impeachment proceedings and likely jail time he was facing as VP. He personally benefited from it along with many others and seems to have had foreknowledge of it and the means to cover up it up to a large extent. He was an important component of the Dallas hit. Very important. However, to make him the master mind is too much of a stretch. JFK was going to go down. With his delusions of leadership and policies unacceptable to important others it was a matter of when and where not if. Whether that was in Dallas, Florida, Chicago or other unspecified places he was not long for this world. We know this from the other plots uncovered. Other mechanics than LHO, Ruby, the Dallas police department and FBI. It still could have happened with out LBJ and would have if Dealy Plaza hadn't come off so successfully or if he had been impeached on Nov 22nd.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
17-01-2011, 05:34 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2011, 05:53 AM by Jim DiEugenio.)
I can barely believe what I am reading.
In his rush to defend Nelson's book, Fetzer is endorsing Seymour Hersh over Schlesinger, Sorenson, Powers, Salinger and O'Donnell. He is saying that they are all liars. Wow. Repeat: wow.
BTW, Schlesinger mentions Evelyn Lincoln as being in the JFK suite with many others at the convention. Somehow, she was privy to this blackmail yet no one else in the room was.
Secondly, Fetzer misses a key point that Charles Dunne used at Spartacus to knock the helium out of Morrow's balloon. If the forces for LBJ--Hoover, Graham, ALsop--were oh so intent on using any piece of info to make LBJ VP (which he really did not want by most reports) why did they not use this blackmail to derail JFK's express and make LBJ president?
Third, Raskin offers no reason at all why JFK chose LBJ as VP. Nothing.
Now, although Raskin is attributed by Hersh as working for RFK in his role as campaign manager, his name is not in Schlesinger's mammoth two volume biography of Bobby Kennedy! It is not in Newfield's RFK: A Memoir, and it is not in Robert Kennedy In His Own Words, an oral memoir. RFK must have felt he was a real important guy huh?
He is not mentioned as being part of the VP search in Sorenson's book, in Schlesinger's book, the Salinger book, or the O'Donell and Powers book. In fact, in all those close to 2,800 pages of the four books, he is mentioned by name only twice. Both in the Sorenson book. He is described as a Stevenson man who RFK hired as a, get this, a "part time" organizer for JFK's campaign.
So to say, as Hersh does, that this low level, part time staffer would know more than the guys right in the room, actually part of the search team, is simply preposterous. Its like saying, as Lamar Waldron does, that Jack Ruby knew about JFK's plan to invade Cuba, but McGeorge Bundy did not. But it is the kind of nuttiness that one resorts to when an author has a giant agenda in place, as did Waldron, and as did Hersh when he wrote his crazy book. Which, by the way, one critic said should actually be titled "The Dark Side of Seymour Hersh", since it revealed more about Hersh than it did Kennedy.
As per Fetzer, I agree with CD. In his unfathomable defense of Judy Baker, and now in his sinking so low as to defend both Hersh and Nelson, he does not realize what hits his credibility has taken. The younger and newer people writing in the field do not consider him a credible person anymore.
But what is startling is that, like Ahab, he does not understand how low he has fallen.
PS: Jim, CD did not put you on moderation. It was Morrow. What he was doing was lamenting your decline and issuing a warning about being preoccupied with Hershian sexual tall tales as a substitute for rational analysis.
This is all so sad. Highly intelligent men continue to embarrass themselves
even though all seek justice and truth. They have become hopelessly hung
up over words and opinions which feed egos and obfuscate the search for
truth.
Let me be clear. I am on the side of any who as I do see that LBJ played
a major role in the murder of JFK. That has been my opinion for many
years, and I have seen nothing to persuade me to change my mind. He
was one evil sonovabitch and willing to do anything to be president. Defending
him as having a lesser role has become a battle over the meaning of words,
and demeans those who put him in an insignificant role. The degree of his
guilt is what is being argued endlessly.
Please resume the search for truth, and remember one thing I have learned
in my 84 years: A GRUDGE IS A HEAVY BURDEN TO BEAR. Having made your
point, concede that everyone may have an opinion counter to yours. Remember,
not a one of you IS IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION.
Jack White Wrote:...Remember, not a one of you IS IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION.
Jack
That's correct. Jack appointed me to be in charge when I visited him in Fort Worth this past November! Note, in the background, they're towing Jack's car!
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
17-01-2011, 03:47 PM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2011, 04:25 PM by Peter Lemkin.)
Jack White Wrote:This is all so sad. Highly intelligent men continue to embarrass themselves
even though all seek justice and truth. They have become hopelessly hung
up over words and opinions which feed egos and obfuscate the search for
truth.
Let me be clear. I am on the side of any who as I do see that LBJ played
a major role in the murder of JFK. That has been my opinion for many
years, and I have seen nothing to persuade me to change my mind. He
was one evil sonovabitch and willing to do anything to be president. Defending
him as having a lesser role has become a battle over the meaning of words,
and demeans those who put him in an insignificant role. The degree of his
guilt is what is being argued endlessly.
Please resume the search for truth, and remember one thing I have learned
in my 84 years: A GRUDGE IS A HEAVY BURDEN TO BEAR. Having made your
point, concede that everyone may have an opinion counter to yours. Remember,
not a one of you IS IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION.
Jack
Sometimes experience and natural 'smarts' make for an intelligent 'call'; and sometimes the wisdom that comes with age does. In Jack's case here, I'd say both are at play. He who is in charge of the investigation, cast the first virtual stone. <whistle> Play ball!, but play nice......
To throw in my own two cents [and I'm not in charge of anything!...certainly not this investigation] LBJ was [not so much publicly, but in private] one of the meanest, vindictive, get-even-even-if-that-meant-killing-someone kind of guy. He was 100% involved by the day of 11/22/63 [and stayed involved in the cover-up ever after, with others]. I can't see him as the Numero Uno 'Mastermind'....more a team player of high import and high station...but that is my 'take' and I don't want to destroy those who think he was #1, I think they are only misguided, or haven't followed the full story, or have an 'agenda'.
Would the assassination of JFK have taken place if LBJ had been whisked away on 11/23/63 [or some other date before], I think yes....perhaps his disappearance might have caused a delay or changes, perhaps not...we don't know...but we do know, I believe, there were equally powerful players who also wanted JFK gone from their 'shoes'. Was LBJ an integral part of the events as they played out. I think absolutely yes. Was he essential in the cover-up? [Does a bear shit in the woods!]? Did LBJ kill others, yes. Did LBJ instigate, develop the plan and carry out (him at the top - down) the kill, I think not. He was but one of a team....even if he held the highest VISIBLE elective office of the conspirators. Don't be fooled...the elective offices, including President, do not necessarily relate to real power or the ability to make things happen. Then and now.
To me, and again this is my own personal take, to show how weak and powerless LBJ was at the behest of more powerful persons and forces, was the dissembling way he chose not to stand for re-election. It was related to Vietnam, but not as he stated it, IMO. A horrible human, but not the ultimate Mr. Big of the 'Night of the Long Knives' that was Dallas. IMO.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
For the record, DPF founders and owners collectively decide who is placed on moderation and who is not.
Note that this thread is now under constant observation by the moderators and action will be taken if forum etiquette is further breached. By breach we mean to imply that any sort of ad hom, whether used as a question, or directly stated, or cunningly implied, will result in moderation by the poster responsible without further notice.
It is the spirit and the letter of the rules of ettiquette that must be abided by, not just the letter.
