Craig Zirbel's new book The Final Chapter On the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

[James H. Fetzer]

As I have previously observed, if these guys couldn't pull stuff out of their ass, they would have nothing to say . . .

I embarrassed DiEugenio on the EF by demonstrating--based on his own reply to a post of mine--that he does not understand either the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic or film evidence in this case, so he is here to bellyache about it. He flipped out when I explained there were shooters at six locations, which I have justified on the basis of the kinds of evidence he does not understand. (How many times have I said during radio interviews that "JFK" is the most accurate, complete and comprehensive presentation of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 apart from being too simple by half, since it only shows three shooters when there were six!) For those who want to understand what DiEugenio has revealed that he does not--where he was attacking me for my views without knowing them--consider this very public presentation:

"Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?"
http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf

This is revealing because there had to have been shooters at six locations if you want to explain the wounds. But since DiEugenio does not understand the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic and film evidence, he though that sounded silly! Well, it sounded silly to DiEugenio because he really doesn't grasp the medical, the ballistic or the photographic evidence. Moreover, he was trashing me for my views when it was obvious he had no idea what they were--displayed by his stunned response to learning them, which meant his post was (a) not only based upon no knowledge of my actual views but (b) the incapacity to appreciate why they are true. For a guy who aspires to be an historian, I have been taken aback by his willingness to attack me when he doesn't know my views and on grounds that seem to reflect the limitations of his own imagination independent of logic and evidence.

Let me explain. JFK was hit in the throat (by a shot fired from an above-ground sewer opening half-way between the road way and the top of the Triple Underpass on the south side); he was hit in the back (a shot fired from the top of the County Records Building); and he was hit twice in the head (in the back of the head from the Dal-Tex and in the right temple by a shot from the parallel above-ground sewer opening on the north side of the Triple Underpass); while Connally was hit (from one to three times by shots fired from the west side of the Book Depository). There were also three misses, one from the Dal-Tex that injured James Tague; one from the knoll that missed; and one from the Dal-Tex that hit the chrome strip). So four to JFK, one to three to Connally, and at least three misses equals 8, 9 or 10 shots.

Now if you understood that JFK had four wounds from four locations and that Big John had one to three from the side, that there might have been at least one more--which was fired from the grassy knoll, no less!--would have been easily understood. But the fact that he expressed astonishment--which he and his thug reiterate, to their own amusement!--indicates that neither of them has any understanding of the medical, the ballistic, or the photographic and fllm evidence (which show the hole in the windshield and the hit on the chrome strip just above it). They are not only massively ignorant about my views but equally massively ignorant about JFK. No one familiar with the evidence would have faulted me on this score. Richard Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970), advanced a similar account and Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993), one with even more.

They make a lot of other baseless remarks, which reflects that they trade in rumor and speculation--even gossip--not serious research. I observed at the time that this shows DiEugenio is lazy, inattentive, and doesn't do his homework. But it is even worse with regard to 9/11. I have featured Judy Wood on my radio programs in the past because (1) she is the best qualified student of 9/11, with degrees in structural engineering, applied physics, and materials engineering science; (2) she has done more work on providing evidence about what effects were brought about at the WTC than anyone else (by far); and (3) she has an interesting theory about how it might have been done. I support research on different theories, such as mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation), lasers, masers, and plasmoids for the simple reason that we don't know how it was done. I encourage a "big-tent" approach because we don't want to exclude alternatives on the wrong ground.

No doubt, there are members of the 9/11 community who are unhappy with me because I take on the complex and controversial issues rather than avoid them. My work on video fakery, for example, has been lampooned by those who don't like my direct approach, yet it has been vindicated by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in their new documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", which demonstrates that a Boeing 767 could not have flown at 560 mph as shown in the videos of the plane hitting the South Tower because (a) it would have been aerodynamically impossible; (b) the plane would have been unmanageable; and © physically, it would have come apart. (It also makes an entry into the building in violation of Newton's laws and passes through its own length in doing so in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air!) So who's doing more to advance research on 9/11? My "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" or those who have attacked me for it?

I have also explained the evidence that substantiates that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There are those within the 9/11 community who want to suppress it, even though the evidence is overwhelming. See, for example, my "What didn't happen at the Pentagon", which has been complemented by CIT's "Pentacon" and "National Security Alert" and by Pilot's own "Pandora's Black Box". (Indeed, the conspirators even used special effects to intimidate the members of Congress when a phony report was given that the Capitol might be the next target by arranging for billowing black clouds of smoke to be seen across the Potomac, which were actually coming not from the building but from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of it!) But these guys have no idea whose right and whose wrong about these things, so if they find anyone who is willing to trash me, they take their word for it, regardless of the facts. About 9/11, no less than about JFK, DiEugenio and his thug have shown that they have no more idea of the difference between the true and the false about 9/11 than they do about JFK--and the fact of the matter is, they don't care!

The Gregory Douglas, REGICIDE, is one example. I was initially impressed by his book, which led me to post a favorable review on amazon.com. But, as I reflected on the stunning coincidence of the alleged translation of the Soviet's study of the assassination, which just happened to also feature a "three-shot scenario", it appeared to me that something was wrong. I made contact with Gregory Douglas and pursued this to the point where i was convinced that his book was a brilliant scam which probably featured an accurate account of how James Jesus Angleton became convinced that JFK was betraying the country to the Soviets but packaged in a fashion that would cause it to be discounted as a scam--rather like the retyping of George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard fitness report, which was completely accurate--Dan Rather had confirmed it with the officer who wrote it and the secretary who had typed it!--but it had been secretly retyped using a typeface that did not exist at the time it was written. So the public wrongly inferred that, if the letter was fake, it's contents were false. When I sorted it out, I revised my amazon.com review, but DiEugenio attacks me, as he has attacked Craig Zirbel, for revising my views based upon additional research as though that were a bad thing!

I have antagonized some lofty figures in 9/11 research, too, including a fellow by the name of Kevin Ryan. This appears to be because I have not been willing to accept the account that he and Steve Jones promote about something called "thermite" (in one of its versions) as having been the principal cause of demolition of the Twin Towers. (Thermite is actually an incendiary that is non-explosive but, like toothpaste, can be combined with explosives to have explosive effects.) When I recently published a rebuttal to an atrocious attack on the 9/11 movement by an investigative journalist named "Robert Parry", Kevin Ryan responded by attacking me! (Yes, it really is that bizarre in 9/11 research, too!) I replied with a piece entltled, "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan", where Allan Weisbecker, "A Response to Kevin Ryan (from a Mexican surfing Madman)", has also spoken out on my behalf! (Allen, in fact, is a very interesting guy and I was very glad when he told me he had something he wanted to publish in response to Kevin Ryan.)

Now just consider that, if I really were such a goof ball in JFK and 9/11 research, why would I be drawing so much flack? These attacks actually boomerang by revealing far more about their authors than they do about their target. They are doing a fine job of making their incompetence known to those who are smart enough to figure it out, who are the ones who matter. It is certainly true that I do not suffer fools gladly. Some have even written that I lose some arguments that I should win on the merits because readers are ruffled by my aggressive and argumentative style. That, no doubt, is true. But consider the vicious and petty nature of these attacks by DiEugenio and his goon. They are off-the-wall, based on rumor and gossip, and have very little to commend them. What I see here is the obverse of my unwillingness to suffer fools gladly, which is that those whom I expose do not take it very well and will do whatever they can to get even without letting the difference between fact and fiction get in their way. Fools do not take their exposure kindly. Fortunately, there are others who are still capable of sorting things out and of recognizing who is advancing the search for truth and who is not.

[Charles Drago]

Robert,

Everything I have read about it--including the material available on-line--suggests that this, like Nelson's LBJ masterpiece, has the right take on history. I am sorry to see the reception that work like this receives here, as though it were heretical! Sad but true to say that there is a prevailing paradigm here that substantiated truth cannot penetrate, as this thread shows.

Jim

It is my most sincere wish that, in the fullness of time, my friend Jim Fetzer will be remembered for his historic, courageous, at times even brilliant examinations of JFK evidence, and that his endorsement of the vile, unsubstantiated, cover-up-preserving work of the disinformationalist Nelson will be dismissed as a momentary lapse of judgment.

In spite of his inexplicable embraces of certain enemy propagandists (Nelson, Hunt, et al), Jim Fetzer remains, in the final analysis, a force for truth and justice. I honor his great work, and for so many reasons -- not the least of which is my hope that Jim soon will come to his senses -- I shall continue to point out the lies, half-truths, and disinformation which in the aggregate expose Nelson's evil intent as rendered in his hideous LBJ volume. Further, I shall do all in my power to remind those who are unlucky enough to encounter Morrow's vile discharges that this poor little man is not an evil soul, but just a lost one.

Your good name will survive Nelson and Hunt, dear Jim.

The pornography-as-history of poor little Morrow, however, will prove a more difficult disassociation for you.

Fondly,

Charles

[James H. Fetzer]

Here are my comments in bold. I appreciate Charles' last post.

in fetzer land what is not "an exceptional contribution"?

I was being deliberately provocative with that post because I
have been disillusioned with the resistance to Lyndon's role.

Phil nelson's gibberish? Exceptional contribution, right up there with jim douglass.

Jim Douglass explains how JFK antagonized the most powerful
special interests in the country, while Phil Nelson's explains
what they did about it, where Lyndon played the pivotal role.

Russ baker's piece of pretension, is an exceptional contribtution.

I'm not sure what Jim is referring to, but if it is his Family of
Secrets, I think that is an excellent study with some lapses.

Joe farrell, fresh from conspiracy la la land, an exceptional contribution.

So far as I am aware, I have yet to comment on this book. I do
have it and it does look interesting, but I am not yet in a position
to comment. Is this 'La La Land' comment supposed to pass for
an argument? Apparently DiEugenio presumes that he is entitled to
assail me for comments I have yet to make on a book I haven't read.

Madeline brown, wonderful witness.

Again, Jim apparently does not know that I had over one hundred
conversations with Madeleine, have read both of her books, and
even interviewed her at Lancer a few years back. What she had to
say has been confirmed by Billy Sol Estes, by E. Howard Hunt and by
Nigel Turner in the key 9th segment of 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'.
Her story 'hangs together' the right way with the rest of the evidence.

Judy baker, a living saint.

We all know where we stand on Judy. I believe in her, you don't.
So what? And in particular, what does this have to do with your
abysmal failure to know what you're talking about in attacking me?

Doug horne, a tremendous contribution.

Monumental. I know you don't understand the medical, ballistic or
photographic and film evidence, but Doug published a masterpiece.
That you would say this speaks volumes about your incompetence.

David lifton, a brilliant book.

I learned more about the case from Best Evidence than any other
single source and regard my own books as sequels to his brilliant
study, which focuses on the medical, ballistic, and film evidence.

Nigel turner, learned more as he went along.

That's the idea. We are all supposed to reassess our beliefs when
we acquire new evidence or new alternative hypotheses. Would you
better understood the nature of rationality and scientific inquiry. It
is comments like this that tell me that you're cognitively impaired.

What utter and demeaning crapola. The problem here is two fold.

Nigel turner completely blew a fantastic opportunity. He had several hours to make a fine case with the best the research community had to offer at the last anniversary, the 40th.

What does the jerk put on? Of all people, all people, judy baker! He then doubles down and puts that loud mouthed blowhard barr mcclellan on.

But even that is not enough. He then puts on some liftonesque stuff about altering the body. This was one he got sued on. But even that is not enough. To cap it off, he gives time to the murchison party also!?

Please jim. Please.

It's stunning to me that you continue to entertain doubts about the
Murchison party, which was confirmed by the chauffeur who drove
Mr. Hoover to the event and by one of the chefs who prepared it. I
am sorry you are so inept at evaluating evidence and understanding
key events like this, especially for one with pretensions as an historian.

The worst part of his series was the fact that he completely wasted aguilar and mantik who got buried in the tin foil stuff. I guess he never saw any of the cheap thrills--aka prat falls-- in them that the likes of judy baker gave him.

That show was enough to set us back for a decade. That is how bad it was. Thanks to ventura we got a reprieve. But even jesse had to go and put that idiot opportunist saint john hunt on, which as seamus pointed out, almost ruined the show.

Finally, i don't condemn the right of anyone to change their minds in this field. I actually used to think that the king and rfk cases were not conspiracies.

But if you are going to actually be as wild and irresponsible as to tell the american public who was on the grassy knoll, you had better have some really good evidence--i mean really good. Or else why do it at all? Turner was clearly wrong here, as later research--which he should have done himself--proved.

Then, without blinking, he then says well, its not the corsican mafia, but lbj and mac wallace etc. without telling the viewer that mcclellan's book says it was wallce not on the gk, but on the sixth floor, firing away right next to oswald!!!

yeah jim. That is what turner has learned, oswald was shooting at kennedy. Or did you miss that?

Look, Jim. You can't even get my views right when they are in the
public domain. You have no entitlement to act so self-righteous
when you are incompetent in so many crucial respects. They may
not have gotten everything right, but that's because the situation is so
complicated and complex. You can't even get my positions correct
when I have published them all over the place. That's quite pathetic.

You have become an apologist and publicist for every half-baked nonsensical snake oil salesman out there on this case. (and you initially fell for that lying forger gregory douglass.) if you are positioning yourself for anything its maybe alex jones jr.?

It's not true. You don't even know my positions. That is just dumb.
I've already discussed the situation with Gregory Douglas, where I
pursued it until I figured out the score. You can't even understand
the import of Madeleine and Billy Sol's testimony, which is stunning,
not to mention dozens of other blunders you have made here alone.

Wow, what an ambition: "lbj was ready to radio in the helicoptered swat teams if jfk made it out of the kill zone."

Sarcasm appears to be the best you can do. Logic and evidence are
not on your side. Like Tink, you think your cheap, petty, and nasty
attacks are going to endure you to others. But you have almost
everything wrong, which further reveals your incompetence with
regard to your attacks upon me, which are singularly without merit.

Hey, in fetzer land, why not?

In DiEugenio land, you can attack anyone you want, especially me,
no matter if you know where I stand or not. For someone posing
as an historian, you need to get a far better grip on the difference
between fantasy and reality, because your criticisms of my research
demonstrate--conclusively!--that, regarding me, you haven't a clue.

[Seamus Coogan]

Dear CD.

Thanks for popping in.

Some of Proffessor Fetzers social commentries I agree may well survive. But his JFK research indeed his conspiracy work as a whole will be used as a bench mark for derision by future generations.

I agree that it is the associates of Fetzers that CD mentions who are the credibility killers. But Mr Fetzer your lack of acknowledgment of CD's points make it clear that you did not read the same post myself and the rest of humanity did?

My replies to Fetzers latest abomination are indented in blue.

Here are my comments in bold. I appreciate Charles' last post.

in fetzer land what is not "an exceptional contribution"?

I was being deliberately provocative with that post because I
have been disillusioned with the resistance to Lyndon's role.

Your deliberately provocative because you love being the centre of attention. :horn:And hey lets face it you really do think your better than everyone else. You also obviously like to think of yourself as some kind of genius (totally misunderstood in his own time). At night you dream that one day people will realise how special you truly are. Yes, they will one day Im sure.

Not as a researcher of any importance but as a unique comedian who never realised that the joke was on himself.

I'm now going to call you 'Ron' and I urge others to do so as I see no difference between you and that attention seeking moron on the bridge in Venturas show. If it was not you (which as I have said I accept) you may as well have been him.:fullofit:

Phil nelson's gibberish? Exceptional contribution, right up there with jim douglass.

Jim Douglass explains how JFK antagonized the most powerful
special interests in the country, while Phil Nelson's explains
what they did about it, where Lyndon played the pivotal role.

Let's go and ask Jim Douglas about this book shall we? I'll email him and ask some questions pertaining to Phil Nelsons stuff and other cretins you enjoy. Will JVB and Maddie Brown get a pass mark? Will Zap film and body alteration make the grade? Will LBJ organising the hit or being part of the cabal that did it float with Jim Douglas?

Nope it won't.

You couldn't wipe Douglas's ass nor could you even fold Gerald McKnights and the late Harold Weisbergs washing. Good god I'd love to get Weisbergs views on your B.S! He thought Lifton was a flake! Oh and trust me I'll go out and get Gerald McKnights, John Newmans and a host of other well known and alive researchers opinions on your works let's see what they think.

Im sick and tired of your misuse and misappropriation of good solid material. If I was JD I'd sue you for defamation. The idea of you associating yourself or endorsing any work of mine or his chills me. Indeed it's the sort of thing deluded individuals like John Hankey (Jim Di and I will arrange a blind date sometime) have done.

Jim Douglas opened his book tour and avoided your endorsement like the plague and went with Lisa Pease and Oliver Stone. Does Ventura (whose show you appeared on and who used next to nothing from Douglas's book know as much about the case as Douglas, Stone or Lisa Pease? Judging by his (at times) pathetic attempts in his show and his inclusion of you in it I'd have to argue in the negative on that one!hutup: It's no coincidence to me that you were there when he did the shooting sequence and then got the times wrong.

Russ baker's piece of pretension, is an exceptional contribtution.

I'm not sure what Jim is referring to, but if it is his Family of
Secrets, I think that is an excellent study with some lapses.

Ron, judging by what you have endorsed in the past. It's no surprise you think
it an excellent study. Its a well below par punt and no I didn't need Jim to tell me either!

Joe farrell, fresh from conspiracy la la land, an exceptional contribution.

So far as I am aware, I have yet to comment on this book. I do
have it and it does look interesting, but I am not yet in a position
to comment. Is this 'La La Land' comment supposed to pass for
an argument? Apparently DiEugenio presumes that he is entitled to
assail me for comments I have yet to make on a book I haven't read.

Trust me you will read it and likely love it because you Ron well-you love everything thats half baked and half cocked. There's some stuff in there you may dislike but all in all it's a candidate for your library of the absurd! There's the Torbitt document that you will likely fondle yourself over for starters oh and Hoaglands stuff.

Isn't it sad that Jim Di, myself and others (let's not forget the term 'others' here as there is a growing tide of us) assume you will like this type of garbage. It mirrors in many ways what I said about people assuming or agreeing that it was you as Ron on the bridge.

They associate you with well ahhhhh (what do I say) garbage!!!!

Madeline brown, wonderful witness.

Again, Jim apparently does not know that I had over one hundred
conversations with Madeleine, have read both of her books, and
even interviewed her at Lancer a few years back. What she had to
say has been confirmed by Billy Sol Estes, by E. Howard Hunt and by
Nigel Turner in the key 9th segment of 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'.
Her story 'hangs together' the right way with the rest of the evidence.

:what:Billy Sol Estes a convicted felon and liar, so to E Howard Hunt and Nigel Turner the experts expert who got himself sued. Are you really going to use these goofballs as character witnesses to talk about another convicted felon Brown herself?

Good one Ron. Her story 'hangs around' like a bad smell. When you spoke to her was she taking a dump by any chance? Hmmmm the smell certainly stuck in your clothes! (and your the one accusing myself of bad smells) When you get John Hanky on your show (which I urge you to do) ask him about his comments regarding Miss Brown as a hooker. But beware even the worst researcher in JFK history Hanky himself said 'If Hunt says LBJ did it, it's reason enough to think he didn't'. This means your officially even worse than he is.:thumbsdown:

Oh Ron is it me or were you and Lifton banned from the Lancer forum? Oh yeah and please tell everyone about the chances of you guys doing a Lancer conference ever again while your at it. Full credit too Lancer for finally ridding themselves of you both.

Judy baker, a living saint.

We all know where we stand on Judy. I believe in her, you don't.
So what? And in particular, what does this have to do with your
abysmal failure to know what you're talking about in attacking me?

Hahahha this is hilarious hypocrisy at it's best or most absurd. Like it's no big issue for anyone to disagree with you on JVB? Thats an horrific lie. Tell that to anybody who saw your ludicrous mammoth running debate with Jack White who caned you over her on the Education Forum. Don't play coy here Ron. It's never a small thing to disagree with a like yourself on anything in particular liars like her.

Besides it's not just the fact you believe in JVB, its as Jim has said, the fact that you believe in every other bogus and baloney piece of research in the field and go out of your way to endorse them. You have no radar for B.S! Your review of James Bamford was fawning and embarrassing. It showed how little you understood about Lansdale, Northwoods and Mongoose itself. Not to mention how much of a stooge for the intelligence establishment Bamford is.

As for Greg Douglas well hey Jim Douglas's work endorsed his efforts as well didn't it?

Doug horne, a tremendous contribution.

Monumental. I know you don't understand the medical, ballistic or
photographic and film evidence, but Doug published a masterpiece.
That you would say this speaks volumes about your incompetence.

Doug Horne has some really useful stuff. But hey! He also endorsed every hair brained tin foil hat wearing load of tripe you ever loved. That effectively sunk him. So why would you be dissapointed? Jim avoids embarrassing himself with this utter shite and you call him incompetent? Ron, your the one doing the plumbing in Browns toilet not us.

David lifton, a brilliant book.

I learned more about the case from Best Evidence than any other
single source and regard my own books as sequels to his brilliant
study, which focuses on the medical, ballistic, and film evidence.

Hence why you and Lifton are total jokes it's understandable! Paper Mache'd trees and assassins everyone-If thats a pre-cursor to 'Best Evidence' then I rest my case! I'm going to stick with Jim Di, Martin Hay, Pat Speer, Harold Weisberg, Cyril Wecht and Gary Agulilar, Milicent Cranor and Bobbie Groden than your good selves. You can wander into Never Never Land with Dave....who oddly enough believed JVB to also be a fraud!

Nigel turner, learned more as he went along.

That's the idea. We are all supposed to reassess our beliefs when
we acquire new evidence or new alternative hypotheses. Would you
better understood the nature of rationality and scientific inquiry. It
is comments like this that tell me that you're cognitively impaired.

:monkeypiss:The pot didn't just call the kettle black he called him an ethnic slur!

What utter and demeaning crapola. The problem here is two fold.

Nigel turner completely blew a fantastic opportunity. He had several hours to make a fine case with the best the research community had to offer at the last anniversary, the 40th.

What does the jerk put on? Of all people, all people, judy baker! He then doubles down and puts that loud mouthed blowhard barr mcclellan on.

But even that is not enough. He then puts on some liftonesque stuff about altering the body. This was one he got sued on. But even that is not enough. To cap it off, he gives time to the murchison party also!?

Please jim. Please.

It's stunning to me that you continue to entertain doubts about the
Murchison party, which was confirmed by the chauffeur who drove
Mr. Hoover to the event and by one of the chefs who prepared it. I
am sorry you are so inept at evaluating evidence and understanding
key events like this, especially for one with pretensions as an historian.

It's stunning to the share majority of researchers (not forum wall flowers) that you actually believe in it. My review of your one time pal Alex Jones (as if that was bad enough you were actually mates with that fraud) nailed the idea of Hoover and or McCloy being in attendance for one! Why would they need to organise the plot or discuss it the night before at a piss up anyhow? It's stupid immature fantasy and I wouldn't believe any source you vouch for considering your being taken in by every stooge ploy Langley has ever planted on the scene.

Stupid is as stupid does I guess.:coffeescreen:

The worst part of his series was the fact that he completely wasted aguilar and mantik who got buried in the tin foil stuff. I guess he never saw any of the cheap thrills--aka prat falls-- in them that the likes of judy baker gave him.

That show was enough to set us back for a decade. That is how bad it was. Thanks to ventura we got a reprieve. But even jesse had to go and put that idiot opportunist saint john hunt on, which as seamus pointed out, almost ruined the show.

Finally, i don't condemn the right of anyone to change their minds in this field. I actually used to think that the king and rfk cases were not conspiracies.

But if you are going to actually be as wild and irresponsible as to tell the american public who was on the grassy knoll, you had better have some really good evidence--i mean really good. Or else why do it at all? Turner was clearly wrong here, as later research--which he should have done himself--proved.

Then, without blinking, he then says well, its not the corsican mafia, but lbj and mac wallace etc. without telling the viewer that mcclellan's book says it was wallce not on the gk, but on the sixth floor, firing away right next to oswald!!!

yeah jim. That is what turner has learned, oswald was shooting at kennedy. Or did you miss that?

Look, Jim. You can't even get my views right when they are in the
public domain. You have no entitlement to act so self-righteous
when you are incompetent in so many crucial respects. They may
not have gotten everything right, but that's because the situation is so
complicated and complex. You can't even get my positions correct
when I have published them all over the place. That's quite pathetic.

Oh my lord dont you get it Ron! Sensible and cautious people like Jim expect the very worst from you? That's the entire point of Jim's post.

You have become an apologist and publicist for every half-baked nonsensical snake oil salesman out there on this case. (and you initially fell for that lying forger gregory douglass.) if you are positioning yourself for anything its maybe alex jones jr.?

It's not true. You don't even know my positions. That is just dumb.
I've already discussed the situation with Gregory Douglas, where I
pursued it until I figured out the score. You can't even understand
the import of Madeleine and Billy Sol's testimony, which is stunning,
not to mention dozens of other blunders you have made here alone.

Ha ha ha ha ha you actually had to pursue Douglas to figure out he was talking crap when everyone else had figured it out? Furthermore you now condone and champion the integrity of two convicted felons.

Well done Ron that's soooooo claaaassssssy! And yet you wonder why we judge you so. It's because (and let me repeat this for the umpteenth time) you believe nearly every piece of BS that comes out about anything. I digress when I say 'nearly' I'm being charitable.

Wow, what an ambition: "lbj was ready to radio in the helicoptered swat teams if jfk made it out of the kill zone."

Sarcasm appears to be the best you can do. Logic and evidence are
not on your side. Like Tink, you think your cheap, petty, and nasty
attacks are going to endure you to others. But you have almost
everything wrong, which further reveals your incompetence with
regard to your attacks upon me, which are singularly without merit.

It's not. A large number douche bags you endorsed or have been friends with at some point (before you parted company in a bitter spat-theres a pattern here and theres a lot of them). Believe Johnson was orchestrating the hit from the back seat of his car in front of his wife, Senator Ralph Yarbrough and HB McClain. You may or may not endorse this but who can blame Jim for guilt by association?


I also think that this is another extremely hypocritical statement. Judging by the demeaning tone in numerous posts made by yourself. What I'm serving you Ron (indeed what Jim has also in a more mild manner than myself) is really a mere trifle compared to what you-yes you dish up yourself on a regular basis! The most immature thing about it all is that you then go running off to the Mod's complaining when someone goes at you. Namely myself.


As for your persecution complex about being attacked without merit.

Theres a saying here in New Zealand where I'm from Ron it's called 'harden up'. Don't make comments unless you can actually bar up to the consequences.

Hey, in fetzer land, why not?

In DiEugenio land, you can attack anyone you want, especially me,
no matter if you know where I stand or not. For someone posing
as an historian, you need to get a far better grip on the difference
between fantasy and reality, because your criticisms of my research
demonstrate--conclusively!--that, regarding me, you haven't a clue.


This is extremely funny coming from Ron who will no doubt attack me for being
Jim's stooge. The thing is that as close as Jim and I are on the share majority of what CTKA says and does I disagree with Jim on a number of issues. Sometimes extremely so. But we don't choose to air our dirty laundry with each other in public forums. We also heartily agree (as do a number of people who have sent me emails about this particular thread) that Jim and indeed myself have summed you up more than correctly.

It's a one word no brainer 'Crank' :lol:

[James H. Fetzer]

I know enough to no longer bother to read anything from this blatantly demented person. To the best of my belief and knowledge, the guy has never made a constructive contribution in his life. Just to illustrate the lunacy of his opinions, he has implied that I was cast as the figure, "Ron", who was wheelchair bound in the opening sequence of Jesse Ventura's JFK special on "Conspiracy Theory". This is not only false but has no basis. It is made up out of thin air. I was featured on Jesse's show; I did not produce it. It wasn't me!

His argument is that some people might think I would do something like that. But anyone who would suggest such a thing obviously does not know me any more than DiEugenio knows my research on JFK. Someone as mentally bewildered as Seamus Coogan really should be shuttled off to a funny farm by the men in white suits. There is nothing to commend him--and I would like to assume that posting such baseless rubbish would have a person banned on any self-respecting forum. He deserves the boot!

Dear CD.

Thanks for popping in.
. . .

It's a one word no brainer 'Crank' :lol:

[Seamus Coogan]

I know enough to no longer bother to read anything from this blatantly demented person. To the best of my belief and knowledge, the guy has never made a constructive contribution in his life. Just to illustrate the lunacy of his opinions, he has implied that I was cast as the figure, "Ron", who was wheelchair bound in the opening sequence of Jesse Ventura's JFK special on "Conspiracy Theory". This is not only false but has no basis. It is made up out of thin air. I was featured on Jesse's show; I did not produce it. It wasn't me!

His argument is that some people might think I would do something like that. But anyone who would suggest such a thing obviously does not know me any more than DiEugenio knows my research on JFK. Someone as mentally bewildered as Seamus Coogan really should be shuttled off to a funny farm by the men in white suits. There is nothing to commend him--and I would like to assume that posting such baseless rubbish would have a person banned on any self-respecting forum. He deserves the boot!

Dear CD.

Thanks for popping in.
. . .

It's a one word no brainer 'Crank' :lol:

Well it's good to see that our mutual loathing is sincere 'Ron' as is your deluded response.

You may want to see my interview with HB McClaine before you say I have provided nothing of any value lol (someone with a lot more insight into the case than Brown or JVB at least no one calls McClaine a liar). Also if you actually felt I had contributed anything of value to research I'd know I had gone seriously wrong somewhere!

The funny thing is that I have said often enough in these posts is that I accept that the original Ron is not you. In fact I believe you. I have stated that clearly.

What I am saying is though is that I see no difference between your opinions and those of the person representing the bogus crud on the show. Because of the silliness of that opening scene of which you apparently enjoyed.

I have thus taken to calling you Ron.

I never called you a producer of that show either. If you were it would have been worse than it was with you consulting on it briefly and funnily enough when you appeared Ventura cocked up the shooting times coincidence or not?

As for this ridiculous line from your previous post. In relation to people believing that Ron was the kind of bunk thing you would pull.

His argument is that some people might think I would do something like that. But anyone who would suggest such a thing obviously does not know me any more than DiEugenio knows my research on JFK.

What a huge joke! A lot of people you have endorsed often speel the exact same shite. So whose telling whom here? Can't you see the glaring irony. Or are you back peddling now and saying the information that Ron presented was indeed bogus crap? Because it was Ron who said 'Nixon and the CIA'. Heres what you said about the episode on the Education Forum. Indeed you were rather glowing about it all.

"This is a remarkably informed discussion about the assassination by LBG1. Those Jesse implicates in the crimeincluding LBJ, Nixon, Ford, G.H.W. Bush, and Specterall had roles in removing JFK from office or in covering it up. Among the most important books that substantiate his allegations are Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, my MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, Phillip Nelson, LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION, and Russ Baker, FAMILY OF SECRETS. Add to that Judyth Vary Baker, ME & LEE."

Why should Jim, I or any body endorse your work let alone read it when that's what you produce? You've grossly misrepresented JD's work in a Hankeyian fashion in the process. like I say lets email Jim Douglas and see how compatible this wash is with his studies are you game for that?

No I doubt it Ron.

Furthermore Phil Nelson (a person whom I actually like on a personal level) admitted to me on JFK Lancer that he was not as good a researcher as Lisa Pease, Jim Douglas, John Newman or Jim DiEugenio.

It's odd then isn't it that you think of him and yourself as equals to all.

And your the one saying I should be carted away? I can't stop laughing.

By the way you can call me anything you like and I am not going to demand you be given the boot or run to the moderators in tears. I know, understand and deeply sympathise with people who suffer from a Caeser complex.

[Bernice Moore]

seamus; quote;''Good one Ron. Her story 'hangs around' like a bad smell. When you spoke to her was she taking a dump by any chance? Hmmmm the smell certainly stuck in your clothes! (and your the one accusing myself of bad smells) When you get John Hanky on your show (which I urge you to do) ask him about his comments regarding Miss Brown as a hooker. But beware even the worst researcher in JFK history Hanky himself said 'If Hunt says LBJ did it, it's reason enough to think he didn't'. This means your officially even worse than he is.:thumbsdown:

Oh Ron is it me or were you and Lifton banned from the Lancer forum? Oh yeah and please tell everyone about the chances of you guys doing a Lancer conference ever again while your at it. Full credit too Lancer for finally ridding themselves of you both.


Shame; In the first place Madeleine Brown is dead, and cannot speak for herself, do you make it a habit of speaking ill of dead witnesses,
In the second place you have no idea what went down on the lancer forum or at any conference, you were not present for either sounds like you are still into gossip...:gossip:....grow up please...b

[Jim DiEugenio]

For the record, Fetzer posted a blurb for the Farrell book on Spartacus.

That is where I got that part of the post.

And I did mean Family of Secrets of course.

His defense of his endorsement of the Nelson book is hapless. Summed up it says that Douglass showed why the villains wanted to kill Kennedy. Nelson then showed us how they did it.

This is as short sighted as his endorsement of Turner using Barr M.

It misses the point that Douglass applies no conspiratorial role to LBJ!!!


Douglass is pretty clear on who he thinks killed Kennedy. (And if you did not understand that then you did not read the book carefully.) And its not LBJ. I mean what the heck did LBJ have to do with Chicago? Or the Raleigh call? Or Bernard Haire?

But the thing about Douglass is this: No one could ever question the quality of his research or his sources. Which is something I congratulated him on. Now, if you do a qualitative comparison of Douglass' sources with Nelson's, I mean, are you serious?

The irony is, I actually think he is.

[Seamus Coogan]

seamus; quote;''Good one Ron. Her story 'hangs around' like a bad smell. When you spoke to her was she taking a dump by any chance? Hmmmm the smell certainly stuck in your clothes! (and your the one accusing myself of bad smells) When you get John Hanky on your show (which I urge you to do) ask him about his comments regarding Miss Brown as a hooker. But beware even the worst researcher in JFK history Hanky himself said 'If Hunt says LBJ did it, it's reason enough to think he didn't'. This means your officially even worse than he is.:thumbsdown:

Oh Ron is it me or were you and Lifton banned from the Lancer forum? Oh yeah and please tell everyone about the chances of you guys doing a Lancer conference ever again while your at it. Full credit too Lancer for finally ridding themselves of you both.


Shame; In the first place Madeleine Brown is dead, and cannot speak for herself, do you make it a habit of speaking ill of dead witnesses,
In the second place you have no idea what went down on the lancer forum or at any conference, you were not present for either sounds like you are still into gossip...:gossip:....grow up please...b

Hey Bernice. It's nice to know that Jim F has some support.

I heard nothing of you nor any gossip from Lancer. I heard it straight from those involved with the forum simply put that Jim Fetzer and Lifton were banned from it.

What difference should it make what conference I went too? If Jim Fetzer was at it I wouldn't bother going. Simple as that.

In fact I suggest you do the growing up here and if you don't want me talk ill about dead witnesses (of which Madeliene Brown was hardly one) then you better stop discussing Dave Ferrie, Clay Shaw and all manner and matter of individuals. If that's of course the rules you wanna play by.

She put her self up for public scrutiny (as we all do) and she got slapped from all directions.
It happens!

You'll also note that Ron was the first person to discuss matters of fecal matter coming from an anus by the way. Not me. Your highly selective and dare I say blinded approach too this matter is of greater concern than any purported dishonour to Miss Brown. Whom despite your melodramatic prose I actually had respect for her as a human being but have little respect for her worth in the field of JFK research.

Bernice like Jim Di says do you really think Phil Nelson is on a par with Jim Douglas? Note Douglas never bought the party story!

[Seamus Coogan]

For the record, Fetzer posted a blurb for the Farrell book on Spartacus.

That is where I got that part of the post.

And I did mean Family of Secrets of course.

His defense of his endorsement of the Nelson book is hapless. Summed up it says that Douglass showed why the villains wanted to kill Kennedy. Nelson then showed us how they did it.

This is as short sighted as his endorsement of Turner using Barr M.

It misses the point that Douglass applies no conspiratorial role to LBJ!!!


Douglass is pretty clear on who he thinks killed Kennedy. (And if you did not understand that then you did not read the book carefully.) And its not LBJ. I mean what the heck did LBJ have to do with Chicago? Or the Raleigh call? Or Bernard Haire?

But the thing about Douglass is this: No one could ever question the quality of his research or his sources. Which is something I congratulated him on. Now, if you do a qualitative comparison of Douglass' sources with Nelson's, I mean, are you serious?

The irony is, I actually think he is.

Yes its pretty darn scary alright. I reckon you should email this thread for Jim Douglas to have a laugh over.