Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
LBJ "Mastermind" Disinformation to be Reissued
#11
Not only that CD. It's disgusting that Jim Fetzer has repeatedly claimed that Jim Douglas book is in support of Nelsons work. Thats a total and utter lie. Thus that little spat I had with Fetzer on here is one of the few nastier ones I have never regretted being part of. I'd welcome another one.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Reply
#12
Please show me where Fetzer claims that the Douglass book "supports" Nelson's disinformation. I too would like to kick that bull in the ass.
Reply
#13
Charles Drago Wrote:Please show me where Fetzer claims that the Douglass book "supports" Nelson's disinformation. I too would like to kick that bull in the ass.

A Question for Ron

He's made comments about Douglas's work complimenting his and Nelsons books all over the show. Even worse he's said that Jesse Venturas C- show was backed up by Jim Douglas.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=16975.

Now before we go on discussing Fetzer's inappropriate appropriation of Jim Douglas. It was Fetzers fawning letter to Ventura's likeable (but ultimately unwitting son) that aroused mine and others suspicions that Fetzer was indeed 'Ron'. This might go way, way, way off the topic a little here and thus I promise I shall get back into Fetzer's intonement of Douglas soon. But I really do want to use Fetzers reaction (or lack there of) too Ron as an example of how far Fetzer has sunk. It will also give a little bit of background to his new nickname. That of 'Ron'. Even though it does not seem to be him. It may as well have.

Anyhow, heres JF's letter to Tyrel.

Tyrel,

You can tell Jesse this was the best television program ever produced about JFK. In one hour, more people learned more about JFK than ever before. My admiration for having fingered Nixon, Ford, Bush, and LBJ knows no bounds.

In the letter Fetzer goes on to finger three errors that Ventura made. Of course he discounts his own one of the gunman taking 6.3 seconds to make the shot. Not the established shot of 5.6 seconds, which every man and his dog knows. Fetzer doesn't but that's okay, he's God you know?

Now the original 'Ron' you may recall, was the miscreant wheel-chair bound liar in possession of bogus top secret CIA documents. Okay while I am more than prepared too say 'it was not Fetzer' at this point in time (Fetzer denied this as did Venturas son. Not to mention some astute people have left what could be a 50-50 call on this issue).

There's still some questions left unanswered. And these all reflect poorly on Fetzers judgement with regards to this show.

A) If the allegations in the show are totally bogus (which they were concerning Nixon, Hunt, Bush, LBJ and those in the CIA) why would Ron's identity be in danger? The CIA wouldn't want him dead. They'd slap him on the back and give him a beer for spreading bullshit. So let's forget the threat of fatality. The real threat to this chump is that if he is exposed, he'll likely be laughed and ridiculed mercilessly. Needless to say, Ventura's show will take an even more serious credibility hit based on this needlessly stupid stunt. A stunt which almost killed the show off in the first minutes. I wound up giving the show a pass-but only by a narrow margin. And this stupid scene was the main reason for the negative.

B) How could Fetzer applaud such abjectly poor decision making from Venturas production team? I know this was entertainment T.V but even my non Kennedy buddies said the opening of the show was 'hilariously lame' and 'staged'. Even people that liked the show thought the opening with 'Ron' was 'over the top'. As Greg Parker has said to me, it's this type staging and creating of 'a lie within a lie' that worried a number of people about the Ron segment. Does Fetzer really endorse taking on Lone Gunmen nuts with conspiracy crank lies every bit as bad theirs?

C) That Fetzer never questioned Venturas accepting a load of old cobblers from some random guy hawking BS CIA documents is appalling. What does this mean for anything Fetzer says? Where's his judgement? It's a miracle Fetzer never fell for the JFK MJ-12 documents.

D) Fetzer's likely never bothered asking about the guys identity. If some bloke as kooky as this just 'popped up', Fetzer gives every indication he'd be all over him like a rash. I mean didn't he present Ventura with the holy grail? He should be a hero right? Yet we hear nothing from Fetzer about Ron. Bar denying that he is him. Why this sudden loss of zealotry for a fellow crank? What does Fetzer know about the 'hoax'?

E) I for one am very serious about finding out whom this chump 'Ron' really was. We can ill afford to have this fool (if he exists at all) polluting the airwaves. If Ventura and his son not to mention Jim Fetzer had respect for the genuine researchers in this case the name and identity of this individual should be given. If Fetzer really wanted to clear his name from this travesty he'd do his darndest to find it. I know I would.

F) Fetzer denied he was Ron after being asked point blank on the Education Forum about three times. Fetzer did not make any comment until it was clear that people commenting on the show, had become critical of the programs banal and fictitious opening sequence (a sequence as I have said he seems to have thoroughly enjoyed).

Thus it's understandable why a number of people suspected him of being Ron. Their similarities in cadence, their choice of age, jowelliness and large white sideburns ticked more than a few boxes for people thinking they were the same person. But by far the most remarkable similarity the two shared in all of this was that there was very little difference between the gibberish JF discusses in general and what Ron said on the show. Thus I took to calling JF 'Ron'. Numerous people also agreed with me and commented that they could see little difference between Ron and JF's attutudes. Which are rather unique in their lousiness and unique because a lot of people suggested that this was definitely the sort of silly attention seeking guff JF would be part of.

I mean that's not very positive at all. And this is where I stated earlier that Fetzer not being Ron (which I must reiterate I am very happy to admit too) is largely immaterial. That people of all shades believe he is capable of performing such a dubious attention seeking stunt speaks volumes.

To the best of my knowledge, Fetzer has also never voiced his displeasure with the fact he shares the same views as this embarrassing production fake. But there's another irony here. 'Ron' Fetzer never acknowledges how little in common and how incompatible his own, the orginal Ron's and Phil Nelsons views are with Jim Douglas's. And how damaging too Douglas's reputation it is having someone like Fetzer endorse or accredit it alongside vastly inferior works likes Venturas documentary and the 2nd edition of Nelsons travesty.

Fetzer Tries to Claim Douglas as his Baby

Let's now check out the load of cobblers he posts about Jim Douglas work supporting Venturas show. You may want to note where he has put Phil Nelsons-directly after it. Note that he also associates by proxy Douglas book with a whole heap of crap like his own book, Noel Twyman, Russ Baker and JVB. All well below the standard set by Douglas.

"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."

If Venturas show had stuck with someone like say Jim Douglas and Dick Russell (works Ventura never came remotely near) his show would have been a heck of a lot better and Fetzer WOULD HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE IN SIGHT. As it turns out Ventura saved his own shows ass by making Bugliosi look like an idiot. Part of this was bluff. Bugliosi had no idea he'd had Fetzer hanging around.

But let's now look at Fetzer directly implicating LBJ and Hoover as being part of Douglas's work on this very Forum in 2009.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...aker+Exile

Post 33.

Egad! Someone who knows so little should display humility in the face of those who know so much more. Do some research on chem trails and you may realize that your naive belief is not well founded. On JFK, if you don't know that LBJ and Egar were principals along with major players from the CIA and supported by the Joint Chiefs and elements of the Mafia, you are obviously out of date. Try reading James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, for example, or even my "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?" on my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. I'm sorry, Adrian, but you are the one who does not know what he's talking about, not my source.

He also allies Douglas work with himself on his blog once again.

While the latest studies on JFK may be found archived at the web sites assassinationscience.com and assassinationresearch.com, the most important book on the reasons why he was taken out has now been published by James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008). This superb volume traces his evolution from a cold warrior to a man of peace in a gripping, effortlessly readable study of impeccable scholarship. This may be the single best volume to understand why he died and why it matters. Between this book and Murder in Dealey Plaza (2003), the reader will learn 95% of what there is to know about the assassination of our 35th president. An excellent review of Douglass' book has just appeared, which we are delighted to feature here today. Another excellent volume, by the way, which views the assassination form the point of view of RFK by David Talbot, Brothers (2007), is also very good. But JFK and the Unspeakable is better.

Here's another direct example of Fetzer saying Nelson compliments Douglas book. This you may recollect is from around the same time Jim, you and I had that merry stoush with JF before he verbally abused all three of us. I'm still gobsmacked he then called for the moderators to rid DPF of Jim and I but then fled himself.

This all took place in and around the 31st of March 2011. Fetzer says.

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.

My reply to JF was thus

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 him?

Most recently his pal Phil Nelson has tried to justify comments regarding JFK and The Unspeakable by saying that Jim Douglas gave an overall premise that he himself has added too. He is now running around JFK Lancer criticising Lancerians and CTKA for not criticising Jim Douglas's dabbling in the Trinity River (something which people have divided opinions on) yet nailing him (Nelson) for everything. He genuinely seems to believe his book really is the heir or alternative to Douglas's throne. This 'Ron' and 'Jim Douglas' stuff really shows us a few things. Fetzer doesn't really care about how lame any source is. Nor how the message is put across. Fetzer is also prepared to drag and besmirch a well respected name through the mud too give himself the air of the respectability or association.

Yet there is nothing in his work that shows anything of the common sense Douglas or Talbot have bought to the analysis..

Furthermore, I think that Douglas would disown Fetzer and Nelson. In fact we all know he would. So why does Ron-Fetzer conflate it with his own stuff continuously? This is precisely the same sort of voracious shit, nut jobs like John Hankey have tried to pull on Jim Di and I. Citing their affinity with the works of Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty and David Talbot. Yet having no real clue about where they are heading. I mean at least Hankey has an excuse, he's a poseur whom acts as if he's read these books. Fetzer on the other hand has probably read them and convinced himself they ally with his overall plot. Just as patriotism is the last bastion of a scoundrel. Passionately advocating for popular figures in assassination lore whom would run a country mile from you is the sign of both the leach and the lunatic.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  John McAdams, Propagandist, to Publish "Critical Thinking" Disinformation Charles Drago 16 12,044 08-01-2011, 05:11 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  On the Staying Power of Disinformation: White Windbreaker Man ID'd? Charles Drago 27 14,990 18-04-2009, 10:04 PM
Last Post: Myra Bronstein
  '63-'64 JFK attack visuals alteration technology motivates Internet disinformation agents Frank Nelson 0 13,277 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Interview: LBJ: THE MASTERMIND BEHIND JFK'S ASSASSINATION James H. Fetzer 0 3,340 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book Jim DiEugenio 0 75,479 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Toward a definition: Lbj as jfk hit "mastermind" -- why stop at jfk? Charles Drago 0 5,668 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  JFK assassination:The ongoing Media disinformation Vasilios Vazakas 0 2,304 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Positional Disinformation: re the currently INCREDIBLY well selling Lies My Teacher Told ME and JFK Nathaniel Heidenheimer 0 4,083 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)