The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Seamus Coogan]

On an anthropological visit to the Island of Dr Mor-Row, I note that the Military Censor feigns a desire to know who killed JFK?

The Censor claims confusion around the "diversity of opinions", and "would appreciate if members gave an indication of their own opinions", in a poll which is "not completely comprehensive".

What are the circumstances of JFK's death?

Killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone gunman (2 votes [33.33%])


Killed by LHO and other shooters, but LHO was made the patsy (1 votes [16.67%])


Killed by other shooters, hired by the US government (incl CIA, FBI and the military) (3 votes [50.00%])


Killed by other shooters, hired by the Mafia (0 votes [0.00%])


Killed by other shooters, hired by foreign parties (0 votes [0.00%])


Killed by other shooters but my choices are not represented here (0 votes [0.00%])


Killed by LHO but it is more involved than just a lone gunman (0 votes [0.00%])

When faced with a turd, one should always flush.

:fullofit:

Lol love the Dr Mor-row line. The 1996 version of the 'Island of Doctor Moreau' was one of the worst adaptations of a shitty premise, H.G Wells ever had to begin with. The stories overall shittiness mimics moronical Morrow perfectly!

[Albert Doyle]

The strange flat black border to Afro Woman's hair is a black arm and elbow belonging to someone behind Afro Woman. Probably either woman 11 or 12.


This is a feature of contention over on EF that is seen in the Altgens 6 blow-up between Lovelady's left arm and Afro Woman's hair.

[David Lifton]

I cannot believe that an alive LHO could have been convicted in the assassination of JFK. And, to me, it took the murder of JDT to have the chance of an indictment for murder against LHO. With LHO being an informant, as a strong possibilty exists, after the JFK execution in front of the TSBD where he worked, he most likely understood he was in danger and therefore felt the need to be armed with his pistol considering the people being informed on. But, with Captain Will Fritz of the DPD, "one of the best homicide investigators in the country", saying the case was "cinched", the murders of JFK and JDT were for the most part "case closed" on the afternoon of 11/22/'63. My question is whether or not the JDT murder was a pre-planned event, an arrest avoidance by a LHO "double", or a random event?

Forget about "could have been convicted" etc. If Oswald had lived, he would have explained (through his attorney) who he was--i.e., who he believed himself to be, and that would have been the end of it. With Oswald making authoritative statements about (a) why he went to Russia and (b) who he was in touch with and whose instructions he was following (i.e., in the weeks and months leading up to the assassination) we would have the whole story behind his statement "I'm just a patsy." That would shred the prosecution's credibility. And that is why Oswald had to be eliminated, asap.Lee Oswald knew "who he was" and very likely could "prove it" with information that was credible. So all this talk about "would he have been convicted" is, imho, largely irrelevant. (And I haven't even touched upon the other issue of "where he was" and what he thought he was doing on 11/22/63, at the time the motorcade passed by the TSBD) .

Oswald was obviously manipulated in the weeks and months leading up to the assassination. He could--and would--have made public that entire story. I don't see how a "trial" could proceed with Oswald providing full details about his own "back story." That would have exposed the workings of a plot, and would have been politically damaging to the presidency of Johnson. So all this talk about "would he have been convicted" is, imho, largely irrelevant.

DSL

[Albert Doyle]

Three cheers for Lifton!


It's hard to say what would have happened to Oswald. Perhaps he called the ONI cut-out from the police station because he no longer trusted his Dallas contacts. He was in a room full of mirrors in the police station. He was definitely operational and probably asked for Abt because whoever organized the assassination knew he would be away at his country house that weekend and buy them time. I doubt any spilling of the beans to any lawyer would have seen the light of day in any case. It is possible Oswald was such a dedicated operator that he would have kept his mouth shut on the deepest details. It is also possible DPD kept no notes because they knew he was deep. Or they were given covert orders to not allow any statements from Oswald out lest they contain coded messages etc. Who knows. Maybe Oswald knew the people who controlled him and didn't want to induce his own death by talking too directly too quickly. He wasn't a fool and knew Ruby's position both in the police station and with the Dallas police through the Carousel. What would have hurt the most was Oswald's insistence that he was in the lunchroom the whole time. Apparently he had witnesses to his Coke break.

[Phil Dragoo]

Here is a discussion of the Douglass reference to the Raleigh call in an interview of Marchetti by Proctor:

http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk-douglass.html

Editor's Note: While James Douglass' 2008 book JFK and the Unspeakable deals with the specifics of the assassination only in about the last third of the volume, he does it with an eye for detail and a scholar's bent for exactitude. Given below is the page-and-a-half he dedicates to the Raleigh Call, in which his take appears to be one of acceptance. He even uses a footnote to argue against the theory of the call being "incoming." The section also quotes from the Spectator interview with former CIA official Victor Marchetti. The interviewer? Well, that would be me. -- G.Proctor

excerpt from
JFK and the Unspeakable by James W. Douglass
copyright 2008
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books
pp. 365-367 As his situation grew more desperate, on late Saturday night Oswald tried to make a mysterious long-distance phone call to Raleigh, North Carolina.
That night in the Dallas City Hall, Mrs. Alveeta A. Treon and Mrs. Louise Sweeney were working as switchboard operators when two law enforcement officials came into the room. The men said they wanted to listen to a call Oswald was about to make. They were shown to an adjoining room where they could monitor the prisoner's conversation. [ 841 ]
At 10:45 p.m. Mrs. Sweeney took a call from the jail. Notifying the men in the next room that it was Oswald, she wrote down the information he gave her on the number he wanted to reach. What transpired then, apparently in obedience to the men's orders, has been described by Sweeney's co-worker, Alveeta Treon:
"I was dumbfounded at what happened next. Mrs. Sweeney opened the key to Oswald and told him, 'I'm sorry, the number doesn't answer.' She then unplugged and disconnected Oswald without ever really trying to put the call through. A few moments later, Mrs. Sweeney tore the page off her notation pad and threw it into the wastepaper basket." [ 842 ]
After Mrs. Sweeney left work at 11:00 p.m., Mrs. Treon retrieved the slip of paper. She copied the information onto a message slip as her souvenir of the event. In 1970, a copy of the slip came into the possession of Chicago researcher Sherman H. Skolnick during a Freedom of Information Act suit. [ 843 ]
According to the phone message, Oswald was trying to call a "John Hurt" in Raleigh, North Carolina, at "834-7430 or 833-1253." In November 1963, John David Hurt was listed as having the first number in Raleigh, and John William Hurt as having the second. Of the two Hurts, the first, John David Hurt, had a military intelligence background. During World War II, John David Hurt served as a U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent. [ 844 ] House Select Committee on Assassinations lawyer Surrell Brady, who was in charge of investigating the Raleigh call, described the fact that John David Hurt had served in U.S. Army Counterintelligence as "provocative." [ 845 ] In a brief 1980 interview, John David Hurt denied knowing why Oswald was trying to phone him on the night of November 23, 1963. [ 846 ]
Although Oswald's purpose in making the Raleigh call has never been disclosed, former CIA officer Victor Marchetti thought he knew why. After fourteen years with the CIA, during which he became executive assistant to the Deputy Director, Victor Marchetti resigned in disillusionment in 1969. [ 847 ] He then co-authored The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, a Book-of-the-Month Club Alternate that the CIA censored, leaving 339 black spaces in the text. [ 848 ]
Marchetti said he thought Oswald was following the standard intelligence practice of trying to contact his case officer through a "cut-out," a "clean" intermediary with no direct involvement in an operation. As to why Oswald's call was made to North Carolina, Marchetti pointed out that the Office of Naval Intelligence had an operations center in Nags Head, North Carolina, for agents who had been sent as fake expatriates to the Soviet Union -- corresponding to Oswald's background. [ 849 ]
In an interview, Marchetti said, "[Oswald] was probably calling his cut-out. He was calling somebody who could put him in touch with his case officer. He couldn't go beyond that person. There's no way he could. He just had to depend on this person to say, 'Okay, I'll deliver the message.' Now, if the cut-out has already been alerted to cut him off and ignore him, then..." [ 850 ]
The interviewer asked Marchetti about the plight of an undercover agent in trouble who was desperately seeking help, as Oswald seemed to be doing:
Interviewer: "Okay, if someone were an agent, and they were involved in something, and nobody believes they are an agent. He is arrested, and trying to communicate, let's say, and he is one of you guys. What is the procedure?"
Marchetti: "I'd kill him."
Interviewer: "If I were an agent for the Agency, and I was involved in something involving the law domestically and the FBI, would I have a contact to call?"
Marchetti: "Yes."
Interviewer: "A verification contact?"
Marchetti: "Yes, you would."
Interviewer: "Would I be dead?"
Marchetti: "It would all depend on the situation. If you get into bad trouble, we're not going to verify you. No how, no way."
Interviewer: "But there is a call mechanism set up."
Marchetti: "Yes."
Interviewer: "So it is conceivable that Lee Harvey Oswald was..."
Marchetti: "That's what he was doing. He was trying to call in and say, 'Tell them I'm all right.'"
Interviewer: "Was that his death warrant?"
Marchetti: "You betcha. Because this time he went over the dam, whether he knew it or not, or whether they set him up or not. It doesn't matter. He was over the dam. At this point it was executive action." [ 851 ]
"Executive Action" was a CIA code phrase for assassination.

---

Footnotes:

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD] 841[/TD]
[TD]Grover B. Proctor, Jr., "The Phone Call That Never Was," Raleigh Spectator (July 17, 1980), p. 6. Pat Stith, "Oswald May Have Tried to Call Raleigh Man from Dallas Jail," Raleigh news and Observer (July 17, 1980), p. 11.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 842[/TD]
[TD]Alveeta A. Treon cited by Proctor, "Phone Call That Never Was," p. 6.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 843[/TD]
[TD]Proctor, "The Phone Call That Never Was," p. 6. Sherman H. Skolnick vs. National Archives and Records Service, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, No. 701, April 6, 1970. I am grateful to Sherman Skolnick for sharing with me the complaint he filed and his documents.
Dallas City Hall switchboard operator Alveeta Treon moved to Springfield, Missouri, where she told her story about Oswald's attempted Raleigh call to Arnold Mickey Owen, the sheriff of Greene County, Missouri, in 1966. In a 1980 interview, Sheriff Owen said: "She gave me the impression she was scared to death. Absolutely afraid, period. In my opinion, she thought she was telling the truth." Stith, "Oswald May Have Tried," p. 11.
"The sheriff said Mrs. Treon told him that she and her daughter and another telephone operator were in the Dallas City Hall switchboard room on the evening of Nov. 23 when two lawmen came in [and said they wanted to listen to Oswald's call]." Ibid.
Raleigh News and Observer reporter Pat Stith wrote: "Mrs. Treon's daughter, who was working in November 1963 as a stenographer in the Dallas Police Department, corroborated her mother's story. The daughter asked not to be identified."[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 844[/TD]
[TD]Proctor, "Phone Call That Never Was," p. 6.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 845[/TD]
[TD]Grover B. Proctor, Jr., "Oswald's Raleigh Call," Raleigh Spectator (July 24, 1980), p. 5.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 846[/TD]
[TD]Proctor, "Phone Call That Never Was," P. 6. After John David Hurt died in 1981, his widow told author Henry Hurt the following year that her husband "had admitted the truth before he died. Terribly upset on the day of the assassination, he got extremely drunk -- a habitual problem with him -- and telephoned the Dallas jail and asked to speak to Oswald. When denied access, he left his name and number." Henry Hurt interview with Mrs. John Hurt, March 1982. Cited in Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pp. 244-45.
Besides conflicting with the description of the incident given by Alveeta Treon and her daughter, Mrs. Hurt's explanation leaves unresolved why there would have been phone numbers for both of the Raleigh John Hurtson the message slip, as if Oswald was trying to reach one of them but was uncertain of the correct number. If John David Hurt had initiated the call in the manner Mrs. Hurt claimed, why would he have left the phone numbers of both himself and John William Hurt? On the face of it, her story is implausible. Was Mrs. Hurt coerced into telling that story by government forces in a way similar to the pressured described by Joyce Pitzer, Lt. Cdr. William Bruce Pitzer's widow, after his death?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 847[/TD]
[TD]Summers, Conspiracy, p. 143.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 848[/TD]
[TD]Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (New York: Dell, 1973).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 849[/TD]
[TD]Proctor, "Oswald's Raleigh Call," p. 9.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 850[/TD]
[TD]850Interview with Victor Marchetti, "Marchetti: Call to Contact," Raleigh Spectator (July 24, 1980), p. 8.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 851[/TD]
[TD]Ibid.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[LR Trotter]

I cannot believe that an alive LHO could have been convicted in the assassination of JFK. And, to me, it took the murder of JDT to have the chance of an indictment for murder against LHO. With LHO being an informant, as a strong possibilty exists, after the JFK execution in front of the TSBD where he worked, he most likely understood he was in danger and therefore felt the need to be armed with his pistol considering the people being informed on. But, with Captain Will Fritz of the DPD, "one of the best homicide investigators in the country", saying the case was "cinched", the murders of JFK and JDT were for the most part "case closed" on the afternoon of 11/22/'63. My question is whether or not the JDT murder was a pre-planned event, an arrest avoidance by a LHO "double", or a random event?

Forget about "could have been convicted" etc. If Oswald had lived, he would have explained (through his attorney) who he was--i.e., who he believed himself to be, and that would have been the end of it. With Oswald making authoritative statements about (a) why he went to Russia and (b) who he was in touch with and whose instructions he was following (i.e., in the weeks and months leading up to the assassination) we would have the whole story behind his statement "I'm just a patsy." That would shred the prosecution's credibility. And that is why Oswald had to be eliminated, asap.Lee Oswald knew "who he was" and very likely could "prove it" with information that was credible. So all this talk about "would he have been convicted" is, imho, largely irrelevant. (And I haven't even touched upon the other issue of "where he was" and what he thought he was doing on 11/22/63, at the time the motorcade passed by the TSBD) .

Oswald was obviously manipulated in the weeks and months leading up to the assassination. He could--and would--have made public that entire story. I don't see how a "trial" could proceed with Oswald providing full details about his own "back story." That would have exposed the workings of a plot, and would have been politically damaging to the presidency of Johnson. So all this talk about "would he have been convicted" is, imho, largely irrelevant.

DSL

Mr Lifton,
My post was #452, which was in response to and immediately followed, and agreed with, post #451, along with some added sarcasm regarding the investigation of the JFK and JDT murders. For clarification, I was quoting one, maybe more than one, reporter regarding Captain Will Fritz being one of the best homicide investigators in the country. I have no knowledge of his police work before or since 11/22/'63-11/24/'63. His "cinched" comment indicated the investigation was over as far as DPD was concerned. But, the person promoting LHO as the lone assassin is on another forum, as mentioned.

[Seamus Coogan]

Don Jeffries

Seamus,

I don't "hide behind" the First Amendment, I believe in it. It's not "rubbish," although unfortunately, probably the majority of Americans would agree with you at this point. Re-read your post to David Healy. Healy and I have had exchanges in the past on the Ed Forum, so I'm not instinctively defending him. You come across again as beligerant and bullyish. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you use juvenile lines like "you've screwed with the wrong guy" or warning him against "tangling with the likes of me?"

Do you honestly think I sit here fuming and drooling at the thought of tearing a guy like Healy a new anus? Well, yes I do lol. Do I think about doing the same thing to his pal GB? There's a quick 'nope' to that one. Do I take myself seriously? Well not nearly as much as you seem to take me. You see a few people here have given warnings similar in tone to myself too nefarious individuals. Why do you think all of a sudden that this sort of term damages 'my' credibility. When A) You haven't actually debated with me properly point for point on any issues I have raised in my work at any time. B) You call us all conspiracy theorists and think its a kosher term C) You think the only reason why Pipes book was rejected is simply because it mentioned Israel. D) Because you make comments like the ones below.

It's laughable that you think Healy would be one of the "lets hold hands fraternity." If you read his posts, you'd understand that he's as combative as they come.

Don, while you think I am Leatherface, I think of you as our resident Neville Chamberlain lol. Mr Healy is so 'combatative' he's here sticking up for himself at the moment isn't he? Nope he isn't and once again 'Big Daddy Don' has come out to defend his flock from the 'Big Bad Wolf' me! Thus let's get back to the issue of credibility here. It's not about democracy Don. It's about who or what you tolerate. Your tolerance threshold is obviously higher than mine. Bully to you! If you want to get angry at me for having nothing to do with those in you're 'bum of the month club', then that is your issue. The fact that I'm still here and many of those peeps you defend like Cahalan, Nelson, Boner and Cinque have been given the boot, really should tell you a lot more about this forum than it does myself. Its quite obvious that you don't have the courage to confront the mods and the admins here. Whether I live or die on this platform is at the will of the mod Gods. They'll adjudge my credibilty in research and other matters here. Not you and certainly not myself (oh but to be a god lol).

He does raise a valid point though, which applies to someone like Josiah Thompson as well as you. Tink has appeared to have an obsession about Fetzer for years. He virtually never posts unless it's to challenge Fetzer. Why is it so important to you to try and discredit the Fetzers and the Hankeys?

Have you seen how bad their work is of late? Tell me why someone shouldn't speak up about it. Did you see Fetzer and Hankey's awful attempt at reanimating the corpse that is the 'Bush did it scenario'? I'll answer the silly question of 'obsession' in good time. In the present you are quite lucky here no one has yet found you're questions concerning JW, mildly offensive.

Did you feel the same way about the late Jack White? He was probably even more "extreme" than Fetzer in his views. He was a high profile apollo moon hoax advocate. He also didn't believe in evolution. Shall we smear him, too? After all, these are hardly the views of "creditable" researchers.

The difference between the late JW, Hankey and his pal Fetzer are quite substantial, yet sometimes quite disimilar. You forget that Fetzer himself also believed the moon landing to be a hoax, like Jack he also believed no planes hit the world trade centre. The difference is that Jack White retained his place at the table here at DPF. Not only that he remained on good terms with just about everyone at his passing. In fact JW encouraged me to join up here, lol can you believe it? JW had an enormous amount of respect for other researchers, even those who disagreed with him on the more extreme topics. He also never adopted the attitude he was the be all and end all of JFK and 9/11 research. He also accepted quite readily, that his angles on some of these issues were in the minority. It's this humble attitude of JW's that never overshadowed the more conventional stuff he did. Nor was JW the uber conspiracy individual that in making your point you unintentionally painted him as.

He never stumped for JVB for example (which if you recall caused a huge rift with him and JF for a time). Indeed JW was one of the first to call JF out on the topic. On top of all this JW, was one of the people who inspired me to investigate the JFK case with TMWKK way back in early 90's. You should check out my comments concerning JW on the tribute thread by the way. This details the stuff I thought he did really well. Take note also that Jack was pretty belligerent to myself near the end. However, I never let it bother me. Don, I really don't care what someones religious outlook is. Hell, Jim DiEugenio could be a Scientologist and if his work was good then it still wouldn't bother me much. Hell, I admire the work of Mike Griffith, who was one of the JFK internet pioneers in the mid 90's and he is a Mormon. If you cannot see why there are big differences between a bloke like JW, not to mention the other people you have mentioned, I have to really shake my head.

Your aggressiveness in attacking others may very well come back to haunt you. If anyone ever desired to write an article smearing you, they'd get all the ammunition they needed by merely reviewing your old posts on this forum. You've expressed yourself too often in ways that any opponent could reasonably label as childish, profane, offensive, etc. By dismissing Healy with your inference that he's a "nobody," and thus not worthy of your time, you invite the same attacks upon yourself. You also share your enemy Fetzer's unfortunate tendency to place undue emphasis on titles, degrees, and other visible trappings of "success." If a poster makes a valid point, what difference does it make if you've never heard of him?

Well them's the grapes of wrath I have to deal with. If those grapes of wrath come from the likes of people I have taken down. Then I am not going to lose to much sleep over it. Were all of the people I admire to turn their backs on me like what has happened to JF, then I would know I'm bang out of line. Well maybe not...The sad thing for JF, is that the more people who have turned away from him the more correct he thinks he is. Hence what valid point did Healy really make? That I was A) Jealous of Fetzer B) Obsessed with him? Well I am clearly not jealous of Mr Fetzer. I am also not fixated on Mr Fetzer per se. However, I am drawn to bad research like the proverbial fly to shite. Much of which Mr Fetzer has embraced with gay abandon in recent years, without any type of filtering what so ever. I do admit my 'JF as Ron' on the bridge was pretty zealotus. Nonetheless, it was also really, really funny and rather revealing. A whole bunch of conspiracy people and lone nutters all believed Fetzer more than capable and willing to perform that sort of stunt. That to my mind is more important than myself being right or wrong. Which it appears I was wrong on the latter (I was always prepared to admit too that though lol). The oddest thing is that I have never written any articles about JF, nor do I intend doing so. I've mentioned him a few times in some CTKA articles but all that would amount to is about 3 paragraph's if that. Also I think the only two Fetzer threads I have here were concerning Ron, not to mention a challenge to JF too back up his claims vis a vis Bush. Something, he failed rather miserably to do. Incidentally, I became more interested in Fetzer the more interest he began to take in CTKA, also when 9/11 folk asked me why he was tolerated in JFK circles. My coments concerning JF's possible voyage into the BS world of JFK and MJ-12 have not been made on a whim. Mr Fetzer takes a polar position to anything at CTKA. Thus it wouldn't surprise me if he jumped on the bandwagon.

Further, I hate to repeat myself again and again to you. But, hell I'll say it again. I don't think of myself as some bigshot. There are far better researchers out there than me. I've said that numerous times. Nor do I believe I am the final word on conspiracy, like Mr Fetzer thinks he is. It's a rather huge difference between him and I. Yet, in my line of work dealing with all manner of cranks, one has to have a certain amount of cockiness and confidence in one's research ability. A lot of that confidence comes from being deemed credible enough by many of the best known researchers on this and other forums. To have their ear's and get advice and feeback from them is fantastic. In that regard Mr Healy is something of a 'nobody' in the research I do, lol like I am a 'nobody' in what he calls research obviously.

You discredit yourself every time you appear to be asking other posters to figuratively "step outside and settle this." At least one time, you literally challenged another poster to a physical fight. No matter what you say about Fetzer, Hankey or anyone else, none of them ever did that to my knowledge. Now feel free to turn your acerbic pen in my direction.

I discredit myself...oh reeealllly Don? You still can't get over the fact that you and Mr Cinque got hauled over the coals here by practically everybody else on the forum. I also asked our resident ex-cop GB here if he felt my little challenge to the rather aggressive and abusive Mr Cinque (oh yes that cherub of innocence) could be determind as a threat. While Greg said to myself it wasn't the smartest thing to say (I admit so). He also felt there was nothing to really go on. Nor for that matter did the mods and the admins. Trust me Don, if I was out of order I'd have known about it. Nonetheless, things on the DPF get very heated. But let me say this to you once again. I am pretty tame compared to many of the people you stick up for. Now in backing or defending those individuals, I think you lose far more credibility than I ever will venting my spleen a them. Despite what you think, unlike that horrific wash however, you have the balls to wear it, which is something I really do admire. These people are in many ways cowards who talk tough online, but would melt in the light of day. I also think you give me way to much power. I've seen people taken apart on this forum in every imaginable way. None of it very pleasent by any stretch, hell my debut here (which Magda still gives me shite about) was a lesson in that my god. So Don be a man and quit playing hide the sausage. You can either debate myself about factual issues and analysis about the works of say John Hankey, Alex Jones or anybody else whose works I have written essays on. Or you can run around playing victim for strawmen and blaming me for all manner of ills. Ill's that they cause for themselves on this forum, not to mention outside of it. Many of whom have taken some pretty shite swipes at people like Jan K or Magda. Now I can understand someone getting uppity at CD or even a lesser mortal like me. However, once people cross that line there's no turning back. There are no fairer minded people you will ever meet.

I'm not attacking you, but since you feel free to drop my name in your posts whenever the spirit moves you, I feel free to comment on those posts. You may have the best of intentions, but your style is going to turn off a lot of people

Now, this is where it may get a little weird for you Don. I actually do think despite all of the ill feeling between us, that at heart you are a decent human being. I would also turn a lot of people off even more, were I not humble enough to admit fault in my dealings with people, in particularly you. The sad fact for all the haters out there is that I admit to being all to human. A good example is that recently I feel I made a bit of a balls up in a few posts criticising the Ed Forum. These were concerning Fetzer, Cahalan and Cinque. While I take a different approach to the modding, there are some really great people on that forum. I get on pretty well with Greg Parker (whom you did a very good job of taking on DVP with, I have to say that was exceptional) Pat, BK. KB (sorry about the ferrets love) and I enjoy reading the comments of Hogan and other people. I also have to accept that the EF and you have a very different 'bag' so to speak. You will also see my reply to GB's post just a few minutes ago on the other Fetzer thread. So at the end of the day what do we have? Nope, I am not unduly obsessed with Mr Fetzer. Nor as can clearly be seen to only come on here to post about him. What we have quite clearly is a failure to communicate, due to the two of us having very different personalities. Of course I blame you for yours lol.

Coogs.

[Phil Dragoo]

The Danger of the Fetzer Assassination School:

In my view, it is the idée fixe


In the extant case we have Cinque insisting Oswald is in the doorway, resisting all proofs, evidence, arguments, reasoning to the contrary.

In this he is defended by Fetzer, perhaps for the sake of an argument in which to showcase a superior intellect, capacity for logical thinking, more pronounced evidence of the Norman Mailer Alpha Primate gene.

Coming on line Mockingbird Technical Services is pleased to announce additional software in the Cognitive Dissonance Silver Anniversary Package.

A third volume of Waldron-Hartmann Enterprises, Ultimate Narcolepsy, in which the role of the CIA as facilitator has been reduced to the null set.

A Piper sequel, Semitic Bulimic Polemic: Israel's Role in Epidemic Obesity, in which we find JFK was killed by knishes.

A lurid sex and drugs tingler involving an American president and his psychedelic muse, Mary In the Sky as the Queen of Diamonds: How LSD Replaced the CIA as a Hypothetical Facilitator, or The Dog Ate My 201 and Barked Flowers.

Could we get Gene Hackman as Lucien Conein and Al Pacino as Ed Lansdale to do The Great Heroin Coup with Stone directing.

The smack could only be moved in a caravan from Charlie territory through our friend the colonel's by orders of his superior.

Now if a war on drugs is one to eliminate competition, and a president gets in the way, why, it's business, it's not personal.

The arms, the oil, the drugs, the money (EO 11110), the Cold War business model, the exploitation of resources at the expense of the betterment of the quality of life, all these and more marked out the thirty-fifth president for public execution.

Just as Trafficante had a friendly sit-down with Anastasia an hour before the bloody barber shop hit.

Not for ideology or religion or politics, not based on some Dada photo-séance registering auras and penumbras, but the hand of the sponsor imperceptible in the glove of the facilitator.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Well done Phil, a great post, i wish some people could read this and see the errors of their ways.

[Seamus Coogan]

Ultimate Narcolepsy ROFLMAO!

Incidentally it sounds like a sure fire title for a book written by Cinque and Pipes.