The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Greg Burnham]

You continue NOT to get it!

I am NOT arguing that CIA officers and agents weren't involved in the JFK conspiracy.

I am trying to penetrate your titanium skull with a simple message: To state that "THE" CIA was involved in any deep political event is to imply that the agency committed the acts as official policy. It is to imply that it is a monolithic bureaucratic entity and is neither factionalized nor deep.

Further, to so state is to promote a simple-minded, shallow political appreciation of how the deep world works.

Was there a senior staff meeting in the DCI's office with an agenda on which "Kill JFK" was included?

So to answer your question: Yes indeed, I can and do state that [size=12]THE CIA WASN'T A PRIMARY PARTICIPANT IN THE ASSASSINATION!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]

My reply to that is you fall into your own trap of the multi-dimensional nature of deep political behavior when you refuse to recognize that when CIA formally denied any involvement in JFK's killing it was acting as a unified bureaucratic entity when it did so. As long as Fort Bragg had a Special Forces training facility with a mock-up of Dealey Plaza and trainers who practically bragged in the open about killing Kennedy, as Dan Marvin told, then CIA as an organization knew about their participation in the assassination. No matter what you say many of the primary participants in the assassination were CIA officers. Angleton, Phillips, Hunt etc were all CIA employees, which makes them CIA. The important point here is that CIA, no matter how fractured, splintered, compartmentalized or factionally controlled was still CIA and responsible for the actions of its members under its formal structure. In my opinion, to honor this internal division in CIA in order to prove deep political theory is to let them off the hook as far as accountability. While everything you say is true, it is that very multi-dimensional deep political nature of CIA that makes this true at the same and in coexistence with deep political theory. To honor the "dumb head" of the official front desk of CIA is to honor their ploy. They must be held to accountability and even though they, as a group, pretend not to know, they can't be allowed the privilege of formally not knowing when reality requires otherwise. Meanwhile there were many documented cases where CIA formally created memos trying to tell all involved assets how to disseminate anti-conspiracy propaganda. What I'm trying to say is at a theoretical level it makes no difference if this formal CIA entity is detached from the covert actors as long as it acts in effective agency with those who committed the assassination. In fact I can't think of a more precise definition of the totality of sponsorship than the words "central intelligence". At that point you are close to "evil eye". It could even be argued that the CIA itself was the "hardware shop" of the true sponsors and created as such for that very purpose.

Albert,

When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers was he acting on behalf of his employer? Do you think that the Rand Corporation knew that Ellsberg was going to leak them and/or ordered him to do it? I didn't think so. It is not true that the actions of any individual or group of individuals within an organization is evidence that those actions are ordained by the organization itself particularly when those activities are entirely counter to the purposes for which the organization exists. The CIA does not exist to eliminate US presidents. Truman's conception was that it would exist to coordinate the intelligence gathered by other intelligence agencies and deliver it to the president in a comprehensive form. Eisenhower altered the manner in which he utilized them. More and more the agency became not so much a coordinator of intelligence, but a controller of information. A spin machine of incredible efficiency. Masters of the cover-up.

Charles is not excusing them. He is condemning them. He is not letting them off the hook for their actions nor reducing their accountability. He is simply identifying their true role. Their role was as important to this ongoing operation as was the role of the mechanics themselves.

JFK was not the only assassinated one in Dealey Plaza. We all were.

[Charles Drago]

My reply to that is you fall into your own trap of the multi-dimensional nature of deep political behavior when you refuse to recognize that when CIA formally denied any involvement in JFK's killing it was acting as a unified bureaucratic entity when it did so.

Of COURSE you still don't get it!

OF COURSE "the" CIA acted officially when it "denied involvement in JFK's killing."

What in the name of all that is holy does that have to do with the ordering, planning, and execution of the assassination?

Did "the" CIA act officially to assist in JFK's killing? Did it? Is that your point? Is my hair about to start hurting?

You are truly hopeless. I can't cross the line from simple to simple-minded.

Everyone: Reread the Monty Python dialogue I provided above.

When it comes to Brother Doyle, I am indeed the King of Swamp Castle, and he is indeed Guard # 1.

My hair now hurts, and I must away.

[Jan Klimkowski]

From the Sunstein "Abstract" and "Academic Paper" (oh the pretensions of Volkand Security Apparatchiks) kindly posted by Phil Dragoo.

Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks,
or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories
by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.

I just visited the Swamp to check out the carnage, and the MO displayed there seems to be evolving.

Cinque has "percolated" his own "conspiracy theory", and is using it to cast doubt on every established factual premise and every single bridge of logic painstakingly assembled by the research community over decades.

The hugely respected Robert Charles-Dunne writes in response to Fetzer and Cinque:

A photo was taken at 12:30 and disseminated to newspapers just over a half hour later. It was published the same day. You claim there was alteration to that photo, but have yet to suggest how it was done, by whom, when or where. There was a margin of about a half hour, in which time - per your assertions Altgens must have delivered his film to AP (unless you doubt his word, too), the photo was altered without his knowledge (unless you doubt his word, too), all without being detected. When asked how you think this was accomplished, you have offered zero, other than to say because it was altered there must have been time in which to do it.

Except today we have your most recent invention, a mobile photo lab on site. Did that mobile photo lab also contain a nuclear particle accelerator from New Orleans, or Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Was it parked outside the AP offices? Do you have photos of it?

By commonly agreed and accepted standards of evidence, logic and argument, and in the absence of new verifiable evidence, Robert Charles-Dunne has killed Cinque's argument.

But no, Cinque and Fetzer come up with an AP employee who received the Altgens image whilst in an "altered state".

And so Cinque's Circus Carnival continues.

There is an emoticon where a nuclear explosion animates and gives way to The Finger being brandished contemptuously. It perfectly encapsulates the Sunsteinian psyop playing out at the Swamp.

And as two of the Mods have now confirmed, EF's very own Military Censor is absent and the owners have abandoned ship.

So, the carnage continues.

Who are the winners in this despicable situation?

Quite simply, the Sponsors of deep political crimes.

[Albert Doyle]

Fetzer's trying to claim a newspaper employee in the midwest witnessed an original Altgens-6 come in over the wire followed by an altered one is rubbish. That employee would have to detail what was altered? Maybe it was simply cropped? It's obvious that at normal scale no newspaper employee would be looking at Lovelady, who was only a small figure in the background on 11/22 that nobody would have any reason to take notice of. Fetzer is trying to imply this witness is confirming that Lovelady was altered. It's incredible how much absolute bullshit Fetzer gets away with or even has the nerve to attempt.

[Charles Drago]

As the aforementioned Mr. Dunne also noted, for this newspaper employee to have noted an "alteration" of Altgens 6 when he received it very early on, he must first have seen an unaltered version. Or at least an earlier version, which is to say a different version.

Right.

They're all full of crop.

The Sunstein never sets on the empire.

[Phil Dragoo]

The game of Clue has a deck of suspects (that word again), a selection of weapon replicas, a two-dimensional board with the many rooms of the mansion; the object: to determine Who Struck John.

Or was it an agency. Or was it a mythic construct with an all-seeing eye.

Was Shane O'Sullivan set up with Joannides and other look-alikes in the Ambassador.

Does the Fetzer-Cinque tag team continue that doppelganger gambit with variations.

The finger pointing to the moon turns to make an obscene gesture.

Access to minerals and oil are sought and green berets and napalm appear.

Lone gunmen on tap.

Inconvenient regimes, poof.

Accusing CIA or FBI is reaching for Diana's golden apples.

Who the hell owns the arena.

How far does this empire stretch.

Is it seamless with that one over there.

Look at the time.

[LR Trotter]

To me, saying "The Government" did it, is like saying "The School" taught me. Not likely without "Teachers".

[LR Trotter]

As Mr Burnham's post states so very well, "JFK wasn't the only assassinated one in Dealey Plaza. We all were". It can't be said any better than that, IMO.

[Greg Burnham]

Ralph Cinque, on 18 May 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:
Yes, I am quitting. I give up talking to you, Lamson. You're helpless and hopeless. You're as dumb as dirt. You don't know your ass from a hot brick.

And speaking of your ass, Dolva's now kissing it. Good for you! You guys know where you can go, and you know what you can do when you get there.

Oswald was the Doorman. The Lovelady pics were faked. And that includes that goofy video in which they embedded him.

And that's my last word to you, YOU BLITHERING IDIOT.

=====================================

So, this is the kind of post we get from Fetzer's partner. Although I almost never agree with Lamson about anything ever--and we've gone at this for about 15 years--we have NEVER stooped so low as this. Now, Jim Fetzer do you care to deny that you guys are RIGID in your beliefs? Are you going to deny that Ralpy is SHOVING his beliefs down the throats (or up other parts) of those who don't agree with him? Are you going to deny that he is committing an ad hominem?

(Posted here as proof of Fetzer's and Cinque's true behavior, just in case EF moderators make it invisible)

[Albert Doyle]

What in the name of all that is holy does that have to do with the ordering, planning, and execution of the assassination?

If we look at the Assassination, if the main CIA facilitators were Dulles, Angleton, Phillips, Hunt and other CIA members the answer to "planning" and "execution" would be 'a lot'. If we assume the assassination was ordered by elite sponsors it could objectively be said the majority of the planning and execution was proactively and enthusiastically carried-out by those main CIA members. There is a certain point where those CIA members act in such coordination with the sponsors that they are almost one entity. In my opinion saying the formal institution of the CIA was not involved is semantic and minor compared to a real look at CIA's involvement through their members.

How do we know the impetus didn't travel the route of CIA/Dulles and the generals out to the sponsors for approval and then back to the facilitators once approved?