The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Albert Doyle]

Someone should tell Fetzer he's wrong about Lovelady's ears being different. If you look half way down the rim of Lovelady's ear there's a slight identical concave indentation in the rim in both men. It's hopeless because the aspect ratio has been explained to both Cinque and Fetzer and it bounces off their thick skulls as if they don't understand it. The cro magnon man Lovelady is due to aspect ratio and the fact his posture is changed by his dragging on a cigarette and filling his chest with smoke. Cinque and Fetzer seize upon forced interpretations of evidence and stick with them no matter what. It's a silly methodology and stands as a good example of incompetence. Both Lovelady's have the same bald spot too.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert,

Why would you consider Fritz's notes to be credible? I don't accept that Oswald said anything he is alleged to have said in those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Of course the case for conspiracy doesn't rest on Oswald being in the doorway at the time of the shooting. There is far more concrete evidence of conspiracy, obviously. However, that is no reason to just accept that Lovelady has been proven to definitely be the figure in the doorway. Just because Cinque and Fetzer are pushing an unpersuasive theory doesn't mean the question has been settled.

Fritz said he jotted-down the notes several days later. To me, the fact his degraded memory put the "Out - With Bill Shelley in front" last tells you he was impressed that it was the last thing Oswald told him he did. Even a several days old memory was clear on one thing, the Baker encounter came before the "Out - With Bill Shelley in front".

Notice Fetzer stays miles away from Wiegman. He does that because he can't locate the imaginary alteration marks in it or deny Lovelady is clearly seen in the right spot and in the right shirt.


Fetzer is nuts. He reminds me of the women Freud examined who were sure their father had raped them.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?
Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place...

[Lauren Johnson]

Fetzer is nuts. He reminds me of the women Freud examined who were sure their father had raped them.

Albert,

There is plenty of statement is false. My source: Trauma and Recovery: The aftermath of vioence--from domestic abuse to political abuse to political terror by Judith Herman, M.D. In Freud's The Aetiology of Hysteria, he acknowledges its traumatic origins of hysteria caused by premature sexual experience. He in fact was researching what we now call PTSD. He soon rejected his own research when he realized its implication: he would have to confront, alone, entrenched social reality.

Hysteria was so common among women that if his patients' stories were true, and if his theory were correct, he would be forced to conclude that what he call "perverted acts against children" were endemic, not only of the proletariat of Paris, where he had first studied hysteria, but also among the respectable bourgeois families of Vienna, where he had established his practice. This idea was simply unacceptable. It was beyond credibility. Faced with dilemma, Freud stopped listening to his female patients.... Out of the ruins of the traumatic theory of hysteria, Freud created psychoanalysis. The dominant psychological theory of the century was founded in the denial of women's reality. (emphasis added)

Think about it. The entire edifice of the psychoanalysis, the repression of of our sexuality, and its consequent reaction formation was a lie based on a more or less conscious decision to identify with the perpetrator of child rape.

Oh yah, Fetzer is nuts. No denial there. Ironically, who knows maybe he indeed was traumatized as a child.

[Albert Doyle]

Fetzer needs to be restrained by the EF moderators from re-entering claims that ignore the effects of aspect ratio and camera lens' on the image of Lovelady. This is now a moderation, as much as Fetzer, violation.

[Magda Hassan]

Fetzer is nuts. He reminds me of the women Freud examined who were sure their father had raped them.

Albert,

There is plenty of statement is false. My source: Trauma and Recovery: The aftermath of vioence--from domestic abuse to political abuse to political terror by Judith Herman, M.D. In Freud's The Aetiology of Hysteria, he acknowledges its traumatic origins of hysteria caused by premature sexual experience. He in fact was researching what we now call PTSD. He soon rejected his own research when he realized its implication: he would have to confront, alone, entrenched social reality.

Hysteria was so common among women that if his patients' stories were true, and if his theory were correct, he would be forced to conclude that what he call "perverted acts against children" were endemic, not only of the proletariat of Paris, where he had first studied hysteria, but also among the respectable bourgeois families of Vienna, where he had established his practice. This idea was simply unacceptable. It was beyond credibility. Faced with dilemma, Freud stopped listening to his female patients.... Out of the ruins of the traumatic theory of hysteria, Freud created psychoanalysis. The dominant psychological theory of the century was founded in the denial of women's reality. (emphasis added)

Think about it. The entire edifice of the psychoanalysis, the repression of of our sexuality, and its consequent reaction formation was a lie based on a more or less conscious decision to identify with the perpetrator of child rape.

Yes, this is the case.

[Albert Doyle]

I'm not sure that's true because if you study this phenomenon Freud had identified cases where the women had false memories in instances where those events could not have possibly occurred.

[Albert Doyle]

Fetzer protests "How can anyone say the difference in Lovelady images is due to photographic distortion?"



He foolishly (ignorantly) ignores the fact Lamson already showed comparisons of the objects on the shelf as examples of aspect ratio. The very simple explanation is that the Martin film's camera and Buck's camera had widely differing aspect ratios in their lenses.


(Duh)

[Jan Klimkowski]

Jan,

I only used the term "CTer" because that's what commonly used in the research community to distinguish one from an "LNer." I am all too aware that the term is used disparagingly by the mainstream media to demean seekers of the truth. We'll have to come up with another term- maybe we can just use Truthers and apply it to JFK researchers.

Don,

To hell with "common usage." It's killing the truth.

"CTer" is damaging not only because it was created and is being skillfully wielded as a weapon to disparage us and lampoon our efforts.

It also characterizes the truth that has been revealed thanks to our historic, courageous work as mere theory.

It implicitly supports the misconception that said truth and the Lone Nut lie are equally viable theories that must be argued with academic dispassion and mutual respect.

Worst of all, it accomplishes the enemy's main goal: preserve doubt.

And "Truthers" is a more overtly sarcastic and disparaging term than "CTer."

Again: Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The same statement is valid for and must be made about the assassinations of MLK and RFK.

No more "theory." No more disparaging epithets.

Proclaim truth. Defend truth. Set free the truth so that it may set us free.

Don - unsurprizingly, I am in complete agreement with Charles.

I will add that the only term that I know that is more condescending and contaminated than "Conspiracy Theorist" is "Truther" or "Troofer".

At the link here is an article by connected trendy liberal Conor Foley entitled "The Troof is Out There". It was published in 2007.

Note his rather disgusting conclusion, since taken up by numerous MSM-endorsed "intellectuals":

Sceptics should probe for "inconsistencies in the official narrative", but then apply a "balance of probabilities" test with the alternative explanations on offer. Troofers demand "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" because they already have another view fixed in their minds. Most of us already know the telltale signs when someone tells us that they are "increasingly troubled by some of the details about how many people actually died in the Holocaust" and shut the conversation down immediately. I think that we probably need to start treating 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a similar way.

As a free gift to Volkland Security, I will identify some of my comments in that 2007 thread:

The sole contribution of Conor Foley to this debate is to replace the pejorative phrase "conspiracy theorist" with the new, and explicitly neanderthal, formulation of "troofer", as if everyone who questions the official account of major world events is illiterate and stupid. Thanks Conor, how very patronisingly academic of you. As a card-carrying NUJ member, and staff producer at the BBC for more than a decade, I was taught to look at the evidence with a critical, rather than a subservient, eye.

Imo it is the responsibility of all of us - whatever our vocation - to look at events, research them, and if there are serious doubts see if there is evidence which contradicts official claims. Because often the media simply colludes with some mainstream, consensus, version of events. As an example, when Blair was droning on about how 9/11 had changed the world, and we had to achieve regime change in Iraq to protect the world from terrorist threats, why did no single lobby correspondent ask him ,"um, Tony, what's the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein?" The lobby hacks didn't ask him because they would have had their lucrative accreditation withdrawn. And Blair frequently stated that claims the Iraq war was about oil were "conspiracy theories". Well, dear old "troofer" Alan Greenspan, has just admitted that it was absolutely "all about oil". So, Conor Foley, just remember that when you come up with patronising phrases like "troofer", you are actually closing down intelligent debate in this country.

Don - why would you ever consider allowing the enemy to define you?

[Don Jeffries]

I had no idea "truther" was considered a derogatory term. On the surface, it certainly seems flattering- to be a "truther" sounds like being labeled as one who seeks the truth. I doubted the official story of 9/11 as soon as the first tower fell, but have never joined any organized efforts. Do all those who disbelieve the official fairy tale feel offended by the term "truther?"

I don't let the enemy define me, but I really was not aware these terms were considered offensive by anyone. How would you then collectively define those who know Oswald didn't do it, or that 19 "terrorists" weren't responsible for the events of 9/11? Independent thinkers? I'm reminded of when I was a teenager, and certain kids would make sure you didn't say this because that was cool. I don't think either term is bad; yes, obviously the best researchers aren't "theorizing," and thus it's literally inaccurate to call them conspiracy theorists.

I will be more careful about how I collectively describe people, but I think this is largely semantics.

[Greg Burnham]

I had no idea "truther" was considered a derogatory term. On the surface, it certainly seems flattering- to be a "truther" sounds like being labeled as one who seeks the truth. I doubted the official story of 9/11 as soon as the first tower fell, but have never joined any organized efforts. Do all those who disbelieve the official fairy tale feel offended by the term "truther?"

Don,

This is not about "derogatory terms" nor is it about "how many feel offended" by a label. It is about something else. It is about the systemic and deliberate marginalization of those who expose the perfidy within their own government. It is about "reverse blowback" wherein those outside of the government operations that caused the negative repercussions are removed, by whatever means necessary, in order to silence them, thus preserving plausible deniability.

I don't let the enemy define me, but I really was not aware these terms were considered offensive by anyone.

This is not about "offensive" terms being applied to persons to insult them. It is much, much deeper than that. I am quite frankly, dismayed, at your rather sophomoric interpretation of these posts.

How would you then collectively define those who know Oswald didn't do it, or that 19 "terrorists" weren't responsible for the events of 9/11? Independent thinkers? I'm reminded of when I was a teenager, and certain kids would make sure you didn't say this because that was cool. I don't think either term is bad; yes, obviously the best researchers aren't "theorizing," and thus it's literally inaccurate to call them conspiracy theorists.

[emphasis mine]

Bingo.

I will be more careful about how I collectively describe people, but I think this is largely semantics.

It is NOT only or merely "semantics" -- and yes, I know you said "largely" but that is mostly a subterfuge as far as I can tell. Your point is NOT well taken, Don.