The Fetzer Challenge

[Albert Doyle]

Responses to this are probably on borrowed time as far as site rules tolerance, however it should be pointed-out that nothing Dr Fetzer said in defense of his "mastermind" theory necessarily precludes others being the masterminds and using Johnson as a facilitator. It is actually the pattern of these real masterminds to create plausible deniability by setting-up a false sponsor or mastermind. As I've repeated in numerous places the flaw in this theory is the assumption that those greater sponsors and facilitators, including CIA, did not have serious pre-existing awareness and participation in this far beyond and existing long before Johnson and his personal interests. The tail wagging the dog aspect of this should be obvious. Johnson did not influence Hoover on getting sex dirt on JFK. A more subtle understanding of the true sponsors would be able to trace their hand in this and greater masterminding control.

[James H. Fetzer]

Since, as I explained, LBJ had formulated his plan when he accepted the VP nomination, HOW CAN ANY OF THESE OTHER PARTIES HAVE FORMED OPPOSITION TO A PRESIDENT WHO HAD NOT YET BEEN ELECTED? And remember what Jack Ruby had to say about it. Moreover, I was demonstrating that Charles' attack had nothing to do with me, because the position he was attacking was not the position I have been defending.

You and Charels are welcome to make up any positions you want, but you are not entitled to make up positions and falsely attribute them to me! This is typical of the hopelessly shallow and inadequate reasoning of Albert Doyle, who has also been running around like a chicken with its head cut off, crying "They are wrong! They are wrong!", about Doorway Man. Consider our argument, which I spell out again as premises and conclusions:

(1) Lovelady was wearing either a checkered shirt or a striped shirt.

(2) Doorway Man was obviously not wearing a striped shirt.

(3) Doorway Man was less-obviously not wearing the checkered
shirt either, because its features are not the same as Doorway Man's.

(4) Therefore, Doorway Man is not wearing Lovelady's shirt.

(5) The very features that show that Doorway Man's shirt is not one
of Lovelady's (checkered or striped) shirts show that they are the
same features found on the VERY DISTINCTIVE shirt Oswald was
wearing.

(6) The face of the man to the right/front was obfuscated as was
his shirt. There must have been good reasons to go take the pains
and run the risks of changing the Altgens photo.

(7) Given the shirt evidence, by far the most--and even the only--
plausible explanation for these defects in the photograph is that
(a) the moved the face onto Oswald's figure and (b) obfuscated
both the face and the shirt so the game would not be given away.

Unless Albert Doyle can cope with this argument, he has no basis for claiming that it is WE who are unwilling to admit we are wrong when both logic and the evidence are on our side. Like Charles, he can make up any position he likes, but just as Charles is not entitled to falsely attribute one of his fantasies to me, you are not entitled to falsely claim to have defeated an argument that is sound. You cannot prove a sound argument wrong. Q.E.D.

Responses to this are probably on borrowed time as far as site rules tolerance, however it should be pointed-out that nothing Dr Fetzer said in defense of his "mastermind" theory necessarily precludes others being the masterminds and using Johnson as a facilitator. It is actually the pattern of these real masterminds to create plausible deniability by setting-up a false sponsor or mastermind. As I've repeated in numerous places the flaw in this theory is the assumption that those greater sponsors and facilitators, including CIA, did not have serious pre-existing awareness and participation in this far beyond and existing long before Johnson and his personal interests. The tail wagging the dog aspect of this should be obvious. Johnson did not influence Hoover on getting sex dirt on JFK. A more subtle understanding of the true sponsors would be able to trace their hand in this and greater masterminding control.

[Albert Doyle]

Switching topics is a bad sign.


You underestimate the powers that be. They simply don't wait around and see who gets elected. This statement itself is inherently self-exposing. They are king makers and get involved in the process long before the election. You grossly underestimate their ability by denying them the guiding influence they exert long before any election. It's more than obvious Johnson suddenly ends up on the Kennedy ticket exactly because of the pre-emptive involvement of those powers. Using Hoover's dirt should be the obvious modus operandi of the players involved that it was. Nixon was supposed to be elected not JFK. Those powers eventually got Nixon in. Johnson was a bridge and no bridge-maker. It's pretty simple.

Jack Ruby fingered Johnson because Johnson was the highest level in the chain of command visible to him in his interface with the conspirators - but in no way does that prove Johnson was the mastermind. Again, pretty simple stuff.

[Dawn Meredith]

Switching topics is a bad sign.


You underestimate the powers that be. They simply don't wait around and see who gets elected. This statement itself is inherently self-exposing. They are king makers and get involved in the process long before the election. You grossly underestimate their ability by denying them the guiding influence they exert long before any election. It's more than obvious Johnson suddenly ends up on the Kennedy ticket exactly because of the pre-emptive involvement of those powers. Using Hoover's dirt should be the obvious modus operandi of the players involved that it was. Nixon was supposed to be elected not JFK. Those powers eventually got Nixon in. Johnson was a bridge and no bridge-maker. It's pretty simple.

Jack Ruby fingered Johnson because Johnson was the highest level in the chain of command visible to him in his interface with the conspirators - but in no way does that prove Johnson was the mastermind. Again, pretty simple stuff.

I agree. And keep in mind that Ruby also told Warren that "a whole new form of government" would take over. LBJ being prez does not constitute this. To believe the confession of a guy like E Howard is also misguided in my opinion. Notwitstanding that back when the CIA- or Nixon- killed his wife I thought he'd someday give a real deathbed confession. People like him take their secrets to the grave. I find the confession interesting certainly...but not conclusory. Jim you always avoid the issue of who killed MKL amd RFK? I admit outright that I am pretty ignorant on the issue of the alteration of the Z film. I see it as a rabbit hole. Same as trying to decide how many bullets. EVERY person on this forum agrees that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Period. To argue side issues is to give the conspirators just what they want: the community spinning its wheels, sparring over who's theroy is most correct..while the years pass and the cover up continues. Now close to 50 years. Why can't we instead unite on a common goal of getting the truth of conspiracy out there, regardless of who is in the doorway, or what films or photos are authentic? Stick to the KISS method. WC gave us the innane MBT. Most Americans do not even know what that means. Or why. And why it matters, what JFK was trying to accomplish. Those to me are the saliant issues. Not rabbit holes. Isues of life and death of planet earth.
Nuclear war. Thirteen days. Peace with Russia and Cuba, the end of Viet Nam and the Cold War. The myth of the free press. The myth that presidents are "free" to lead. etc etc.

Dawn

[Greg Burnham]

And as for deciding the truth: If those scholars were unanimously to declare, absent presentation of compelling supporting evidence, that Hunt's "confession" should be accepted as a deathbed statement of facts as Hunt knew them and/or that LBJ was the "mastermind" or prime mover/initiator/Sponsor of the assassination, my positions would not change.

Hmmm. So, you are not seeking to be enlightened by this exercise. You have your mind already made up? Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your position, but that's what it sounded like. Are you simply attempting then to "save Fetzer from himself" by having his peers critique his findings? Yet, if his "credentials" for lack of a better word, are superior to yours by your own admission (you said you aren't his peer) and if his peers are therefore presumably also your superiors, why would you reject superior minds if they differ with your own? What if their reasoning is sound?

No offense intended, I am simply seeking to understand.

Greg,

Not only do I not take offense at your comments; I welcome and respect them and, yes, at times even learn from them.

Perhaps I was less than artful in my previous comment which you excerpt above. So let me try again.

Enlightenment -- personal and collective -- is precisely what I am seeking in my JFK/deep political work in general and the Fetzer challenge in particular. Please note my caveat, "absent presentation of compelling supporting evidence." To date, Jim has provided no such support for his LBJ (mastermind) and Hunt (truthful confession) claims, to name just two of his positions which I shall continue to contest. My hope is that the challenge will help settle these matters to our mutual satisfaction -- even if that means that I publicly stand corrected.

Also, let me clarify my "not a peer" statement. In making it, I acknowledge that the contributions by Jim and most of his chosen contributors quantitatively and, in some instances, qualitatively surpass my own contributions to our shared quests for truth and justice. I do not, however, make any such concession in terms of superiority of minds. Let's not reduce this to a "whip out your I.Q.s to see whose is biggest" circle-jerk contest. Forgive me if my ego is busting through, but I'll go toe-to-toe with any and all comers in terms of my insights into this case and my ability to express them.

Finally, I'd like you and all other interested parties to know that, given the state of war in which we operate, we damn well better make up our minds on certain critical issues and move on to take the appropriate action.

My mind is made up that: LBJ was not the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination; anyone who so describes co-conspirator and Facilitator LBJ's role in the plot is, wittingly or otherwise, strengthening the ongoing cover-up and preserving the doubt that is our enemy's greatest weapon; Hunt's deathbed "confession" was a final act of disinformation performed by a brutally effective master and accessory to JFK's murder. Extraordinary claims to the contrary demand extraordinary evidence -- none of which has yet to be presented by Jim or anyone else.

By all means let's continue this helpful, productive dialogue.

CD

Fair enough, Charles. I'm swamped right now and haven't enough time to comment further, but thanks for your response.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Switching topics is a bad sign.


You underestimate the powers that be. They simply don't wait around and see who gets elected. This statement itself is inherently self-exposing. They are king makers and get involved in the process long before the election. You grossly underestimate their ability by denying them the guiding influence they exert long before any election. It's more than obvious Johnson suddenly ends up on the Kennedy ticket exactly because of the pre-emptive involvement of those powers. Using Hoover's dirt should be the obvious modus operandi of the players involved that it was. Nixon was supposed to be elected not JFK. Those powers eventually got Nixon in. Johnson was a bridge and no bridge-maker. It's pretty simple.

Jack Ruby fingered Johnson because Johnson was the highest level in the chain of command visible to him in his interface with the conspirators - but in no way does that prove Johnson was the mastermind. Again, pretty simple stuff.

I agree. And keep in mind that Ruby also told Warren that "a whole new form of government" would take over. LBJ being prez does not constitute this. To believe the confession of a guy like E Howard is also misguided in my opinion. Notwitstanding that back when the CIA- or Nixon- killed his wife I thought he'd someday give a real deathbed confession. People like him take their secrets to the grave. I find the confession interesting certainly...but not conclusory. Jim you always avoid the issue of who killed MKL amd RFK? I admit outright that I am pretty ignorant on the issue of the alteration of the Z film. I see it as a rabbit hole. Same as trying to decide how many bullets. EVERY person on this forum agrees that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Period. To argue side issues is to give the conspirators just what they want: the community spinning its wheels, sparring over who's theroy is most correct..while the years pass and the cover up continues. Now close to 50 years. Why can't we instead unite on a common goal of getting the truth of conspiracy out there, regardless of who is in the doorway, or what films or photos are authentic? Stick to the KISS method. WC gave us the innane MBT. Most Americans do not even know what that means. Or why. And why it matters, what JFK was trying to accomplish. Those to me are the saliant issues. Not rabbit holes. Isues of life and death of planet earth.
Nuclear war. Thirteen days. Peace with Russia and Cuba, the end of Viet Nam and the Cold War. The myth of the free press. The myth that presidents are "free" to lead. etc etc.

Dawn

I totally agree with you Dawn.
But we should all be careful as the 50th anniversary is approaching.
Beware of agents provocateurs that will intensify their attacks on DPF.

[Bernice Moore]

Dawn Quote'' the Z film. I see it as a rabbit hole. Same as trying to decide how many bullets. ''

no argument just comment.....The only who had complete possession and control of the said Zapruder film was the government, so therefore the alteration of such, proves the government were behind the killing of JFK..the alteration of such was to protect their L/A scenario.the W/C concensus ....The bullets factor, hits within Dealey proves their were certainly more than one assassin, from different sites within the Plaza, therefore it proves it was a Conspiracy.........ta b