Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer?

  1. #1

    Default Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer?

    As of today the 26th of December 2011. I have still recieved no reply to my critique from Mr Fetzer concerning the comments he made about my study of John Hankey's deplorable JFK II/Dark Legacy. Below, is a detailed list of what I believe are distortions Mr Fetzer has made about the points I made about Hankey. It is these distortions, rather than a banal time wasting argument about say body alteration, that I would like to discuss with the Professor. I'm sure you the reader would like to know why JF has done what he has done. Thus I ask the mods, should Mr Fetzer show up. That they hold him to task for keeping too the topics I have outlined in this reply. For the record, this has been slightly edited from my original posting that I made close to two months ago. The irony of ironies is that this was on the GWB thread JF started himself. Out of respect for Mr Fetzer, I'd appreiciate no replies here until after he shows up. In the meanwhile, I'll let his silence on the issue paint a canvas. It's a decidedly ugly picture.


    Who do you think your kidding Mr Fetzer?

    (Sung to the theme of the BBC classic 'Dad's Army')




    The big problem with Jim Fetzer's piece, (besides his rather illogical criticisms) is that people unfamiliar with the JFK assassination don't realise that Fetzer is the resident 'heretic' of the research community. Not only that, he has also been ousted from the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have to say to the neutrals viewing this thread, that his outlandish views in no way speak for the share majority of people in both camps.

    This of course doesn't sit well with the good professor. Mr Fetzer has a Caesar complex of massive proportions.

    Thus it is to Jim DiEugenio's, Lisa Pease and CTKA's utmost relief, that Fetzer never joined the organisation. Jim and Lisa had no idea of the mans proclivity for attention seeking stunts. Nor did individuals like John Judge and Debra Conway. This is very significant. Judge and Conway run the two largest JFK conference organisations and it's well known neither group see's eye to eye.

    Yet both have banned JF from speaking at their conferences. Now here is the funny part, Mr Fetzer wrote to a one Bill Miller on the Education Forum in June of this year.

    "Why are you fixated on Lancer and COPA? If I wanted to speak there, I am sure it could be arranged. Since I haven't had the inclination, the question has not arisen."

    This is pretty delusional. Fetzer has not spoken at either a COPA or Lancer event in over ten years. It is not a matter of inclination. It's a matter of being struck off the guest list.

    What a Load of CITKA




    Mr Fetzer has cleaned up his original piece from Veterans Today which contains a major error.

    Unfortunately for Mr Fetzer's cover up, he failed to realise that a number of people copied his original article as can be seen below.

    http://www.pakalertpress.com/2011/11...nation-of-jfk/

    I find it bizarre that JF spelt CTKA 'CITKA' continually in his article. It appears that Mr Fetzer cannot even spell the initials of the organisation he is trying to attack. This sort of faux pas is deeply embarrassing.

    Mr Fetzer also assumes much about CTKA in his critique. Possibly, I am too blame here. I have been rather 'clipped' in some observations in the past concerning aspects of Mr Fetzer's passions before. I personally find the work of Jack White, Dave Mantik, Paul Costella and Doug Horne concerning the Z film really interesting. Do I buy their ideas? Well nope! I'm much too conservative lol. But it's certainly not something I would totally mock. I also agree with JF the throat wound stuff is fascinating. But as his misquotations of myself will show, he quite clearly proves he never reads the articles on the CTKA site in full.

    Thus the problems I really have with Fetzer here aren't really his opinions. We all know he and I will disagree on about 80-90 percent of the issues. As said it is contextual.

    Jim Fetzer: Photo Analyist




    I have no real opinion on the Lansdale 3 tramps photo. I am prepared too go with it myself with some trepidation lol. What it means in the scheme of things I don't know. The Bush identity on the other hand and Bush meeting Lansdale in the open at Dealey Plaza is something JF and I will clearly disagree on. I think it insane, as quite clearly most forum members will. As for Hankey's new revelations. Well he's clearly refined what he has said over time. This is in direct contradiction to his claims that CTKA's research proved he got nothing wrong. Yet Hankey's argument is essentially old hat stuff. I see no real need to go over it. Bar one thing, at the very least Hankey unlike JF shows more caution than himself on the issue of Bush being in Dealey Plaza.

    Jim and Dirty Dick




    This is a little appetizer. It appears my take on Nixon in Hankeys film clearly upset JF enough for him to badly misquote myself. He writes.

    “There are other blunders in Coogan’s critique, including his taking at face value Richard Nixons contentions that he only learned of the assassination when he arrived in New York–of which he gave several versions, one of which was that “Nixon says he heard a screaming woman, stopped the cab, and wound down the window”. But if the window was up, how could Nixon have heard the woman scream? And surely screaming is not so uncommon in New York that it would have attracted the attention of this very self-centered and devious man. Like Bush and LBJ Nixon was also complicit in the assassination of JFK.”

    What's peculiar, is that Dr Fetzer seems to be using my own wording and my own arguments against Hankey here.

    "Now Mr Nixon may well have made some diverse calls about when or where he heard word of Kennedy's death that day. Two of his stories involve a taxi cab. One in an August 1964, Readers Digest article in which Nixon says he remembers hearing word of the assassination while stepping out of the airport and into a waiting cab. The other was from Esquire magazine circa November 1973, in which Nixon says he heard a screaming woman, stopped the cab, and wound down the window. So what is he really guilty of? Well he seems to have embellished his story, and made it slightly more dramatic with the retelling. But that's really the sum of it. Furthermore the stark reality is that Nixon was in the air at the time of the shooting. He heard the word either on the plane or as he got off it. He sat down, and was photographed. Thus Nixon was not on the ground in Dallas, as is implied by Hankey, who throughout JFK 2 depicts Nixon with that ridiculous rifle in hand."

    I think that any right minded person reading this, would note I have not taken Nixon at face value.

    So let us now take a look now at my big three mistakes.

    1) To Doubt Hankeys Editing Skill is to Doubt Conspiracy




    Apparently, I am wrong here. I know not for? Well in all honesty I do know (as you can see from the title) but I cannot bare to think why Mr Fetzer has gone so far. Nor once again do I suspect, that any reasonable person who actually read mine Jims and Frank’s articles/letters on Hankey. JF quotes my following statement from The Dark Legacy of John Hankey to somehow stop my-self from skipping on an issue I never avoided in the first place.

    "8:43" Hankey tries to sell the idea that, in all, there were 6 wounds in Kennedy and Connally. Yet you may recall that at the time of 14:23 Hankey had already utilised the iconic courtroom clip from “JFK” in which Garrison (Kevin Costner) utilises Alven Oser (Gary Grubbs) and Numa Bertel (Wayne Knight) to demonstrate the trajectory of the 7 wounds in both Kennedy and Connally. Hankey somehow missed the fact that, most of the time, entrance wounds leave exits.

    JF then goes on to quote the number of wounds from a number of his publications. The problem here is resoundingly clear. Fetzer has only read the first paragraph. Three others follow it. None of which, are in contention with multiple shooters or multiple directions. A scenario of which, Fetzer wants the world to believe I do.

    For Coogan to imply that Hankey is wrong strikes me as a rather important blunder. These shots were fired from in front, from the side, and from behind.
    By only using (get this folks) the first paragraph of four, JF takes it all grossly out of context. The 'blunder' is sadly his. What these other paragraphs discuss are the following.


    A) Hankey by using Stones courtroom scene, then making up another number of shots clearly used contradictory information in his documentary. Would Fetzer himself make such a basic error?

    B) Hankey, unbeknown to Fetzer has long glorified the likes of Tom Wicker, a person whom Fetzer no doubt also dislikes. Wickers report helped form one of the cornerstones of the Warren Commissions conclusions concerning Connally’s shot.

    C) Further, in the cramped confines of the car, there may well have been a double up with the bullets. Fetzer in his treatise writes as if he agrees with me on either the 6th or 7th shot.

    JF is clearly implying that by my questioning Hankey’s faulty production methods in his cheap horror of a film, that I somehow renounce my belief in Kennedy being assailed by multiple shooters.

    2) Coogan Assumes the Zapruder Film is Authentic


    What the Professor scolds me for this time is my believing the Zapruder film is authentic. This is beside the fact that I never made a single comment about its authenticity (or not) in my piece on Hankey. At the time, Hankey made JFK II and Dark Legacy, it appears that he totally believed it to be authentic. Hence singling me out is being slightly over selective. Fetzer, as before never bothers to mention too his readers that he himself altered the purpose of the below quote from paragraph 5 of Conspirator Connally: Caught In a Slump.

    The cruel irony to all this, is that this was actually part of a subsection of my essay that I utilized in the context of Hankey himself altering footage changing Connallys comments to fit his own agenda.

    You may be asking: “So what if Connally had used the incorrect term, and anyhow Hankey did eventually admit Kennedy slumped.” Well actually it’s quite an issue. Because Hankey uses the slump to launch into a diatribe about Connally seeing Kennedy ’choking on a bullet and being shot in the head’ when there is no evidence for this on the Zapruder film. As adjudged by the Z film, everybody in the world – except Hankey – can clearly determine that Connally only gives Kennedy a brief glance. And he is clearly turning back around at the time of the fatal headshot.

    This is the following paragraph.

    According to, Connally was placed in the limousine by the conspirators so he could lie about the direction of the shots and what went on in the car. Between 27:15 and 28:52 Hankey utilizes two of Connally's most known press conferences after the assassination: the aforementioned one on the 27th of November 1963 at Parkland Hospital, and the one he gave in 1964 after his testimony to the Warren Commission. This is to show that Connally had changed his story to fit the official version.

    We don't know why Connally never mentioned seeing Kennedy forward in his second press conference. But Connally was adamant that he was not hit by the same bullet that hit Kennedy in the throat. This is made clear in both interviews. This testimony created all kinds of problems for the Commission. whom recall had earlier berated Peter Jennings for editing out bits of information contrary to his own angled story, now fades out Connally's statements made at the Washington press conference and also Connally's earlier interview at Parkland when he admitted yelling "My god! They're gonna kill us all" and mentions Jackie crying "They've murdered my husband they've murdered my husband." (Ibid, Argonsky)


    Fetzer in his zeal to prove myself a rabid anti alterationist, clouded the real ‘issue’ that being Hankey, was...........

    A) Lying about Connally actually seeing Kennedy choking.

    B) The real question surrounding any form of alteration is Hankey’s alone to answer.

    C) As said before, why did Hankey feel the need to alter Connally’s testimony? Why would JF want to associate with someone as dishonest as that?

    Mind you he still believes he will get invited back to Lancer and he hangs out with Nico Haupt. If I was John Hankey I would get the hell out of dodge.

    3) The Coffin Caper.

    Fetzers final point is perhaps his most interesting and he covers a lot of ground. Ground of which I am not totally averse to by any stretch. There was some hanky panky with the head and the brain. Not only that, as said like Mr Fetzer I also find the throat wound debate fascinating. The big problem is that as I said earlier, JF and I will never see eye to eye on the body alteration in the airplane idea. There's little sense in us boring the readers or the members of this forum with that debate.

    The problem I have with Mr Fetzer is again contextual. I wonder what version of JFK II he has seen. He writes

    That, however, does not inhibit Coogan from taking Hankey to task over the prospect that JFK’s body was secretly removed from Air Force One while the official, ceremonial bronze casket was being off-loaded under the glare of the bright lights of the national new media. He is thus moved to make observations such as the following:

    Fetzer goes on to quote myself from the following statement.

    "I have to wonder how many people have ever watched the arrival of Kennedy’s coffin? It’s virtually impossible for anything to have gone on. Now while the runway suddenly goes black and there is mention of a power cut as the plane comes in, the plane is still very much in motion when the lights are restored making it pretty hard to disembark a ton worth of casket. What most authorities believe today is that there was post-autopsy fakery in the x-rays, and perhaps the photos. And clearly, some of the photos are missing. (See for example, Gary Aguilar’s excellent essay in Murder In Dealey Plaza, pgs. 175-218)"

    As said Mr Aguilar would strongly disagree with Mr Fetzer. But that's not the point here either. What is of concern to myself is that the comment I made below was preceeded by (and get this) some 9 paragraphs. Also what Mr Fetzer doesn't get, is had he seen JFK II Hankey clearly discusses the body being stolen while Bobby Kennedy and Jackie looked on at Washington. This is a scenario that even Mr Fetzer would disagree with. Thus like you all I have to wonder what all the fuss is about, further that if indeed JF has actually bothered to watch Hankey's travesty.

    "But Hankey seems to back Kennedy's body being secretly smuggled off of Air Force One for some posthumous surgery (a central tenet of body alteration scripture). But the long suppressed testimony of Richard Lipsey suggested that a decoy plan involving two ambulances was used to throw the media off of the scent. (Deborah Conway: Transcription of HSCA Interview with Richard Lipsey 1-18-78) The full transcript itself makes for some interesting reading."

    In hindsight maybe I should have made my opinions a little more pointed. Giving a full and clear description of what Hankey had said.

    Mr Fetzer likely won't tell you the reader, that I also give a brief rationale behind the Decoy amublances to and from Bethesda. Something I think is quite fascinating. Air Force One transcripts mention bringing a crane to the opposite side from where Jackie Kennedy and entourage disembarked. Now, decoys are understandable considering the incredible press generated by the public nature of the crime. As for the cranes, well as we know the Air Force One transcripts and recordings are notoriously incomplete and as one can clearly see from the grim footage of Air Force One's arrival in Washington it appears that only one crane was used.

    So while I find Mr Fetzers critiques understandable, considering his positons on various issues. I am still scratching my head on precisely why he needed to bring me into all this and also why he felt a need to take my comments out of context. In so doing covering up for the errors Hankey made, not only that the lies he blatantly spun. As of yet Mr Fetzer has not shown up to discuss these points I have made. Sadly, I do not expect him to explain why he for all purposes lied about the contents of my original article. It's very hard to front up with anything less than an explanation or an apology. However, unlike myself when I make mistakes, apologies of any sort are very much beneath our dear Mr Fetzer.
    Last edited by Seamus Coogan; 01-06-2012 at 11:14 AM.
    "In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992

  2. #2

    Default

    I thought this kind of baiting angry 'cross-this-line' or else; don't cross-this-line or else kind of post was one of the reason many of us chose to leave the EF for a new website [this Forum]. Lately, I've seen more an more of this 'style' of non-collegial posting and since no moderators seem to want to moderate it, wanted to comment. I believe it was over a variant of this very issue that lost this forum one very important member. Can't people disagree and post their disagreements in a civil manner?...or take it to the EF where they eat this kind of battle up to boost their ratings? No one should be attacked here IMHO, unless one is sure they are in the enemy camp hook, line and sinker. Surely, whatever you disagreements with Jim F. are, you can't in your right [or left] mind believe that! My two cents.
    Last edited by Peter Lemkin; 12-26-2011 at 06:07 AM.
    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post
    I thought this kind of baiting angry 'cross-this-line' or else; don't cross-this-line or else kind of post was one of the reason many of us chose to leave the EF for a new website [this Forum]. Lately, I've seen more an more of this 'style' of non-collegial posting and since no moderators seem to want to moderate it, wanted to comment. I believe it was over a variant of this very issue that lost this forum one very important member. Can't people disagree and post their disagreements in a civil manner?...or take it to the EF where they eat this kind of battle up to boost their ratings? No one should be attacked here IMHO, unless one is sure they are in the enemy camp hook, line and sinker. Surely, whatever you disagreements with Jim F. are, you can't in your right [or left] mind believe that! My two cents.
    No Peter its about being taken out of context rather badly. A man of your intelligence should see that. Furthermore, I do enjoy your posts on numerous topics. Unlike Mr Fetzer, you are polite and invite a dissenting view. Thus I believe you would make for a great sparring partner. The 'important person' you are discussing has none of your qualities. Further that he needs to speak for himself.

    If it is silence then let it be. Ultimately Peter as said, Mr Fetzer has taken myself way, way, way out of context to contrive an argument that never occurred. The issue is with the lies John Hankey has spread. I would appreciate that we await Mr Fetzers reply. Yes there is collegiality here and it is awesome. Nonetheless, I fail to see how my challenge here has disrupted that. JF has attacked and offended the mods here far more than I ever have. If JF is a no show it is more a reflection of himself than me.
    "In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post
    I thought this kind of baiting angry 'cross-this-line' or else; don't cross-this-line or else kind of post was one of the reason many of us chose to leave the EF for a new website [this Forum]. Lately, I've seen more an more of this 'style' of non-collegial posting and since no moderators seem to want to moderate it, wanted to comment. I believe it was over a variant of this very issue that lost this forum one very important member. Can't people disagree and post their disagreements in a civil manner?...or take it to the EF where they eat this kind of battle up to boost their ratings? No one should be attacked here IMHO, unless one is sure they are in the enemy camp hook, line and sinker. Surely, whatever you disagreements with Jim F. are, you can't in your right [or left] mind believe that! My two cents.
    Thank you Peter. I was thinking the very same thing...

    Dawn

  5. Default

    Well,looks to me like James got away with a "drive by shooting".I think Seamus has a right to counter the attack on him and CTKA.FWIW

    :shutup:
    "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
    Buckminster Fuller

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Millea View Post
    Well,looks to me like James got away with a "drive by shooting".I think Seamus has a right to counter the attack on him and CTKA.FWIW

    :shutup:
    Thank's heaps Keith. I appreiciate Dawn's sentiments as well. I can reassure her I actually don't necessarily like what I am doing here.

    While I know Dawn couldn't care less about what I do.

    It was also her pal Jim Di who was also defamed in that article. Thus, I think the question of baiting is also for JF. He's publically posted his JH article all over the show in at least two threads here alone. He never actually replied to my post the first time around. I'd also like to add that while I welcome Keith's back up and I think it's needed.

    Cheers to everybody else for not wading in I really appreiciate it.
    "In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992

  7. Default

    Seamus
    I have asked him in a previous threat a question regarding LBJ that he never
    answered. Sometime one's silence says more than answering a question.
    I have not even bothered to read Professor Fetzer's critique of your article and CTKA in general.
    and i don't think i will. I will not change the way i think of you, JimD and CTKA because of what he said.
    And i am sure neither the majority in this forum. History will judge him like the rest of us.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Coogan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post
    I thought this kind of baiting angry 'cross-this-line' or else; don't cross-this-line or else kind of post was one of the reason many of us chose to leave the EF for a new website [this Forum]. Lately, I've seen more an more of this 'style' of non-collegial posting and since no moderators seem to want to moderate it, wanted to comment. I believe it was over a variant of this very issue that lost this forum one very important member. Can't people disagree and post their disagreements in a civil manner?...or take it to the EF where they eat this kind of battle up to boost their ratings? No one should be attacked here IMHO, unless one is sure they are in the enemy camp hook, line and sinker. Surely, whatever you disagreements with Jim F. are, you can't in your right [or left] mind believe that! My two cents.
    No Peter its about being taken out of context rather badly. A man of your intelligence should see that. Furthermore, I do enjoy your posts on numerous topics. Unlike Mr Fetzer, you are polite and invite a dissenting view. Thus I believe you would make for a great sparring partner. The 'important person' you are discussing has none of your qualities. Further that he needs to speak for himself.

    If it is silence then let it be. Ultimately Peter as said, Mr Fetzer has taken myself way, way, way out of context to contrive an argument that never occurred. The issue is with the lies John Hankey has spread. I would appreciate that we await Mr Fetzers reply. Yes there is collegiality here and it is awesome. Nonetheless, I fail to see how my challenge here has disrupted that. JF has attacked and offended the mods here far more than I ever have. If JF is a no show it is more a reflection of himself than me.
    I'm not fully aprized of what Jim F. may have said against [or perceived to be against] you, your writings elsewhere or those you agree with. I do not agree with every detail with Jim on the Dallas Magic Show nor on 911, but on both [and some other related affairs of 'National Security Bullshit and Lies' I find Jim is on the correct side of what is a false-flag lie and what is not....the details we all often disagree upon. I have dealt with Gus Russo [who cost me a bundle and things much more dear than money....] and other such slime who know the truth but speak only the Big Lie; I have seen others try to take 'down' Jack White and others over minor points - when anyone with half [or 1%] of a wit knows that Jack is on the 'good guys' side of truth on Dallas and 911. He may not get every analysis correct, but he gives it his best shot with the best of intentions and has a very good batting record, IMHO. While I see you disagree on specific points, are you saying that Jim F. is a disinformation agent or just mistaken? If the later, why not extend the same kind of collegiality you yourself would like should someone challenge your views and conclusions. I've never met Jim in person, but he came to my rescue in a big way when I was on the 'cross' over at the EF and being kicked out without ability to defend myself nor with any reasons given. I've seen him on other times express great distress when he felt others were being wronged on the internet or important information was about to be tossed into the 'rabbit hole' forever. He has been front and center on Wellstone and other cases of interest and done much to try to piece together the two big plots of recent time - Dallas and 911. No one I know has a perfect record on those two and I'd include myself in that. I can support people who I don't agree with 100%. Some can not. We all have different personal styles and even those of us with generally easy going styles can bristle with spines at times [I know I have in the past to my regret!]. Again, unless you really believe [and can support with evidence] that someone is a disinformation agent, I suggest an attempt to politely and civily find a meeting of minds or agreeing to disagree. The enemy is watching and loves to exploit such conflict - it makes their divide and conquer techniques almost childs play. My thrupence.
    Last edited by Peter Lemkin; 12-29-2011 at 07:59 AM.
    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Coogan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post
    I thought this kind of baiting angry 'cross-this-line' or else; don't cross-this-line or else kind of post was one of the reason many of us chose to leave the EF for a new website [this Forum]. Lately, I've seen more an more of this 'style' of non-collegial posting and since no moderators seem to want to moderate it, wanted to comment. I believe it was over a variant of this very issue that lost this forum one very important member. Can't people disagree and post their disagreements in a civil manner?...or take it to the EF where they eat this kind of battle up to boost their ratings? No one should be attacked here IMHO, unless one is sure they are in the enemy camp hook, line and sinker. Surely, whatever you disagreements with Jim F. are, you can't in your right [or left] mind believe that! My two cents.
    No Peter its about being taken out of context rather badly. A man of your intelligence should see that. Furthermore, I do enjoy your posts on numerous topics. Unlike Mr Fetzer, you are polite and invite a dissenting view. Thus I believe you would make for a great sparring partner. The 'important person' you are discussing has none of your qualities. Further that he needs to speak for himself.

    If it is silence then let it be. Ultimately Peter as said, Mr Fetzer has taken myself way, way, way out of context to contrive an argument that never occurred. The issue is with the lies John Hankey has spread. I would appreciate that we await Mr Fetzers reply. Yes there is collegiality here and it is awesome. Nonetheless, I fail to see how my challenge here has disrupted that. JF has attacked and offended the mods here far more than I ever have. If JF is a no show it is more a reflection of himself than me.
    I'm not fully aprized of what Jim F. may have said against [or perceived to be against] you, your writings elsewhere or those you agree with. I do not agree with every detail with Jim on the Dallas Magic Show nor on 911, but on both [and some other related affairs of 'National Security Bullshit and Lies' I find Jim is on the correct side of what is a false-flag lie and what is not....the details we all often disagree upon. I have dealt with Gus Russo [who cost me hundreds of thousands and much more than money....] and other such slime who know the truth but speak the Big Lie; I have seen others try to take 'down' Jack White and others over a minor point - when anyone with half [or 1%] of a wit knows that Jack is on the 'good guys' side of truth on Dallas and 911. While I see you disagree on specific points, are you saying that Jim F. is a disinformation agent or just mistaken? If the later, why not extend the same kind of collegiality you yourself would like should someone challenge your views and conclusions. I've never met Jim, but he came to my rescue in a big way when I was on the 'cross' over at the EF and being kicked out without ability to defend myself nor with any reasons given. I've seen him on other times express great distress when he felt others were being wronged on the internet or important information was about to be tossed into the 'rabbit hole' forever. I can support people who I don't agree with 100%. Some can not. We all have different personal styles and even those of us with generally easy going styles can bristle with spines at times [I know I have in the past to my regret!]. Again, unless you really believe [and can support with evidence] that someone is a disinformation agent, I suggest an attempt to politely and civily find a meeting of minds or agreeing to disagree. The enemy is watching and loves to exploit such conflict - it makes their divide and conquer techniques almost childs play. My thrupence.
    Nah lol it's not as melodramatic as that mate. I simply think Jim F is mistaken Pete. I don't think he is disinformation. In his own way he is an honest guy (even if I think his sources are often dodgey). Hence, I am really surprised he went down the track he has, with the style he chose. Its almost like he's using a Hankey technique. I have learnt as you have to live and make agreements with people I dont see eye to eye with. As you said before we all make mistakes along the way. I too have been intolerant and likely will be again lol. I think your the sort of guy I can go back and forth with in a positive manner. Sadly, I don't know about me and the professor however. It's good to know you felt he helped you out though.
    "In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vasilios Vazakas View Post
    Seamus
    I have asked him in a previous threat a question regarding LBJ that he never
    answered. Sometime one's silence says more than answering a question.
    I have not even bothered to read Professor Fetzer's critique of your article and CTKA in general.
    and i don't think i will. I will not change the way i think of you, JimD and CTKA because of what he said.
    And i am sure neither the majority in this forum. History will judge him like the rest of us.
    Yeah thats what I think I am trying to do. Lol but everyones stepping in hahahahahahaha. So yeah I agree with you as well. I think a lot of people feel the same way. But in saying that Dawn and Peter don't and fair play to them. Though I disagree and they may misinterpret myself, it's still good to get their concerns as well.

    Hey what was the question Vasilios could you email me?
    Last edited by Seamus Coogan; 12-28-2011 at 10:47 PM.
    "In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •