Len Colby

have you read the book Mr. Colby? For that matter, any of the books?

Books???? How many books did your buddy Fetzer write about the Wellstone crash? Did I miss one?

have you read the book Mr. Colby? For that matter, any of the books? Or are you depending upon Dr. TINK'S review (tsk-tsk)

??????????????????? why are you repeating yourself do think make you look clever? Books? Can't say with the JFK books but his review of American Assassination is dead on.

I think I stated clearly I have not yet read your friend's book but read all his articles, have extensively researched the case and debated Fetzer for months in another forum.

as Gary Ag infers--- Warranistas abound... quite frankly many whom call themselves CTer's are nothing more than simple 'liars', protecting positions proferred by the WCR -- where do you fall Mr. Colby?

I never said I was a CTer where did you infer that from is your reading comprehension as bad as Fetzer's? Have you read my posts?

Warranista???? Although I greatly admire his work as Chief Justice where he probably did more than any man after MLK and maybe LBJ to promote Civil Rights in America, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the report. I find it's conclusions hard to believe but have not studied the case closely and have yet to hear a plausible CT. If there was a conspiracy I doubt it was the massive one involving dozens or hundered of people with an on going cover up that you and Fetzer imagine.

As for liars look back at the posts where I debunk you friend and all the cases where I have shown that he has misquoted sources. Were those all accidents?

Have a nice day, oh - tell Dr. Tinster and Dr. Gary Ag their 399 work is excellent,  worth a on-camera interview probably, GaryM?

Contrary to what you and Fetzer insinuate with out any basis I had no contact with Tink before I got involved in the Wellstone forum*. I did not even know who he was. I have no idea what you are talking about. Gary Ag, Gary M 399 ?????

I AM NOT PART OF THE JFK RESEACH COMMUNITY!!!

Are you guys so paranoid that you believe that any one disagrees with you is a right-winger and/or a secret agent and/or in cahoots with Tink?

Original research, covering, shall we say, difficult events a bit tough for those on the "right"  these day's?

I wouldn't know. The only case I'm researching now is Wellstone. And I'm "left of center" I have voted for the Democrats since I was old enough, helped re-establish the ACLU at Oberlin College* and am involved in an NGO here in Brazil promoting exchanges between Native Brazilians and Indigenous populations in other countries.

Len

*apparently I over lapped with Tink's daughter at Oberlin I was class of 87 and I think she was class of 86. I don't remember her. I only found this out because Tink read by bio [see below] and asked me about it

It is a common technique to suggest that authors write books to make money.

I did not suggest it here look at what I said.

It may often be true but, as this guy ought to know (since I have explained it more than once on another forum ... I use royalties from my books on the assassination of JFK and the death of Paul Wellstone to support additional assassination research.

Jim don't you get it just because you say some thing does not mean that I believe it!

I think it would be a good idea to also consider that I have collaborators who are themselves highly respected, including Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, Ed.D., Ph.D., in relation the book and John P. Costella, Ph.D., in relation to our FROM THE WILDERNESS study. I wonder why they would join me in this search for truth if they did not believe in it? Why do you think they would do that? Four Arrows has published some 14 books of his own and Costella has Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electro-magnetism.

Can't say must about Four Arrows he does seem to be well respected in his field which is what education? He does seem a bit paranoid was that him or you who was sure there was some significance to fact that Guess had worked along side one of the 9/11 hijacker for a few weeks [months?]

As for Costella, respected LOL the famous Ph.D grammar school for boys math teacher. Who never published a peer review article in his life. Who is he well respected by? You and the others who wrote those JFK books? Is this the guy who does not believe we went to the moon, who thinks that the Dallas parks department is in on the JFK cover-up, that the CIA broke his razor and put holes in his shirt, that a webcam is part of some sort of secret surveillance plot to spy on you guys in Dealy Plaza? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/160 Among other weird paranoid delusions. The esteemed physicist who doesn't understand the basics of fire [more on that to come]

All page numbers refer to the Final Report http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf unless indicated otherwise.

If you cite only evidence favorable to your side, you can make a pretty good case that all coins are copper, that every human is male, and that every number is odd.

Wait. didn't I urge people to read your articles twice already?!

In your book did you mention: that the co-pilot urged Conry to retire, that he was surprised that he got hired because he felt old, that he told a close friend he had problems flying and landing the A100, that had shown signs of fatigue all week, that he had been woken up at 1:30 AM the day before the flight to go on a surprise flight and looked so sick that Red Cross personal were afraid to come near him, and that he worked as a nurse till about 9:30PM that night, that he almost never actually flew the plane during his employment with Aviation Charter, that he probably was not wearing his contact lenses, that he told his wife that the other pilots thought Guess was a bad pilot, that both Conry and Guess had problems paying attention and with landings?

Conry had 5,200 hours of experience

Bull$#!& !!!

Conry was a xxxx. The supposed 5116 hours [not 5200] was based on faked log book enteries which included forged a flight instructor's signatures. The NTSB could not account for almost 1460 of those hours. [Final report] His wife said he had 3000 - 4000 hours [ interview summaries http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252886.pdf pg 25 (26) which is what you get when you deduct the hours that the NTSB could not account for.

The FAA and airlines depend on a honor code that pilots will accurately report their hours in their logbooks. Conry was a confirmed xxxx. How many counts of fraud had he been convicted of? Wasn't it 20? Didn't he lie to Aviation Charter and his co-workers and mislead his friend regarding his employment at American Eagle [also know as Simmons] claiming to have worked and flown 400 - 500 hours for them when company records showed he had NEVER flown any revenue flights and had what was it 16 hours of training? http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3420441.html

Anyway what difference does it make? 3000 hours, 3500 hours, 5116 hours, 5200 pilot's with more experience than that have caused crashes.

and passed his FAA "flight check"

Irrelevant commercial pilots are tested every 6 months so all pilots who crash have recently passed FAA flight checks.

During the flight check "The chief pilot stated that after the simulated engine failure, he told the pilot to pick up the pace and to feather the engine .a couple of seconds faster for comfort." pg 11 (23) i.e. that he was not flying fast enough out of a situation similar to a stall!!

He was extremely meticulous, where another pilot, who had flown with him more than 50 times, described him as the most careful pilot with whom he had ever flown!

I already explained the difference between competent and careful. The pilot "who had flown with him ABOUT 50 times" Jim Herd, had flown with him before he went to prison before his company went out of business [interviews http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252886.pdf pg. 50 (51)] so that must have around 1989 or 13 years before the crash! Did you tell your readers that?

It is true that a second log book, with some variances from his regular logs

"Some variances" C'mon Jim stop being deceptive!

"The disparities between these two logbooks included the following:

-different flight hours for the same flights;

-different departure and arrival airports for the same flights;

-different flight times and dates for the same flights;

-some flight segments mentioned in one logbook were not mentioned in the other logbook; and

-one logbook indicated that the pilot had flown 1,600 total flight hours from June 1986 to September 1987, and the other logbook indicated that he had flown 1,850 total flight hours during the same period.

In addition, the two logbooks contained multiple entries by a certified flight instructor (CFI) who provided the pilot with training for his ATP certificate, but the signatures in the two logbooks were different. According to the CFI named in the

logbooks, only one of the logbooks contained his actual signature. The flight hours reported in the January 23, 2001, notarized statement contained in the pilot's most recent logbook represent an increase of more than 1,460 undocumented hours from the flight hour totals in the final entries of the two conflicting logbooks. Further, in August 1992, the pilot reported on an FAA medical certificate application form that he had a total of 3,250 flight hours, which is 1,268 fewer hours than he claimed in the notarized statement to have acquired as of December 1994" pgs 12 - 13 (24 -25)

was discovered at his home but not by his wife, who reported she had never seen it before and the house had been thoroughly searched already

Wrong again are you making this up or was is it yet another 'reading comprehension error'?

"Mrs. Conry found Richard’s logbooks in the attic of their home. They were located near the insulation in the attic, behind about forty other boxes. She did not believe Richard was aware of their location. He had looked for them, but they were not easy to find.

When asked if she believed Richard’s logbooks were truly lost, Mrs. Conry said that both her log book and Richard’s log books were, in fact, lost. They found after six hours of searching the house. She began this search after she received the subpoena from the Safety Board. Mrs. Conry also found her own log book during the search. It was the first time she had seen the old log books in four or five years.

Mrs. Conry had never seen the log book containing Richard’s flight time from training with Simmons. It was a large brown Jeppesen log book and the others were small and black. Theresa, a pilot from Aviation Charter, helped Mrs. Conry search the house for the missing log books and it was Theresa who noticed the brown Jeppesen log book."

Another words Theresa found the log book where he falsely claimed to have about 500 hours for Simmons [aka American Eagle] I already pointed this out to you in the other forum in more detail

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaims...NK/message/2205

The communications were being handled by Guess, not by Conry, and there is every reason to suppose Conry was flying the aircraft

Every reason? Name one letting his co-pilot was the rule not the exception for Conry.

"Several Aviation Charter pilots indicated that the accident pilot often allowed them to conduct the flights they flew with him as if they were single-pilot operations (that is, he allowed them to handle the flight controls and communications and perform all of the checklists without his assistance)". pg 9 (21)

The kind of incidents those who want to make a case against him use are incidents where the plane was falling at the rate of 1,000 ft. per minute, for example, which took place for a few seconds, rather like when you drift to the left and your wife reminds you to keep looking ahead. This is insignificant, but those who want to blame the pilots exaggerate to create misleading impressions.

Poor analogy it more like you were about to drive off a cliff and your wife put her hands on the steering wheel to steer the car back on the road. This happened four times in 17 months during very little actual flying time. You have yet to address why he normally let his co-pilot fly if he was such a good pilot. I'll post the co-pilots accounts today or tomorrow.

I suggest that this guy is the Gerald Posner of the Wellstone plane crash. He is very good at playing mind games by selective use of evidence.

So Rick is like gagnon and I'm Posner LOL. I suggest that you are the Oliver Stone of the Wellstone crash! But that would be wrong because Stone's movie came a lot closer to the truth than your book. As for selective use of evidence see my first reply in this post.

Rick wrote 2 interesting essays about "the Wellstone conspiracy" the first is for Alexander Cockburn's newsletter so he can hardly be accused of being a right-winger

http://www.counterpunch.org/giombetti1113.html

http://kangaroo-court.blogspot.com/2005/04...versity-of.html

I suggest, why not actually try reading the book for yourself?

For those who interested and not convinced by my arguments go ahead read his book.

Wellstone, who did not like to fly, preferred to have him as his pilot because he liked the way he handled the plane.

Yes it true you did manage to say something true! He was one of two Aviation Charter pilot's the Senator liked. Wellstone also liked him because Conry did not mind when he cancelled flights and like the Senator did not like to fly during bad weather.

This is the kind of post that troubles me profoundly. The logical structure of the case is laid out explicitly in the book...

Didn't I tell you he'd urge to buy his book!

I can not believe the gullibility of members of a "research forum" who derive conclusions about cases of great importance without even considering the evidence!... Your views are merely articles of faith... I cannot think of an attitude that is less worthy of commendation that forming beliefs without the benefit of evidence.

Why did I say about him impugning the intelligence of those who disagree with him? First Pat and now Steve! Wow Jim you sure aren't doing yourself any favors! Tink and Bieter always said you were unpleasant!

He called me an idiot too! But now I'm classified as disreputable!

Len

Part II of my reply to Fetzer see above

All page numbers refer to the NTSB final report unless otherwise noted

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf

the NTSB's simulations, using a simulator with a weaker enginer thant [sic] the King Air A-100 and flying at abnormally slow speeds, were unable to bring it down, so the NTSB's conclusions are contradicted by the NTSB's own evidence!

Bringing down the plane was not the objective of the simulations! The objective was to "To observe flight crew workload" pg. 30 (42)So by your logic I could say "I was unable to turn on my stereo with my TV remote control so the remote must be broken"

What the simulation showed was that the pilots should have been able to recover. They also showed that the way the crew had "set up" the approach increased the crew's work load. So this combined with the fact they were lost and possibly looking for the airport could explain why either one of these pilots, both of whom had problems landing and paying attention, could have neglected to monitor airspeed during a landing approach.

Then the bluish-white smoke instead of coarse black smoke, the intense fire that could not be extinguished

Jim how many times did we go over this in the other Forum? I'll try to explain it to you once again and for the benefit of members of this forum in another post.

the odd cell phone anomaly

Ditto above

the garage door openings

Jim you are very unreliable. Are we supposed to believe a story that you claim an unnamed doctor told you about supposed comments made by some of his unnamed patients?

Do have any other evidence of this? Why wasn't this reported any where? Did you check with the electrical company to see if there had been any surges? Why were only garages doors affected but nothing at the [presumably] closer airport? Isn't it normal for garage doors to be unreliable? Could it be the doctor was humouring a CT nut? Or that you misunderstood? Did you make this up?

The motives for murder were overwhelming.

Granted Bush had reasons to kill Wellstone but as per my previous post why BEFORE the election?

our latest finding concering [sic] the apparent manipulation of GPS data in order to bring the plane into the "kill zone" for a directed-energy weapon to bring it down.

ROTFLMHO I'd love read that one since they were not navigating with GPS!! Give us one reliable link stating that a working directed energy weapon capable of doing this is operational. No UFO or pothead sites* this time please! Nothing saying simply that the US is working on them - I grant you that, various governments and companies have been working on "death ray" weapons for years.

Most Americans, by the way, do not even know that the NTSB cannot investigation a crash scene as the scene of a crime unless the Attorney General so declares it

1] This is irrelevant except for the fact that once again it shows your reading comprehension problems because that is not what it says at YOUR source. [see below]

2] a) Investigating a crash as a crime is up to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies which the Board can 'call in' at will. The Board does not carry out criminal investigations under ANY circumstances. c) The AG's role is to determine who leads the investigation not what can be investigated by who. I already pointed this out to you in the other forum!

"the NTSB has complete discretion over which organisations it designates as parties to the investigation...In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity".

"As the result of recent legislation, the NTSB will surrender lead status on a transportation accident only if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Safety Board, notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act. "

When did the "recent legislation" go into effect? The page was posted Sept. 2004, 2 years after the Wellstone crash.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/invest.htm this is the same page you cited in the From The Wilderness article.

So we appear to have a fool-proof way to remove our political opponents by taking them out and using the NTSB to cover

it up.

You have yet to supply one shred of reliable evidence in this regard

Moreover, it is the government's policy that NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in courts of law!

This done "to ensure that Safety Board investigations focus only on improving transportation safety" same link as above.

*I used to be a pothead and still enjoy a joint now and again but I don't consider canabis.com a reliable source for information about secret weapons!

if you were to base your understanding of the death of Paul Wellstone solely upon THE NTSB REPORT, it might seem plausible to most readers--at least, until you realize that the official scenario (that two pilots, who were well-qualified, simply lost track of their airspeed and altitude and let the plane crash) ignores that it was equipped with a loud stall-warning alarm

1] People can accumulate qualifications and still be incompetent! As Conry clearly was. [see posts 18 & 19] Jim look back at his four near crashes, what do you think would have happened if the co-pilot had not intervened? We can't ignore the possibility that he simply pushed the wrong button like he did the last time he flew Wellstone but this time his relatively inexperienced "non-assertive" low skill co-pilot did not save him this or even that Guess was at the controls.

Guess flunked out of a ground instructor course and his colleagues had serious doubts about his skills. " Several pilots who had flown with the copilot described him as 'not assertive' and expressed concern about his flying skills, especially his inability to land the airplane without assistance. Two pilots stated that the copilot had difficulties with power management when flying an approach and that he had to be reminded to keep one hand on the throttles and to monitor his power gauges. One of these two pilots, who had been mentoring the copilot and flew with him often, stated that this was a consistent problem for the copilot. [http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf Final Report pg. 15 (27 in Adobe Reader) All page numbers below also refer to the Final Report unless otherwise noted] According to Joanne Conry her husband told her "the other pilots thought Guess was not a good pilot. Richard said when Guess flew with him he was just fine. Richard did not say specifically what complaints the other pilots had about Guess" [http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/252886.pdf Interview Summaries pg 26(27)]

2] Airline pilots who are in a category way above Conry's have also blundered. If one examines the 20 worst aviation disasters in history several were caused by gross pilot error. # 2 the deadliest non-terrorist incident happened because one pilot "began his takeoff roll without authorisation" on a fog shrouded runway! Causing a collision with another plane killing 583 people. Disasters #s 4,5. 7, 14, 16 were also caused entirely or partially by flight crew error [see esp. # 14], #s 1 [9/11] 6, 7, 11 and 12 were due to terrorist or military action. http://www.planecrashinfo.com/worst20.htm

"simply lost track of their airspeed and altitude and let the plane crash"

Both pilots had problems with landings Conry had problems paying attention and so did Guess [Conry post 19, Guess above]. What seems likely is that whoever was flying came out of the clouds and expected to see an airport in front of them but there was none insight. {They were off course*} While looking around they could have forgotten to pay attention to airspeed. Since he [or they] started out too high and too fast "the flight crew had to lose a significant amount of airspeed and altitude in a short amount of time" anyway [pg. 44 (56)] another distraction.

"The Safety Board has investigated numerous accidents and incidents involving commercial flight crews that inadvertently failed to maintain adequate airspeed. For example, the Board has investigated at least [18 events] since 1982 ...in which stall or failure to maintain airspeed during the approach or landing phases was cited as a causal or contributing factor and in which icing was not cited as a factor. In addition, the Board has investigated other events in which the drag associated with airframe ice and pilot inattention led to a critical loss of airspeed. Failure to maintain airspeed during these flights resulted in catastrophic and other unsafe circumstances, such as loss of control, impact with terrain or water, hard landings, and tail strikes. pg. 55 (67)

"ignores that it was equipped with a loud stall-warning alarm"

Jim I assume you read the entire Final Report. So either you are trying to con your readers or you infamous reading comprehension errors have struck again!

"Several of the airplane's systems, including the stall warning and deicing systems, were too damaged by postimpact fire and impact forces to determine their preimpact configuration and operability" pg 25 (37)

"the flight crew should have received at least several seconds of aural stall warning in the cockpit if the airspeed decreased below 81 to 84 knots, if the stall warning system was working properly, and if the airplane was not affected by ice accumulation. ... However, because the airplane was not equipped with a CVR, because of the approximate nature of the airspeed calculations, and because airplane maneuvering or small amounts of ice accumulation can increase an airplane's stall speed, the Safety Board was not able to determine when or whether the stall warning horn activated on the accident flight" pgs 45- 6 (57 -8)

"stall warnings do not always provide flight crews with timely notification of developing hazardous low-airspeed conditions. For example, abrupt maneuvering can increase angle-of-attack so rapidly that a stall could occur nearly simultaneously with the stall warning, and ice accumulation, which raises the stall speed, could degrade the stall warning margin to the point at which little or no stall warning is provided" 54 - 5 (66 -7).

'Abrupt maneuvering'? The plane might have been circling back. Gary Ulman said "The path of the wreckage, about two miles southeast of the airport, suggested the pilot may have aborted the landing" {http://www.rense.com/general31/INDI.HTM}

The last time a King Air A100 crashed it was an Aviation Charter flight [same company as the Wellstone flight!]. The flight also started in the Twin Cities and crashed due to a stall in Colorado when the pilot was lost and trying to find the airport. The pilot was a certified flight, ground and instrumentation instructor. Like Conry he had over 3000 flight hours. The NTSB determined the stall was caused by a combination of bad weather and pilot error. The stall warning system was turned off! https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=...W98FA074&akey=1

I decided to divide my reply to Fetzer in 2. Continued in my next post!

If someone has called you "an idiot", it was not me.

Come on Jim go back and see how you replied to Pat's post. You did not use the word idiot but you called him "massively ignorant" among other things [see post 23 for the 'lowlights']. Your infamous temper and unpleasantness do you a disservice. Are you so detached from reality that you don't remember what you wrote only 2 days ago! If feel a certain responsibility to defend him because in a certain way "I got him into it" and he is such a nice guy that he apologised to you after you insulted him! Do yourself a favor and do the right thing apologize and admit you were wrong. Try to make it sound sincere.

My "unbiased" opinion is don't waste your time and money on the book! Or at least not your money. I imagine they have good libraries in Cambridge you might be able to find a copy at one. There are serious reseachers out there much more deserving of your hard earned cash!

As a starting point if you are interested go ahead and read Fetzer's online articles

http://assassinationscience.com/

see the assassination and Minnesota sections of the menu bar

and

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ne.shtml#_edn76

and the read the NTSB final report which he so denigrates.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf

This page is a graphic representation of the course of the plane from take off till it crashed. It takes only a few minutes and is very interesting.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2003/Eveleth/Ev...Meeting_IIC.pdf

other NTSB reports and documents can be linked from this page

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...wellstone/ntsb/

but about half the links don't work

If anyone is interested I can provide tons of links to articles etc about the Wellstone crash and plane crashes in general

I believe the more you know about the crash the stronger the case for a tragic accident becomes. Doubly tragic first because of the loss of life and secondly for how it changed American politics.

Len

Len, I lived in the US for about 18 months 1974-1975, pretty hot times politically, what with Dick "doin the funky chicken" got the bug from that I guess. Like you I have come to believe that the Heinz crash was probably just a tragic accident, shame really the guy might have brought a degree of rationallity to the GOP. Tower on the other hand might just be a horse of a different color. I will post what I have found out soon. All the best... Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve/all - I don't know if Heinz could "have brought a degree of rationality to the GOP". I don't think one man could have stopped the rightward lurch of the US, GOP and even the Democrats. In some ways Clinton was to the right of Nixon! The Democrats are just about where moderate Republicans were 25 - 40 years ago on some issues.

The Republicans have moved to the right of Barry Goldwater !! And he used to be considered an extremist. In 1989 he said the party had been taken over by a "bunch of kooks" and seven years later told Bob Dole "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

But you avoided one my questions. What's your take on the Wellstone crash?

I'd actually like to hear everybody's answer to the above question, or at least anyone who could be bothered to reply. Even if it's "I have no idea" or "of course Fetzer is right is was murder". I just want to get an idea what the "take" is of people following this forum.

Len

Len, welcome to the forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where are my manners? Thanks Steve!

Len, welcome to the forum. Have you ever looked into the deaths of Senators Heinz, and Tower, also from aircrashes. Steve..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really. Can't say anything about the Tower case but that Heinz death was anything but an accident I find to believe.

From what I understand there was a problem with the landing gear of his plane and a helicopter was sent up to fix it. Unfortunately the helicopter and plane collided.

I can't see how it would be murder unless the helicopter pilot was kamikaze or was subject to mind control or the helicopter was remote controlled [over riding the pilot] etc. It seems to far fetched.

But if anybody has any reliable info indicating otherwise I'd like to see it.

What do you know about those cases?

You should try asking Fetzer about them, far fetched CTs are his area of specialty!

What's your opinion about the Wellstone crash?

How does a Brit know so much about US politics. The only MP living or dead who I could name [not counting ministers] is George Galloway!

Len

I couldn't agree more with Craig's assement of Fetzer's work on the Wellstone case. A lot of his information is flat out wrong. He omits things that undermine his case and he spins what he can't " sweep under the rug".

For more on why I feel that way go to the following thread

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&st=15&p=39307&

If that doesn't work try the following search on google

site:educationforum.ipbhost.com wellstone +conry

And if all else fails you can find it this way

The Education Forum > Controversial Issues in History > History Books > Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone

Len

I'm sorry if my post upset you.

Pat, Fetzer should apologize to you not the other way around!

So let's make nice. I'll read your book if you please stop calling me an idiot.

I doubt he'll take you up on the offer because if you read his book and still question his findings he won't be nice and restrain from calling you an idiot or a disinformation agent or worse.

I'd be more likely to trust Len's research if he was willing to admit there were some signs that didn't add up. As strange as it may sound, the fact that according to him everything points to pilot error makes me suspect that in his own zeal to prove you wrong he's missed something. To me, the truth is rarely neat and tidy.

Pat I can't [or won't] say that I see something that I don't.

There is one point I found a bit odd though. The crash was caused by a stall, i.e. it the plane was going too slow to maintain lift. Investigators determined that the engines were in "flight idle" which was the appropriate setting for a plane coming in for a landing [it does not mean as Fetzer first misunderstood that the engines were turned off or had stopped working]. The $ 64,000 question is why didn't Conry or Guess "power up" and switch to a faster engine setting once the plane began to dive? As Fetzer already said during FAA simulations other pilots were able to recover in similar circumstances.

Even for pilots as poor as them it was an amazing blunder! Since the plane was not equipped with a cockpit voice recorder or a flight data recorder [it was not required to under FAA regulations] there is no way of knowing what exactly happened, did it all happen to fast? did they freeze up? did they as one experienced pilot suggested work at odds, one franticly trying one thing while the other just as franticly something else?

On the other hand if his co-pilot had not saved the day Conry would have provoked a crash that probably would have killed Senator Wellstone three days earlier. He hit the wrong button and sent the plane into a dive when it was only 300 feet off the ground [very little time for recovery] the co-pilot deactivated the button and pulled the plane out of the dive. He had to explain to an oblivious Conry what had gone wrong! The worst thing about Conry's previous screw ups [the four near crashes and the miss setting of the VOR] was that he never seemed to know what had happened. And don't forget, pilots more experienced and competent than Conry and Guess have caused numerous other crashes

Also the FBI got to the site 6 - 8 hours before the NTSB. Fetzer claims they were there to cover up evidence of foul play. If this were true why didn't they change the power setting to make it appear as if the pilots were trying to recover from the crash or sabotage the controls after the fact to make it look like there had been a mechanical failure? If the NTSB was in on it too why didn't they do the same? And then why did the FBI have to rush to get the site [as he claims they did]? To hide evidence from their co-conspirators in a cover up??

I at first was suspicious about the timing of the crash - just before the election just like with Carnahan - but then I realised that waiting to see if Wellstone actually won and if he did kill him after he was sworn in for his third term made more sense.

I see Fetzer's theory as a three legged table [see post # 18 above - the three falicies] take away any of those legs and it falls over. At best it has one very wobbly leg. If I missed something that doesn't add up Fetzer missed it too because I have looked into all the points he brought up in his articles and on the forum.

Would you ask someone debating a Holocaust denyer [Fetzer quotes one], an Apollo hoax proponent [he collaborates with two and finds their claims credible] or a Creationist [he condemns them] if they saw anything to the other side's theory? Some times things are that simple - do you have any unanswered questions regarding Hinkley's shooting of Reagan? I'm sure some one has some sort of conspiracy theory regarding that.

There might well be unanswered question about the downing of KAL Flight 007 but Fletcher Poutry* believes that the US shot it down even though the Soviets admitted to having done so.

Ultimately I think Fetzer will make my case for me. He will sling mud, he will go on and on about the crimes of the Bush administration, the JFK assassination etc., he will tell everyone to buy his book, he will dismiss what I have written as rubbish with out any further explanation, he will say he has already proven his case and how full of holes the NTSB reports are etc. etc. but he won't argue the merits of his case in any meaningful way. He hardly ever did in the Wellstone forum and he hasn't done so here yet.

I agree with Fetzer anyone wanting to "come up to speed" concerning his theories should read the articles he wrote. Taking a look at the page for his book on Amazon is also worth while **.But be advised he has a tendency to misquote his sources, if he says something that is particularly damning check the original to see if it really says what he claims it does. If you still have any doubts I welcome any questions any of you might have. Ask me about any of his points and I'll tell you the real deal.

* Mr. X from Stone's JFK and the author of the Secret Team which seems to have influenced many of Fetzer's theories about the JFK assassination

** http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

Additional new evidence about the case has appeared in an article co-authored with John P. Costella, Ph.D., "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", published in fromthewilderness.com on 6 July 2005 and subsequently in FROM THE WILDER-

NESS

This article mostly rehashes his previous articles and the book, like them it is full of factual errors, omissions and faulty analysis.

Tink:  ITEM: Fetzer claims it is a sinister fact that communication with the Wellstone plane was suddenly lost. It wasn't. During its approach, the Wellstone plane made all its expected communications checks. There never was any interruption in communication with the plane.

Fetzer: [There was no distress call, even though the plane--whose passengers included a US Senator... That the copilot, who had handled most of the communications, did not send a distress call suggests he sent no call because communications were disabled and he was unable to send out a call.]

Fetzer keeps on bring up the fact that a Senator was on board as if this would cause the pilots who were trying to save their own skins to act any differently. That Guess didn't send a distress call does not suggest that "communications were disabled". As Tink pointed out in many crashes even those with 2 pilots there is no distress call. Rather it suggests that maybe the 2 incompetent pilots were too busy trying to avoid a crash to make a call or that they panicked or they didn't have time. There is also a strong possibility that the relatively inexperienced co-pilot was flying and handling communications simultaneously and thus had his hands full when the plane began to rapidly loose altitude. Since there weren't any "black boxes" on the plane we don't even know how long the plane was in distress.

[Rick Wahlberg, the Sheriff of St. Louis County, reported that he had arrived at the airport at 1:30 PM and saw agents he knew personally from the St. Paul FBI "rapid response team". Gary Ulman, the airport assistant manager, confirmed to me that they had been there at least since 1 PM. Paul McCable [sic], the spokesman for the FBI, said they had not arrived before 3:30 PM, contradicting both Wahlberg and Ulman.

Fetzer has changed his story a bit. The first version is that the sheriff told him that there were agents at the site by noon*. When someone pointed out that the sheriff only got there at 1:30 we got a new version, some unnamed person must told the sheriff there were agents there by noon, Wahlberg saw them when he got there, then he added the part about the sheriff seeing agents that he knew from St. Paul, he has only added the part about the "rapid response team" recently.

Fetzer continues to ignore the explanation that local agents got there first and those from St. Paul later. Different agents got there at different times. He also never explains why the FBI would make such a stupid blunder. Since Ulman never said where the agents were from his statement does NOT contradict McCabe's [not McCable]. McCabe said that HE got there at 3:30 and that other agents were already there.

We only have Fetzer's word on the part about the sheriff saying they were from St. Paul. There are several reasonable explanations.

1] The sheriff was mistaken.

2] He saw an agent who used to work out of the St. Paul office but had since been transferred to Duluth.

3] Fetzer misunderstood what the sheriff told him. He has a habit of misunderstanding things he has read about this case. Misunderstanding something he has been told is a distinct possibility.

4] Wahlberg told Fetzer what he wanted to hear to get rid of him.

5] Agent from St. Paul [other than McCabe] easily could have gotten to the site by 1:30

6] Fetzer is making it up!

These agents were not in the area at the time, as Christopher Bollyn of amercianfreepress.com confirmed at the time. Thompson is making all this up.]

Christopher Bollyn and the American Free Press are neo-Nazi friendly extreme rightwinger, and anti-Semites. By quoting them as reliable sources he helps give them respectability.

Also Fetzer is once again misquoting. Bollym wrote, “AFP contacted the Duluth office of the FBI and was told that the team of "recovery" agents had NOT come from Duluth, but had traveled from the FBI office in Minneapolis”. [ http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=265 ] Even IF we are to believe Herr Bollyn and the AFP are not making it up or misunderstood - we must still look carefully at what was said, the recovery agents came from the Twin Cities but not necessarily the agents seen by Wahlberg and Ulman.

*The first version is what appears in the articles he wrote fora local alternative paper which are now available on his site http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...oon&btnG=Search

Let's cut to the chase -- when's your book being published, Mr. Colby?

ooooh!

Like they used to say on Family Feud "Good, Answer, Good, Answer"

So now to question the Almighty All Knowing Fetzer one has to publish a book?

Where would the JFK assassination community be if Penn Jones and all those others had followed such a line of thinking? They certainly would not have dared to question the Warren Commission!

And no, I am not under any delusions that the importance of debunking Fetzer comes any where close to that of their work.

Pat I'll reply to you soon but I have to go now.

Well, Len, it certainly seems you've done your homework.

Thanks! Pat 2 posts and you have already been subject to "The Wrath of Fetzer". Welcome to the club!

Have you looked into how someone could make an accident look like pilot error? While this may sound paranoid

That is Fetzer's department! I haven't looked into it but I don't think that Manchurian Candidate kamikaze pilot mind control exists yet. The stongest evidence for pilot error is the track record of the 2 pilots. Since Conry was one of two pilots that Wellstone requested [Wellstone appreciated the fact that he also did not like flying in bad weather] and Guess was only chosen as co-pilot because the company's first choice did not call them back - it would be hard to theorize that the CIA or whoever arranged for them to be the pilots.

It does not sound paranoid to me I just don't think it fits the facts.

the possibility exists in my mind that some right-wing fringe group...brought about his downfall.

I would not put such a thing beyond right-wing extremists but I don't think they would have been able to pull it off. Also the same logic would apply to the Bush Junta, if they wanted a Republican to take Wellstone's place killing him after he was [re]sworn in [if he actually won] would have made much more sense than before the election.

I'd feel the same way if Tom DeLay suddenly went down.

I wouldn't liberals are not as ruthless as the right.

Have you uncovered anything that makes you suspect foul play?

Not yet. I hope this doesn't sound close minded but until Fetzer or someone else presents me with a sliver of credible evidence I am not looking specifically for something I don't think exists. Research is often neutral, one does not know what they are going to find. The more I research the case the less credible such ideas become. In a similar vein I am not going to waste my time looking for evidence for "theories" such as intelligent design, Holocaust denial, the moon landings were faked!

I am therefore skeptical that all the negative comments on Dr. Fetzer's book were aroused purely by the quality of his analysis. I suspect that much of the criticism serves a political purpose.

Indeed many rightwingers did criticize Fetzer, with good reason I hate to say! Unfortunately they painted all liberals with the same brush. As you said "the real battle for America's heart and soul is no longer on the nightly news, which is bland as rice wafers, but is on the internet" this is why I think unfounded paranoia from our side should be avoided. Most people have a"boy who cried wolf" mentality. Every such book makes it that much harder for liberals to be taken seriously by moderates.

I think that Vincent Salandria is alarmingly paranoid, and am distressed that Dr. Fetzer seems to be following his lead

I couldn't agree more. What I think is especially telling is that not only does he find Salandria credible but he expects others to do so also. Fetzer also believes that the Dallas Historical Society and the city's parks department are participants in the JFK cover-up, the WTC collapse was a demolition job, a missile [not a plane] hit the Pentagon and that we probably did not go the moon. No wonder he finds a Holocaust denier like Bollyn credible!

...he verges on the absurd...Is this guy so massively ignorant...?...does he not begin to grasp what we have PROVEN...As for being impressed by PR posts from the likes of Leonard Colby...So please do not insult me and my collaborators by offering criticism based upon ignorance. It demeans you and a forum that is ostensibly committed to RESEARCH.

Funny this from the guy who complained about the nastiness of the Wellstone forum! And Pat wasn't event criticising Fetzer just questioning some of his conclusions. This is par for the course, expect more to follow if any of you don't march lockstep with the Almighty All Knowing Fetzer - expect to have your intelligence and integrity impugned. You've been warned! Tink [Josiah Thompson] already pointed this out and I was working on the post above but Fetzer beat me to it!

Notice how he has not even bothered to reply to the substance of my posts? This is part of his normal M.O. not responding to the substance of people's points that he doesn't have good answers to. This is commonly referred to as "trolling" in other forums.

Who is demeaning the forum Pat or Fetzer? I feel like a kid in a sandbox saying "he started it" but Fetzer makes it hard not to sink to his level!

"... a local attorney initiated a web site for the purpose of attacking my research on the death of Senator Paul Wellstone...Josiah...and a bizarre assortment of others,..have been attacking me for years, all to no avail. (That includes a fellow who has posted here as though we knew each other, when all I know of him is that he has put up some scurrilous posts on that web site.)..."

"...all to no avail"?

I think Fetzer is off in a world of his own creation we have pointed out major holes in his thesis and he has not made any substantive replies

"scurrilous posts"?

I will leave it up to the other participants in this thread to determine who is making substantive points and who is avoiding and dodging what he can't explain away and distorting the truth to bolster their argument.

(That includes a fellow who has posted here as though we knew each other, when all I know of him is that he has put up some scurrilous posts on that web site.)...

..Leonard Colby, whom I do not know from Adam, but who likes to insinuate we are well-acquainted

.

Gee Jim I said

Hello,

Except for Josiah, Craig and Fetzer I don't think any of you know who I am. Greetings to one and all!

Fetzer knows me all too well! On the Yahoo forum mentioned by Tink. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/ . One or two other people and I poked so many holes in his claims about the Wellstone case there that he fled. Come back Jim, we miss you!

Do you really think that makes it sound like we know each other personally?

Just for the record I have never had any contact with Fetzer other than on the Wellstone Forum and now here.

I know the kinds of rubbish that Thompson and his cronies have been dishing out,

because I have been dealing with it for years.

As with Fetzer my only contact with Tink has been through the Wellstone forum although it appears I went to college with his daughter. Fetzer seems to assume that any one who tries to debunk him is a spook or is in cahoots with his Tink! You aren't paranoia if they really are out to get you!

Anyone who wants to trace the history of our exchanges over the Wellstone book can go to the Bieter site, FETZERclaimsDEBUNK@yahoogroups.com, and review them. By now there are over 2000 posts, most of them quite nasty.

Most no but indeed many were.

Jim - You of course were the worst offender any one who criticized you accused of being corrupt or "cognitively impaired" or both. Have you forgotten the time you refereed to the other participants in the forum maggots? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/205 Or the time you revealed Bieter's personal and legal problems? Do you want we to cite more examples? The time you compared a journalist who works with Alexander Cockburn to Gagnon? And what about his reply to Pat here. Is that how a philosophy professor is supposed to conduct himself in a forum?

Richard Conry was an incompotent pilot this is clearly borne out by the facts and this was the opinion of many of his colleagues at the charter company. There are signs that Conry himself was under no illusions as to his abilities as a pilot.

He had been flying for Aviation Charter for only 17 months when the King Air A100 under his command crashed killing all aboard including Wellstone. During that brief period there were 4 occasions in which he would have crashed but for the intervention of the co-pilot [i will provide more info about these incidents in a future post]. Fetzer tries to spin and down play these incidents. Brushing them off as nothing much. The co-pilot on the last of those incidents thought otherwise. He was so unnerved that he suggested that Conry retire [i don't think Fetzer tells his readers this].

What is especially damming is that those four near crashes occurred during so little flying time. He accumulated only 598 flight hours while working for Aviation Charter. Only 200 of these were as pilot in command [PIC]. On most of the flights where he was nominally the PIC he let the co-pilot fly the plane. He was the PIC on 6 flights during the 3 days before the crash all on King Air A100s [a plane he did not like to pilot]. The co-pilots flew all 6. "According to several Aviation Charter copilots, the accident pilot was generally well liked by them because he had a reputation for letting them fly the airplane...Some copilots said Conry rarely, if ever flew when they were paired with him, and this made them uncertain of his skill level. One Citation captain also said that Conry often turned down offers to fly when it was his turn, flying only 12 approaches out of 41 legs they flew together". Distracted indeed, the last time Conry flew the Senator he repeatedly misidentified the King Air he was flying as a Citation until corrected by the air traffic controller. [NTSB Human Performance Report - http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252885.pdf ].

One wonders why such a competent pilot would so consistently avoid flying and essentially take credit for work he had not performed. Might one infer that he normally did not feel up to the task or was afraid that the other pilots would notice how poor his skills were? Several of his colleagues expressed doubts about his abilities "Aviation Charter's lead ground instructor stated that the pilot was average on learning airplane systems and that several company pilots had indicated that the pilot's flying skills were below average...One pilot expressed concerns about Conry’s flying skills, monitoring capabilities, and potential for distraction..."[ NTSB Final Report - http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf ].

One also wonders why such a competent pilot would so consistently feel the need to exaggerate his experience [see my previous post], might it be compensation or did he merely lie to improve his chances of getting hired.

The 55 year old Conry said he was surprised he got hired because felt old. According to a friend who had known Conry since he was 9 years old Wellstone's pilot felt especially uncomfortable flying King Air A100s. Timothy Cooney who was also a pilot remembered a conversation he had with his friend of over 40 years in April 2001 [only 6 month before the crash]. 'Conry said he didn't think his legs were strong enough to operate the rudder pedals for taxi, takeoff, or landing. His legs were too weak to guide it with the rudder pedals...he did not feel he was fast enough to fly the King Air 100. He said he felt behind the airplane. This was shortly after he began training with Executive Aviation. He was concerned about his response time. The phrase Conry used was that “he wasn't fast enough,” and he was worried about it.' To be fair to Conry they had spoken as late as June but April was the last time he mentioned problems with A100s [NTSB Interview Summaries - http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/well stone/ntsb/252886.pdf ] Also to be fair to Conry, Cooney and other people who had flown with him descried the pilot as being very careful "by the book" and meticulous. One person said that Conry was the most careful pilot he knew. However being careful and being competent are not the same thing. Many drunk drivers get stopped for driving too slowly and cautiously.

That Conry told his friend that, "...he didn't think his legs were strong enough to operate the rudder pedals for...landing." is especially damning because the plane crashed while coming in for a landing. Him saying that "...he did not feel he was fast enough to fly the King Air 100. He said he felt behind the airplane...He was concerned about his response time..." is also significant because whoever* was flying the plane not being fast enough, "falling behind" the plane and having inadequate response time could explain why the King Air crashed.

In another incident Conry had miss set the VOR, the navigational tool used to guide planes to the beacons at airports. "...another company King Air copilot indicated that during a flight with the accident pilot about 2 months before the accident, the pilot did not have his navigational radio tuned to the VOR in use for the approach, which caused the pilot's course deviation indicator (CDI) to provide erroneous indications during the entire approach. The copilot was the flying pilot and had his navigation radio tuned to the correct VOR and completed the approach without incident. The copilot stated that he later had to explain to the accident pilot the reason that his CDI was not indicating properly during the approach". This is significant because the fatal Wellstone flight went off course during a VOR approach. Fetzer claims this is evidence of something sinister. How is it possible an experienced pilot like Conry could have ignored the CDI? he asked. The truth is that there were problems with beacon at the Eveleth airport. In FAA test flights 2 days after the crash several pilots we diverted south like the Wellstone plane, one of them flew close to the crash site.

There are other factors which make pilot error seem more likely. The weather was poor according to at least one study this puts increases demand on pilots and in cress the chance of error. Another study found that pilot error is more common on Fridays [the day of the week of the crash] due to accumulated fatigue. Conry shown various signs of being fatigued during the three days before the crash. Aviation Charter had been found not to properly train it's pilots and teach them to follow procedures among other violations. On demand charter flight have been found to be especially dangerous. The FAA required Conry wear corrective lenses to fly but he seems to have felt otherwise and there is a good chance he was not wearing them.

* There is no way to know if Conry or Michael Guess the co-pilot was flying the plane. Due to Conry propensity to let he co-pilots fly for him their is a good chance Guess was at the controls.

I don't know a lot about Wellstone's death, but there was obviously something suspicious about it. A little too convenient, etc.. While Dr. Fetzer may not have proved that Wellstone was murdered, the attacks on his book and on his work seem to be of the mind that because Fetzer hasn't PROVED his case, he should just shut up, or even worse, because he hasn't PROVED it, the reverse must be true, that the Wellstone crash MUST have been an accident. This is BS.

The overwhelming evidence indicates that it was an accident. To say that Fetzer has not proven his case is a gross understatement Not only has he not shown any credible evidence that the crash was criminal he simply ignores the overwhelming evidence that it was an accident.

He case has three basic fallacies

1] He has not shown why the Bush junta would want to kill Wellstone BEFORE the election

a) as stated in my previous post he has not shown that killing Wellstone would improve Coleman's chances of winning - the Dems blew the election at the service.

The timing actually was less than convenient . It would have made more sense to wait until the new congress was sworn in January 2003 because i] killing Wellstone actually decreased Coleman's chances and that of the GOP candidate for governor ii] if you believe like Fetzer and I do that the GOP can teak vote counts in their favor why not wait to see if Wellstone actually won? iii] in the last poll before the Wellstone crash the GOP candidate for Governor was leading a tight 3 way race, if he won [which he did] he would have chosen Wellstone's successor, presumably a Republican.

2] The case for pilot error is hard to deny because:

a] There were many signs of the Richard Conry's [the pilot] incompetence [i will go into that in my next post]

b] 72% of small plane crashes are due to pilot error. The landing phase [which the flight was in] is especially dangerous. Several other factors increased the likelihood of a pilot error crash in this case [i will go into that later too]

c] Conry did not have 5200 flight hour as claimed by Fetzer. Conry himself only claimed 5116 hours but in reality he had much less then that. The FAA trusts pilots to keep their own log books. The NTSB found many discrepancies in his logbooks. He kept a duplicate book for the same period with many differences between them, he forged signatures of flight instructors, logbooks he claims to have lost were "found" by his wife in their house while under subpoena among others The board could not account for about 2000 of Conry's claimed hours. He was not credible he exaggerate his level of flying experience to his employer, he was sentenced to 4 years prison time on over 20 federal wire fraud counts [the sentence was reduced to two years and he served a little over a year]. This irrelevant because pilots with far more experience that Conry even claimed to have been guilt of pilot error that led to fatal crashes [more on all this later to]

3] Fetzer has not presented any solid evidence that their are working models of EMPs or HERFs the futuristic weapons he claims were used. In the Wellstone forum [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/ ] we asked for this several times. The best he could come with were exaggerated Google hit counts, UFO and pothead sites, testimony from a paranoid retired USAF general [who had been fired from the NSC in 1981 for warning the Soviets were about to nuke us], a Senator talking about something else entirely, and reliable reports saying that the government was working on such weapons but did not have any ready for use.

I don't believe that

"because Fetzer hasn't PROVED his case, he should just shut up"

. I do think his book does a disservice to Wellstone because it is a distraction. It distracts from the Senator's legacy - he should be remembered for his ideals and accomplishments not unfounded paranoid speculation about his death. It is also a distraction from some of the real crimes of Bush and the other Republicans. It makes leftist/liberal activism less credible. Baseless accusations like this and there acceptance by many liberals make it that much more difficult to get moderates to take accusations like vote manipulation, lying about Iraq, corrupt ties to big business etc. etc. seriously

[

James H. Fetzer,Sep 6 2005, 03:29 AM]

In the 40 years since SIX SECONDS appeared, Josiah Thompson has published exactly four reviews on amazon.com.

How long has Amazon been in business?

I believe Cheney stated publicly before the elections that it was the White House's #1 priority to remove Wellstone from the Senate.

I think this makes it less likely that he was 'whacked'. Killing him after stating publicly that they wanted to get rid of him so badly would draw too much attention, as indeed it did. At best it's a neutral tidbit.

Fetzer has yet to explain how killing Wellstone would have increased Coleman's chances of winning. As could be expected Mondale at first increased Wellstone's lead over Coleman. What got the Republican elected was not Wellstone dying and being replaced by the former VP but the disastrous Wellstone funeral/rally. This is clearly borne out by poll number in which a large number of independents said that it made them vote for the GOP candidate. We also can't ignore the possibility that the election was stolen

Norm Coleman - who has already been appointed to many highly important committees in his first 3 years ...He is the Chairman of Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs, sits on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Foreign Relations Committee, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Nutition.

Fetzer also indicated that this is some how sinister. I am not one to defend the Republican Senate leadership but are we to some how assume they were in on it? Have Fetzer or Allen looked at other 2002 GOP freshman senators to see if this was indeed unusual? I believe the Senate had stopped using seniority to decide chairmanships a few years before. Coleman is Chairman of two subcommittees Investigations and Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs. He worked 17 years in the Minnesota Attorney General’s office [1976 -1992] and 10 years as mayor of St. Paul [1993 - 2002, he was elected as a Democrat]. He also sits on 4 other comities [one of which is also law enforcement related]. First it has to shown that this unusual then that it has any bearing whatsoever.

...a right-winger - born in Brooklyn - only arrived in Minnesota in the early 90's?

Although he has since moved to the right, during the 2002 election he portrayed himself as a centrist. Coleman moved to Minnesota in 1976 after law school. In 1998 he and Hubert Humphrey III were beaten by Jesse Ventura in the Governor's race. Ironically Humphrey beat another son of a long term senator, one term VP and defeated presidential candidate "Chip" Mondale in the primaries.

Wellstone was born in Arlington Va. and moved to Minnesota in 1969 to teach at Carleton College after completing his doctorate at UNC-Chapel Hill. He was first elected to the Senate after having lived in Minnesota for 21 years, Coleman after having lived in the state 26 years. Both had been student radicals, Coleman was the leader of the SDS at Hofstra. In another irony Rudy Boschwitz, Wellstone's predecessor [1978 - 91] who he defeated twice [1990 and 96], like Wellstone and Coleman was Jewish and only came to the state after college.

What were the poll numbers before the election?

Wellstone was besting Coleman 47 - 41 in the last poll before he died. In the next poll Mondale increased the lead to 49 - 41. After the funeral/rally polls were mixed.

There was a vicious media attack on his funeral - that it was a thinly veiled political rally.

I agree the media over reacted the Republicans are spin masters but the Democrats were to blame also. People expected it to be a non-partisan event, several Republicans had come to pay their respects. Rick Kahn, Wellstone's longtime volunteer treasurer [not campaign manager as falsely reported by Fetzer], who gave the most offending speech admitted his mistake and apologised.

The bigger issue is that of forcibly directing the course of American policy and political discussion through brute strength and immoral killings - the stealing of elections in the U.S.

I agree there is strong evidence that the GOP is able to manipulate vote counts in their favor. How ever evidence that Wellstone was killed is like that old Elvis [Costello] song - "Less Than Zero"

Hello,

Except for Josiah, Craig and Fetzer I don't think any of you know who I am. Greetings to one and all!

Fetzer knows me all too well! On the Yahoo forum mentioned by Tink. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/ . One or two other people and I poked so many holes in his claims about the Wellstone case there that he fled. Come back Jim, we miss you!

His facts have almost all been spun, taken out of context or just plain made up.

I am so sure the facts are in my favor and that I hereby challenge him to a debate on the issue. I pasted a challenge I made to him on the Yahoo board below.

I hope he has enough courage to debate me here!

From: "Leonard"

Date: Mon Sep 5, 2005 9:38 am

Subject: Fetzer - I challenge you to a debate about the Wellstone case!

I think I'll be stateside Thanksgiving week [arriving the weekend

before and going back the weekend after]. I should be back in July

[2006].

The two of us being in the same location would be ideal but not

necessary. Black Ops would be a possibility but I would have to know

who was engineering and who the moderator was before hand to make

sure I was not "conspired" against.

If we were to debate over an Internet link there would be no reason to

wait for me to be in the US but I would still prefer a situation where

the moderator, you and I are all in the same location.

Len

My name is Leonard Colby, but I prefer ed to be called Len. I was born in North Carolina in 1965 but moved to New York City with my mother and sister when I was five. I consider myself a New Yorker.

I studied American History at Oberlin where I help restart the ACLU. After college I lived in Boston for a few years where I took photography and video classes. I moved back to NYC in 1990 where I ran my own T-shirt business and booked and video taped GG Allin tours among other activities.

I have lived in Brazil since 1993. I teach English and work as a translator/interpreter. I also sell Native Amazonian and Brazilian folk art over the Internet..

I wish to join the forum to discuss issues relating to English teaching and conspiracy theories (normally on the debunking side)

The site I am still constructing for my art business is www.brazilianartsandmusic.com