Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did fallacious Fetzer fabricates a farce?


Len Colby

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Does anyone seriously doubt that Colby's appearance here

was intended to create a distraction from the discovery of

NEW PROOF OF JFK FILM FAKERY? I have seen this done

in tandem with Tink over and over again on one or more

forums. When the heat gets too hot in the kitchen, they

start a fire in the dining room! Tried and true. Create a

diversion, no matter how irresponsible it may be or how

distorted its basis in fact, and inflame the audience with

the expectation that the new incident will overshadow the

latest revelation--in this case, about the Zapruder and Nix

films--and thereby weaken its impact. Costella had taken

Tink apart, as anyone can discern from reading what I've

posted already. That needed obfuscation at all costs. It is

no suprise to me to see an EMT show up in an attempt to

staunch the flow of blood that accompanies newfound truth.

That is their modus operandi and no one ought to be taken in.

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

Evan,

I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP).

Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions.

The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth.

Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements.

When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits.

If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers.

SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY.

THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT.

Accordingly:

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

Charles Drago

Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"?

Because such a misreading is the best you can offer.

By the by, it's "inflammatory."

And it's a term, not a "phrase."

Oh no! A spelling mistake! How ever will I survive?

And it is both a term and a phrase.

Oh most Lone Nuts survive, kinda reminds me of that battery bunny, the Nutter's just go on a-tick'in...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest David Guyatt
All,

The situation was not as Leonard suggests.

Jim

Jim, the situation rarely is as Leonard suggests. That much is clear and apparent to any who have tried to honestly debate with him.

I'm not aware of the other forum, and so have a brief question? Is there any good reason whatsoever that the discussion we're having here now could not have taken place on the other forum? Was there any need or justification for importing it here?

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I read the time line correctly, I had

already replied to Colby's grotesque

misrepresentations on another forum.

Here is what I posted there, which he,

I infer, knew before he posted here.

Before or after, this is a nice example

of the action of a man without scruples.

As Peter McKenna pointed out I started this thread before posting on the Yahoo forum. It seems that even figuring out matters as simple as time stamps and time zones is a litle bit too complicated for you.

> All,

>

> The situation was not as Leonard suggests.

>

> (1) I was informed by several sources that

> a member of Scholars, who had written a

> study about the WTC, had been threatened

> to the extent that he was withdrawing his

> paper, dropping his membership in Scholars,

> and retreating with his family for safety.

Can you tell us who any of those “sources” were? Did they claim to have heard directly from Dixon that he or his family had been threatened? If so did they quote directly from or forward any e-mails to you?

1) In his letter to the journal the author acknowledged that the paper was totally erroneous and indicated that was why he asked for it to be withdrawn and resigned from your group.

2) He made no mention of any threats against himself of his family.

3) He said he “naively agreed” to allow the paper to remain as “property of st911”.

4) He blamed your “quickly issued” press release for “magnifying the error” and said you did so “without consultation”,

5) I am far from alone in doubting the “threat” story. Jim Hoffman a leading truther (who is openly disdainful of you “contributions” to “the movement”) doesn’t believe it nor does Robert Moore a former member of your society who was credited as having helped “research” the paper. The editors of the Journal added a disclaimer saying you were the author of the footnote, why would they do so unless they doubted it was true?

> (2) Unable to contact him personally, I

> devised a method for keeping the paper up

> even though he was withdrawing as author,

> namely: by making it a publication of

> the society.

You couldn’t contact him? He said “Without consultation”, you “quickly issued [your] “press release” ”. It would be beyond disingenuous for him to say that IF your weren’t able to contact him. He also indicates he was in contact with Dr. Wood at the time. Was he lying then as well? Was he lying about the rest as well?

You said the idea to make the paper “a publication of the society”, he said the idea was presented to him by Wood. The only way to reconcile both versions is if the following sequence took place:

1) Dixon asks Wood for his paper to be withdrawn 2) Wood, or a 3rd party, tells you about this, 3) you come up with the idea and suggest it to Wood and she agrees 4) Wood contacts Dixon 5) Dixon agrees. Is that the order of events as you understand it?

> I was not endorsing its contents but his right of publication.

His claims fell apart upon minimal critical examination. Regardless of any threats supposedly received, once it was realized the paper was completely baseless it should have been withdrawn or at the least a disclaimer added explaining this.

> (3) I did what I could at the time to

> uphold freedom of speech and freedom

> of inquiry. The journal has always

> been under the control of Steve Jones,

> not me.

I imagine it’s true that the journal is and was Dr. Jones “baby” but at the time it was a publication of an organization you headed, you intervened to keep the paper in the publication and were able to insert a note in it. So it seems at the time you had considerable sway there.

> If this were a big deal, then

> I find it surprising that the original

> author has allowed it to remain there.

He explained that he asked for the paper to be withdrawn but Dr. Wood convinced him to leave it. It should also be noted that nearly a year after he asked again for the paper to be retracted it’s still there with no indication on the journal’s homepage or in the paper that everybody seems to acknowledge it was unfounded.

> This appears to me to be a nice example

> of scraping the bottom of the barrel.

> I took the strong action I did based

> upon my understanding of the facts at

> the time. No one, myself included, has

> any reason to apologize for standing up

> for freedom of speech and of inquiry.

Ditto what I said above, freedom of speech aside once it was realized the paper was garbage it should have been pulled. But are you the champion of free speech you make yourself out to be?

Let’s see you:

- advocated a military coup and seemed to endorse taking over a TV station http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm

- “suspended” Michael Brumsen a former full member of st911 who a) questioned you endorsement of a coup and B) started a open forum (as opposed to st911’s closed one) to discuss papers from the journal supposedly because he used the groups logo without permission.

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theori...html#post771644.

Oh and speaking of Brumsen’s forum you didn’t have anything to do with pressuring him to shut it down did you?

A true advocate of “freedom of speech and of inquiry” would have encouraged the forum to remain in existence and if they objected to use of the logo asked the administrator to take it off.

- hang out with Kevin Barrett your counterpart in the “Dynamic Duo”. A man who has called for the executions of Amy Goodman (Democracy Now), employees of Fox News, the producers of United 93 and “anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past”

http://www.oilempire.us/mujca.html

Yes you are a great champion of free speech, perhaps the ACLU should give you an award or a shrine built in your honor!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone seriously doubt that Colby's appearance here

was intended to create a distraction from the discovery of

NEW PROOF OF JFK FILM FAKERY?

Actually if one goes back to that thread they will see

- there hadn't been a post on it for nearly 48 hours before I started this thread thus it would have been buried on the 2nd or 3rd page of the JFK forum, thus it hard already had been basically forgotten about.

-The thread had become about tangential issues such as what film was shown on Soviet TV on the night of the 25th.

- I revived the thread by making the first post on it after 2 days of being dormant and starting this thread was started, odd if I had started this thread to distract from the other.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=136793

Let's not forget that

-there was another thread about Costella's "proof" that became dormant thus it was hardly the hot topic Fetzer suggests

- Most people on the JFK forum rarely venture over here if I wanted to create a distraction I would done so there.

I have seen this done in tandem with Tink over and over again on one or more

forums. When the heat gets too hot in the kitchen, they start a fire in the dining room!

"Over and over again" then I'm sure you can cite some examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not aware of the other forum, and so have a brief question? Is there any good reason whatsoever that the discussion we're having here now could not have taken place on the other forum? Was there any need or justification for importing it here?

David

I have previously noted your difficulty understanding what you read. You should really pay better atention.

1) As Peter showed I started this thread here before posting there

2) Fetzer already gave his theory as to why I posted this here (but as per the norm his claims don't stand up to scrutiny).

I posted this on two different forums because AFAIK the only people who a members of both are Josiah "Tink" Thompson, Craig, Fetzer and me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby increasingly appears to be associated with someone who

minutely monitors messages on the internet using keywords and

phrases to instantly reply to any postings anywhere which conflict

with official stories. No normal person anywhere WORKING ALONE

can possibly monitor everything "Colby" monitors and provide

immediate highly researched rebuttals. He seems to spend every

waking hour doing this, which no normal single person would

possibly be motivated to do.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Colby increasingly appears to be associated with someone who

minutely monitors messages on the internet using keywords and

phrases to instantly reply to any postings anywhere which conflict

with official stories. No normal person anywhere WORKING ALONE

can possibly monitor everything "Colby" monitors and provide

immediate highly researched rebuttals. He seems to spend every

waking hour doing this, which no normal single person would

possibly be motivated to do.

Jack

I think you might be right, Jack.

I seem to recall recently that Charles Drago also made reference to this possibility. Len's apparent ability to monitor and post a myriad of 'rebuttals' on a wide range of subjects with such alacrity would normally indicate a researcher of great diligence. But would such a person behave like Len does here?

I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Colby increasingly appears to be associated with someone who

minutely monitors messages on the internet using keywords and

phrases to instantly reply to any postings anywhere which conflict

with official stories. No normal person anywhere WORKING ALONE

can possibly monitor everything "Colby" monitors and provide

immediate highly researched rebuttals. He seems to spend every

waking hour doing this, which no normal single person would

possibly be motivated to do.

Jack

I think you might be right, Jack.

I seem to recall recently that Charles Drago also made reference to this possibility. Len's apparent ability to monitor and post a myriad of 'rebuttals' on a wide range of subjects with such alacrity would normally indicate a researcher of great diligence. But would such a person behave like Len does here?

I doubt it.

Mark,

You're referencing my "surgeon general's" warning about what I recognize to be the entity(s) presenting as "Colby." I'll post it here for the purposes of clarification:

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

I'd also like to re-submit the following from an earlier post on this thread:

I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP).

Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions.

The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth.

Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements.

When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits.

If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" masters.

SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY.

THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT.

I highly recommend this course of action in the case of "Colby."

Charles

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fetzer replied to me on the other forum, and I responded:

--- In FETZERclaimsDEBUNK@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@... wrote:

>

> Listen, I have already explained what happened. I have a great

> advantage over you in this regard: I was there and you were not.

Reynolds Dixon, the author of the “paper’, was there and his version of events is quite different from yours.

His version makes more sense. Do you really want us to believe that after the author told several people you knew he wanted to withdraw his paper because threats had been made against him and his family unless it was made to “go away” your solution was to leave the paper online but simply to remove his name and this was done with out getting his permission? In other words in the name of free speech you risked his and his family’s lives without getting his OK?

> Neither was Jim Hoffman, who has demonstrated to me a reckless

> disregard for truth, especially in relation to the Pentagon. I

> encourage anyone who wants to know the score on Hoffman to read:

>

> The Company You are Keeping: Comments on Hoffman and Green

> http://www.911scholars.org/Fetzer_9Feb2006.html

>

> What's the matter with Jim Hoffman? Abusing logic and language to

> attack Scholars for 9/11 Truth

> http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html

Those articles of yours are as full of errors and logical leaps as the rest of your body of work on 9/11, the Z-film and Wellstone etc. Though I disagree with his overall conclusion re:9/11 I respect Hoffman for making an effort to get his facts straight and adeptly debunk the more nonsensical theories about what happened that morning. Do you ever wonder why he is so much more respected in the "movement" than you are? You are widely disliked even hated by many "truthers" because they blame you for pushing crackpot theories and destroying ST911.

> It is unsurprising to me that you would flock together, a sorry lot,

> if I may say so.

Just because I cite him every once in a while we “flock together”? You acknowledged that several of his papers are linked off your site, people you are/were associated with like Drs. Jones and Griffin cite him extensively. So I guess you “flock together” with him too, “a sorry lot, if you may say so”.

> I have a lot on my agenda, and I really don't have

> time for all this silliness. I acted appropriately at the time given

> the information that was available to me then.

Oh yes tell us about why a self described champion of free speech would:

- hang out with someone who has called for the execution of journalists,

- seem to approve of forcibly taking over a TV station and

- suspend a member of st911 who disagreed with your views on some points and started an open forum to discuss the journal’s papers supposedly due to his unauthorized use of the group’s logo?

> And, speaking frankly, whether you, Hoffman or others of your ilk like it, I could care less.

Funny then that you replied twice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"?

<DELETED>

Len - I do consider the deleted phrase to be deliberately insulting and uncalled for. First and only warning regarding personal attacks of that nature. By all means express your opinion, but do it in a way that is more acceptable, please.

This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Feb 15 2008, 06:32 PM

Reason for edit: Removed ad hom

Replied to on the moderation thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest David Guyatt

If Jim Fetzer replied to you on that forum why post a/your reply here...

If he relies here then by all means answer here. If he posts there then also post a reply there -- where it rightfully belongs.

From past experience I can offer the rationale that when Leonard hops between threads there is always a devious reason and in my experience has to do with sowing confusion -- witness the examples outlined on the Mengele thread (link posted above), where his nibs sought to escape and evade a clear accounting by switching threads (not the first time either - it's an old, well used trick)).

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Jim Fetzer replied to you on that forum why post a/your reply here...

Because I thought it might be of interest to anyone following this thread. I asked him the same questions on both forums, so far he only replied there. I think that's because he gets an e-mail whenever a post is made

If he relies here then by all means answer here. If he posts there then also post a reply there -- where it rightfully belongs.

In case you failed to notice he copied posts (which included personal attacks on. Josiah Thompson, a forum member) written by John Costella (also a member here) from the same forum to a thread in the JFK , perhaps you should get on his case as well, you don't want to make it look like you operate by a double standard do you?

From past experience I can offer the rationale that when Leonard hops between threads there is always a devious reason and in my experience has to do with sowing confusion -- witness the examples outlined on the Mengele thread (link posted above), where his nibs sought to escape and evade a clear accounting by switching threads (not the first time either - it's an old, well used trick)).

This is not an analogous situation we are talking about different forums and there's no switching going on. As for those past occurrences you have failed to show any trickery on my part. When the subject of books about Hess came up on the Megele thread I preferred to continue that discussion on the Hess/Duke of Windsor thread because 1) it had already been discussed there in several posts and 2) it was OT on the Mengele thread. I copied all you posts over to the 2nd thread so your accusation that I was hiding something just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The same is true when the subject of Mineta's memory came up, I preferred to continue the discussion on the thread where it had been discussed already I even gave you the numbers of the relevent posts.

Len - Remember the rules regarding that word. First and only warning. Thanks. - Mod

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest David Guyatt
When the subject of books about Hess came up on the Megele thread I preferred to continue that discussion on the Hess/Duke of Windsor thread because 1) it had already been discussed there in several posts and 2) it was OT on the Mengele thread. I copied all you posts over to the 2nd thread so your accusation that I was hiding something just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The same is true when the subject of Mineta's memory came up, I preferred to continue the discussion on the thread where it had been discussed already I even gave you the numbers of the relevent posts.

Sure Len.

My interpretation remains a little different, however. You call such tricksiness "preference" -- I call it escape and evasion and spin.

But why am I bothering (he said shaking his head pointlessly).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...