Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jesse Ventura's JFK "Conspiracy Theory" program


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Tom,

This is the most constructive exchange I have ever had on this forum, which I greatly appreciate. I

am deleting the sentence about Osama and his Mastercard, where I have been ambivalent about it.

Michael Green and Jim Hoffman have made unworthy attacks on Scholars and upon me, to which I

have replied, but which you have probably not run across in your search. Here are my responses:

The Company You are Keeping: Comments on Hoffman and Green

by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., 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

by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html

Something else you may find very interesting is that Wikipedia has been fostering false impressions

about me and Scholars for some time, where I have been prevented from correcting them. See,

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

which will give you some idea of what I have been up against even within the 9/11 community! I

like the idea of focusing on three key points, at least in short interviews. But mine usually run an

hour or even more. Nevertheless, I will think about how Greenwald handles these things, where I

would bet I can benefit from his example. Thanks very much for your comments and suggestions.

Jim

Jim,

Thank you for reacting to my post as I intended to convey it, as constructive criticism.

I read your piece linked in the upper right corner of the Scholars for Truth page. Aside from my thinking it

is not a good strategy to include so many points of contention in your argument, you are correct, it does

not give the impression that it is sensational or something a carnival barker on the midway would deliver.

I think it could have done without this, but I can see why a public speaker would chose to include it.:

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46

19....The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they were even aboard the aircraft

they are alleged to have hijacked. Did Osama call from a cave in Afghanistan and charge them to his MasterCard?

You are also correct about an impression formed of you based on the contents of your posts in a venue such as

this forum not being a fair or accurate way to get a sense of how you communicate to public audiences.

While I searched for the link I posted above, I came across a 2006 piece by a Dr. Green who chose to take the easy way out in responding to your numerous arguments, he resorted to making it about you, attacking you instead of taking on your numerous points.

I found the best way to avoid being targeted for that tactic was to confine your arguments to your three strongest points, maximum. It becomes much more unlikely an attempt will be made to make it about you, and if it does happen, you'll have to deal with only a fourth point to defend, instead of a dozen, plus an attempt to make you the main issue. The ones I liked to use were the 9/11 Commission and the press ignoring Leon Mineta's testimony and his timeline, all of the inconsistancies and delays in the investigation and the final NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7, amd the fairy tale told by Ted Olson about his wife on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

I don't know if you are a regular reader of Glenn Greenwald, but I think he has a knack for showcasing the double standards, inconsistencies, and incoherence, and the hypocrisy of the "serious people" and the establishment press that fawns all over them and provides them an unchallenged venue to distribute anonymous

propaganda to the public.:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=11&year=2010&base_name=glenn_greenwald_on_his_exchang

Glenn Greenwald on his exchange with NPR's Dina Temple-Raston:

At roughly 53:00, the Q-and-A session with the audience began, and the first questioner was NPR's national security reporter Dina Temple-Raston, whose Awlaki reporting I had criticized just a couple days earlier for uncritically repeating claims told to her by anonymous Pentagon officials. She directed her rather critical multi-part question to me, claiming, among other things, that she had seen evidence of Awlaki's guilt as a Terrorist (which she had not previously reported or described in any detail), and that led to a rather contentious -- and, in my view, quite revealing -- exchange about the role of journalists and how Awlaki can and should be punished if he is, in fact, guilty of any actual crime.

It's really an amazing exchange -- Temple-Raston snaps at Greenwald, asking him, "Isn't it possible that I've seen something you haven't seen?" When asked about the evidence of al-Awlaki's operational role in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, she smugly tells him that "he doesn't do national security for a living."

Temple-Raston is a good reporter, and hardly ignorant of the civil-liberties side of the national-security equation. I have no doubt that government officials have shown her evidence of al-Awlaki having an operational role in AQAP. But that's really beside the point when we're discussing whether or not the government has the authority to kill an American citizen without due process based on secret evidence. So it's interesting to me that she felt obligated to back Greenwald down, since that suggests the kind of analytical conclusion "objective" reporters aren't supposed to make: Al-Awlaki is guilty therefore targeting him is ok. It's also a marker of what Radley Balko refers to as the media's "statist" bias, which doesn't take place along a clear left-right spectrum but rather represents "bia toward power and authority, automatically turning to politicians for solutions to every perceived problem." Balko was talking about newspaper editorial boards, but I think the analysis probably holds true in a number of other circumstances, especially when we're talking about national security since reporters are so inherently dependent on government sources.

This exchange also illustrates the degree to which the institutional problems of American journalism that helped lead to the war in Iraq haven't changed. In the run up to that conflict, the trust of journalists was purchased with limited access to evidence that brought reporters to blatantly false conclusions about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's links to al-Qaeda.

Now we're being asked again to trust the secret evidence the government lets journalists take a peek at in order to prove their point, a point which could lead to a devastatingly broad precedent that has implications beyond eliminating this one reprehensible human being. Again, accepting even the likelihood that the government is actually right about al-Awlaki in this particular case, how could we possibly be going down this road again? We've learned absolutely nothing.

COMMENTS (33)

Very interesting, Adam. Thanks for posting on this. If I could expand a bit on what hasn't been learned... It's not just that reporters haven't learned to be skeptical when they are shown little glimpses of the "secret" evidence, or that the statist bias hasn't come onto their radar as something to watch out for. I think it goes deeper.

Reporters like Temple-Raston have this mental calculus they have not been able to question. It goes like this....

"We try to get information on the record, oh, we try mightily. But there are some things our sources won't tell us unless we agree to keep their identities secret (on background) and there are other things they won't tell us unless we agree not to publish them at all (off the record.) It pains us, it's frustrating, and--again--we struggle against it daily, but... if it comes down to being left in the dark completely, or agreeing to these restrictions and seeing what the government has as evidence, a good reporter will take that risk because it's better to know than to be left clueless. If you know, then you have some context for interpreting what the government is saying, publicly. And that's ultimately our job, to give our listeners the context, not just the soundbite. It kills us that we can't go on the record with some of this stuff; and we fight to get as much of it as we can into our reports. But the national security beat is a tough beat, and you have to do a lot of things you don't really want to do..."

That's what they say to themselves. But what they should be saying to themselves is: Every single thing I know that I cannot tell the public is poisoning my relationship with the public and delivering me into the arms of the state.

Which is why the most telling moment for me, in the clip you pointed us to, is when Temple-Raston tries to sever Greenwald from the people who do national security for a living. She doesn't realize that it is exactly this divide her sources wanted to create by inviting her in. She thinks that by accepting their invite, she's gaining information, context, clues to what's really going on. She's not thinking about the other side of it: the loss of solidarity.

Thus she looks with pity on clueless outsiders like Glenn, mixed with anger that they are criticizing her without knowing everything she knows! But that is exactly what she signed up for when she accepted the deal: "I will show what we have but you can't tell the public."

Please excuse me for referencing something I said in a Q and A with Washington Post readers several years ago: (Nov. 22, 2005)

...In theory we send these people out to report back to us. Some of them penetrate the secret worlds of national security and government policy-making on our behalf. But if they keep going into the secret world they can come under the gravitational pull of another planet— the people in power, the secret-makers themselves. They’re still sending back their reports, but have “left” our universe, so to speak. I think this definitely happened with Judith Miller, who is very far gone by now. It may have happened with Woodward too. The mysterious part is you never know exactly when that point is reached.[end]

It's that gravitational pull we see evidence on this clip, which is why it's so compelling for some of us to watch.

Posted by: Jay Rosen | November 12, 2010 1:26 PM

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

Greenwald just keeps the argument about them, as often as possible in their own, contradictory words. He makes them look even more foolish when he is able to draw them out with the intent to try to make it about him. They

are buried by their own, absurd records of statements vs. actions, vs. other statements. He spends little time on the defensive, and he maintains his credibility because they aren't able to shift the focus onto him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

A very appropriate response, Christopher. Am I the only one who is the

least bit taken aback that, after complaining for all these years that JFK

was not getting enough attention from the media, we have an exceptional

program like this and so very few seem to care? Not even those who post

at the drop of a hat on many more insignificant threads? I really don't get it.

I thought that the Ventura show on the JFK assassination was great.

Most of his shows give shallow coverage of some fairly important topics, with an emphasis more on Jessie and less on the subject matter.

I want to see this one again.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I DVR'd the show and didn't get to watch it until last night. I echo the comments of most here; the importance of having this kind of information broadcast on a television network seen my millions overshadows any of the minor criticisms I had with it (and they are pretty much the same ones others have detailed here).

I understand the view that Jesse Ventura's sensationalist, tabloid style is often easier to debate than the scholarly work of a John Newman, for instance. This holds true, to an even greater extent, for the much maligned Alex Jones. However, as I've stated before, it may take just this kind of "carnival barking" to capture the attention of the vast numbers of disinterested (and largely apolitical) Americans. Young people are far more apt to be attracted to a Jesse Vantura, or an Alex Jones, than an anonymous researcher whose work, without question, would certainly be far less susceptible to the barbs of LNers and mainstream journalists.

This program, and really all the episodes of "Conspiracy Theory." represent a tremendous breakthrough, in my view. It's really the first time that conspiracy-oriented thinking has been the basis of a network television series. There have been fictionalized programs, like "The X-Files," but Jesse's show is far more significant, because here we have real people and real events being dissected, not by the Dan Rathers and Walter Cronkites, but by those who actually believe conspiracies are a very real aspect of our world.

This show's importance cannot be overstated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I also want to thank you for your post. You've bought up issues I myself have been thinking a lot about lately. Methods of research.

There can sometimes be an overly hostile environment created here, but of late I've seen a lot of well balanced respect for researchers with different points of view, and methods of presentation. It's refreshing, and I've come to admire so many people here for the giving and taking that, well, politeness and cordiallity has bought about.

About the program, I've yet to see it, but will watch it in the next few days. I hope then to have something to add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From tvbythenumbers.com:

As truTV marches toward what is on track to be its best year ever in primetime delivery of key adult and male demos, the network’s original series are

delivering outstanding time-period growth.

New episodes of Most Shocking (Wednesday at 9 p.m.), Black Gold (Wednesday at 10 p.m.) and The Smoking Gun Presents: World’s Dumbest… (Thursday at 9 p.m.)

and
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura
(Friday at 10 p.m.) all scored double- and triple-digit percentage growth for their timeslots among truTV’s targeted demos: adults 18-34,

adults 18-49, men 18-34 and men 18-49.

The final numbers for Friday's show should be out any day now.

I thought that the show was excellent, considering the time restraints of a sixty minute program. It's only natural that there will be disagreement

about some of the details and approaches taken by Ventura and his staff, particularly among The Education Forum members. In my opinion,

that in no way detracts from the overall purpose of the program, which was to bring JFK's murder to a broader audience that might not be

familiar with many of the important issues reported in the show. TruTV deserves some credit for allowing discussion of the former U.S. Presidents

and their possible connections. We all remember what happened when the History Channel aired Turner's segment on LBJ.

Speaking of Nigel Turner -- Jim, did you have the opportunity to bring up the Judyth Baker story to Jesse Ventura and, if so, what was his response?

Probably my favorite segment of the show was Jesse Ventura's closing remarks, delivered with his trademark growl:

"Almost fifty years later its still the same old Military-Industrial complex. The same powers still calling the shots, still threatening, still trying to keep us from the truth.

A lone gunman? A magic bullet?

WAKE UP!

I'm Jesse Ventura and this is Conspiracy Theory."

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From tvbythenumbers.com:

As truTV marches toward what is on track to be its best year ever in primetime delivery of key adult and male demos, the network’s original series are

delivering outstanding time-period growth.

New episodes of Most Shocking (Wednesday at 9 p.m.), Black Gold (Wednesday at 10 p.m.) and The Smoking Gun Presents: World’s Dumbest… (Thursday at 9 p.m.)

and
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura
(Friday at 10 p.m.) all scored double- and triple-digit percentage growth for their timeslots among truTV’s targeted demos: adults 18-34,

adults 18-49, men 18-34 and men 18-49.

The final numbers for Friday's show should be out any day now.

I thought that the show was excellent, considering the time restraints of a sixty minute program. It's only natural that there will be disagreement

about some of the details and approaches taken by Ventura and his staff, particularly among The Education Forum members. In my opinion,

that in no way detracts from the overall purpose of the program, which was to bring JFK's murder to a broader audience that might not be

familiar with many of the important issues contained in the show. TruTV deserves some credit for allowing discussion of the former U.S. Presidents

and their possible connections. We all remember what happened when the History Channel aired Turner's segment on LBJ.

Speaking of Nigel Turner -- Jim, did you have the opportunity to bring up the Judyth Baker story to Jesse Ventura and, if so, what was his response?

Probably my favorite segment of the show was Jesse Ventura's closing remarks, delivered with his trademark growl:

"Almost fifty years later its still the same old Military-Industrial complex. The same powers still calling the shots, still threatening, still trying to keep us from the truth.

A lone gunman? A magic bullet?

WAKE UP!

I'm Jesse Ventura and this is Conspiracy Theory."

A1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very appropriate response, Christopher. Am I the only one who is the

least bit taken aback that, after complaining for all these years that JFK

was not getting enough attention from the media, we have an exceptional

program like this and so very few seem to care? Not even those who post

at the drop of a hat on many more insignificant threads? I really don't get it.

I thought that the Ventura show on the JFK assassination was great.

Most of his shows give shallow coverage of some fairly important topics, with an emphasis more on Jessie and less on the subject matter.

I want to see this one again.

I enjoyed the program Jim, and I also like Ventura

My hope is that people who dont know much about the assassination viewed the program and want to learn more

99% of my friends have no clue what happened on Nov 22 1963, I wish that would change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jim.

I am happy that you started a thread on this.

I was going to do so if no one else did.

I need to watch the show again a few times to pick up on leads that it started to develop.

I believe (along with Bill Kelly, I believe) that resolving this matter fully and finaly will require access to information currently being held confidential by the government.

It's nice to see this type of show appearing in the media, because the overwhelming majority of inroads on the assassination has come from the research community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very appropriate response, Christopher. Am I the only one who is the

least bit taken aback that, after complaining for all these years that JFK

was not getting enough attention from the media, we have an exceptional

program like this and so very few seem to care? Not even those who post

at the drop of a hat on many more insignificant threads? I really don't get it.

I thought that the Ventura show on the JFK assassination was great.

Most of his shows give shallow coverage of some fairly important topics, with an emphasis more on Jessie and less on the subject matter.

I want to see this one again.

Oh, they care Dr. Jim! They REALLY care! Simply hoping the show will pass into obscurity as soon as possible -- They're hoping their silence will be overlooked due to something as simple as, too close to the holiday for any serious dialogue with the CT community (of course they know they'll get their collective, lone nut as*** kicked).

Hope this coming holiday season finds you and your family well.....

David H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The third (factual error) is that the old tramp was not E. Howard by Chauncey Holt. The ears, the eyebrows, and the mouth are wrong for Hunt. I organized a symposium in Dallas a few years back featuring his daughter, Karyn, his wife, Mary, and photos from the family album, which Karyn superimposed on the tramp. It was Chauncey. But your identification of him as E. Howard worked beautifully for making the transition to the confession. I have no complaints. It was brilliant!

Warm regards,

Jim[/i]

Are you saying that making factual errors is acceptable- even "brilliant"- as long as it makes it easier to present whatever your current theory of the case happens to be? That actually explains quite a bit about your work over the years.

Agreed. Jim's statement, on the surface, indicates that it is not inappropriate to tell little lies to fight a big lie. The problem, as I see it, is that once those little lies are exposed, you lose credibility, and those telling the big lie can use this to dismiss the rest of what you have to say, no matter how true.

It does not surprise me he would make such a statement and it would not surprise me if such thinking effected his claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Since I corrected my first impressions in post #16, is this really the best you can do?

You aren't retarded. This was the single best one-hour program on JFK in TV history!

The third (factual error) is that the old tramp was not E. Howard by Chauncey Holt. The ears, the eyebrows, and the mouth are wrong for Hunt. I organized a symposium in Dallas a few years back featuring his daughter, Karyn, his wife, Mary, and photos from the family album, which Karyn superimposed on the tramp. It was Chauncey. But your identification of him as E. Howard worked beautifully for making the transition to the confession. I have no complaints. It was brilliant!

Warm regards,

Jim[/i]

Are you saying that making factual errors is acceptable- even "brilliant"- as long as it makes it easier to present whatever your current theory of the case happens to be? That actually explains quite a bit about your work over the years.

Agreed. Jim's statement, on the surface, indicates that it is not inappropriate to tell little lies to fight a big lie. The problem, as I see it, is that once those little lies are exposed, you lose credibility, and those telling the big lie can use this to dismiss the rest of what you have to say, no matter how true.

It does not surprise me he would make such a statement and it would not surprise me if such thinking effected his claims.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the link to Part One of the Ventura episode on JFK. You can get the rest from YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHUKPXR5TbQ&feature=player_embedded

Thanks for the link. That "Part One" has links to the next 2 parts which complete the episode.

I'm not a fan of the sensationalist television style with LOTS! OF EXCLAMATION! POINTS!!! ...but I have to agree that this is a pretty good episode, touching on many important issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Michael,

That is one of several suggestions I have made, but it takes time for the alternatives to be sorted out. Thanks for asking.

Jim

From tvbythenumbers.com:

As truTV marches toward what is on track to be its best year ever in primetime delivery of key adult and male demos, the network’s original series are

delivering outstanding time-period growth.

New episodes of Most Shocking (Wednesday at 9 p.m.), Black Gold (Wednesday at 10 p.m.) and The Smoking Gun Presents: World’s Dumbest… (Thursday at 9 p.m.)

and
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura
(Friday at 10 p.m.) all scored double- and triple-digit percentage growth for their timeslots among truTV’s targeted demos: adults 18-34,

adults 18-49, men 18-34 and men 18-49.

The final numbers for Friday's show should be out any day now.

I thought that the show was excellent, considering the time restraints of a sixty minute program. It's only natural that there will be disagreement

about some of the details and approaches taken by Ventura and his staff, particularly among The Education Forum members. In my opinion,

that in no way detracts from the overall purpose of the program, which was to bring JFK's murder to a broader audience that might not be

familiar with many of the important issues reported in the show. TruTV deserves some credit for allowing discussion of the former U.S. Presidents

and their possible connections. We all remember what happened when the History Channel aired Turner's segment on LBJ.

Speaking of Nigel Turner -- Jim, did you have the opportunity to bring up the Judyth Baker story to Jesse Ventura and, if so, what was his response?

Probably my favorite segment of the show was Jesse Ventura's closing remarks, delivered with his trademark growl:

"Almost fifty years later its still the same old Military-Industrial complex. The same powers still calling the shots, still threatening, still trying to keep us from the truth.

A lone gunman? A magic bullet?

WAKE UP!

I'm Jesse Ventura and this is Conspiracy Theory."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...