Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone

[Len Colby]

[

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?

[Pat Speer]

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.

While quite often those on the left react to every possible right-wing conspiracy as if it was a done deal, there is undoubtedly a growing movement of men who immediately pounce on these scenarios and try to expose and humiliate anyone who would dare espouse such a scenario. In some cases this has been demonstrated to be more than an accident--as in the websites which popped up overnight to repudiate the Dan Rather story about Bush's military "service". While one might say that this is business as usual, the fact is when the right declared war on Clinton and started their Clinton murder lists etc. there was NO immediate response by the left, as they failed to take these things seriously. The right--KNOWING how they used lies and innuendoes to blacken Clinton--are especially sensitive to these kinds of stories, and have made it their mission to respond in kind. In other words, 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, where e-mails calling John Kerry a communist apparently won the day in 2004. ( I received one which reported, in all seriousness, that John Kerry was in the North Vietnamese Hall of Fame...Sadly, my aunt forwarded this to everyone from her church, so that they would "know" what kind of man he really was.) 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.

That said, I think that Vincent Salandria is alarmingly paranoid, and am distressed that Dr. Fetzer seems to be following his lead regarding Thompson. Salandria's claims that the Big Bad Boogeymen who killed Kennedy DELIBERATELY left a trail of conflicting evidence so that the left in general and men like Salandria in particular would feel powerless, is nothing but a paranoid's excuse for the simple fact that he couldn't figure things out. If Salandria had been willing to open his mind and consider that some of his pre-conceptions could be wrong then maybe he'd have discovered that the evidence DOES add up and point convincingly towards conspiracy.

As for Dr. Fetzer's claims about the Z-film and alteration in general, I am admittedly a skeptic. I just don't understand why the CIA or whomever would fake a film which in my interpretation demonstrates that a conspiracy was likely. Since I also believe the autopsy photos demonstate that Kennedy was hit by at least three shots, I believe they also demonstrate a conspiracy was likely. If anyone who believes this evidence was altered to PROVE there was one shooter firing from behind is willing to put ther money where their alterationist mouths are, and debate me publicly whether or not this evidence demonstrates there were two shooters firing from behind, I'm game. Somehow I just don't see Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Mantik, Harrison Livingstone, and David Lifton willing to argue on behalf of the SBT, which they must believe WORKS if they do in fact believe that the evidence is convincing for Oswald's sole guilt minus their alteration theories.

As with Thompson, I believe strongly that the case for conspiracy can be made without insinuating that everything is fake and everyone who disagrees with me is part of the plot. So on this point I take Thompson's side.

As far as his going on to Amazon and trashing all of Dr. Fetzer's books, in an attempt to discourage people from even reading them, I do think that's a bit low.

The suggestion of a busy-body: Mr. Thompson should apologize for publicly trashing Dr. Fetzer's books, while Dr. Fetzer should apologize for suggesting that Mr. Thompson, who put in a lot of work on the case in the 60's and was considered by many THE most convincing voice in argument for a conspiracy, was a disinformation agent on behalf of the CIA....

If I'm not making sense here, please slap me down.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Len Colby]

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

[Len Colby]

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.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Len Colby

[Pat Speer]

Well, Len, it certainly seems you've done your homework. You make an excellent case that pilot error is a strong possibility, perhaps even a probability. Thanks for sharing your research.

Have you looked into other areas as well? Have you looked into how someone could make an accident look like pilot error? While this may sound paranoid, it is a matter of public record that the CIA in the 50's and 60's did a lot of testing and research in a successful effort to make poisons that could kill a man while leaving the appearance of a heart-attack.With that in mind, it's unthinkable to me that they didn't also develop techniques to make plane crashes look like pilot error, etc. While I have no reason to believe the CIA or the Bush Administration itself had anything to do with the Wellstone crash, the possibility exists in my mind that some right-wing fringe group, aware of Wellstone's reputation as the most liberal Senator in America, brought about his downfall. I'd feel the same way if Tom DeLay suddenly went down.

While you argue that the technology described by Fetzer as having caused the plane crash is not really operational, I was wondering if you were aware of any other techniques whereby a plane crash could be made to look like an accident. Do such techniques exist? Have you uncovered anything that makes you suspect foul play?

I guess I'm probing to see how open-minded you are. The zeal with which you are attempting to shut down Fetzer's arguments reminds me a bit of the Warren Commission apologists of the sixties who WERE RIGHT 80% of the time, but ultimately wrong. There were dozens of writers and newscasters who strongly rejected the claim of the "research community" that the wound on the back of the neck mentioned in the Warren Report, was really on Kennedy's back. That is, well, until the HSCA released a drawing in 1978 that showed that OOPS the "research community" was right and it really was on the back. The zeal with which you are pushing pilot error could, to my mind, be a similar mistake.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I don't know who Pat Speer is and some of his comments are OK by me, but he

verges on the absurd to suggest that I would not be willing to debate the "magic"

bullet theory with him or anyone else. Is this guy so massively ignorant of what

my collaborators and I have published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, MURDER

IN DEALEY PLAZA, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX? At this point in

time, does he not begin to grasp what we have PROVEN about the case? He

might to amazon.com and read the summary of MURDER that is found there.

He might to to assassinationresearch.com and review "The JFK Introductory

Seminar", which includes my "'Lone-Nutter' Refutation" and an "Introduction

to Zapruder Film Alteration" by John P. Costella. He doesn't appear to me to

be up-to-speed on what is known about the death of JFK today--not remotely!

As for being impressed by PR posts from the likes of Leonard Colby, whom I

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

dare say--if it is not too presumptuous!--that it might be a good idea to READ

the book, which devotes a full chapter to the motives for his murder--and the

rest of our case. For more recent research, you might want to take a look at

the piece, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", published in fromthewilderness.com

on 6 July 2005 and subsequently in FROM THE WILDERNESS (31 July 2005),

pp. 15-22, which I co-authored with John Costella, who holds a Ph.D. in the

field of electromagnetism. It is now available on line at the following link:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...wellstone.shtml

These guys are fond of quoting from THE NTSB REPORT on the crash, but

we have dismembered it, first in the book, second in this new study, where

Costella and I studied the numerous reports upon which the NTSB claimed

to base its report and discovered extensive key omissions and distortions.

Our research continues, where we have turned up evidence that the plane

was lured into the "kill zone" by manipulating GPS data in order to place it

in a suitable position to be taken out. I discussed this on The Mike Malloy

Show on airamericaradio.com for an interview about the death of Senator

Wellstone, which can be found by going to the following link, which archives

his programs, including mine, and scrolling down to Friday, 12 August 2005:

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Malloy.html

Having gone to a great deal of time, effort, and expense to conduct the

research under discussion, I think it would be most apppropriate if those

on this forum who want to debate the issues were to actually acquire the

background appropriate thereto by READING OUR STUDIES! I know the

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

because I have been dealing with it for years. 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,

the first stage of which is typically devoted to a LITERATURE SEARCH to

bring yourself up-to-speed, which you appear not to have done in either

the case of the death of JFK or the plane crash that killed Paul Wellstone.

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. 

While quite often those on the left react to every possible right-wing conspiracy as if it was a done deal, there is undoubtedly a growing movement of men who immediately pounce on these scenarios and try to expose and humiliate anyone who would dare espouse such a scenario.  In some cases this has been demonstrated to be more than an accident--as in the websites which popped up overnight to repudiate the Dan Rather story about Bush's military "service".  While one might say that this is business as usual, the fact is when the right declared war on Clinton and started their Clinton murder lists etc.  there was NO immediate response by the left, as they failed to take these things seriously.  The right--KNOWING how they used lies and innuendoes to blacken Clinton--are especially sensitive to these kinds of stories, and have made it their mission to respond in kind.  In other words, 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, where e-mails calling John Kerry a communist apparently won the day in 2004. ( I received one which reported, in all seriousness, that John Kerry was in the North Vietnamese Hall of Fame...Sadly, my aunt forwarded this to everyone from her church, so that they would "know" what kind of man he really was.)  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.

That said, I think that Vincent Salandria is alarmingly paranoid, and am distressed that Dr. Fetzer seems to be following his lead regarding Thompson.  Salandria's claims that the Big Bad Boogeymen who killed Kennedy DELIBERATELY left a trail of conflicting evidence so that the left in general and men like Salandria in particular would feel powerless, is nothing but a paranoid's excuse for the simple fact that he couldn't figure things out.  If Salandria had been willing to open his mind and consider that some of his pre-conceptions could be wrong then maybe he'd have discovered that the evidence DOES add up and point convincingly towards conspiracy.

As for Dr. Fetzer's claims about the Z-film and alteration in general, I am admittedly a skeptic.  I just don't understand why the CIA or whomever would fake a film which in my interpretation demonstrates that a conspiracy was likely.  Since I also believe the autopsy photos demonstate that Kennedy was hit by at least three shots, I believe they also demonstrate a conspiracy was likely.  If anyone who believes this evidence was altered to PROVE there was one shooter firing from behind is willing to put ther money where their alterationist mouths are, and debate me publicly whether or not this evidence demonstrates there were two shooters firing from behind, I'm game. Somehow I just don't see Dr. Fetzer, Dr.  Mantik, Harrison Livingstone, and David Lifton willing to argue on behalf of the SBT, which they must believe WORKS if they do in fact believe that the evidence is convincing for Oswald's sole guilt minus their alteration theories.

As with Thompson, I believe strongly that the case for conspiracy can be made without insinuating that everything is fake and everyone who disagrees with me is part of the plot.  So on this point I take Thompson's side.

As far as his going on to Amazon and trashing all of Dr. Fetzer's books, in an attempt to discourage people from even reading them, I do think that's a bit low.

The suggestion of a busy-body:  Mr. Thompson should apologize for publicly trashing Dr. Fetzer's books, while Dr. Fetzer should apologize for suggesting that Mr. Thompson, who put in a lot of work on the case in the 60's and was considered by many THE most convincing voice in argument for a conspiracy, was a disinformation agent on behalf of the CIA.... 

If I'm not making sense here, please slap me down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 7, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Len Colby]

"... 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?

Edited September 8, 2005 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

...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!

[Len Colby]

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!

[David G. Healy]

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Pat Speer]

Dr. Fetzer, I'm sorry if my post upset you. If you read my words closely I think you'll see that I am withholding judgement on the Wellstone case, at least until I read your book. You clearly put a lot of time into it and I heartily agree that someone should read someone's book before criticizing it, which is more than many have been willing to do for Bugliosi, by the way.

I was merely applauding Len on his hard work. I applaud you on your hard work as well. I was also probing Len to see if he's uncovered anything on his own that smells of foul play. He insists the answer is no. Since I haven't read your book, I am at this time non-committal on Wellstone's death. 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.

You seem to have a bit of a temper, Dr. Jim. In some ways I envy you that. But you mustn't let a rush to judgment blind you. You completely misinterpreted my statements about the magic bullet. In your book, Murder in Dealey Plaza, which I purchased after we exchanged some relative pleasantries on another thread, there was quite a bit of material by Dr. Mantik. Consequently, I know you stand behind his work and his words. Dr. David Mantik has written "If the evidence in the JFK case is merely accepted at face value, then the conclusions are rather trivial. The rookie Scotland Yard detector can easily solve this case--it was Oswald alone. The real challenge is to assess the credibility of the evidence.” This to me means he believes the magic bullet and the cowlick shot and all the other garbage of the medical evidence all add up, which I know is not true. My offer to debate the Davids was predicated on them defending the premise that their "proofs" of alteration are necessary to prove conspiracy and not just a distraction. I made this debate offer half-jokingly, fully believing that Dr. Mantik's words were merely hyperbole intended to convince readers that proving alteration is the key to proving a conspiracy. I don't expect anyone to take me up on it. If however, he is willing to stand by his words and defend the SBT, and the existence of phantom skull entrances, as I said, I'm game.

I firmly believe that science, not necessarily assassination science, will eventually rule the day, but not by proving alteration. Instead, I expect that scientists and doctors will gradually break ranks and admit that the analysis of the Forensic Pathology Panel, the Trajectory Analyst Thomas Canning, and the Neutron Activation Analyst Vincent Guinn, among others, was unscientific and heavily flawed. I expect the Neutron Activation Analyis, which concluded that the wrist fragments were highly probable to have come from the magic bullet, CE399, will be debunked within the year by a group of established and respected scientists, experts in their field.

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

[Len Colby]

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.

[Len Colby]

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

[Len Colby]

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

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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