Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone

[Len Colby]

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

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

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

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

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

Len

Edited September 9, 2005 by Len Colby

[David G. Healy]

Len Colby dronned on:

[...]

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

as Gary Ag infers--- Warranistas abound... quite frankly many whom call themselves CTer's are nothing more than simple 'liars', protecting positions proferred by the WCR -- where do you fall Mr. Colby? Original research, covering, shall we say, difficult events a bit tough for those on the "right" these day's?

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

Len

Edited September 9, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Len Colby]

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

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

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

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

Conry had 5,200 hours of experience

Bull$#!& !!!

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

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

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

and passed his FAA "flight check"

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The disparities between these two logbooks included the following:

-different flight hours for the same flights;

-different departure and arrival airports for the same flights;

-different flight times and dates for the same flights;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Len Colby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Len Colby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Len

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

Edited September 10, 2005 by Len Colby

[Tim Gratz]

And if we follow the cui bono theory of looking for conspirators, the person who most benefited from the death of Sen. Heinz was . . . Sen. Kerry, who also happens to be a (distant?) relative of Michael Paine, as I recall.

Edited September 10, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Len Colby]

Len, I can do my own feuding. I took Dr. Fetzer's post as an attempt to find common ground. As such, it was an acknowledgement that he had over-reacted.

I think you are giving him too much credit. Maybe that's because you are sympathetic to his beliefs. No acknowledgement of error was made, I didn't see any attempt to find common ground. You said something like you admire his ability to get angry. Being able to get angry can be a good thing but only when it is justified and your mild questioning in no way justified his obnoxious remarks.

You appologised to him but he didn't appologised to you. He denied calling you an idiot which he plainly did. I suggest again how detached from reality this shows he is. I mean is he using Bill Clinton [hey I voted for him twice] I didn't inhale, I did not have sex with woman it was only a blowjob and a cigar, I didn't call you an idiot just said you were "massively ignorant" logic? Did he forget what he had typed only two day earlier? Either case this alone enough should be to undermine his credibility.

And talking about credibility read my posts carefully. Look especially at the parts where I show the discrepancies between how he reports what a source said and their actual words. For example the what he says about who found which logbook, the discrepancies in the logbooks, what Herr Bollyn said about the FBI, what the final report said about stall alarms etc. In future posts I will point out further such discrepancies.

There's a security one derives from touting the official government position, or defending the "safest" viewpoint. You know you're on the side of the American flag, and Walter Cronkite and Uncle Ron.

I don't tout "the official government position" on most issues I was involved in the ACLU after all! I think Bush is a total asshole ditto "Uncle Ron". As for the flag I think people should be free to burn or even take a dump on it if they so desire - I chewed out a friend of mine who stuck one his kid's baby carriage after 9-11 [thankfully he took my advice and ditched it]. I always though Cronkite was cool didn't he call the Chicago cops who were hassling Dan Rather "a couple of thugs" and question the Vietnam War?

I don't know the entire history between you two, Len, but I can see clearly how your sudden arrival on this Forum to continue your assault on his book, would make Dr. Fetzer paranoid. He probably feels like he's being stalked.

The history between us is this. I started participating in the FETZERclaimsDEBUNK forum in June. His arrogance and obnoxiousness there spurred me on to debunk him even more. Also as I've said before he gives us liberals a bad name because people lump him with people bringing up legitimate questions about Bush's disastrous administration. Getting moderate voters to reject the GOP is the key to bring this country back sanity, wild unfounded CT's from Fetzer and his ilk don't help.

I was an active participant in that forum as was Fetzer. He fled the forum, because we poked too many holes in his contentions, a few weeks ago. Craig Lamson who many of you know pointed out that he posts here. Not being that into the JFK thing I did not post until John started this thread. I am not stalking him I just want him to answer my questions an stop spreading false information.

As for his paranoia it was infamous long before I even knew who he was.

While you claim to be a liberal, one doubts you were as upset by the Bush Administration's attempts to blame September 11th on President Clinton, as you are by Dr. Fetzer's attempts to link Wellstone's death to the Bush Administration. I wonder as well how you responded to the Clinton Chronicles videos which purported to prove that Clinton was behind the murder of Vince Foster, not to mention those poor little kids by the railroad tracks. Somehow I don't see you as having devoted as much time and energy to fight those kinds of outright lies, as you do in refuting Dr. Fetzer's not-unfounded opinion that it was unlikely for a plane with two pilots to crash in the manner described

I have given you no reason to doubt my political leanings. Do think I am flat out lying? I moved to Brazil in 1993 and have been a bit removed from American politics - I mean I still vote and follow the news on the Net and satalight TV but it's not the same as when I lived in the US [ those poor little kids by the railroad tracks?????].

From afar the Vince Foster, Clinton Chronicles etc seemed to ridiculous to be taken seriously. Bush's attempt to shift blame for 9/11 did piss me off but worse was knowing that if his administration had done their job the disaster might well have been avoided. Worse even was his snowballing of the American public in the push for war. But Fetzer and friends make debating these issues more difficult with their weird claims that the WTC collapse was a demolition job and that the Pentagon was hit by a missile etc. He belongs in the same boat as that Jim Marrs guy he brings discredit to those legitimately questioning the misdeeds of the Bush junta.

To be honest the FETZERclaimsDEBUNK group was the first Internet forum I got involved in As for the other issues there already were so many people debating them I don't know if my participation would have made much of a difference. I almost got involved in a debate over those Swift Boat assholes' crap about Kerry but it seemed pointless everyone on the board had already made up their minds.

As for Fetzer's claims I do think they are totally unfounded. A plane crashing in the manner it did is not common but similar accidents have occurred. It seems unlikely until you look closely at who those two pilots were. Having two pilots does not always increase safety. It does if one becomes incapacitated or if one screws up and the other catches it [as happen with Conry at least 5 times during his brief employment with the company] but when then the plane is about to crash it could make things worse. The two could "work at odds" one trying to pull the plane one way and the second the other. It also seems unlikely when you consider that Fetzer can't produce one reputable citation of the weapon he claims was used existing or that it would have made more sense that to kill Wellstone after he was sworn in for his third term if he did indeed win.

If I'm right, however, then maybe you can answer me why it is so important to you that people NOT THINK Wellstone was murdered.

Because it's not true and for the reasons stated above

[Len Colby]

And if we follow the cui bono theory of looking for conspirators, the person who most benefited from the death of Sen. Heinz was . . . Sen. Kerry, who also happens to be a (distant?) relative of Michael Paine, as I recall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome to the thread Tim!

Do you think she might have cost Kerry the election? With the count so close in so many states any number of small factors could have changed the result.

I don't want to sound bigotted but think at least a few people with "small town" "middle American" mentality could have been turned off at the prospect of having a foreign first lady with a funny accent?

But back to the topic, what's your take on the Wellstone crash? Have you read the other posts here?

Len

[Len Colby]

duplicte message deleted

Edited September 10, 2005 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Taking remarks out of context can certainly make you look bad. Cleverly done...I have at times run out of patience with some of the more ridiculous arguments and smears that I have encountered and I have not always been diplomatic in expressing my contempt.

I think his nasty/contemptuous replies to Pat and Steve politely questioning his ideas puts a lie to this contention. Part of the reason that I dedicate the amount of time that I do to debunking Fetzer is that when I questioned him on the forum he was extremely obnoxious.

This guy is spending an awful lot of time and effort trying to make his case against me, which suggests to me it may be his full-time job! So I ask, "Len, what do you do for a living? Are you an employee of the US?"

As Fetzer knows I've been debating him for months on another forum. I was one of a few debunkers there. Some of them have been at it for years! So it's does take that much time, at this point the research has already been done! Sometimes all have to is cut and paste posts from the other forum.

As for my professional status there are two versions. You can read the first in the link at the bottom of this post but that's just my "cover story"! For the real deal read on. I posted this in the other forum Tink is of course Josiah Thompson, Craig is Craig Lamson who many of you know from this forum, Hobo is the "self described former NSA official" mentioned by Fetzer and Rees is a right-wing retired USAF Col./pilot we were Fetzer's main debunkers.

From: "Leonard"

Date: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:49 pm

Subject: Jim was right all along - Tink, Craig, Rees, Hobo and I killed Wellstone

"You have acknowledged you are a "former" intelligence officer ... I have been told that there are no truly "former" intelligence officers. ... I am becoming less confident that your presence here is some kind of coincidence...So I am beginning to form doubts about you, Hobo."

Jim's suspicions are actually right, Hobo IS a secret agent. He works for the ultra secretive MIBH [Men in Black Helicopters]. So are Craig and Rees. Tink is their handler. They work out of that dam in Tennessee referred to in one of Jim's previous posts.

The only reason for their participation in this forum is to discredit Fetzer who has discovered our crimes. I say our crimes because I just defected. I hope they don't find me, I´m now hiding in a location that for obvious reasons I can't disclose with Osama bin Ladem, Elvis and Jim Morrison. Due to extreme boredom we have formed a barber shop quartet. Osama has been teaching the King about the Koran and he will soon convert to Islam.

We were directly involved in the hit. I pulled the trigger, Rees did recon, Hobo was the wheel man and Craig was the spotter at the Minneapolis airport. Our EMP equipped van was disguised as an ice-cream truck. We are responsible for the Kobe earthquake, 911, Waco, OKC, the 1st WTC bombing, the downing of the shuttle and the murders of Mel Carnahan, John Lennon, John Tower and Sonny Bono. Our predecessors killed JFK, RKF, MLK jr., Malcolm X and Mama Cass.

We are from the same agency that listens to the 'rain sensors' in Dealy Plaza. We were the ones who put the holes in Dr. Costella's shirt. I was the 'substitute teacher' who went through his desk.

Hobo my old friend I ask you just one favor. When you find me, and I have do doubt that you will, make it painless.

Len

Edited September 11, 2005 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Are you an employee of the US?

Jokes aside his and Healy's and the rest of their gangs paranoid assumption that anyone who questions their beliefs is a closet right-winger, spook or working with Tink a bit odd!

[Len Colby]

ask your-self why these very good men would join in common cause if this were nothing but "smoke and mirrors".

I think Fetzer, Costella and Arrows believe that Wellstone was murdered by Bush. In Fetzer's case at least it seems clear to me that he is willing to stretch, bend and distort the truth to prove his case, like a DA or cop who would fake evidence against a suspect they were sure was guilty.

Several eminent people have come to have strange beliefs. There are Ph.D. university professors who don't believe the Holocaust happened or that we went to the Moon, there are others who believe in "Intelligent Design" [i.e. Creationism].

Without exception [as far as I can tell] these profs. who believe these things are outside their area of specialty. For example there aren't any European [general], Jewish, German, Polish etc. History/Studies profs. who doubt the Holocaust, no Physics, Geology or Aero-space engineering profs. who don't think man has been to moon and no natural sciences [biology etc.] profs., who believe in Creationism.

This makes sense because these crackpot ideas are based on misconceptions that people who know there stuff don't suffer from! So I ask Fetzer have any pilots, aviation or crash scene experts endorsed you theories? Has anyone with expertise in fire backed you ideas in that regard, have any experts in the area said publicly that EMPs exist?

Now that we are on the subject has anyone associated with Wellstone or any of the other victims expressed anything but disdain for your theories? The Wellstone people and family seem to want to distance themselves from you as much as possible! They complain that it is a distraction from his legacy.

http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail....=4054&catID=298

There is also the interesting case of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who believed all manner of strange things!

<http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm>

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack White, who has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation

than anyone else in the JFK research community, developed an axiom some

time back, which holds that the more intense the attack, the closer you are to

the truth. By that standard, I believe we must be right on the money regarding

what happened to Senator Paul Wellstone. Certainly, nothing this guy has had to

say offers any good reason for thinking otherwise. But he is certainly persistent.

The subtle things can easily be overlooked. Just a casual glance revealed that,

in his discussion of Conry's qualifications, where I observed that he had passed

his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight, in his response, this

guy omits the phrase, "just two days before the fatal flight". He suggests that

I am paranoid for asking whether he works for the US, but does not answer the

question. There are dozens and dozens of sleights of hand and misrepresen-

tations. He is very good at ridicule; indeed, in my opinion, he's a professional.

He has certainly cast many aspersions on my character, so many that I am not

reluctant to suggest that he is here on a mission, which is to present the most

extensive verbal assault he can muster, no matter how many fallacies he has

to commit in the process. His expertise in ad hominem attacks is breathtaking.

He tells me that he does not believe me, even when I explain that I do not make

any money from royalties on the book but recycle it to support further research.

The fact is that I have financed many kinds of research on Wellstone and JFK.

Whether he believes it or not I could care less. I would make an obvious point,

however. Some of you have suggested that he does his homework! Well, un-

less you have done yours, how could you possibly know? Unless you have in

fact taken the fime and the effort to read THE NTSB REPORT, the reports on

which the NTSB report is based, and our book and studies, you cannot know.

So stop and consider the possibility that this clever guy is playing you for saps.

Unless you have studied the case independently, you can't know who's right!

PLUS I have read enough of his stuff to assure you that his word is completely

unreliable. Ask yourself why three Ph.D.s--one also an Ed.D.--are committing

themselves to the thesis that Paul Wellstone was taken out for political reasons.

Why would we do that? Why would we expend the time, money, and effort to

get to the bottom of this case if we did not believe what we were doing? This

guy insists that he wants you to read everything we have written on this case--

except the book! Why do you suppose that is? Why not read it and find out?

We have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was not an accident.

The NTSB, however, confined itself to accident alternatives. It never even

considered the possibility that the plane was taken down deliberately using

a small bomb or a gas canister or a high-tech weapon. Remember that a

member of the NTSB's own team--who signed the report!--admitted that

they had no idea what had happened and were merely speculating! If the

case is as clear as this guy says, why would Richard Healing have done that?

For convenience, a lot of material on the case may be found at my web site,

http://www.assassinationscience.com. My academic web site is available at

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ Check it out and ask if I appear to be some

sort of nut case or a serious scholar with important accomplishments to his

credit. And if you conclude that I am a serious scholar, ask yourself why my

research on Wellstone should be inferior to my research on other subjects.

Ask yourself if what is going on here makes more sense from my point of

view (he is promoting disinformation) or his (I am a flake). Think about it.

Notice too that his appeals to the family, for example, do not determine

whether our hypothesis is true or false. Like the Kennedy family, they

appear to have their own reasons for not wanting to confront the grim

possibility that their father was deliberately killed for political purposes.

And never forget that this man was unique--passionate, articulate, and

courageous. He is the kind of man of which the world has entirely too few.

His denial that the administration had reasons to take him out before the

election when he was pulling away from Norm Coleman are beyond belief.

We are hardly the only ones to suspect that this was an assassination. We

cite the early pieces by Michael Niman of Buffalo State College, Christopher

Bollyn of americanfreepress.com, and Michael Ruppert of fromthewilderness.

com, among others, who suspected foul play. Ruppert even reports what

he heard from an insider, namely: that this had been a hit, that a group

of reinvigorated old white guys were in charge and were no body to screw

around with, and that he could bet there would be other "strategic" accidents.

All these things are discussed in the book, but you won't hear them from him.

I will never have the last word, because he will continue and continue and

continue until he wears everyone down. I am doing what I can--short of

recapitulating the book again and again--to provide a framework within

which his performance can best be understood. I have no doubt that I'm

right about it. He is a professional character assassin and he is practicing

his craft. Admire his efforts, but don't allow yourself to be taken in by them.

Read the book and our studies and figure out for yourself which of us is right

and which is wrong. He's worth studying, since he's about as good as they get.

ask your-self why these very good men would join in common cause if this were nothing but "smoke and mirrors".

I think Fetzer, Costella and Arrows believe that Wellstone was murdered by Bush. In Fetzer's case at least it seems clear to me that he is willing to stretch, bend and distort the truth to prove his case, like a DA or cop who would fake evidence against a suspect they were sure was guilty.

Several eminent people have come to have strange beliefs. There are Ph.D. university professors who don't believe the Holocaust happened or that we went to the Moon, there are others who believe in "Intelligent Design" [i.e. Creationism].

Without exception [as far as I can tell] these profs. who believe these things are outside their area of specialty. For example there aren't any European [general], Jewish, German, Polish etc. History/Studies profs. who doubt the Holocaust, no Physics, Geology or Aero-space engineering profs. who don't think man has been to moon and no natural sciences [biology etc.] profs., who believe in Creationism.

This makes sense because these crackpot ideas are based on misconceptions that people who know there stuff don't suffer from! So I ask Fetzer have any pilots, aviation or crash scene experts endorsed you theories? Has anyone with expertise in fire backed you ideas in that regard, have any experts in the area said publicly that EMPs exist?

Now that we are on the subject has anyone associated with Wellstone or any of the other victims expressed anything but disdain for your theories? The Wellstone people and family seem to want to distance themselves from you as much as possible! They complain that it is a distraction from his legacy.

http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail....=4054&catID=298

There is also the interesting case of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who believed all manner of strange things!

<http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 11, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Jack White, who has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation

than anyone else in the JFK research community, developed an axiom some

time back, which holds that the more intense the attack, the closer you are to

the truth.  By that standard, I believe we must be right on the money regarding

what happened to Senator Paul Wellstone.  Certainly, nothing this guy has had to

say offers any good reason for thinking otherwise.  But he is certainly persistent.

The subtle things can easily be overlooked.  Just a casual glance revealed that,

in his discussion of Conry's qualifications, where I observed that he had passed

his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight, in his response, this

guy omits the phrase, "just two days before the fatal flight".  He suggests that

I am paranoid for asking whether he works for the US, but does not answer the

question.  There are dozens and dozens of slights of hands and misrepresen-

tations.  He is very good at ridicule; indeed, in my opinion, he's a professional.

He has certainly cast many aspersions on my character, so many that I am not

reluctant to suggest that he is here on a mission, which is to present the most

extensive verbal assault he can muster, no matter how many fallacies he has

to commit in the process.  His expertise in ad hominem attacks is breathtaking.

He tells me that he does not believe me, even when I explain that I do not make

any money from royalties on the book but recycle it to support further research.

The fact is that I have financed many kinds of research on Wellstone and JFK.

Whether he believes it or not I could care less.  I would make an obvious point,

however.  Some of you have suggested that he does his homework!  Well, un-

less you have done yours, how could you possibly know?  Unless you have in

fact taken the fime and the effort to read THE NTSB REPORT, the reports on

which the NTSB report is based, and our book and studies, you cannot know.

So stop and consider the possibility that this clever guy is playing you for saps.

Unless you have studied the case independently, you can't know who's right!

PLUS I have read enough of his stuff to assure you that his word is completely

unreliable.  Ask yourself why three Ph.D.s--one also an Ed.D.--are committing

themselves to the thesis that Paul Wellstone was taken out for political reasons.

Why would we do that?  Why would we expend the time, money, and effort to

get to the bottom of this case if we did not believe what we were doing?  This

guy insists that he wants you to read everything we have written on this case--

except the book!  Why do you suppose that is?  Why not read it and find out?

We have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was not an accident.

The NTSB, however, confined itself to accident alternatives.  It never even

considered the possibility that the plane was taken down deliberately using

a small bomb or a gas canister or a high-tech weapon.  Remember that a

member of the NTSB's own team--who signed the report!--admitted that

they had no idea what had happened and were merely speculating!  If the

case is as clear as this guy says, why would Richard Healing have done that?

For convenience, a lot of material on the case may be found at my web site,

http://www.assassinationscience.com.  My academic web site is available at

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/  Check it out and ask if I appear to be some

sort of nut case or a serious scholar with important accomplishments to his

credit.  And if you conclude that I am a serious scholar, ask yourself why my

research on Wellstone should be inferior to my research on other subjects.

Ask yourself if what is going on here makes more sense from my point of

view (he is promoting disinformation) or his (I am a flake).  Think about it.

Notice too that his appeals to the family, for example, do not determine

whether our hypothesis is true or false.  Like the Kennedy family, they

appear to have their own reasons for not wanting to confront the grim

possibility that their father was deliberately killed for political purposes.

And never forget that this man was unique--passionate, articulate, and

courageous.  He is the kind of man of which the world has entirely too few.

His denial that the administration had reasons to take him out before the

election when he was pulling away from Norm Coleman are beyond belief.

We are hardly the only ones to suspect that this was an assassination.  We

cite the early piece by Michael Niman of Buffalo State College, Christopher

Bollyn of americanfreepress.com, and Michael Ruppert of fromthewilderness.

com, among others, who suspected foul play.  Ruppert even reports what

he heard from an insider, namely:  that this had been a hit, that a group

of reinvigorated old white guys were in charge and were no body to screw

around with, and that he could bet there would be other "strategic" accidents. 

All these things are discussed in the book, but you won't hear them from him.

I will never have the last word, because he will continue and continue and

continue until he wears everyone down.  I am doing what I can--short of

recapitulating the book again and again--to provide a framework within

which his performance can best be understood.  I have no doubt that I'm

right about it.  He is a professional character assassin and he is practicing

his craft.  Admire his efforts, but don't allow yourself to be taken in by them.

Read the book and our studies and figure out for yourself which of us is right

and which is wrong.  He's worth studying, since he's about as good as they get.

ask your-self why these very good men would join in common cause if this were nothing but "smoke and mirrors".

I think Fetzer, Costella and Arrows believe that Wellstone was murdered by Bush. In Fetzer's case at least it seems clear to me that he is willing to stretch, bend and distort the truth to prove his case, like a DA or cop who would fake evidence against a suspect they were sure was guilty.

Several eminent people have come to have strange beliefs. There are Ph.D. university professors who don't believe the Holocaust happened or that we went to the Moon, there are others who believe in "Intelligent Design" [i.e. Creationism].

Without exception [as far as I can tell] these profs. who believe these things are outside their area of specialty. For example there aren't any European [general], Jewish, German, Polish etc. History/Studies profs. who doubt the Holocaust, no Physics, Geology or Aero-space engineering profs. who don't think man has been to moon and no natural sciences [biology etc.] profs., who believe in Creationism.

This makes sense because these crackpot ideas are based on misconceptions that people who know there stuff don't suffer from! So I ask Fetzer have any pilots, aviation or crash scene experts endorsed you theories? Has anyone with expertise in fire backed you ideas in that regard, have any experts in the area said publicly that EMPs exist?

Now that we are on the subject has anyone associated with Wellstone or any of the other victims expressed anything but disdain for your theories? The Wellstone people and family seem to want to distance themselves from you as much as possible! They complain that it is a distraction from his legacy.

http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail....=4054&catID=298

There is also the interesting case of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who believed all manner of strange things!

<http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My god Jim you are SO predictable. Time to play the sympathy card. Fetzering at its finest. I must say I truly enjoy watching you make an ass of yourself over and over again.

You spend a lot of time talking about disinformation yet it has been shown that you and your crew spew more disinformation that anyone. You drag out that old saw of Whites and post it as if it had some truth, when is not. You play the "I'm being atacked my professionals" in hopes that will somehow curry favor with the readers. What a joke.

You tell us that your have "proved beyond a resonable doubt" that Wellstone was taked out by a hit, yet your claims lies in tatters at the yahoo site and now here. You answer to the critics...I'm a PhD and have other PhD's with me. A classic appeal to authority. The problem is your "authority" has been shown to be lacking. You are the guy who spent two weeks arguing that the principal of the lever was wrong....sheesh. Your bud Costella, the great PhD from down under goes on at lenght in Hoax about how the singpost breaks the laws of physics, yet when you understand what he is trying to prove you find he misses a most elementtry point...the sign post in question is not vertical and thus his entire argument fails. The list goes and on but the point being...your appeal to authority fails.

So now that you have gotten your pity party out of the way, how about you actually try and defend your theory based on evidence? I'm not holding my breath, seeing how badly you failed on the yahoo forum. I'm not holding out much hope that will happen because I know you cant argue this on the evidence because you have none. No I expect more "Fetzering" which is a term we on the yahoo forum coined to describe Jims rants. His last post is a perfect example of Fetzering.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Is no one on this forum taking a look at the book, AMERICAN ASSASSINATION,

co-authored with Four Arrows, the study, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", co-authored

with John P. Costella, and my statements about the case presented to the National

Press Club on 25 October 2005, archived on my site at assassinationscience.com?

Compare for yourself what these hacks are saying with what you find there. I am

puzzled that, on a forum devoted to historical research, none of you appears to

be actually looking at what we have had to say. Those who have offer opinions at

variance with the things you are hearing from them. Here is a perfect illustration:

64 of 70 people found the following review helpful:

Abundant and Compelling Evidence, December 5, 2004

Reviewer: David R. Griffin - See all my reviews

The authors of this important book argue that Senator Paul Wellstone's death, 10 days before the 2002 elections, was an assassination, most likely ordered by the Bush administration.

Directly confronting the widespread tendency to reject all "conspiracy theories," the authors point out that "the idea that every theory that implies the existence of conspiracy ought to be rejected out of hand" is no more rational than the idea that every such theory should be accepted. Rather, "each case has to be evaluated on the basis of the evidence that is relevant and available in that case." On that basis, they argue, if we look at ALL the relevant evidence and employ the scientific method of inference to the best explanation, we must conclude that the theory that Wellstone was assassinated is far more probable than the official theory, according to which his airplane crash was an accident.

The evidence includes several facts suggesting that the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) colluded with the FBI in a cover-up:

1. FBI agents from Minneapolis arrived at the crash site within 2 hours after the crash, even though the trip from Minnesota to Duluth to the crash site would have taken at least 3 hours--so they must have departed before the plane crashed.

2. When asked for the times at which private flights had arrived in Duluth that morning, the FAA said the records had been destroyed.

3. Considerable disinformation about weather conditions was quickly given to the press.

4. Although regulations called for the investigation to be carried out by the NTSB, not the FBI (because the crash site was not designated a crime scene), the FBI agents were there for 8 hours before the NTSB team arrived.

5. The FBI, even though there illegally, prevented the local "first responders" from taking photographs.

6. Although it was the NTSB's responsibility to determine the cause of the crash and although the FBI's prior presence was illegal, the NTSB leader publicly accepted the FBI's declaration, made before the NTSB's investigation, that there was no evidence of terrorism.

7. When the NTSB team finally carried out its own investigation, it was unable to find either the cockpit recorder, which it assumed the plane had had, or the black box.

8. The NTSB held no public hearings, claiming that it was not a sufficiently "high-profile" case.

9. The NTSB's final report concealed the fact of the FBI's participation.

10. The NTSB investigation was headed by Acting Director Carol Carmody, a Bush appointee who had earlier ruled that there was no foul play in the small airplane crash in 2000 that took the life of Governor Mel Carnahan of Missouri, the Democratic candidate for the Senate who was killed 3 weeks before his expected victory (over John Ashcroft).

The evidence also includes some facts strongly suggesting the falsity of the NTSB's official conclusion, which was that the plane crashed because the pilot failed to maintain proper speed, causing the plane to stall.

1. The plane would have stalled only if it slowed to below 70 knots, yet it was equipped with a device that emitted a loud warning at 85 knots.

2. The plane was being flown by two experienced and fully certified pilots, a fact--obfuscated in the NTSB report-that makes this kind of pilot error very unlikely.

3. The NTSB's theory fails to explain why, about two minutes before the crash, all communication was abruptly terminated and the plane began going off course.

The evidence also includes facts suggesting that the plane was instead brought down by an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapon:

1. The plane's fuselage burned, although it was separated from the wings, which contained the fuel.

2. The plane's electrical system, which would be affected by an EMP, was in the fuselage, and the fire from the fuselage gave off blue smoke, which is indicative of an electrical fire.

3. An EMP could explain why the plane simultaneously went off course and lost its radio about two minutes before the crash.

4. At the same time, cell phones and garage doors in the area behaved in a way consistent with the occurrence of an EMP.

5. An NTSB spokesman professed ignorance about the existence of EMP weapons that could have brought down the plane, although the existence of such weapons had been known for several years.

An important part of the authors' case is the fact that the Bush administration would have had several motives:

1. Wellstone's defeat would return control of the Senate to the Republicans.

2. Wellstone's death 10 days before the election meant that $700,000 in the Republican campaign chest could be transferred, the very next day, to the (successful) effort to defeat Max Cleland in the Senate race in Georgia.

3. Wellstone was the biggest obstacle in the Senate to several Republican policies, such as those involving Iraq, Colombia, the SEC, tax cuts, and Homeland Security, and he was the strongest voice in Congress calling for a full investigation into 9/11.

4. Two days before his death, Wellstone reported that Cheney had told him: "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you."

5. Wellstone had developed a 7-point lead in the polls over Norm Coleman, the Bush administration's hand-picked candidate.

Finally, with regard to the question whether the Bush administration would commit such a heinous act, the authors argue that an administration that "compounded lie upon lie to . . . send hundreds of thousands of young American men and women into harm's way [in Iraq] is not an administration that would hesitate to kill a single senator."

The authors conclude that the evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that Wellstone was assassinated. They have, in my view, made a convincing case.

David Ray Griffin, author of "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions"

So if we are so far off the mark, why are serious people like Michael Niman and

Christopher Bollyn and Michael Ruppert and David Ray Griffin in agreement with

us? Not to mention that a poll conducted immediately after the crash reported by

THE PIONEER PRESS found, given choices like an accident, an act of God, etc.,

69% picked "a GOP conspiracy"! Our research shows they were probably right!

Dozens of experts in aviation and piloting are cited in our research, as those who

have actually read the book already know. These guys are trading upon a lack

of knowledge about the case and the evidence we present to manipulate those

who are gullible and too lazy to actually exercise their minds studying the case.

It should not be that difficult to discover which of us is right and which is wrong.

Here's a single question to test your understanding of this case. Which is more

probable? That two qualified pilots carrying a US Senator, his wife, daughter,

and three aides, simply ignored their air speed, altitude, directional indicators,

and stall warning device and allowed the plane to crash when it was under their

control, winding up heading directly away from the airport, as the NTSB claims?

Or that two qualified pilots carrying a US Senator, his wife, daughter, and three

aides were aware of their air speed, altitude, directional indicators, and warning

alarm but were unable to do anything to prevent a crash because the plane was

no longer under their control? Remember, even the NTSB's own simulatations

with a weaker engine at abnormally slow speeds were unable to bring it down!

And consider this. It may be that in 70% of plane crashes, no distress call is

sent. But how many of those involved two pilots? a US Senator, his wife and

daughter and three aides? coming down in a remote, wooded and swampy area

where the speed with which first responders arrived could make the difference

between life and death? What we want to know is what happened in this case!

And consider the rationale for this entire undertaking. I began investigating this

case in order to understand the relationship between the available evidence and

the alternative possible explanations so it would be obvious when the government

released its report whether or not it was remotely in the ball park. How else can

we possibly know if we are being told the truth? But the hacks obscure this fact.

I agree with Colby to this extent: one of us is "willing to stretch, bend and distort

the truth to prove his case, like a DA or cop who would fake evidence against a

suspect they were sure was guilty." Our disagreement is whether it is him or me!

Take a good look at what Ruppert has to say about this case in CROSSING THE

RUBICON, for example. The evidence is there and the evidence is compelling.

The hacks have had their say. Let's hear from less biased parties, for a change.

Edited September 11, 2005 by James H. Fetzer