Evan Burton

As a non-JFK person, I am sometimes confused by the diversity of opinions regarding who actually killed JFK. Although this poll is not completely comprehensive, I would appreciate if members gave an indication of their own opinions.

Thanks!

Ah, and an anti-vaxer as well. Why am I not surprised?

Hi Sean!

You say you are a "... confirmed CTer...".

Can you expand on that? If interested, what's your take on 9-11, UFOs, etc? I know it's difficult to ask where you stand on every theory, so if interested, what sort of things do yo class as CT and feel there is something we do not know / are being misled about?

Cheers and beers,

Evan

There is no point in this thread. Off -forum activity can be judged by people themselves.

Len - you are better than this; show it by not retaliating to jibes, nor taking advantage of someone's situation.

Thread closed.

Wow. In that first post, "zionist" is used about 43 times. If I were Jewish, Israeli or both, I'd feel a little threatened!

Collapse of the USSR? That is out there.

Yes, Icke and his 'reptiles in human skin' stuff is wacked out. I'm surprised that people can believe it. Okay, you can believe government mind control, chemicals, hiding of alien technology, etc, but reptiles? I wonder if John Carpenter's THEY LIVE was inspired by Icke?

Excellent post Bernice. You are NOT one of the people I am talking about, and personify the attitude that we should all strive to hold.

I regret any stepping on toes in this post, if so it is not intentionally done with any malice..

Dr.Jim. in this time of Vinegar,and keeping in mind the Honey times as they say will return..IMO you are far from the only here and elsewhere, that are understandably stubborn in their beliefs of their research and fight for such,......., getting carried away with their responses, and you do get very carried away at times.., as many others do as well, researchers are it seems so emphatically positive of their positions before presentation or not.....that they, we, are and can be very touchy in our efforts, i have never known one not to be, and..It appears with many that ,that

is the research way, we CTRS many times are own worse enemies,I also have no

doubt that i have assumed similarly in the past....it is in general hard not to do

so as we are only human, and therefore full of errors, whether acknowledged or not, we believe our findings and having come to

the conclusions after much work and time spent, it is difficult to take, any, even constructive fault finding..We cannot

blame researchers for their convictions...as they believe in their work and conclusions

period,and rightly so,after all their time and great effort..... It does seem to me that some on here who have posted in reply previously,

should take a long thought and perhaps a look into the mirror before they

down another for the same action as they are finding fault in.. having done

so in the past themselves, ....perhaps we all could back off somewhat with our

many critical presumptions and harsh retaliation reply posts, in threads, by trying to reread and

adjust before posting, and try to do so with a somewhat kinder frame of

mind...which is so very lacking in this sad world we all share, more times than not,and reply not with a get back, or get the better of them mentality as it often seems.

Dr.Jim you have been so very selfless in the past with your research and aid in enabling certain young researchers to have the ways and means of attending such as the Lancer and or Copa conventions,and thereby having the opportunity to present their new found research hopefully for all,and you have by investing any profits from your book sales to be returned into the research community in many ways, I for one salute you Sir,for all you have done in the past for the community,with your generousity and research and hope that all will continue.

You are my friend, have been and still remain so, you have only been kind to me as well as in generously sharing your information very unselfishly,we do not always agree, we differ as all people do, it seems, but have been able all these years to have kept such on friendly terms, but a word of friendly advice, if i may, tone down the rhetoric.to some degree, it is acceptable to not agree, as you do not and we all do not at times,in reply to others information and responses....like can we not all cool it and take a step back, say halleluah and return to the continuing research..with much less baggage, can we not, let some past ,replies.looked upon as sins it seems ,by some by their reactions to, that they have retained and hopefully not do so forever it appears some will cherishingly, and some gleefully it seems will repeat the fault by another, no matter how far in the distant past they may have happened,but will do so at any given opportunity ,as they cannot get past them, those responses that they felt were unfair,and it is regrettful that by some to be held onto now as almost seemingly grudges so that they can be mentioned again and again, at the given opportunity, some it seems are not able to forgive, the human frailties that we at times have all shareed in, by conveniently forgetting their past behaviour, can we not let sleeping dogs lie, and forgive any who have recently and in the past responded in an uncivil way, perhaps by getting in touch, and or letting it go,and getting over it and get on and hopefully return to the research..as life is too shrt not to imo...the THEY are very pleased every time that this has been temporarily stopped, by allowing the latest disagreements to sidetrack and to their merriment...as they ponder, ''there they go again'' and perhaps thinking, again, they only continually hurt themselves every time they allow their differences to get in the way''.......Just give it a second thought , please.. ...thank you all....best b

You claim that you respect the right of LC or CL to voice their opinion. If they started insulting you for no reason and ridiculing you for posting facts (not opinions) and consistently misrepresented your claims, what would be your response?

I would report the insulting behaviour, and counter the misrepresentation with clear definitions, examples, quotes, etc. Make sure the readers of the posts have all the resources to judge for themselves.

In general, you know what is the best way to piss off someone who is getting angry and insulting you, to really make them mad? Be calm, reasoned and polite. Drives them batty.

It's been a few years but I used to read some of the things you wrote about Fetzer and he about you. It wasn't always pretty. You've almost tempted me to go back and find some of them. Some of them contained marked rancor on both sides.

You might well be correct; I am far from perfect. If you think it serves a purpose, bring them up and we can discuss them.

Most of the posters in the JFK section allow for divergent opinions. It happens hundreds of times a day and there is no venom or rancor exchanged. I think you're smart enough to figure out why Fetzer is a different story.

Perhaps you credit me with too much intelligence.

Evan, you've been a moderator for a long time. Do you think there are members that violate the spirit of Forum rules more often than Jim Fetzer?

Difficult to say, because it can be highly subjective. Generally I do think so but we have come to a loose agreement that unless something is a clear violation, we'll only act if there is a report about it. If it doesn't upset the person it is directed at, then perhaps it is better not to interfere.

I'm sure you think Don Jeffries is "spot on." After all, he describes you as a big man with a magnanimous posture.

Yeah, I'm a sucker for a compliment! My ego needs feeding I tells ya!

Michael,

Evan, instead of claiming that people misinterpreted what you meant (wrote?) why not address the questions in my post? Who has "turned on Fetzer with such venom?"

To mind:

Dawn Meredith

Charles "The Round Mound of Sound" Drago

Greg Burnham

Peter "Everyone is out to get me!" Lemkin

Jan Klimkowski

Some dude called Seamus Coogan

What cult are you referring to?

Perhaps cult is not the correct word but I refer to the thinking over at "The Swamp" (or as I call it, the Deep Bulls**t Forum). They're all brown monkeys over there; heaven forbit you're a white monkey (or perhaps the wrong shade of brown). If any prominent member over there changed their mind decided that 9-11 was not a government operation but really a terrorist attack, you watch how the jackals would turn on them. They'd be denouncing the poor sod faster than you can write Trotskyite. Wait - did that already happen? Or am I thinking of somewhere else?

Anyway, I think you are aware that anyone who does not follow the party line over there is immediately tagged as a provocateur

Who are these ardent supporters of Jim Fetzer that you keep referring to?

See the names I posted earlier.

You state that you do not respect Jim Fetzer's method of debate. Why would you expect anyone else to?

I don't. That doesn't mean they have to stop being their friend, or respecting them. They can just agree to disagree.

I believe you and Jim Fetzer may have common goals. Aren't both of you seeking what you believe to be the truth about 9/11?

I think we already know the truth - Islamic terrorists attacked the US, and the US failed to see the warning signs. Some people who should have been held responsible - even face criminal charges - got off because it's politics.

(more to come)

Oh - and I do not respect Jim's method of debate, I agree he refuses to admit when he is wrong. But I have never been a supporter of his, have I?

Sorry if people have misintrepted what I meant, but Don is pretty much spot on. Even though people who have previously been strong supporters of Jim Fetzer now disagree with him, I am surprised that some have turned on him with such venom. Why can't they just disagree with him on issues?

I do the same with people here: I disagree with Len Colby on a number of issues but still respect him and support his right to voice his opinion. The same applies to Craig Lamson; I suspect much of our politics are opposite and I have said in the past he is just plain wrong on some issues... but I still respect him. I don't think he has somehow been "turned to the dark side" or has become my arch enemy... I just disagree with him.

The purpose of the thread was not to Fetzer bash; it was to ask why some researchers cannot accept that someone - who has common goals with them - can hold a divergent opinion. After all, most of you believe that JFK was not assassinated by LHO but by other forces, that there was a conspiracy involved. If you believe that LBJ conspired with the CIA to have JFK knocked off, why is someone who believes that LBJ conspired with the mafia to kill JFK so horrible? Aren't you all seeking what you believe to be the truth?

It seems that some people treat it like a religion: if you don't agree with MY intrepretation, well you're going to hell!

(If not appropriate for this section, please move to appropriate area)

People who know me will know I don't agree with Jim Fetzer on most issues (e.g. 9-11, Apollo). Hell, I can't think of an issue where we do agree. Still, as a non-JFK person, I am pretty amazed at the way some people have turned against him and all but declared him as the antichrist. He has posted material and opinions which many people do not agree with. Some of those people have previously been his ardent supporters. Now that he differs in aspects of his beliefs (with respect to historical events, not religious or spiritual beliefs), some people have now started not just disagreeing with him but are disowning him, actively calling into question his abilities / sanity / whatever.

Why can't his previous 'friends' just say they disagree with - but still respect - him? It seems that some researchers are unable to tolerate anyone who disagrees with their particular theories, who differ from their cult.

What does this say about those people?

Good point Paul. I guess we have to just make our own decisions based on the subject, the claim, etc. And, I suppose, how often the claim has been raised.

I find it interesting how a group like the JFK researchers - who, if you'll pardon my observation, often seem to agree on nothing except Kennedy is dead - almost universally agree that Ralph is wrong. That alone is very persausive evidence that his claims are indeed flawed.

That in itself is a good reason for the thread. I've had similar experiences with Apollo or 9-11, when a claim is made that is so bizzare that people tend to dismiss it out of hand. Doing that can sometimes lend an air of legitimacy to the claim. Myself, I prefer to dismantle the claim and show just how completely wrong it is. This allows people reading the details to not only know that the claim is baseless but also why it is baseless.

I spent the summer of '85 in Berkeley, there was a guy who set up a stand near the campus who put together pamphlets with photos of Steven King and Mark David Chapman or John Hinkley jr. (it's been a long time) and one of the three tramps claiming they were the same person. The facts that they were too young to have been one of the tramps and that they were known to be at different locations at the same time didn't phase him. The odd thing is that he claimed the vast majority of the people who saw his evidence agreed with him, except when I'd go by everyone disagreed and everyone I spoke to about him said he was a total loon

LOL! Yeah, there are people like that. Completely reverse reality to suit their belief, say something is black when it is really white. Similarly, make all sorts of claims until you ask for actual evidence, then the claims seem to be supported by thin air.

Forgive me for the thread hijack, but what is the most way-out conspiracy theory you have ever come across? Not 9-11, Apollo, "chentrails" etc as they are almost mainstream but something so wacky that even the most die-hard nutter won't accept it?

He mioght have been real drunk while watching a re-run of the ''Red Dwarf'' episode on the assassination and kinda gotten a bit mixed up re reality and fiction?.

Was ther a Red Dwarf one on this then? I never saw it. I presume it was one of the latter series...

...There was one vendor who said that the person killed in Dealey Plaza was actually a JFK-double; that JFK really wanted out of the rigors of the presidency, to

get away from his family and Jackie, so he could "disappear"...

I've heard that one, too, although very infrequently. I like it.

Topic regarding "Vampires, witches and zombies" title edited to remove member name. Jim Fetzer may be a speaker there, and Len Colby can express his astonishment at the speakers and topics being presented there, but I think putting Jim's name in the title is unnecessary. Len's post speaks for itself.

Just imagine if they had kept it going, and gone ahead with the Mars missions. Who knows where we might be with respect to off-world settlements by now.

I might change the default image setting, though. IIRC, any image up to 1000 x 1000 pixels will show up as it is. If it is larger than that, it gets reduce to 1000 x 1000 and clicking on the image brings up the full size picture.

1000 x 1000 may be a little too large; I might reduce it to say 400 x 400.

Yep - use the "Insert Image" tags.

Good. We can now post up to five images. I don't know if that is five images AND five other media, or if it is five in total. I'll try that out later.

Trap for young players, though. If using the normal editing mode and you cut'n'paste an image URL, the board makes it a link, even if you put it in image tags (manually).

You have to either go to advanced mode (so all the code, not just the link, shows up) or I suspect use the "insert image" button at the top of the post reply box.

If you are used to doing things the old-fashioned way and writing the tags yourself, it won't work.