Kevin Greenlee

Jim, I assume you believe in the importance of truth and accuracy. Will you admit that the author of that piece you so approvingly linked to made an embarassing error when he claimed that all of the videos from all the Apollo missions have been lost? Will you further agree that any conclusions he drew from that mistaken "fact" are, at best, flawed? On the other hand, if you have proof that he is right and I am wrong, could you offer proof that those videos are in fact missing (even though, as I noted, those "lost" films are actually available for sale from companies such as Spacecraft films). Perhaps- instead of blindly believing whatever nonsense people peddle to you- you should consider doing some research to verify what they are telling you. It might prevent you from humilating yourself by publicly subscribing to nonsense like "the moon landings were faked." For your information, the sort of minimal research I referred to would have caught some errors of fact and reasoning in your recent post. You misidentify the vehicle Grissom hung the lemon on. You also repeat the wild tale that NASA sent a world famous engineer on a top secret geology mission. Not only is there absolutely no evidence that such a mission even existed but even if it did it defies common sense that NASA would have chosen someone other than an "unknown" geologist to undertake what would surely have been a most sensitive and confidential task. And, Greg-- Jim was the one who brought up the topic of the moon landings. Earlier he posted some nonsense about 9/11; be grateful that no one challenged him on that tripe.

The cause of science and reason would have been further advanced if none of the links worked. Fetzer seemed especially impressed with "Wagging the Moondoggie" and so I checked it out. The author badly misstates the facts about the "missing" Apollo tapes. Contrary to what he suggests, only first generation tapes from the first moon landing are missing-- and NASA retains lower quality video copies of them. All tapes from the other moon landings still exist in quite high quality and are widely available to one and all (google "spacecraft films" for instance). Why on earth is Fetzer convinced by someone who gets this most basic fact wrong? The author's next big argument is even more laughable. Any one who has read even a little bit about the moon missions realizes the astronauts were highly trained and quite serious professionals who were engaged on complex, expensive and very dangerous journeys; virtually every moment of their time on their missions was planned for them in advance well before they left the ground. And yet for some reason the author of the piece finds it highly damning that these professionals didn't spend more time horsing around on the moon like schoolboys. Huh? All of this was on the first page of the piece. I didn't bother to read on; life is too short.

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

This is all getting weirder and weirder... wow! You say here that there is "evidence of Israeli complicity in 9/11." Did you mean this or did you misspeak? Do you really think Israel was involved in the 9/11 attacks? If so, what evidence leads you to this conclusion. I know something about 9/11 having been paid as a professional for a couple of years to investigate the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11. Various anti-Semites have been claiming this for years but no serious person ever took it seriously. Do you? Josiah Thompson That charming website of Fetzer's is, not surprisingly, full of antisemitic words and images. Here is the part where they address the "evidence" of Israel's complicity in 9/11. kevin from http://rediscover911.com/2010/06/mossad-di...aeli-consulate/ WHY DO PEOPLE SAY: “ISRAEL DID 9/11?” The answer to that question can be summed up in only three words: Lucky Larry Silverstein. Lucky Larry is a New York real estate tycoon, a Zionist Jew and an intimate of Bibi Netanyahu. Two months before 9/11, Larry leased the World Trade Center, claiming some sort of compulsion made him do it. It did not make good business sense to lease the buildings. They were outdated, with a vacancy problem and a huge asbestos problem. It would cost a billion dollars to remove the asbestos and New York City was demanding that the former owner, the NY/NJ Port Authority, fix the asbestos problem or demolish the buildings. Lucky Larry bought an insurance policy which would pay off in case of a “terrorist attack.” And what do you know? 9/11 comes along and Lucky Larry has 5.6 billion dollars of insurance money, no asbestos problem and a level building lot. His pal Bibi Netanyahu has an enraged American public ready to go to war with Israel’s Muslim enemies. Can you say “Jewish lightning?” (Insurance industry slang term for arson)

One of the most interesting aspects of the recent Judyth Baker thread for me was the fact that some people seemed to believe it somehow revealed new flaws in Mr. Fetzer's reasoning methods. Those flaws (ie, relentless attacks of those who dare to disagree with him, a tendency to attract attention with a sensational claim he has failed to research, an inability to offer any credible evidence to back up his claims, etc, etc) have actually been an integral part of the good professor's public persona for a great many years. By the same token, Fetzer's flirtations with anti semitism is not at all new. Here, for instance, is a story about him defending well known holocaust denier Eric Hufschmid back in 2007. http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2...ic_d_willia.php Perhaps Fetzer's predilections in this area started when he began associating himself with Kevin Barrett, who calls the Holocaust a myth. The two of them co hosted a radio show and will be making a public appearance together in London next month. Just last week, Fetzer sent out an email trumpeting an interview Barrett did with Alan Hart, a fellow who blames Israel for 9/11. Mr. Hart is an interesting fellow with a documented history of making false accusations about Jews (see, for instance, http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2008/09/al...apped-alan.html ) When I pointed out this sorry part of Hart's history to Fetzer, he- of course- responded with a personal attack.

I don't think anyone familiar with judyth is the least bit surprised that she would reject an opportunity to be interviewed by a non fawning interviewer. but it is a real pity that she is trying to mask her cowardice by unjustly attacking len osanic. unlike greg, i do not know len. but i am a longtime listener to his program. he has never made a secret of his low opinion of john mcadams but when mcadams was a guest on his program len took great pains to treat him with fairness and dignity. there is no doubt in my mind he would do the same for judyth. mr. fetzer used to be quite the regular guest on the program. it disappoints (but does not surprise) me that he would pass along judyth's unfair criticism of his friend without a word of defense. as to coast to coast.... that is a very popular program run by media professionals. i do not think they let prospective guests bring on friends to interview them.

Both parts of Mr. Fetzer's recent radio interview are available as downloadable podcasts. you can find them at http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheRealDealWithJimFetzerPodcast though the second part was apparently truncated when it was originally made available over the internet, the podcast version is complete. the first hour or so of that program, in my opinion, wasn't terribly interesting (judyth talks about such things as what sorts of foods we should eat if we wish to avoid cancer) but things picked up a bit in the second hour when she began to address some of the posts in this very thread. people like barb j., david lifton and jack white are criticized and we finally get an explanation for why she doesn't have a court certified professional examine the book which she claims contains oswald's writing (it seems to have something to do with her fear that conniving handwriting analysts are somehow out to take financial advantage of her. but i may have missed some nuances so please listen yourself).

mr. fetzer- thanks for the answer. i'll definitely tune in to listen to judyth's answer. talking about your radio program brings up another thought. from your appearances on "black op radio" over the years, i know how closely you follow politics. you will certainly remember how- in 2008- sarah palin was generally not interviewed on anything but "friendly" shows, programs hosted by the likes of sean hannity or rush limbaugh. this created the lasting impression that the republicans did not have faith or confidence that she could handle tougher interviews. in the minds of many, this notion did far more damage than any gaffes palin might have made on other programs. after all, if the party itself did not have faith in her then why should anyone else? the comparision is, of course, not exact but i do think something similar is going on with judyth. i have never heard her interviewed by any but the most sympathetic of interviewers. why is this? would it be possible for you to bring some of her critics on your program sometime so they can directly ask tough questions of her? it would certainly get a great deal of attention from the people reading this thread and, since i am sure you believe judyth would be able to answer her critics, it might even do her cause some good. in any case, i will certainly listen tonight. i have only had a chance to listen to the first 15- 20 minutes of friday's interview but i will listen to the rest and watch the you tube videos at my earliest opportunity.

pamela- i am trying- and badly failing- to understand your recent criticism about jack white and this whitaker fellow. the fault is surely mine and i hope you will clarify. to me, it seems as if you are saying that 1) jack white made a horrible blunder when he blindly accepted the word of whitaker 2) the fact that he chooses not to repeat that mistake with judyth somehow makes him a hypocrite. when i make mistakes in my own life, i try to analyze where i went wrong so i do not repeat them. if i ever erred by uncritically accepting the testimony of an alleged witness, i would be sure to carefully scrutinize the words of other new witnesses so i would not commit the same sin a second time. that seems to me to be common sense. if that is what jack white is doing then he is to be applauded for it- not criticized for it. in short, your view makes so little sense to me that i am certain i must be badly confused about it. if, on the other hand, i have not misunderstood you then it would appear that you have so few honest arguments to make in favor of judyth that you are reduced to hysterically throwing about irrelevant pieces of mud in a childish attempt to personally discredit those who choose to disagree with you on this matter. since we both know that could not possibly be the case, i look forward to you clarifying for me the point you are trying to make. Or maybe these are two separate issues and he simply didn't make the connection yet. It took me a few minutes to realize what you were talking about too! I thought we were discussing JVB, not the windshield issue. I could remember NO Whittaker associated with JVB. Jack Let me clarify. I am referencing the process you use in vetting witnesses. You used one process with Whitaker and another with Judyth. Why is that? Judyth has documentation connecting her to NOLA in the summer of 1963 and that puts her in proximity to LHO at that time. Whitaker had zilch, nada, nothing. But you believed everything Whitaker said and you are scrutinizing every word Judyth says. Why is that?

mr. fetzer- if i understand things correctly, the position of judyth's defenders is that 1) it is terribly important for David Lifton to release his recording of his conversation with judyth. 2) that recording was an illegal act. do you see the problem here? if we accept those points of view (which i do not), then any recording David Lifton releases would be evidence of an illegal act- which could expose him to legal troubles. luckily, there is a way out of this mess. simply get judyth herself to pledge not to pursue legal action and to personally ask for the tape to be released. since you've already indicated you don't believe she's interested in suing David Lifton, i cannot imagine why she would not be willing to do this (unless, of course, she has reasons of her own for not wanting the recording to be released).

Mr. Fetzer- "You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case." the above words are yours- post #201 on this page http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5173&st=195 i urge you to follow your own counsel and provide whatever evidence you have here instead of constantly assuring us that we can find it elsewhere. once again i invite you to share with us evidence for the 17 crucial points of judyth's story, starting with point #1- which you have assured us is especially important and well supported. that point, of course, is that ochsner lured judyth to new orleans. your continued failure to offer this evidence is in itself becoming evidence that you recognize the weakness of your position and that you are peddling a fraud upon us all. i remind you once again of your own words: "You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case."

Greg- does this mean you don't accept judyth's claims concerning her work with ferrie at his apartment? do you accept any of her claims? just curious, kevin

Doug- Mr. Fetzer may be unintentionally confusing people here. ochsner was not using chldren as guniea pigs. the vaccine he injected them with was manufactured by cutter laboratories. due to a production problem, it became contaminated and- as mr. fetzer noted- there were tragic results. but they were certainly not ochsner's fault. and the incident is definitely in no way comparable to the experimentation that judyth claimed to have been a part in. Jim: Actually you are wrong about this. Without question, Oshner could and should have been charged with murder for his son and maiming his daughter. You cannot use people as guinea pigs without informing them of potential consequences. If the foreseeable consequence of an action is death or serious harm then it is a socially impermissable experiment. This is not Mengele and Nazi Germany. You cannot have informed consent for death or serious harm. That is why medical trials are often halted before their completion because of unforeseeable events. Here you are stating that JVB though death was the foreseeable outcome. Doug Weldon

David- that must have been quite a phone call. even many of judyth's critics claim that she is an intelligent woman but if she was really that bright why on earth would she have tried to peddle her ridiculous stories to someone who knows this material as well as you do?

Mr. Fetzer- I do not know Dean Hagerman but I suspect that- outside of the Judyth Baker issue- he and I would not agree about much concerning the assassination. But I wanted to mention that I read his posts very differently than you apparently do. I do not see him as a lemming, blindly following the opinions of others to fit in. Rather, it seems to me that throughout this thread he has thought for himself and painfully come to the conclusion that someone he has respected has feet of clay. He has done his best to express his concerns to you, Mr. Fetzer, and you have either ignored them or tried to lecture him as if he were a child. He deserves better. You again make the claim, Mr. Fetzer, that people need to consider the "evidence." When I asked you to provide that evidence, you declined to provide any. I ask you again- you posted a list of 17 important elements of Judyth's story. You claimed that the first point- that Judyth had been lured to New Orleans by Dr. Ochner- was especially important and well supported. What is that support? I have read the thread, I have read your blogs, I've listened to your interviews, I watched Judyth be interviewed on the Nigel Turner program and I have not seen a single bit of evidence other than Judyth's own word. So clarify things for me- what is the evidence that backs up that well supported point? I frankly don't think it exists but perhaps I'm wrong. So what about it? Instead of calling me a fool or Josiah Thompson's lackey or whatever other insult you can dream up, put me in my place by providing even a smidgen of real evidence. Can you do it?

Greg- Fair enough!

Ms. Baker- you wrote "AFTER A DECADE, THE PETTINESS OF THE ARGUMENTS THROWN AGAINS ME ARE ALL FOCUSED ON ONE THING: CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. FIND SOMETHING--ANYTHING--TO DISCREDIT HER." i hope you will agree that that description does not apply to me. where others (justifiably, in my view) focused on the weakest elements of your account, i looked at that portion of it that mr. fetzer deemed to be the strongest- the list of 17 points. the first point- that you were lured to new orleans by dr. ochsner- was one he claimed was both important and well supported. so i asked him to support it. he responded by repeatedly attacking me. this proves to me he does not have the evidence to support the claim. do you? if so, i would love to see it. mr. burnham- it is true that mr. fetzer is coming under heavy attack here. i suggests the attacks come because of the tone he has created. he has, for instance, said many unpleasant things about me- apparently because i asked him to share evidence for a claim he described as "well supported." was that an unreasonable question on my part? now he accuses me- without evidence- of posting another man's words under my own name. that is an attack on my integrity. am i to sit back and ignore that just because some might feel mr. fetzer has contributed more of substance to the thread? does contributing "substance" give you a right to belittle and attack others? leave me out of it- a few posts back he described kathy as "someone incapable of thinking." are people supposed to sit back and silently tolerate that sort of bullying behavior? mr. fetzer- in my last post, i wondered if you had the integrity to retract or back up your groundless accusation that Josiah thompson is the secret author of my posts. you did not- why does that not surprise me? you also suggested i am not familiar with your work. that is not true. due to circumstances not within my control, i listened to every single one of your appearances on black op radio- more than once. since then, i have maintained an occasional morbid fascination with your work not only in the JFK case but also 9/11 (ironically enough, mr. fetzer, you will recall that your stature amongst 9/11 truthers took a severe blow after you advocated for the ridiculous theories of an unusual woman named Judy. history repeats itself!). glenn- what excuse do you think jim 'n' judy will offer for not letting the book barb posted be subjected to handwriting analysis?

i don't think i've mentioned it, glenn, but i really enjoy your posts. i also respect the research you did on judyth's immigration issue.

mr fetzer- it is, of course, quite clear to one and all that you launch personal attacks upon me in a hilariously transparent (and rather ineffectual) attempt to distract attention from your complete inability to offer any evidence to back up the drivel you've been peddling in this thread for the last few months. with that in mind, i would like to make a quick comment or two or your recent interesting post to me. you write: "Let's see. This thread originated in February. You joined the forum on April 9th. You have made a total of 17 posts, most of which have been attempts to run me in circles. You know nothing about the case. You haven't even had time to read the posts on the thread." apparently you seem to believe that- much like athena- i sprung fully formed from my father's brow on april 9 of this year and that i celebrated that happy occasion by immediately joining this forum. i now inform you that that is not the case. even before mr. simkin graciously admitted me here, i was a sentient human being fully capable of writing, reading and even thinking about whatever struck my fancy. i have lurked here and on other jfk sites for a while, am fully familiar with ms. baker's ridiculous story and have read each and every post in this thread. you write: "You post a lot of meaningless drivel that Josiah appears to have written." this is a fine example of your well established tendency to casually toss about claims and accusations about which you do not have even the merest shred of supporting evidence. if you have any reason to believe that i am secretly josiah thompson please provide it. but, of course, you have no evidence. you never do. once again, sir, i suggest that you take the advice of your friends and move on from this fight which you have so badly lost.

Mr. Fetzer- Here you go again. in your last post, you wrote "Judyth...was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner." in previous posts, you listed this as the first of the 17 points you claimed had been proven about judyth and elaborated that it was among the most important and best supported of them. yet you are utterly unable to offer even a shred of evidence for this claim and in fact repeatedly attack me for asking you to do so. you suggest i have not contributed much to this thread. i do not deny it. i have not devoted thousands of words to empty bluster, i have not bragged endlessly about my academic credentials, i have not personally attacked people who have disagreed with me, i have not tried to intimidate people by posting personal information about their children, i have not gone on and on about things i plainly know little about, i have not sacrificed long term friendships on the altar of a preposterous story, i have not refused to back up things i loudly and repeatedly claimed to be proven, i have not reposted a seemingly infinite series of emails from a woman whose credibility was thoroughly demolished years ago and i have not talked about how much i wanted the thread to end and then begun posting in it again a few hours later. the fact of the matter is that it is clear to one and all that the reason you attack me for asking for evidence instead of simply providing the that evidence is because you have no evidence to offer. Game over. you lose. take the advice of your friend jack white and move on to something more productive.

Mr. Fetzer- to be clear, i was not asking for an "instant replay" or "reprise" of anything that had already appeared in this thread. i was asking for something completely new and fresh- actual evidence. your utter inability to provide it not only reveals much about what sort of an empty exercise this whole "judyth" business is but it is also a far more devastating critique of your credibility than anything josiah thompson has ever written about you.

in other words, dean believes the story because judyth told it to him. not a very rigorous standard! and also a problematic one. if the evidence of this story is judyth's own word then our belief in the tale rises or falls with what we make of her personal credibility. Barb and Glenn (among others) have pointed out numerous occasions where Judyth has made claims that are simply not true. And even Fetzer has admitted that she's prone to embellishment. She can't be trusted. So, if all you have to go on is her word, you've got nothing.

Ha! you have time to have- what did you say? hundreds?- of conversations with judyth and you have written thousands and thousands of words here attempting to advance her ridiculous claims and you have never missed an opportunity to attack people (like Stephen roy and Dean Hagerman and so on) but when i ask you to offer up any evidence to back up what you call one of "the most important and best supported" elements of judyth's story you- darn the luck!- just don't have the time to do i. that's ridiculous. you don't offer evidence because you don't have it. and we both know it.