Jump to content
The Education Forum

Evidence... not Fetzer!


Recommended Posts

I guess I’m old enough to play Joseph Welch in a remake of the McCarthy Hearings with Professor Fetzer playing the lead role as Senator McCarthy. I mean I have really had it. Fetzer has attacked me. That’s fine. But now he’s introduced a weird kind of tribal logic to try the same thing against people whose only crime has been to offer a reasoned defense based on the evidence. I won’t participate any longer. From now on, Fetzer can rage and snivel all he wants. I won’t reply to him. I will simply ignore him.

I’m doing this because I think there is something just weird about what Fetzer is doing. It may be a return to the 2nd Grade playground or it may be something from the shelf of psychopathology .... let’s say “a Messiah complex” or something like that. My sniffer tells me there is a bit of weirdness to this and I don’t want to waste any more time on it or him.

This all came to me as a kind of breakthrough a couple of nights ago when Len Brasil posted some remarks by Fetzer from another board. Len provided the full context where Fetzer offered an amazing self-portrait. For example, Fetzer wrote that his little conference on Zapruder film fakery for about nineteen true believers some years ago in Duluth was “the most important small conference on any subject in history.” Huh??? What is hilarious is that he then lists this little conference on his CV as one he chaired. He not only “chaired” it. He arranged the whole thing. The only thing he forgot to do was to have the "conference" give him some silly-ass award so he could cite that in his CV.

Then Colby quoted him describing his book MIDP as perhaps the best book ever published on the death of JFK.” Finally, Colby quoted Fetzer’s description of himself as an academic. After vomiting his CV for the umpteenth time, Fetzer describes himself modestly: “I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of achievements exceeds my own!”

The spin he lays on his own CV is revealing. In the late 1970s, he got his ass booted from the University of Kentucky. For the next ten years, he wandered the academic desert picking up single year-jobs at such intellectual powerhouses as the University of Cincinnati or the University of South Florida. Of course, he also did single or double-year stints at the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina. The usefulness of these visiting assistant or associate or full professor gigs is that they give the institution a chance to look at a prospective hire before hiring them on tenure track. None of these institutions bit, so Fetzer was left to wander from one to another for a decade before washing up on the shores of the University of Minnesota (Duluth), another intellectual powerhouse. Fetzer spins this chronicle of failure by saying "he taught at a wide variety of institutions of higher learning." If he's such "a distinguished scholar".... such a high-powered dude.... how come no first rate university would have anything to do with him? Yeah, he's written a ton of articles and books... all intrinsically forgettable, the hallmark of what might be called "the academic businessman"... a guy who's a bit lacking in ideas but churns out junk to impress deans at second-rate institutions.

One could spend many useless hours deconstructing these self-appraisals. What is interesting here is the fact that he makes them at all. Fetzer sees himself in a completely fantastic way. It’s like he’s living in a dream where he will end up leading the parade in its magisterial progress towards a new understanding of what happened in Dallas. Finally, it will be understood by everyone that the Zapruder film and other films were altered and it was James Fetzer who courageously figured this out and led the way.

His attacks on me over the last week never made any sense to me. I’m no threat to him. I’m an old man who will be seventy-five in a week or so. I don’t have any web site. I don’t have any publisher ready to snap up a book on the Kennedy assassination. So why does Fetzer think he has to assassinate my character with this noxious claim about me being an agent? There’s nothing unusual about flinging the charge of “agent” at someone. The research community has been alive with people calling other people “agents” for about forty-five years. So why does Fetzer start in again with this now? Why now when he was publicly rebuked about it by Wecht, Mantik, Aguilar, Turner, DeSalles, etc. ten years ago? I think he truly believes that if he can dirty me up enough no one will pay attention to me and he can achieve his end. If only he can get me out of the way, the path will be clear.

The reality, of course, is quite different. It’s not me standing in his way. It’s the evidence that has piled up over the years. Fetzer has been at this for almost fifteen years now. He and Jack White and John Costella and David Lifton have been searching for proof of Zapruder film fakery for longer than that. They haven’t found it. After successive claims for “the seven-foot woman,” “Moorman-in-the-Street,” and thirty or forty other Jack White failed examples, they have not been able to show a single discrepancy between the Zapruder film and other films and photos from Dealey Plaza. That’s not me. That’s a failure in putting their theory up against the data coming back from the world.

David Lifton for some time has been trying to indict the Zavada study of the camera and film to show that Zavada was wrong when he found the camera-original to be authentic. We all saw how far, even with Fetzer’s help, the “full flush left image penetration” argument has gotten after six years of trying. This again is not me holding up the parade. It is the raw complex of facts concerning the manufacture of Zapruder’s camera and its capabilities that won’t conform to what they want that complex to be. It's not just me that is recalcitrant to Fetzer's view. It's the world. It's the world of fact contradicting his theory. And so he rages against me, when I could croak tomorrow and he wouldn’t be any better off.

He wrongly thinks that if he can just dirty me up enough in people’s minds, he can become the hero he knows he is. That’s why his attacks have become so reckless and odious. It is almost as if he cannot help himself.

When today he started using a kind of tribal logic to indict people who have defended me, it all became quite clear. It’s a complete waste of time to keep trying to type out responses to Fetzer. The channels of communication have become blocked by his words, charges, irrelevant points, hyperbolic interpretations, self-serving analyses. No one can possibly keep up. The question then arises: Why even try? Hence, I’m going ignore Fetzer and simply deal with evidentiary items as they come up. Perhaps, over time, others who have watched this slightly insane display will drift back and take up the discussion. I sure hope so.

Josiah Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Josiah, I thought you already were ignoring him all this time? ha

Truth be known, all the attacks on you are getting really old.

I thought this was The Education Forum, where we get educated, not The Attack Forum.

Also, navigating down all those 10,000 words quotes are wearing out the wheel on my mouse.

Edited by John Dugan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah, I thought you already were ignoring him all this time? ha

Truth be known, all the attacks on you are getting really old.

I thought this was The Education Forum, where we get educated, not The Attack Forum.

Also, navigating down all those 10,000 words quotes are wearing out the wheel on my mouse.

I cant believe how one sided members can be

How can you act like Thompson has never attacked Fetzer?

Go back and read ALL the threads between Thompson and Fetzer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

You attack me in an attempt to discredit my arguments. I attack your arguments, which discredits you. They are not the same.

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

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

I've followed the Fetzer/Thompson feud for several years and the recent bout on this forum is probably the most civil exchange they've had in a decade. I feel almost certain rapprochement is at hand.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

I've followed the Fetzer/Thompson feud for several years and the recent bout on this forum is probably the most civil exchange they've had in a decade. I feel almost certain rapprochement is at hand.

Dream on. Fetzer is right, but Thompson WILL NEVER admit that he is wrong.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

Don

Dont feel too bad, after Thompson replied to my "Double Head Shot" thread he has ignored every post and any questions I have made since then

I guess I have to write a book for him to find me worthy enough of a simple reply

Dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposite is true.

Fetzer QUOTES EVIDENCE.

Thompson invents AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Jack

Hahahahahaha. Oh Jack, you really break me up. You are such a card!

Burton cracks me up. He is such a card...an Ace...but not spelled that way.

Jack

Nice personal attack, Jack.

Todd!

Please tell me your joking

Did you miss what Evan posted? I hope not because its in your post as a quote

Evan laughs at Jacks opinion that Fetzer quotes evidence (which I agree with Jacks statement) says Jack breaks him up and calls him a card

Did you miss that?

Its really starting to get to me that non-alteratoinists have tunnel vision when it comes to reading posts, they only see what they think are unwarrented attacks by Fetzer, White and other alterationists

How could you have missed that post Todd?

Like Pat said, compared to Fetzer and Thompsons past feuds the stuff going back and forth now is civil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disrespect to you. I just don't find the question you ask to be interesting to me. Have I got things wrong? I thought folks could answer the questions that interested them and ignore those that didn't interest them. I just have other interests than pursuing questions about the throat wound now.

Josiah Thompson

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...