Jack White Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 It is unfortunate that two of my closest friends in the JFK assassination research community, Jack White and James Fetzer, have both contributed--and continue to contribute--to turning this topic from what it is about into "their story". In fact, if any media persons had been following this as a "Judyth story" at the beginning-- that story's significance would have long ago been lost in the quagmire of the Jim & Jack feud.Originally, Jim was presenting Judyth's material and Jack was discrediting Judyth's material. Shortly thereafter, Jack (and others) began discrediting Judyth--not just her material. Then Jim (and others) began defending Judyth--not just her material. Then an incredibly stupid misdirection of hostility occured: they both began discrediting each other! This is, no doubt, the most absurd behavior that I've ever witnessed among otherwise intelligent persons who are on the same side of the BIG PICTURE! My advice: Attack ideas--not each other. This isn't about either of you! It's not about your respective competence as researchers--so don't make it about that. You disagree. Leave it there. It will only mean more than that if you force it to mean more. Allow each other a graceful way out. None of us is ever 100% right about anything. Who knows, fellas--one or both of you might not be this time? Thanks, Monk! On target as usual. If I have offended Jim, I apologize. But I think he needs to take a break from his crusade. He is ruining his credibility, to the detriment of all of us. I was only pointing out that Lifton, Weldon, White, Armstrong, et al have not changed...it is Jim that has changed, and he cannot see it. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Byas Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 JIM MAKES ONE MORE EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH JACK (BUT IT APPEARS HOPELESS)Why don't you respond to the questions I have raised about your gross misrepresentations of Ed Haslam's book? How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes the "lone, demented gunman", What if its not true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Byas Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 JIM MAKES ONE MORE EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH JACK (BUT IT APPEARS HOPELESS)Why don't you respond to the questions I have raised about your gross misrepresentations of Ed Haslam's book? How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes the "lone, demented gunman", (2) that it exposes a secret bioweapons project Wheres the proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Byas Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 JIM MAKES ONE MORE EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH JACK (BUT IT APPEARS HOPELESS)Why don't you respond to the questions I have raised about your gross misrepresentations of Ed Haslam's book? How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes the "lone, demented gunman", (2) that it exposes a secret bioweapons project and (3) that it leads back to the polio vaccine scandal How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Byas Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 JIM MAKES ONE MORE EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH JACK (BUT IT APPEARS HOPELESS)Why don't you respond to the questions I have raised about your gross misrepresentations of Ed Haslam's book? How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes the "lone, demented gunman", (2) that it exposes a secret bioweapons project and (3) that it leads back to the polio vaccine scandal, which involved the mandated inoculation of some 100,000,000 young children and appears to have precipitated the epidemic of soft tissue cancer that is taking place today. George Noory called it perhaps "the greatest scandal in the history of the nation". (2) appears to have been #1 in the CIA's list of "family jewels", the one that was redacted. If you don't understand what is going on any better than you indicate, then you ought to be doing something else with your copious free time. Michael Hogan even makes up the claim that I suggested DR. MARY'S MONKEY would prove that she and Lee were "lovers", which is a nice piece of fantasy, and Junkkarinen displays no interest in whether Oswald autopsy photographs have been faked (which is not the same as the question of circumcision, which is not the primary issue that concerns me). It is all too clear that this thread is disintegrating beyond repair. Please acknowledge to everyone that you were mistaken about evidence of the present of the particle accelerator and that you were completely wrong about Mary Sherman's death, which cannot have occurred at her apartment as you had previously claimed, and that if you had only read DR. MARY'S MONKEY months ago, you could have spared this thread 50 to 100 pointless posts. This must be at least the fifth time I have explained to you why her story matters. Could you kindly admit that now you understand why it matters? And stop making up fantasies to explain my commitment to Judyth. I and Nigel Turner and Ed Haslam and Wim Dankbaar and Howard Platzman and Dean Hartwell believe in her because she appear to us to be telling the truth and there is a great deal of evidence to support her, including witnesses like Kathy Santi and Anna Lewis, documentary records like "the disappearing witness" Now were getting somewhere! Please tell us more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 (edited) Thanks, Monk! On target as usual. If I have offended Jim, I apologize. But I think he needs to take a break from his crusade. He is ruining his credibility, to the detriment of all of us. I was only pointing out that Lifton, Weldon, White, Armstrong, et al have not changed...it is Jimthat has changed, and he cannot see it. Jack [emphasis added]Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated. The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions. Edited May 10, 2010 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Thanks, Monk! On target as usual. If I have offended Jim, I apologize. But I think he needs to take a break from his crusade. He is ruining his credibility, to the detriment of all of us. I was only pointing out that Lifton, Weldon, White, Armstrong, et al have not changed...it is Jimthat has changed, and he cannot see it. Jack [emphasis added]Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated. The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions. Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you very likely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased, I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you verylikely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased, I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us! Jack Jack, IMHO--there was a charade on Rich's forum about this, but I still maintain that you and Rich were being unreasonable at that time. I miss Rich very much, too--but the arguments the two of you advanced at that time did not convince me and seemed to revolve around defending Harvey & Lee more than anything else. But, they did convince many others. I was, in fact, her lone champion on the forum back then about a decade ago! That said, I have not kept up with a lot of the intervening developments--so I can't disagree or agree with you one way or another about that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 What the hell is this? An Oswald autopsy photo... Kathy C It's a cropped version of his right bicep (upper arm), I think. Actually, I have no idea. It's your picture--why post something if you don't know what it is? Does it bother you when I try to inject a little humor into this long proceding? I got this off the Internet and the person who displayed it wasn't sure him/or herself what it was. I'm glad you identified it for me. I couldn't tell but now I can. Also, John Simkin said I can ask questions. Kathy C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Does it bother you when I try to inject a little humor into this long proceding? I got this off the Internet and the person who displayed it wasn't sure him/or herself what it was. I'm glad you identified it for me. I couldn't tell but now I can.Also, John Simkin said I can ask questions. Kathy C Remember the last time this happened? I'm a little slow. Without the smiley faces, I get confused. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Whoa, Monk...I do not remember Harvey and Lee being involved in any JVB discussions. Are you sure? And I do not remember it being Rich and me against everyone else. There were many others of the same opinion. I remember you being sort of neutral, and Rich banishing some Judythites for reasons I have forgotten. Jack Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you verylikely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased, I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us! Jack Jack, IMHO--there was a charade on Rich's forum about this, but I still maintain that you and Rich were being unreasonable at that time. I miss Rich very much, too--but the arguments the two of you advanced at that time did not convince me and seemed to revolve around defending Harvey & Lee more than anything else. But, they did convince many others. I was, in fact, her lone champion on the forum back then about a decade ago! That said, I have not kept up with a lot of the intervening developments--so I can't disagree or agree with you one way or another about that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 (edited) Thanks, Monk! On target as usual. If I have offended Jim, I apologize. But I think he needs to take a break from his crusade. He is ruining his credibility, to the detriment of all of us. I was only pointing out that Lifton, Weldon, White, Armstrong, et al have not changed...it is Jimthat has changed, and he cannot see it. Jack [emphasis added]Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated. The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions. Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you very likely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased, I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us! Jack Even if one were to be an agnostic on the matter of Ms. Baker's truthfulness, one should have no trouble discerning a key difference in the behavior of Jack White and Jim Fetzer. Jack has asserted that Jim is completely out to lunch...IN THIS INSTANCE. Jim, on the other hand, has asserted that Jack's failure to agree with him on this matter has led him to doubt Jack's basic competence and/or integrity etc. This is actually pretty much SOP for both men. Jack reserves the right to agree or disagree with anyone he wants. Although he has complained loudly about certain researchers who do little beyond attacking his research, he understands that there are well-intentioned researchers doing good work who don't agree with many of his conclusions. As a result. he is friendly and at times complimentary to those with whom he frequently disagrees, including men such as Gary Mack, Josiah Thompson, and Robert Groden. Not so Jim. From what I can gather, Jim sees himself as a consensus-builder, and gets extremely frustrated when people he feels should agree with him or defer to his judgment fail to do so. This leads him to lash out. While he has most-famously lashed out against Josiah Thompson--who steadfastly refused to go along with Jim's proposition the Zapruder film is a fake--he is now going after Jack and the man he sees as competition for Jack's attention, John Armstrong. I mean, he really did write that he was inclined to think Harvey and Lee not just one man's incorrect take on the evidence, but "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the JFK research community," right? Calling the fruit of another man's research a "hoax," is not simply disagreeing with them, now is it? It's calling them a xxxx. Edited May 10, 2010 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Weldon Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Jack White' date='May 10 2010, 03:55 AM' post='192229Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you very likely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased, I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us! Jack Jack, I found these posts by Rich concerning Judyth on acj and aaj : Judyth and Rich on her resignation, and the deletion of her posts : http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...9651e2455bfbf0a About Judyth and JFK Research forum: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...0f9a8955df0685a Judyth and Ed Haslam from the same area, Brandenton Fl: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...c0c366e47bde6c1 Judyth skeptical of H&L: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...740449f9766edf9 Kathy Kathy: Thanks. It is very interesting. Best, Doug Weldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated.The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions. Thanks, Greg. I appreciate the understanding and fairness of your suggestions in this and recent posts. I've been there: Knock-down, drag-out disagreements that escalate to fights and beyond, into personal stuff. Nobody wins, nobody is convinced either way. I hate seeing what this mammoth thread has done to some of our friends and associates. I wish some of the combatants could just chill and stop serial-posting long enough to see that the whole world does not hinge on believing or disbelieving. We're losing the ability to accept that smart people sometimes disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Stephen, I know you initially were reluctant to get drawn into this thread. Once you were insulted in such an ugly and unwarranted manner, I understand why it became impossible not to respond. I think you can take solace in the fact that the overwhelming majority of members that have read your posts on this thread know you have made consistent attempts to qualify your opinions, balance your assertions, and refrain from straying far from things you have studied. I believe that Forum members that are possessed with good judgment know exactly what happened to you and why. And they know it reflects poorly on the ones that denigrated you. PS) I would like to thank Greg Burnham, Jack White, Josiah Thompson, and Barb Junkkarinen for their supportive comments. Those comments meant a lot to me and were appreciated. Thanks, Michael. I keep hoping that some - especially Fetzer - will start LISTENING to what others have to say, to seriously answer our questions without resorting to dismissal and avoidance, but it's beginning to look very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now