Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I see. So if someone launched a smear campaign against you after you asked them to replay loans you had

extended to them, you would simply let those smears stand?

The alleged SMEARS and the alleged LOANS are horses of two different ballgames (Here I Bow to the Marx Brothers).

This forum is not a DEBT COLLECTION service and -- as a longtime member -- I resent your attempts to pervert it into such. (This statement is by no means intended to prejudice David Lifton's position in this nickel-and- dime argument, namely David's evidence that he does not owe you one thin dime)!

You should be made of sterner stuff, Mr. Carroll.

Don't worry, Dr. Fetzer, I was born lucky, not rich, but I was a tough rugby player in my day, AND I still have my rugby waistline; Can we say the same about you?

And if this thread does not interest you, there are plenty of other choices. You don't have to read this one.

Thank you , Dr. Fetzer, old sport. That may be your MOST PRODUCTIVE suggestion -- TO ANYONE-- since you joined the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim Fetzer says, QUOTE:

The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments. I wish

it were not the case, but when I have had statements from them, I have paid Lifton his due. UNQUOTE

DSL Suggestion: Why don't you just change the name of the publisher to the "My Dog Ate It" (MDAI) Publishing Company? And perhaps with the motto: "We'll pay you when we get around to it. . . "

This will afford maximum flexibility, with a minimum of responsibility.

The company logo might be a smiling dog, licking its chops, sitting atop a pile of shredded royalty statements--with someone with the likeness of Professor Fetzer petting the dog approvingly, while it wags its tail.

DSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

David, I would have thought you had disgraced yourself sufficiently on this forum for one lifetime! I

guess you are going for the gold! I explained all that to you a long time ago and gave you the name

of the Executive Editor and his phone number. Are you going to lie about that, too, now? No doubt.

Jim Fetzer says, QUOTE:

The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments. I wish

it were not the case, but when I have had statements from them, I have paid Lifton his due. UNQUOTE

DSL Suggestion: Why don't you just change the name of the publisher to the "My Dog Ate It" (MDAI) Publishing Company? And perhaps with the motto: "We'll pay you when we get around to it. . . "

This will afford maximum flexibility, with a minimum of responsibility.

The company logo might be a smiling dog, licking its chops, sitting atop a pile of shredded royalty statements--with someone with the likeness of Professor Fetzer petting the dog approvingly, while it wags its tail.

DSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that this is a perfectly reputable company with a long history of publication in philosophy, which

even includes The Library of Living Philosophers. Why don't you find something constructive to do with

your copious free time, Pat? Blowing smoke out your ass is really unbecoming of someone who wants

to be taken seriously. I don't participate in con jobs. You must be spending too much time with Tink!

Earth to Jim. If this "perfectly reputable" company has gone years without giving you a royalty statement for a book still in print, and (last I checked) still in stores, guess what...YOU'VE BEEN CONNED.

P.S. Your refusal to provide an estimate of how many books you sold, and a current tally for monies provided Lifton, damages your credibility. Such numbers would be easy to come by and would allow those on the sidelines to better judge just who's chiselin' who. Perhaps you know the number but are embarrassed by how small it is. Or perhaps you know the number but don't want Lifton to know how large it is. In either case, however, you know the number--you have a rough estimate. And no rational person should believe otherwise...

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I'm sorry, Pat. Unlike you, I have 29 books. I do not wake up in the morning wondering how many copies

of HOAX have been sold. Maybe that would be your obsession. It is not mine. Since this has become such

a to-do, I expect that the numbers sold will eventually appear on every computer screen. I have not been

conned and the Executive Editor and I are good friends. I am sorry your vision is so narrow and myopic.

Except that this is a perfectly reputable company with a long history of publication in philosophy, which

even includes The Library of Living Philosophers. Why don't you find something constructive to do with

your copious free time, Pat? Blowing smoke out your ass is really unbecoming of someone who wants

to be taken seriously. I don't participate in con jobs. You must be spending too much time with Tink!

Earth to Jim. If this "perfectly reputable" company has gone years without giving you a royalty statement for a book still in print, and (last I checked) still in stores, guess what...YOU'VE BEEN CONNED.

P.S. Your refusal to provide an estimate of how many books you sold, and a current tally for monies provided Lifton, damages your credibility. Such numbers would be easy to come by and would allow those on the sidelines to better judge just who's chiselin' who. Perhaps you know the number but are embarrassed by how small it is. Or perhaps you know the number but don't want Lifton to know how large it is. In either case, however, you know the number--you have a rough estimate. And no rational person should believe otherwise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Pat. Unlike you, I have 29 books. I do not wake up in the morning wondering how many copies

of HOAX have been sold. Maybe that would be your obsession. It is not mine. Since this has become such

a to-do, I expect that the numbers sold will eventually appear on every computer screen. I have not been

conned and the Executive Editor and I are good friends. I am sorry your vision is so narrow and myopic.

Except that this is a perfectly reputable company with a long history of publication in philosophy, which

even includes The Library of Living Philosophers. Why don't you find something constructive to do with

your copious free time, Pat? Blowing smoke out your ass is really unbecoming of someone who wants

to be taken seriously. I don't participate in con jobs. You must be spending too much time with Tink!

Earth to Jim. If this "perfectly reputable" company has gone years without giving you a royalty statement for a book still in print, and (last I checked) still in stores, guess what...YOU'VE BEEN CONNED.

P.S. Your refusal to provide an estimate of how many books you sold, and a current tally for monies provided Lifton, damages your credibility. Such numbers would be easy to come by and would allow those on the sidelines to better judge just who's chiselin' who. Perhaps you know the number but are embarrassed by how small it is. Or perhaps you know the number but don't want Lifton to know how large it is. In either case, however, you know the number--you have a rough estimate. And no rational person should believe otherwise...

Well, now we're getting somewhere. Finally. So you were not conned. So it's simply that the publisher is a small one, in bad financial shape, and that you opted to put your good friendship with its employees ahead of your personal interest by not nagging them for monies owed. While this was awfully nice of you, Jim, you seem to have forgotten that you had an obligation to Lifton and anyone else involved in the project and owed money to collect that money.

You, essentially, LOANED the publisher LIFTON'S money because you felt sorry for them, without asking Lifton's permission.

In such case, was he not within his rights to hold back on the re-payment of loans you'd made him? Most would say so.

Now, you, to counter this, would have to argue that your book did not sell well, and that Lifton was not entitled to anything more than the 1300 dollars or whatever you'd advanced him, and loaned him. BUT YOU CAN NOT MAKE THIS CLAIM BECAUSE YOU SUPPOSEDLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW WELL THE BOOK SOLD.

As a result, those reading this thread and serving as the jury in this make-believe small claims court of your making should side with Lifton. You denied him a proper accounting for the money owed him, and he is well within his rights to hold back any re-payment until you provide this accounting.

Judge Jew-dy

(Yes, yes, a little attempt at humor.)

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite being asked about 3 times Fetzer has yet to answer whether the account the checks came from was a personal or a business one. Due to his obfuscation I think we can safely assume the latter, which would support Lifton's version that the money was work/research related rather than personal. If Fetzer used a business account to loan money to friend he committed a crime.

Fetzer has also to explain why if Lifton really owed him $ 300 since 2003 why he loaned him $1000 in 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I used to think Pat Speer had a brain in his head. Now I have my doubts. I have paid Lifton royalties when

I have received them. I have even given him advances on royalties. I do not own the company and I cannot

dictate solutions to their business problems. The loans were LOANS. I should have thought that that was

evident, even to someone who appears to have difficulty with clear thought about simple things. LOANS

are debts he owes to me. ROYALTIES are debts I owe to him. I explained to him some time back that the

publisher was running behind. I gave him the name of the Executive Editor and his phone number. What

I did in extending him loans was an act of supererogation. I had no obligation to extend him those loans.

He acknowledged they were loans at the time. The checks are clearly marked "loan". He negotiated them

and thereby legally confirmed their status as loans. No accountant in the world would allow mixing loans

with royalties. They are not the same. I have an obligation to get the royalties right when I am able to do

that. He has an obligation to replay his loans. When I asked him if, when the dust has settled, it turned

out that I had actually OVERPAID him on royalties, would he reimburse me, his answer was SILENCE. It

appears to me that you simply do not understand the law, accounting, or ethics. You are simply wrong.

I'm sorry, Pat. Unlike you, I have 29 books. I do not wake up in the morning wondering how many copies

of HOAX have been sold. Maybe that would be your obsession. It is not mine. Since this has become such

a to-do, I expect that the numbers sold will eventually appear on every computer screen. I have not been

conned and the Executive Editor and I are good friends. I am sorry your vision is so narrow and myopic.

Except that this is a perfectly reputable company with a long history of publication in philosophy, which

even includes The Library of Living Philosophers. Why don't you find something constructive to do with

your copious free time, Pat? Blowing smoke out your ass is really unbecoming of someone who wants

to be taken seriously. I don't participate in con jobs. You must be spending too much time with Tink!

Earth to Jim. If this "perfectly reputable" company has gone years without giving you a royalty statement for a book still in print, and (last I checked) still in stores, guess what...YOU'VE BEEN CONNED.

P.S. Your refusal to provide an estimate of how many books you sold, and a current tally for monies provided Lifton, damages your credibility. Such numbers would be easy to come by and would allow those on the sidelines to better judge just who's chiselin' who. Perhaps you know the number but are embarrassed by how small it is. Or perhaps you know the number but don't want Lifton to know how large it is. In either case, however, you know the number--you have a rough estimate. And no rational person should believe otherwise...

Well, now we're getting somewhere. Finally. So you were not conned. So it's simply that the publisher is a small one, in bad financial shape, and that you opted to put your good friendship with its employees ahead of your personal interest by not nagging them for monies owed. While this was awfully nice of you, Jim, you seem to have forgotten that you had an obligation to Lifton and anyone else involved in the project and owed money to collect that money.

You, essentially, LOANED the publisher LIFTON'S money because you felt sorry for them, without asking Lifton's permission.

In such case, was he not within his rights to hold back on the re-payment of loans you'd made him? Most would say so.

Now, you, to counter this, would have to argue that your book did not sell well, and that Lifton was not entitled to anything more than the 1300 dollars or whatever you'd advanced him, and loaned him. BUT YOU CAN NOT MAKE THIS CLAIM BECAUSE YOU SUPPOSEDLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW WELL THE BOOK SOLD.

As a result, those reading this thread and serving as the jury in this make-believe small claims court of your making should side with Lifton. You denied him a proper accounting for the money owed him, and he is well within his rights to hold back any re-payment until you provide this accounting.

Judge Jew-dy

(Yes, yes, a little attempt at humor.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I created these accounts to have a procedure to support research on JFK, on the first instance,

and 9/11, in the second. Almost all the money in these accounts comes from royalties and from

honoraria. I considered Lifton's plights at the time to be border-line in relation to JFK research.

He was using his laptop in writing his book on Oswald, for example, so I lent him the $1,000 to

contribute toward his research. I do not at the moment recall why I had also lent the $300, but

I presume I had a similar rationale. I have had my returns processed by professional accountants

and they have found nothing wrong. This is not a large effort and my resources are less than they

have been in the past. When I was still teaching, I sometimes supplemented the fund with other

money of my own. But now that I am retired, I have fewer options. I lent him the money when he

needed it. I asked for it when I needed it. I thought he was a trustworthy person. I was wrong.

Short answer: Lifton played me for a sap.

Sorry, Jim, but your "short answer" is really hard to believe. You acknowledge you could very well owe Lifton money. You refuse to commit to even a rough estimate of book sales so he can better judge if this is true. And then you demand money back which he considered advances on the royalties you acknowledge you may owe him.

I doubt anyone here thinks he should pay you back until you make good on your obligation to find out how much you owe him, and pay that amount. I doubt anyone here would pay you back under such circumstances. Care to take a poll?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Fixed. Nice example of the best any of you can do--a typo! But thanks for catching it.

Just who is this SPEED character?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed. Nice example of the best any of you can do--a typo! But thanks for catching it.

Just who is this SPEED character?

How do you know its the "best"I can do? Your logic appears impaired. Why do you think I WANT to do better? Why do you think you are worthy of anyone's efforts BEYOND typos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, Craig. I know that you are just as capable of irrational arguments that have no foundation

as David Lifton, Jim DiEugenio, Pat Speer, and Len Colby! I was paying you a compliment. Get over it!

Just on this thread Fetzer has insulted Ron and Raymond as well as the people above, not to long ago he was ragging on Jack White, I remberhim insulting John Simkin and Steve Turner. I'm sure I've forgotten about and missed him insulting others. Apparently every other active member of the forum is dishonest and/or stupid!

This thread is just a mild whisper in comparison with the rantings and number of insults that Fetzer conducted in the mammoth JVB thread. It goes, of course, to show how weak his position is. It's funny, 190 out of 200 scholars voted him out and he still haven't got a clue. He's certainly got to be the biggest loudmouth on your side of the pond.

Thanks for bringing some sense into an otherwise insane thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Pat,

Listen, I do regard you as sincere, which puts you in a different category than the Colbys, the

Lamsons, the Liftons, and the DiEugenios. Let me explain why you are endorsing what might

well be called "the ethics of extortion" in violation of basic principles of morality and why Lifton

should be repaying the money I have lent him, just as I intend to pay him any royalties that I

may owe to him, when a complete statement becomes available. I think you may not realize that I

have benefited him not only by lending him money but by previous royalty payments and advances

against royalties, which, like the loans, I was not obligated, legally or morally, to extend to him.

Whether or not I owe him any royalties is something I do not know at the point in time. If you

were to check what I have sent him, you would find the following accounting over several years.

Since 2003, I've sent him the following amounts separate from an earlier honorarium for coming

to Duluth and participating in the symposium, a benefit I was not extending to anyone else and

for which I have always felt uneasy for that reason. The total I have sent him is $5,210.00.

2003:

#1223

David S. Lifton (honorarium and video) $1,025.00.

Duplicate check notation:

#1239 13 August 2003

David S. Lifton (85 + 50 = 135) $135.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1248 18 December 2003

David S. Lifton (Pig on a Leash) $750.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1250 20 December 2003

David S. Lifton (200 + 500 advance) $700.00

2005:

My checkbook notation:

#1313 David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1313 4 March 2005

David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00

My checkbook notation:

#1321 David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1321 31 May 2005

David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00

My checkbook notation:

#1340 David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00

Duplicate check notation:

#1340 25 December 2005

David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00

In 2007:

My checkbook notation:

#2013 David S. Lifton (no notation in checkbook) $100.00

Duplicate check notation:

#2013 13 May 2007

David S. Lifton (research support) $100.00

My checkbook notation:

#2016 David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00

Duplicate check notation:

#2016 7 September 2007

David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00

Not all of this was royalties, of course. But at least $2,500 of this was royalties, over and

apart from the honorarium of $1,000 and the loans I have extended to him of $1,300 more. Since

he is entitled to 25% of the royalties, I would have to have received at least $10,000 from the

publisher to owe him as much as I have sent him, which has included advances against royalties.

I don't know if the publisher owes me $10,000 in royalties for HOAX, but I will be surprised if

it turns out that it does. Print runs for books like this are relatively modest, probably on the

order of 3,000 for the first printing, 2,000 for the second, and 1,000 for the third, if I were

to guess. If they were all sold retail and I am getting $2 apiece, that would equal $12,000.

I will be surprised if that many have been sold, since promotional copies and sale-priced copies

do not return royalties or only at a reduced rate and copies are presumably still on the shelf.

I will not be surprised if I owe him no royalties and may have actually overpaid his royalties.

So I have asked if he will repay me if I have overpaid him and his response has been silence.

So your claim that I owe him royalties and have owed him royalties for years is not obvious and

may very well not be true. I suppose one of the reasons I have not been overly concerned about

this royalty business is that most copies of books ever sold are sold in the first year of its

publication. MURDER was an exception and sold well thereafter, but HOAX is a more typical case.

The typical academic book only sells around 750 copies, by the way, so 6,000 would be very good

but far from spectacular for a book on JFK. Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE was a best seller, but HOAX

was not. Indeed, many of those in the JFK community have not bought it, even though it is the

most thorough and comprehensive study of the Zapruder film in existence. Do you own it, Pat?

Now Lifton no doubt believes that his name is a big item in promoting this book. But most of

the world knows very little of David Lifton. We are both well-known to students of JFK. But I have

29 books across a broad range of subjects, make hundreds of appearances on radio and TV on

JFK, 9/11, and other subjects, and I am probably much better known IN THE WORLD AT LARGE.

So while Lifton thinks he is a big draw, I am not convinced. After all the hassle he has put

me though, I would just as soon have not involved him at all. I find him interesting, but after

having benefited him in multiple ways only to find him trashing me with this anti-Semitic drivel,

which only arose after I asked him to repay those loans, I no longer have any confidence in him.

There was nothing "business" about lending Lifton money and I find it hard to believe you would

make such a crass suggestion. I have never cared about the money that my books bring in apart

from my putting them into an account from which I could offer small grants in support of JFK or

9/11 research. Frankly, I know of no one else who has done that. Tell me if you know better.

In my opinion, therefore, you have been grossly unfair to me. I have no doubt that I have pissed

you off because I have taken a dim view of your understanding of the difference between royalties

and loans. It still bothers me you do not appreciate the difference. The money "I thought were loans"

WERE LOANS. Given the proof I have that they were loans, I am dumbfounded by your stance.

Not only that, but you do not seem to understand the nature of ethics. I am no doubt alone here

in having taught courses in moral theory, but the most defensible conception is that morality

consists in treating other persons as ENDS and never merely as MEANS. Technically, this is the

second formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative. It entails treating others with RESPECT.

An excellent introduction to the study of this subject is James Rachels, THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL

PHILOSOPHY. You probably don't have it, but it would be easy to access at a used book store.

Here is a brief introduction to moral theory and why Kant appears to have it right, namely:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Corporations-Inherentl-by-Jim-Fetzer-100124-129.html

Now you suggest that Lifton should keep the loans until I have paid him the royalties I owe him.

As I have explained, I may very well have already done that. But even if it turns out that I owe

him more, how does that justify his withholding the loans I extended when he needed the money then

after I have informed him that I need the money now? How can he justify not repaying these loans?

As I understand it, you acknowledge that he owes me the money I have lent him. But you also say

he is justified in withholding it until the royalties are settled. Since I have sent him royalties

in the past and even advanced on royalties, as I have explained, I really do not understand your

position here. You endorse a form of extortion, which is clearly not treating me with respect.

Think of it this way, Pat. You are suggesting he should withhold money, even though you agree he

owes it to me, in order to make sure I pay him whatever I am still owe him, even though it may be

that I actually do not owe him any more than I have already paid him. Moreover, the loans are a

separate matter. So you are endorsing withholding repayment as a means to secure his royalties.

How contemptible is that? I lent him the money then because he needed it then. I need the money

now. It would be just and honorable for him to replay me now. What if I had lent him my lawnmower

or my car? If I needed my lawnmower or my car back, would your stance be the same? Suppose that

I needed the car to get my expectant wife to the hospital? Would you tell him not to return it?

Moreover, you are very harsh on me over royalties that I may not owe at all but silent about the

abuse he has heaped on me with these vicious and baseless claims that I am anti-Semitic. I have

grave doubts about your even-handedness when you condemn me about royalties I may even have

overpaid but remain silent about his grotesque, abusive assault on me for which he has no foundation.

It is certainly true that I read some chapters from an excellent book on the history of Zionism

on the air. I have interviewed a half-dozen or more experts on Zionism on my radio program. And

I have published articles that point to indications of Israeli complicity on 9/11. But that was

all in the interest of discovering the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of 9/11.

He went on a rampage about videos that I did not produce and did not even know existed until they

appeared on a web site from a British source associating them with an article about a fellow by

the name of Tom Fetzer! I wrote and told them they were mistaken. And I had nothing to do with

creating them. I have supported a web site on Israeli complicity in 9/11, but recently resigned.

I would be glad if you could sort these issues out with just the least bit more discrimination. Your

insinuation that I lent Lifton money FOR BUSINESS REASONS has to be one of the all-time bone-

headed remarks I have ever read. It may have been stupid of me, as I recognize in retrospect, but

I thought he was trustworthy and needed the money. I was wrong then, but you are also wrong now.

I hope you can bring yourself to give this matter just a little more thought. Thanks very much, Pat.

Jim

Whether or not Pat Speer has a brain, he appears to be incapable of thought. I have been using

the accounts to benefit research on 9/11 and JFK. My royalty agreement with Lifton is distinct

from my loans to Lifton. If Speer can't understand that, he is suffering from a higher degree of

cognitive impairment than I have heretofore supposed. He cannot have considered my "loans"

to have been "advances on royalties". Checks I sent him as advances on royalties, which I was

not obligated to send, were marked "advance on royalties" or had similar designations. Loans

are NOT "advances on royalties". Loans are money he owes to me. Royalties are money that I

owe to him. I have already declared that, when I have a complete statement, if I owe him any

additional royalties, I will pay them. In the meanwhile, he owes me for loans, which were not

part of any royalty agreement. I benefitted him in ways that I was neither morally nor legally

obligated to benefit him. He stiffed me! That Speer cannot grasp this point is beyond belief.

I created these accounts to have a procedure to support research on JFK, on the first instance,

and 9/11, in the second. Almost all the money in these accounts comes from royalties and from

honoraria. I considered Lifton's plights at the time to be border-line in relation to JFK research.

He was using his laptop in writing his book on Oswald, for example, so I lent him the $1,000 to

contribute toward his research. I do not at the moment recall why I had also lent the $300, but

I presume I had a similar rationale. I have had my returns processed by professional accountants

and they have found nothing wrong. This is not a large effort and my resources are less than they

have been in the past. When I was still teaching, I sometimes supplemented the fund with other

money of my own. But now that I am retired, I have fewer options. I lent him the money when he

needed it. I asked for it when I needed it. I thought he was a trustworthy person. I was wrong.

Short answer: Lifton played me for a sap.

Sorry, Jim, but your "short answer" is really hard to believe. You acknowledge you could very well owe Lifton money. You refuse to commit to even a rough estimate of book sales so he can better judge if this is true. And then you demand money back which he considered advances on the royalties you acknowledge you may owe him.

I doubt anyone here thinks he should pay you back until you make good on your obligation to find out how much you owe him, and pay that amount. I doubt anyone here would pay you back under such circumstances. Care to take a poll?

Come on, Jim. Get off your high horse. The truth of my statements in reference to your being played by Lifton is obvious. EVERY indication under the sun is that YOU OWE HIM MONEY. And that you have owed him this money FOR YEARS. And have made NO real effort even to figure out how much you owe him. The clear indications to everyone but yourself therefore are that YOU PLAYED HIM. Look in the mirror and tell yourself this ten times so it will sink in...

Now, if you finally get a look at your royalty statement and send him the thousands you almost certainly owe him, yes, I would agree that he should pay you back the money you thought were loans. But until such time...he'd have to be a sap to pay you.

P.S. That you either fail to grasp this simple reality or are pretending that you don't only undermines your credibility. In either case, however, it appears you really need a vacation from "critical thinking," as it's more than clear your thinking ability is in "critical" condition. (Yes, I can play the insult card, too, and, I might add, with considerable more talent than yourself.)

P.P.S. Perhaps the most insulting aspect of your stance is your suggestion that you helped Lifton out from the goodness of your heart, etc. This is ridiculous. Your books had never reached the vast audience Lifton had once reached. It follows then that your inclusion of Lifton in your book was a business move. Your offering him loans when you knew you owed him royalties was a business move.

It looks eerily like the oldest trick in the book. The record producer gives the artist some cash up front, and promises him money on the back end, a back end that he knows from all his other records will never develop. Then, when the artist asks for cash, he gives him a "loan" to shut him up. He then cries foul when the artist asks for what was rightfully his, swearing "I gave you a loan and this is how you repay me? What ingratitude!"

Prove me wrong by paying Lifton what you owe him. Or at least offering him an estimate of how many books were sold.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

You are a nitwit. I am using his report as EVIDENCE to sort out among competing THEORIES.

I don't understand why you have any standing at all in any research community. You are a dolt.

Jim:

This is my last post. I have had it.

You are now trying to talk a witness out of what he saw.

This is just what we have always assailed the FBI and WC for doing.

What are you trying to do? Make him believe he saw a hologram, just because Wood says DEW's were used?

Over and out.

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...