Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Up until about a year and a half ago, the word "Zionism" was not even in my vocabulary. I realized that I

was incapable of understanding important events in the world if I did not gain clarity about its meaning.

So I featured three experts on Zionism on "The Real Deal"--Barry Chamish, Stephen Lendman, and Elias

Davidsson

None of the above qualifies as an "experts on Zionism" and Chamish is insane he claimed that Lennon's song "Imagine" was part of an Illuminati plot to promote Communism and that the song's author was killed by the faux Paul, the original having being murdered by Brian Epstein[

--and, after I discovered STRANGER THAN FICTION and read about eight chapters on the air,

I was able to inerview its author, Albert Pastore, Ph.D. (a pseudonym).

A book which has chapters that read like Mein Kampf, the author is an obvious neo-Nazi who even justified Hitler's invasion of western Europe. No surprise he wants to hide behind an alias. Odd that such a weakly documented book could make such an impression on you, unless it touched upon pre-existing prejudices.

David Lifton and Len Colby are misleading you about my attitudes because--for reasons of their own--they want to smear me.

BS why do you keep trying to change the subject what most offended us is the chapters about WWI and WWII, why do you refuse to address them?

As I have observed in passing, if I really were anti-Semitic, then why would I lend money to David Lifton?

Did you really teach critical thinking? You seem incapable of it? You loaned him the money years ago, people change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dean you coped out, you (like Don) seem not to have read the chapters that so offended David and me but rather seem content to take Fetzer's word for it that he is innocent of all charges. But if you cant muster up the courage to read garbage Fetzer read on air and strongly endorsed ask yourself why he continues to dodge the bullet regarding it.

Len

If Jim is the big time Jew hating anti-semite who thinks that the Jews are behind 9-11, WWII, Stock Market Crash of 29, and on and on then wouldnt he come out and say, yes I am an anti-semite and the Jews are behind 9-11 and everything else, I also back up my website and my fellow anti-semitic friends

You see Len I ask first, then look into it later, I am going to listen to and read all the links and posts today and find out for myself the things you and David are talking about

If you think of any other website or any links please post them so I can look into it today

Thanks Len

Dean

Good question perhaps he realizes coming out and saying such things is not socially acceptable. But I ask you this, if he doesn’t why did he repeatedly endorse and read on air twice chapters from a book which made such claims? Also lest I be accused of making a strawman the theories the book endorsed in the chapters I read through were slightly different from the ones on your list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

The so-called Zionist families are not a power on their own. They are deployed by the Monarchies of Europe, like the British monarchy. They were called "hofjuden" (court Jews). But they're cut outs or front men for these European oligarchical families who hate the United States and have always hated the United States.

Perhaps Colby is a little sensitive seeing as how he is an heir to the Oppenheimer family. His father Frank Colby migrated to the USA from Havana Cuba in 1951 and went to work as a chemist for Chaim Weizman's (sp?) Commercial Solvents ( IG Farben had been shut down by the Allies so maybe he was forced to find work in the US[just kidding]). Weizman helped broker the British Sykes-Picot agreement which created the state of Israel.

From their he went to RJ Reynolds/ British American Tobacco with the Borden Gray clan.(Yes, George Herbert Walker Bush's C. Borden Gray that is) His job as "Minister of Information" was to produce reams of "sophistry" against any and all claims that cigarettes were harmful to your health. As a chemist he also knew how to increase the addictive properties of cigarettes. He was a point man for many projects at RJR/ British American Tobacco.

Obviously all that Mauro has to offer is:

parroting her guru and his disciples

making irrelevant and inaccurate personal attacks, or even such attacks against family members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until about a year and a half ago, the word "Zionism" was not even in my vocabulary. I realized that I

was incapable of understanding important events in the world if I did not gain clarity about its meaning.

So I featured three experts on Zionism on "The Real Deal"--Barry Chamish, Stephen Lendman, and Elias

Davidsson

None of the above qualifies as an "experts on Zionism" and Chamish is insane he claimed that Lennon's song "Imagine" was part of an Illuminati plot to promote Communism and that the song's author was killed by the faux Paul, the original having being murdered by Brian Epstein[

--and, after I discovered STRANGER THAN FICTION and read about eight chapters on the air,

I was able to inerview its author, Albert Pastore, Ph.D. (a pseudonym).

A book which has chapters that read like Mein Kampf, the author is an obvious neo-Nazi who even justified Hitler's invasion of western Europe. No surprise he wants to hide behind an alias. Odd that such a weakly documented book could make such an impression on you, unless it touched upon pre-existing prejudices.

David Lifton and Len Colby are misleading you about my attitudes because--for reasons of their own--they want to smear me.

BS why do you keep trying to change the subject what most offended us is the chapters about WWI and WWII, why do you refuse to address them?

As I have observed in passing, if I really were anti-Semitic, then why would I lend money to David Lifton?

Did you really teach critical thinking? You seem incapable of it? You loaned him the money years ago, people change.

This guy Chamish claims lots of outlandish things. Among others that Shimon Peres was behind the murder of Prime Minister Yitshak Rabin. Proof? None. This guy has the same methodology as Fetzer - make the claim, character assassinate any opposition and make even more goofy claims. He is also a UFO fantast, claiming that somehow aliens are infiltrating society on earth.

Some conference in London. These guys use the word "truth" and "freedom" with the same frequency George W. Bush used the word "passionate", if you get my drift.

A true Kooksters gathering. Which is why it is not surprising that Fetzer participated. It is to be expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'

...

Ask:

Which ruler has the Way,

which general has the ability,

which has gained Heaven and Ground,

which carried out Law and commands,

which army is strong,

which officers and soldiers are trained,

which reward and punish clearly,

by means of these, I know victory and defeat! ?

A general who listens to my calculations, and uses them, will surely be victorious, keep him;

a general who does not listen to my calculations, and does not use them, will surely be defeated, remove him.

Calculate advantages by means of what was heard, then create force in order to assist outside missions.

Force is the control of the balance of power, in accordance with advantages.

...

Warfare is the Way of deception.

Therefore, if able, appear unable,

if active, appear not active,

if near, appear far,

if far, appear near.

If they have advantage, entice them;

if they are confused, take them,

if they are substantial, prepare for them,

if they are strong, avoid them,

if they are angry, disturb them,

if they are humble, make them haughty,

if they are relaxed, toil them,

if they are united, separate them.

Attack where they are not prepared, go out to where they do not expect.

... '

edit typos, forgot to credit the site but it's not hard to find

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this post to be execrable. It is a naked and very ugly attempt at character assassination. Because Fetzer writes "Loan" on a check does not mean that that was what the payment was for. I know a little about this and I'm confident that David Lifton will show that Fetzer's account is both self-serving and inaccurate.

I have known David Lifton since 1966. I have followed his research and read his books. We have differing opinions about many issues in the interpretation of evidence. However,I know him to be scrupulous in his accounts of witness testimony and related facts. In all my dealings with him, I have found him to be an honorable man and ethical to the core. It is Fetzer's modus operandi to attack anyone who disagrees with him with first innuendo and then false charges. For David Lifton to be subject to such an execrable attack from the likes of Fetzer, shows just how far debate on the Kennedy assassination has sunk. Fetzer poisons the field of discussion. It seems to me that sanctions are in order.

Josiah Thompson

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW A MAN'S CHARACTER, JUST LEND HIM MONEY.

--Jim Fetzer

All,

During my recent visit to LA, I stayed with a close friend and

confided in him my problems with David Lifton relative to two

loans I extended to him, one for $300 in 2005, the other for

$1,000 in 2007. I have had extensive correspondence with him

about this, including sending him copies of both sides of the

relevant checks, which, of course, bear his signature and, in

the memorandum space, clearly state "loan". I have received a

formal acceptance of receipt, but he has not responded to me.

My reason for writing is that I learned that Lifton also tried

to borrow money from my friend, suggesting that this may be a

standard practice for him. Because of my high regard for him

as a student of JFK, I was very accommodating in the past, but

I have reached the point where I no longer have confidence in

his integrity, especially after I have provided him with copies

of the relevant checks. He needed the money then; I need it now.

At the very least, I expected him to acknowledge his indebtedness.

I have been in consultation with a California attorney, who has

advised me that, while this would ordinarily be a case for small

claims court, there may be a pattern here for the more serious

charge of false inducement, where a person seeks money with the

promise of repayment but actually has no intention to do so. If

any of you have been solicited by David for "loans", please let

me know. He has also apprised me that sharing my experience with

you as I am doing now is perfectly lawful and appropriate because

it is true. I am not going to allow Lifton to stiff me for $1,300.

Jim

P.S. The proper term is "fraudulent inducement". And not to put

too fine a point on it, but if I actually were anti-Semitic, then

what in the world would I be doing lending money to David Lifton?

Edited by Kathy Beckett
personal information removed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

As a man who specializes in character assassination and who posts trash reviews of books he has never read, Josiah Thompson has a lot of nerve taking the side of someone whose duplicity had been documented in this very thread. And since Lifton has had those checks (clearly marked "loan") since 2005 and 2007, it would have been appropriate if he had raised the point years ago. I am confident that by negotiating the check with that notation, Lifton was acknowledging that it was accurate. This is a contorted argument from Tink. Lifton and Thompson are quite the pair in the area of deceit and deception. I don't know why I have never made the connection before. I once believed in Thompson, too. I guess in some cases I have a slow learning curve. I have befriended Lifton. He has betrayed me. I agree that something "execrable" is going on here, but--typical Thompson--he has the wrong guy in mind. It's pure DSL. We all know why Tink is here. He needs to get a life!

I find this post to be execrable. It is a naked and very ugly attempt at character assassination. Because Fetzer writes "Loan" on a check does not mean that that was what the payment was for. I know a little about this and I'm confident that David Lifton will show that Fetzer's account is both self-serving and inaccurate.

I have known David Lifton since 1966. I have followed his research and read his books. We have differing opinions about many issues in the interpretation of evidence. However,I know him to be scrupulous in his accounts of witness testimony and related facts. In all my dealings with him, I have found him to be an honorable man and ethical to the core. It is Fetzer's modus operandi to attack anyone who disagrees with him with first innuendo and then false charges. For David Lifton to be subject to such an execrable attack from the likes of Fetzer, shows just how far debate on the Kennedy assassination has sunk. Fetzer poisons the field of discussion. It seems to me that sanctions are in order.

Josiah Thompson

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW A MAN'S CHARACTER, JUST LEND HIM MONEY.

--Jim Fetzer

All,

During my recent visit to LA, I stayed with a close friend and

confided in him my problems with David Lifton relative to two

loans I extended to him, one for $300 in 2005, the other for

$1,000 in 2007. I have had extensive correspondence with him

about this, including sending him copies of both sides of the

relevant checks, which, of course, bear his signature and, in

the memorandum space, clearly state "loan". I have received a

formal acceptance of receipt, but he has not responded to me.

My reason for writing is that I learned that Lifton also tried

to borrow money from my friend, suggesting that this may be a

standard practice for him. Because of my high regard for him

as a student of JFK, I was very accommodating in the past, but

I have reached the point where I no longer have confidence in

his integrity, especially after I have provided him with copies

of the relevant checks. He needed the money then; I need it now.

At the very least, I expected him to acknowledge his indebtedness.

I have been in consultation with a California attorney, who has

advised me that, while this would ordinarily be a case for small

claims court, there may be a pattern here for the more serious

charge of false inducement, where a person seeks money with the

promise of repayment but actually has no intention to do so. If

any of you have been solicited by David for "loans", please let

me know. He has also apprised me that sharing my experience with

you as I am doing now is perfectly lawful and appropriate because

it is true. I am not going to allow Lifton to stiff me for $1,300.

Jim

P.S. The proper term is "fraudulent inducement". And not to put

too fine a point on it, but if I actually were anti-Semitic, then

what in the world would I be doing lending money to David Lifton?

Edited by Kathy Beckett
personal information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As my reviews show, I've read your books. With the exception of an article here and there, they are junk. Your Zapruder hoax book published an article by Lifton, "Pig on a Leash," that clearly attacked me. I thought it was the only thing in that book that had any merit in that it was well-written and informative. And how about all the other folks who published reviews saying your books are junk? Are you going to say that they too never read your books? You poison everything you touch!

Josiah Thompson

As a man who specializes in character assassination and who posts trash reviews of books he has never read, Josiah Thompson has a lot of nerve taking the side of someone whose duplicity had been documented in this very thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a man who specializes in character assassination and who posts trash reviews of books he has never read, Josiah Thompson has a lot of nerve taking the side of someone whose duplicity had been documented in this very thread. And since Lifton has had those checks (clearly marked "loan") since 2005 and 2007, it would have been appropriate if he had raised the point years ago. I am confident that by negotiating the check with that notation, Lifton was acknowledging that it was accurate. This is a contorted argument from Tink. Lifton and Thompson are quite the pair in the area of deceit and deception. I don't know why I have never made the connection before. I once believed in Thompson, too. I guess in some cases I have a slow learning curve. I have befriended Lifton. He has betrayed me. I agree that something "execrable" is going on here, but--typical Thompson--he has the wrong guy in mind. It's pure DSL. We all know why Tink is here. He needs to get a life!

I find this post to be execrable. It is a naked and very ugly attempt at character assassination. Because Fetzer writes "Loan" on a check does not mean that that was what the payment was for. I know a little about this and I'm confident that David Lifton will show that Fetzer's account is both self-serving and inaccurate.

I have known David Lifton since 1966. I have followed his research and read his books. We have differing opinions about many issues in the interpretation of evidence. However,I know him to be scrupulous in his accounts of witness testimony and related facts. In all my dealings with him, I have found him to be an honorable man and ethical to the core. It is Fetzer's modus operandi to attack anyone who disagrees with him with first innuendo and then false charges. For David Lifton to be subject to such an execrable attack from the likes of Fetzer, shows just how far debate on the Kennedy assassination has sunk. Fetzer poisons the field of discussion. It seems to me that sanctions are in order.

Josiah Thompson

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW A MAN'S CHARACTER, JUST LEND HIM MONEY.

--Jim Fetzer

All,

During my recent visit to LA, I stayed with a close friend and

confided in him my problems with David Lifton relative to two

loans I extended to him, one for $300 in 2005, the other for

$1,000 in 2007. I have had extensive correspondence with him

about this, including sending him copies of both sides of the

relevant checks, which, of course, bear his signature and, in

the memorandum space, clearly state "loan". I have received a

formal acceptance of receipt, but he has not responded to me.

My reason for writing is that I learned that Lifton also tried

to borrow money from my friend, suggesting that this may be a

standard practice for him. Because of my high regard for him

as a student of JFK, I was very accommodating in the past, but

I have reached the point where I no longer have confidence in

his integrity, especially after I have provided him with copies

of the relevant checks. He needed the money then; I need it now.

At the very least, I expected him to acknowledge his indebtedness.

I have been in consultation with a California attorney, who has

advised me that, while this would ordinarily be a case for small

claims court, there may be a pattern here for the more serious

charge of false inducement, where a person seeks money with the

promise of repayment but actually has no intention to do so. If

any of you have been solicited by David for "loans", please let

me know. He has also apprised me that sharing my experience with

you as I am doing now is perfectly lawful and appropriate because

it is true. I am not going to allow Lifton to stiff me for $1,300.

Jim

P.S. The proper term is "fraudulent inducement". And not to put

too fine a point on it, but if I actually were anti-Semitic, then

what in the world would I be doing lending money to David Lifton?

Here we go again. Fetzer's arguments are as usual so weak that instead he starts the usual Fetzer-style attempts to character assassinate his opposition.

Fetzer's economic dealings with Lifton has got nothing whatsoever to do with any of the subjects discussed in this thread or on this site, for that matter. Ridiculously poor attempt to change focus.

We can all se how weak his position is, having to refer to one goofy muppet after another. This behavior is indeed very familiar from his spectacular fiasco with regards to defending Judyth Baker. Fetzer's most common argument in that discussion: "Have you read XXX?" and when the answer is negative: "Then shut up, you know nothing about this!". Fetzer will, no doubt, liase with the devil himself if it serves his purposes.

You are a truly shining beacon of light to your academic credentials.

It is also interesting to see how diligently Fetzer avoids Evan Burtons invitation to discuss the Apollo- and moon issues. It is not very hard to conclude why. True to form, Fetzer is no expert on the subject, he just like to act as if he was. When reading his postings, it is the same as always; Fetzer refers to one goofy character after another and their fantasist books, sites or interviews. Fetzer has never done basic research himself on any of the issues he brings forward with such burning intensity. As he always takes these muppets at face value he dares not discuss the issues at hand himself, knowing this would of course reveal how thinly dressed he is.

Pathetic is the word.

Let's get back to 9/11 for a second. And let's see if Fetzer has guts enough to back this up: in a discussion elsewhere, Fetzer claims that "high officials from the FDNY must have been involved in 9/11".

Now's the opportunity to back this outrageous statement up.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

Bertrand Russel.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
personal information removed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few questions for Fetzer about his "loans" to David Lifton.

1) If after almost 2 years he had not paid you back $ 300 why did you loan him an additional $ 1000.

2) Besides your name the checks bear the inscription 'Assassination Research' was the account a personal one or a business/non-profit one? In the latter case weren't you committing an irregularity by using the funds for personal use?

3) If you don't believe several of your sources being Holocaust deniers is relevant to their claims "Zionists" were behind 9/11 how is Lifton's suposed failure to repay you relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, Len.

Don't make it so difficult for the poor professors brain.

edit:lotsatypos

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The personal items posted on this thread ( the checks) have been removed, and no more posting of them, or similar items will be tolerated. It is no business of anyone reading this forum.

IMO, they were posted to do no more than make someone else look bad, when the only person who winds up looking bad is the person who posted them.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there's no committee that revokes Ph.D 's in philosophy, for someone who abuses their academic license and, as Fetzer does, promotes false and ludicrous ideas.

Ever since Fetzer started posting checks on the Internet in a vain attempt to show he was morally superior to David Lifton... that Lifton had some moral screw loose and was a deadbeat... I've been wondering about how the distinguished professor handles his own history. I don't know. Was Fetzer suspended without pay for several months by the President of the University of Minnesota(Duluth) for "abusing his academic license?" It was for some sort of sexual misconduct but apparently the file is sealed and the distinguished professor has never told anyone what it was about. It's clear it wasn't "for promoting false and ludicrous ideas." Who knows... maybe the President of the University was just another deadbeat trying to get out of repaying Fetzer a loan? But then if you're morally superior to everyone else you don't have to explain your conduct or double bookkeeping to anyone. Anyone, that is, but the IRS!

JT

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FETZER'S SPECIOUS CLAIMS

The reason I will not pay Fetzer a single penny on his so called "loan" is because I don't him a blessed cent (and I don't care what word he may have written on the front of a check that he now posts on the Internet. In May, 2003, I made a contract with Fetzer, to speak at his Duluth conference. He paid me for that ($1,000) and also covered my expenses to fly from Los Angeles to Duluth, Minnesota. Then I made a second contract with Fetzer, in August, 2003, to write the essay that became Pig on a Leash, for his anthology, HOAX. That contract called called for certain royalties. Fetzer made the first payment—I'll grant him that. Otherwise, I would not have submitted Pig on a Leash, which is 25% of the book "HOAX". Following that, I was supposed to get royalties. But there has been, essentially, nothing from Fetzer or his publisher, for some six years. In one email, he told me that the publisher was in dire straights. Then, in the fall of 2007, came another event, and this brings me to the money I supposedly owe: my laptop computer was stolen, it marked a period of great stress, and I had to raise money fast to buy another computer. I went to two people, Fetzer and David Mantik. Mantik turned me down.(Certainly, his right.) Fetzer provided $1,000—I considered it a loan but also an "advance against royalties." since Fetzer had paid me no royalties on a book that was going into its THIRD printing, I assumed that debit would easily have been covered. But there has been no proper accounting. Ever. Fetzer now produces one check, with the word "loan," and claims that as his evidence. He also alludes to a conversation with Mantik—the one in which Dr. Mantik turned me down—as part of a pattern of evidence in which I was supposedly engaged in fraud. (Another checks for Fetzer has produced bears the word "loan" but it is in Fetzer's handwriting, and I have no recollection of any such loan.)

If Fetzer wants to take me to court, that is just fine with me—because the court will then learn a number of other things about Jim Fetzer, and his supposed book keeping, an exercise that is worthy of a Doonsberry cartoon.

FETZER'S TWO BANK ACCOUNTS (AT LEAST)

First, and purely as a footnote to those who want to know about the character of Fetzer, I should note that Fetzer didn't want his money back until I took a strong stand against Judyth, and her stories about being Lee Oswald's girlfriend. Then, and only then, is when all this started.

At first, and not really checking the details, I replied that I didn't have the money, and he wrote back, rather irritated, "Then don't send it!" That's right—that's exactly what he wrote. He re-affirmed the fact that I need not pay him.

But that was not the end of it. Fetzer was going to London to meet with his 9/11 buddies—the various anti-Semites and holocaust deniers who pervade his politics (the extent of which was slowly becoming apparent to me) and he needed money for an airplane ticket.

About two months ago, I asked Fetzer to pull the checks. Because we got into a discussion of just who owed who money, since in six years, I never got any royalty statements, nor any of the expected royalties, for a book that was in its third printing! Did I owe him money? Or did he owe me royalties from a book now in its third printing? So at that point, Fetzer sent me his ledger; or, should I say, "ledger." Perusing it, it became obvious that there were serious—and I mean serious—irregularities, the kind the IRS would immediately be interested in.

Fetzer , it turns out, kept two bank accounts in Minnesota—at two separate banking institutions. Further, he had transactions listed one way in one bank account, and another way, in another (!).

Take for example the check for one particular amount. In one account, it was listed as a loan, but then in another account as "royalties." These are markedly different, because one is tax deductible (the royalty to an author is a cost, to a publisher), while the other (a loan) is not. I had a CPA examine Fetzer's book keeping, and it is a joke. In one instance, Fetzer had listed that he bought things from me that I never possessed (!) and so could not have sold—to him or anyone else. Obviously the books were all wrong, if not worse.

Also, because of Fetzer's "double" book-keeping, Fetzer's total "loan" amount had skyrocketed, to about four times the original supposed "loan" amount. I wrote Fetzer at the time: joking referring to the "single loan theory," that there had been only one $1k "loan" (and I put it in quotes because I always thought of it as an advance against royalties) but it was apparently being counted more than once (by Fetzer) and I compared his accounting to Arlen Specter's single bullet theory, in which one bullet accounted for multiple wounds.

And how, I asked, did he explain the fact that in one instance, checks bearing the same number appeared in two different accounts?

Fetzer replied that it was "coincidence" that the checks were numbered the same. (Really! Can you believe that? I couldn't.)

* * *

Here's the bottom line: As an author, I am saying that I will not pay someone money whom has not paid me royalties in six years. This is a financial farce. Fetzer has been reckless in the way he has conducted himself financially; and now makes reckless charges based on his screwball accounting. Fetzer's claims that I owe him money are as baseless as his screwball theories that no plane hit the Pentagon; and I don't care how many checks he posts on the Internet.

David

It is hard for anyone besides the two of you to know who is telling the truth, I think your version has more of a ring of truth but admit I am hopelessly biased against Fetzer. However your post jibes with my observations that:

- Fetzer gave you a check for $1000 after you supposedly had not repaid a previous loan made 2 years earlier;

- The checks were from his “Assassination Research” account.

Was my assumption that was a business account correct? If so then he can’t claim the money was for personal loans.

Len

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...