Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity

[Greg Burnham]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkGzhsm3Exo&feature=related

This is an interesting quote and discussion. I am not Jewish, but many of my closest friends are. MLK's statement should be taken within context, IMO. For instance, my Jewish friends don't approve of Zionist alarmism nor extreme or radical rhetoric. However, they fully support Israel. But they don't consider themselves Zionists.

I think MLK is correct in this statement...generally speaking. However, it needs to be judged on a case by case basis. Edited July 26, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[John Dolva]

Yes the exact source is needed. It seemed pretty muddled. First he quotes : ''quote said that MLK said..'' then he takes that quote and says MLK said. Apart from all that as Greg words it ''context'', well it's always context. The next second the leader of Iran is Hitler et.c. seems very chatty to me (apart from the actual MLK speech)..

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If J. Raymond Carroll can show one example of my "anti-Semitic ravings" I would like to see it. This is a

nice illustration of someone who has no idea what is going on and doesn't seem to understand that Lifton

is using this phony charge to create a smokescreen to conceal his unwillingness to repay the money that

I have loaned him. He only began this bizarre attack after I had asked him to repay the loads and began

sending copies of checks. I would invite him to contemplate my last email to Lifton and ask why he would

not respond. It makes a simple inquiry to which the answer is obvious. Carroll appears to be very gullible.

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:49:02 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Royalty Statement for 2008

David,

Jan has found a royalty statement for 2008,

which is very suggestive. 112 copies were

sold and I earned $235.68, of which 25% to

you would be $58.92. So I think it might

turn out that, by giving you advances, I

actually overpaid you even in relation to

the royalties alone.

What I would like to know is whether you

are going to pay me what you owe me after

you are convinced by the royalty state-

ments what moneys were actually due? I

am very suspicious about your intentions

based upon your non-responses after you

received the checks.

What do you expect me to think? I now

regard you as having induced me to lend

you money on fraudulent grounds. And if

I were anti-Semitic, what would I be do-

ing lending you money? A friend told me

he couldn't believe you would trash your

name for $1,300! But you are.

Jim

There was a time when I thought Jim Fetzer was a tolerable eccentric. Not anymore.

Amen to that.

I for one think that Jim Fetzer's ANTI-Semitic ravings have NO PLACE on this EDUCTION FORUM

Edited July 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

There was a time when I thought David Lifton was an honest man.

He has given an elaborate song-and-dance to distract you from

the fact that he owes me $1,300 which I lent to him when he was

in need. I thought he was a trustworthy person. He now claims

he does not owe this money to me because I have never paid him

royalties in relation to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003),

when in fact I have not only paid him royalties but even extended

him advances on royalties! Compare what I have written here--in

emails I sent to him--with what he has written below. One of us

is not telling the truth. The difference is that I have the cancelled

checks to prove it, copies of which I have long since sent to him.

One of us is lying. I presume it is not too hard to sort out which.

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:43:26 -0500 [06:43:26 AM CDT]

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Cc: "Jack White" <jwjfk@flash.net>, "John Costella" <john.costella@gmail.com>,

"Dave Healy" <shake_aeffects@yahoo.com>, "David Mantik"

<dmantik@rtsx.com>, "Doug Horne", MPinc21742@aol.com

Subject: Re: Concerning David S. Lifton . . .(CORRECTED VERSION)

David,

Given the information available to those on this list, your little charade

isn't going to cut it. I had thought you were a person of integrity. You are

clearly not the human being I believed you were and your accusations of anti-

Semitism are cheap and unfounded. You have turned out to be a caricature of

a decent, honest, trustworthy person, and anyone who has dealt with us both

will be well-positioned to determine which of us the in the right and which

of us is in the wrong. I would not have believed that you would be willing

to trash your reputation for a pittance. The fact that I assisted you with

money when you were in need and you have refused to do the same when I am in

need (by simply replaying loans, which you understood to be loans at the time

I lent them to you, as the checks themselves so clearly reflect) demonstrates

that you are corrupt to the core, an indecent, unfeeling, and selfish shell-

of-a-man, who is not only undeserving of admiration but unworthy of respect.

One of us is an honorable man, the other not. It is obvious which is which.

Jim

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:11:17 -0700 [02:11:17 AM CDT]

From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

To: "james Fetzer" <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>, "Jack White" <jwjfk@flash.net>,

"John Costella" <john.costella@gmail.com>, "Dave Healy" <shake_aeffects

@yahoo.com>, "David Mantik" <dmantik@rtsx.com>,

"Doug Horne"

Cc: MPinc21742@aol.com

Subject: Re: Concerning David S. Lifton . . .(CORRECTED VERSION)

TO ALL THOSE WHO ARE RECEIVING THIS GOOFY EMAIL FROM FETZER:

1. In 2003, I made a contract with Fetzer that I would be paid royalties for

my contribution to his Zapruder anthology, based on the percentage of the

book written by me.

2. Based upon a page count, I wrote about 25% of the book.

3. In six years, neither Fetzer nor his publisher has sent me a royalty

statement, even though the book is in its third printing (at least).

4. Fetzer has tried to claim that by writing "royalty" on some insignificant

checks, that that constitutes my "royalty"--and that that somehow is a

substitute for the accounting I am due. The ledger Fetzer has sent me does

not make sense. In one case, he has listed buying from me videos, which (a)

I never had and ( certainly never sold--to him, or anyone else.

Until Fetzer settles the royalty issue, I don't owe him a penny. That's the

essence of it.

Fetzer never made a proper accounting of royalties, and any monies he loaned

or advanced me were in the spirit of "against future royalties."

As with much else, Fetzer doesn't know what he is talking about.

Although it has nothing to do with the financial transaction between me and

Fetzer, the fact that Fetzer gone on a recent anti-Semitic rampage, arguing

that prominent Jews were part of a conspiracy to destroy the World Trade

Center (and the Pentagon)--and putting the Star of David across the

photographs of these people at his "rediscover 911" website--of course has

nothing to do with any financial transaction between us, but does give an

indication of some more fundamental characterological issues pertaining to

this man.

I'm sure that all readers of this post have better things to do than

endlessly pursuing this matter--as do I myself.

DSL

[NOTE: The "insignificant checks" to which he refers include several for

royalties, one of which--#1321 31 May 2005--was not only for $1,000

but was an "advance on royalties", which reflects that I have not only

loaned him money but I have extended the additional benefit, which I

was not obligated to provide, of giving him ADVANCES ON ROYALTIES.

Anyone who would like to evaluate his charges of anti-Semitism with

regard to http://rediscover911.com, which is not my site but which I

support, should click on the link and take a look for themselves. One

of us, I would agree, suffers from serious "characterological" defects.

I have told David that I would be willing to obtain a royalty statement

from the publisher and have even given him the number of my editor.

This is about the loans, not the contract, which he improperly conflates.

In fact, all three of these checks from 2003 fall into the same category:

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

These are apart from the one to which I have previously referred and

do not include #1223 David S. Lifton (honorarium and video) $1,025.00.

Apparently his characterological defects include problems with truth.]

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:14:51 -0500 [06/27/2010 09:14:51 PM CDT]

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Cc: "Jack White" <jwjfk@flash.net>, "John Costella" <john.costella@gmail.com>,

"Dave Healy" <shake_aeffects@yahoo.com>, "David Mantik"

<dmantik@rtsx.com>, "Doug Horne", MPinc21742@aol.com

Subject: Fwd: Concerning David S. Lifton . . .

NOTE: The proper legal term is actually "fraudulent inducement".

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

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:10:03 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: You have the checks: what is the score?

To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

David,

Today I received the written acknowledgment of receipt of the

certified letter I sent you on June 8th, which was dated June

10th. I am attaching a copy of the certification here. And I

am also attaching copies of the two checks I am writing about,

namely: #1340 of 25 December 2003 & #2016 of 7 September 2007.

2003:

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

I write to ask speficially if you acknowledge my loans to you of

$300 on 25 December 2003 and of $1,000 on 7 September 2007? I am

attaching copies of the corresponding checks, which you have in hand.

I would observe that I have not only sent you royalties but I have

even sent you advances on royalties, which were clearly identified

as such. These two checks are equally clearly identified as "loans".

What is troubling me, David, is that I complied with your wishes to

sent copies of these checks, which you can see are signed by you. I

have written to ask if you received them, but you have not replied.

I don't get it. When you needed money, I lent it to you. Now that I

need the money back, you are being evasive. Please know that I am not

going to let this ride. You owe me $1,300. Are you going to repay me?

I have previously explained that I am sponsoring a symposium on 9/11 in

London on 14 July 2010 at Friends House. I need the money to cover my

expenses. I responded when you were in need. Please do the same for me.

Jim

Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:

David,

Before I left for LAX, I sent you the copies of

the checks by certified mail. My receipt is

dated 8 June 2010. You must have received them

by now. For some reason, I have not received

back your signature acknowledging their receipt.

Please confirm that you do have them in hand.

Jim

Label/Receipt Number: 7009 1680 0002 3879 3863

Class: First-Class Mail®

Service(s): Certified Mail?

Return Receipt

Status: Delivered

Your item was delivered at 4:16 PM on June 10, 2010 in LOS ANGELES, CA 90064.

Enter Label/Receipt Number.

Detailed Results:

Delivered, June 10, 2010, 4:16 pm, LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

Arrival at Unit, June 10, 2010, 6:55 am, LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

Acceptance, June 08, 2010, 4:32 pm, VERONA, WI 53593

Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:

David,

Send me your address and I will send the checks.

You will see there are two loans for which you

signed, indicating your acknowledgment as loans.

One of them was in 2005, the other in 2007. I

lent you the money when you were in need. I am

in need now. I expect you to reimburse me now.

I will send you whatever I owe you in relation

to the book when I receive royalties. I have

done so in the past. I will continue to do so.

Otherwise, you have demonstrated your complete

lack of character in this and in other ways. I

want nothing more to do with you. Pay me now

and I will send what you are due in the future.

Jim

There was a time when I thought Jim Fetzer was a tolerable eccentric. Not anymore. Despite his academic credentials, and his pretensions at knowledge, he is laughably ignorant--the kind of person that appears to have stepped out of a comic strip, and is now, blustering about, in something other than the real world.

"Facts are stubborn things." John Adams famously said. Fetzer sports all kinds of bruises because, often blind to data (if not reality), he has a way of bumping into these "stubborn things" –and he often is the worse off for it. He encounters these "stubborn things" when he sets out to promote the various strange propositions that dominate his intellectual universe, including:

--No planes hit the World Trade Center

--The TV coverage shows it was faked

--No plane hit the Pentagon; rather, it was a missile

--The wreckage found afterwards was planted

--The hijackers are still alive

--We didn't go to the moon.

Etc etc

Oh pleez. . Fetzer. . .Have we not had enough? . Like an old choo choo train that is belching black smoke, and contaminating the environment, would you please go park yourself on a siding. . . and take a well-deserved rest?

I began this as a brief email—but I knew Fetzer would post it all over the Internet, because he's like a child who knows no boundaries, and who, despite wearing a well tailored bib, still spits his food all over his plate—so I decided to post it myself. And I will address some of his points.

. . .

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.

. . .

[Josiah Thompson]

David,

Jan has found a royalty statement for 2008,

which is very suggestive. 112 copies were

sold and I earned $235.68, of which 25% to

you would be $58.92. So I think it might

turn out that, by giving you advances, I

actually overpaid you even in relation to

the royalties alone.

Jim[/b]

The book in question was published in 2003. With each passing year since then it has become less plausible as shown by its decline in Amazon ratings. So you have your wife dig out a royalty statement for 2008 and it shows $235.68. So what? You have a contract with Lifton that likely indicates he should be paid 25% of the royalties you received for the book. So what total royalties did you receive for the book? That is all he is asking and what the rest of us would like to know? Why don't you just tell him so that he doesn't have to have his lawyer deal with your publisher. Claiming that your wife found something is just a cheap diversion. Since you weren't shy about posting your checks how about posting your royalty statments?

JT

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

You would have to be completely unfamiliar with my books to endorse ignorant remarks like these. There are eleven (11)

contributors to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), nine (9) to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and six (6) to THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). What precisely have they found objectionable in my research? I think you were being played

for a sap, Pat. I am sorry to say, but unless you know nothing of my work, you would know that such blanket rejection of

the work of more than a dozen different scholars is completely beyond belief. Was it my study of standards of proof that

appears in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE? My "16 Smoking Gun" in MURDER? My piece on faking evidence in the Prologue to

HOAX? Was it chapters by Mantik, Crenshaw, Kizzia, White, Costella, Lifton? Have you studied any of my work? Was it

my dismembering of the "magic bullet" theory I presented at Cambridge? My articles on Zapruder film fakery? Give us

specific examples of things of mine they've found objectionable. Someone got "sucked in", Pat, and it appears to be you!

Jim

Jim F. while I am not an expert on 9/11, I do have an experience regarding 9/11 that you should know about. After my presentation at the recent COPA conference, I was followed out into the hall by three young researchers, who were supportive of my efforts to make sense of the evidence. Pleased that, for the first time in years, young people seemed to be taking an interest in the assassination, I asked them how they came to such an interest. We ended up talking for about an hour. To a man they told me that they'd all come to the assassination through their research on 9/11, and their belief that your claims on 9/11 are not supported by the evidence. As I recall, they all felt that your claims on 9/11 were so off-base that they decided to look into your claims on JFK, to see if they were equally off-base. And in the process, got sucked in...

So, for me, this was a mixed bag. I was pleased that your 9/11 musings had drawn people to a JFK conference, but I was a bit disturbed that they'd found your research such a joke. These were kids, relatively speaking, in their mid-twenties. If they'd read up on JFK after reading your stuff on 9/11, and finding it a joke, how many others had read your stuff on 9/11, and decided to never read anything on JFK, because they figured it must also be a joke? This question bothered me, and I considered starting a thread on this forum about it. Ultimately, however, I decided that there had to be others out there who didn't think your 9/11 research was a joke, who came to research JFK because of your efforts.

But now I'm not so sure... There are a lot of Americans, myself included, that get a little queasy whenever someone starts talking about vast conspiracies involving "dancing Israeis" etc... If your honest belief is that the Bush Administration was behind 9/11, and that the Israelis were only tangentially involved, then why make an issue of it, knowing you will lose half your audience? And if you're honestly not anti-Semitic, then why did you respond to Lifton's attacks by bringing up money, and claiming he screwed you out of money (that you probably owed him anyhow), which is akin to calling him a "money-grabbin' Jew," or worse?.

I think you really need to look in the mirror, and reconsider your attacks on Lifton, which most just find embarrassing. But maybe I'm off base. We've clearly disagreed in the past, and will undoubtedly disagree again.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I already told him I would send them to him when I

have them in hand. I was sent copies for all of my

books with Open Court for the past six months instead

of for the history of HOAX. I trust you have noticed

he has repeatedly made false assertions about all this,

including that I have never sent him royalties, when

I have not only sent him ROYALTIES but even ADVANCES

ON ROYALTIES And when I have asked whether he would

replay me for all the sums he owes me--and mixing my

loans into the contract is not an acceptable account-

ing practice--if the royalty statements show that I

have overpaid him, where his response was SILENCE!

You are going to side with anyone who attacks me,

not matter how unjustly. But this appears to be a

new low. I have repeatedly benefited Lifton, yet

he has been abusive in the extreme in reply. I am

reminded of the familiar saying, "No good deed goes

unpunished". I benefited Lifton and he betrayed me.

David,

Jan has found a royalty statement for 2008,

which is very suggestive. 112 copies were

sold and I earned $235.68, of which 25% to

you would be $58.92. So I think it might

turn out that, by giving you advances, I

actually overpaid you even in relation to

the royalties alone.

Jim[/b]

The book in question was published in 2003. With each passing year since then it has become less plausible as shown by its decline in Amazon ratings. So you have your wife dig out a royalty statement for 2008 and it shows $235.68. So what? You have a contract with Lifton that likely indicates he should be paid 25% of the royalties you received for the book. So what total royalties did you receive for the book? That is all he is asking and what the rest of us would like to know? Why don't you just tell him so that he doesn't have to have his lawyer deal with your publisher. Claiming that your wife found something is just a cheap diversion. Since you weren't shy about posting your checks how about posting your royalty statments?

JT

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Rereading this, I am more baffled than before. Do you understand that I lent him money when he needed it? I did not owe him

$300 in 2005 or $1,000 in 2007. Moreover, I have been sending him royalties he was due and even advances on royalties. Do you

understand the difference between "loans" and "royalty payments"? Not to strain your brain, but they are not the same. Now you

don't seem to know anything about my differences with Lifton and appear to have been the victim of a con at COPA. If you are

unfamiliar with the story of the "Dancing Israelis", that suggests you are completely ignorant of the realities of 9/11. Are

you able to use google? Have you ever visited YouTube? Do you believe everything that anyone tells you? Tell me which of

my claims about 9/11 is supposed to be "off base"? I am forming the impression that you were targeted for this op because, in

their view, you were gullible enough to fall for it--which you have, hook, line, and sinker! There are factions in 9/11 just

as there are in JFK research. But you would have to have done research to have any basis for sorting this out. I dare say,

Pat, you are coming across as a credulous dupe in making these remarks, when you have no idea at all what you're talking about.

And did you miss the point I made in the beginning--that Lifton began attacking me as "anti-Semitic" only when I asked for him to

repay it? And has it crossed your mind that, if I were anti-Semitic, why in the world would I be lending money to David Lifton?

Jim F. while I am not an expert on 9/11, I do have an experience regarding 9/11 that you should know about. After my presentation at the recent COPA conference, I was followed out into the hall by three young researchers, who were supportive of my efforts to make sense of the evidence. Pleased that, for the first time in years, young people seemed to be taking an interest in the assassination, I asked them how they came to such an interest. We ended up talking for about an hour. To a man they told me that they'd all come to the assassination through their research on 9/11, and their belief that your claims on 9/11 are not supported by the evidence. As I recall, they all felt that your claims on 9/11 were so off-base that they decided to look into your claims on JFK, to see if they were equally off-base. And in the process, got sucked in...

So, for me, this was a mixed bag. I was pleased that your 9/11 musings had drawn people to a JFK conference, but I was a bit disturbed that they'd found your research such a joke. These were kids, relatively speaking, in their mid-twenties. If they'd read up on JFK after reading your stuff on 9/11, and finding it a joke, how many others had read your stuff on 9/11, and decided to never read anything on JFK, because they figured it must also be a joke? This question bothered me, and I considered starting a thread on this forum about it. Ultimately, however, I decided that there had to be others out there who didn't think your 9/11 research was a joke, who came to research JFK because of your efforts.

But now I'm not so sure... There are a lot of Americans, myself included, that get a little queasy whenever someone starts talking about vast conspiracies involving "dancing Israeis" etc... If your honest belief is that the Bush Administration was behind 9/11, and that the Israelis were only tangentially involved, then why make an issue of it, knowing you will lose half your audience? And if you're honestly not anti-Semitic, then why did you respond to Lifton's attacks by bringing up money, and claiming he screwed you out of money (that you probably owed him anyhow), which is akin to calling him a "money-grabbin' Jew," or worse?.

I think you really need to look in the mirror, and reconsider your attacks on Lifton, which most just find embarrassing. But maybe I'm off base. We've clearly disagreed in the past, and will undoubtedly disagree again.

Edited July 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Critics of Jim Fetzer regarding 911 are unqualified to render any opinion on his position on the events

unless they have read his book (see attached cover). Amazon has it used for as little as $7.95. You have

no excuse for being ignorant.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Rereading this, I am more baffled than before. Do you understand that I lent him money when he needed it? I did not owe him

$300 in 2005 or $1,000 in 2007. Moreover, I have been sending him royalties he was due and even advances on royalties. Do you

understand the difference between "loans" and "royalty payments"? Not to strain your brain, but they are not the same. Now you

don't seem to know anything about my differences with Lifton and appear to have been the victim of a con at COPA. If you are

unfamiliar with the story of the "Dancing Israelis", that suggests you are completely ignorant of the realities of 9/11. Are

you able to use google? Have you ever visited YouTube? Do you believe everything that anyone tells you? Tell me which of

my claims about 9/11 is supposed to be "off base"? I am forming the impression that you were targeted for this op because, in

their view, you were gullible enough to fall for it--which you have, hook, line, and sinker! There are factions in 9/11 just

as there are in JFK research. But you would have to have done research to have any basis for sorting this out. I dare say,

Pat, you are coming across as a credulous dupe in making these remarks, when you have no idea at all what you're talking about.

And did you miss the point I made in the beginning--that Lifton began attacking me as "anti-Semitic" only when I asked for him to

repay it? And has it crossed your mind that, if I were anti-Semitic, why in the world would I be lending money to David Lifton?

Jim F. while I am not an expert on 9/11, I do have an experience regarding 9/11 that you should know about. After my presentation at the recent COPA conference, I was followed out into the hall by three young researchers, who were supportive of my efforts to make sense of the evidence. Pleased that, for the first time in years, young people seemed to be taking an interest in the assassination, I asked them how they came to such an interest. We ended up talking for about an hour. To a man they told me that they'd all come to the assassination through their research on 9/11, and their belief that your claims on 9/11 are not supported by the evidence. As I recall, they all felt that your claims on 9/11 were so off-base that they decided to look into your claims on JFK, to see if they were equally off-base. And in the process, got sucked in...

So, for me, this was a mixed bag. I was pleased that your 9/11 musings had drawn people to a JFK conference, but I was a bit disturbed that they'd found your research such a joke. These were kids, relatively speaking, in their mid-twenties. If they'd read up on JFK after reading your stuff on 9/11, and finding it a joke, how many others had read your stuff on 9/11, and decided to never read anything on JFK, because they figured it must also be a joke? This question bothered me, and I considered starting a thread on this forum about it. Ultimately, however, I decided that there had to be others out there who didn't think your 9/11 research was a joke, who came to research JFK because of your efforts.

But now I'm not so sure... There are a lot of Americans, myself included, that get a little queasy whenever someone starts talking about vast conspiracies involving "dancing Israeis" etc... If your honest belief is that the Bush Administration was behind 9/11, and that the Israelis were only tangentially involved, then why make an issue of it, knowing you will lose half your audience? And if you're honestly not anti-Semitic, then why did you respond to Lifton's attacks by bringing up money, and claiming he screwed you out of money (that you probably owed him anyhow), which is akin to calling him a "money-grabbin' Jew," or worse?.

I think you really need to look in the mirror, and reconsider your attacks on Lifton, which most just find embarrassing. But maybe I'm off base. We've clearly disagreed in the past, and will undoubtedly disagree again.

Jim, I was not targeted as part of any op. These guys all had their own ideas about 9/11. They all believed there was a cover-up. But none of them respected you. For all I know, the guys down the hall from us ALL respected you. I guess what struck me about the whole encounter was that, while I'd personally witnessed how divisive you could be to the JFK research community, I'd actually believed you were a universally respected elder among the 9/11 research community. These guys told me this was far from the case.

If you're telling me they are wrong, and that your dealings with the 9/11 research community are far less contentious than your dealings with the JFK research community, I'll take you at your word.

Now, as to Lifton, and money... I think you need to look at the situation from Lifton's perspective. For several years I've been hearing that, since my background was in the music industry, I should stick to writing about the music industry. Well, your situation with Lifton is right out of Music Industry 101.

Here we have a book edited by yourself, which was 25% written by Lifton. This marks you as essentially the producer of a compilation for which Lifton--a former hit-maker--has contributed 3 original tracks. Now, to you, he "borrowed" money from you, which he has not repaid, and is a welcher. But to Lifton, and most every artist everywhere, he was simply collecting on what he's owed. You see, one of the first things artists learn is that producers and record company owners hate to pay artists, and that any artist waiting around year after year to get a royalty check is a SUCKER. The smart artists--those who survive--soon figure out then that the only way to get paid is to get large advances against royalties, and NEVER repay those advances. That's right. NEVER repay those royalties. In fact, in the eyes of most artists, it would be a cardinal sin to repay such an advance...even if the producer or record company owner considered it a personal loan.

Now... honesty time... how many copies did you really sell, and for how many copies did Lifton get paid? 5,000? 10,000? Well, whatever the number you claim you've sold you can bet that Lifton thinks it was twice that number, and not unjustifiably. Your apparent failure to provide him regular and accurate royalty statements has, almost certainly, convinced him he was stiffed. I mean, think about it. He wrote Best Evidence, one of the all-time best sellers on the Kennedy assassination, and has published little since. This made his contribution to The Z-film Hoax a key selling point, worth far more than the contributions of the other authors. One might venture, in fact, that as many as 50% of those buying the book bought it primarily to read Lifton's chapter.

And so, looking at it from Lifton's perspective, I would expect that he have been paid at least 10,000 for his efforts. So? Has he? If not, then you can pretty much bet the farm he will never repay you what you think he owes you. You can kiss that cash good-bye.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Josiah Thompson]

....I was simply trying to point out that--based upon my extensive record industry experience--he would have strong reasons to suspect you had sold many more books than he was ever paid for--and that he would therefore feel well within his rights to hold onto every penny from you that had ever come his way. I note that you still have not told us even a rough estimate for the sales of Hoax, something you clearly know. If you were to provide such an estimate, and then divulge the total amount of money you've sent Lifton, an appraisal of who is in the wrong would be much easier to come by.

A bullseye Pat! Right on target.

(1) Fetzer posts checks to Lifton on this forum and claims Lifton owes him over $1,000. Fetzer neglects to mention that he signed a contract with Lifton in 2003 that gave Lifton a percentage of the royalties of Hoax that might amount to 25%. He also fails to mention that since 2003 he has never given Lifton an accounting of royalties.

(2) Lifton fires back, pointing out that Fetzer owes him royalty money and has never received an accounting of royalties.

(3) Fetzer says his wife rustled around and came up with a royalty statement for 2008 that shows $262.00 of royalties for that year.

This is incredibly lame and evasive. Fetzer has royalty statements for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. I can even tell him where to look for them... your tax returns, Ninny. You had to pay income tax on those royalties! Somewhere I saw that this book sold 12,000 or 14,000 copies. If so, Fetzer still owes Lifton a bundle.

If Fetzer comes up with a figure for royalties, should we believe him at this late date? I'd have a problem. If Fetzer can figure out how to post checks, he should be able to figure out how to post royalty statements. I'm sure Fetzer would rather talk about Judy Wood and 9/11 than deal directly with the brouhaha that he himself started.

But it's there, Pat... just as you pointed out. Fetzer can run and try to lead the debate elsewhere. But he can't hide. He started it.

JT

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

There is an obvious reason that Tink is wrong (which should come as no suprise). Maybe when the final tally is done--and I have

asked the publisher for a full accounting, where, contrary to his insinuation, they have not come on a regular basis--if I owe

him more than I have in royalties due I will pay it. I have already paid him royalties in the past and even advances against

royalties. I have done that in the past and there is no good reason to think I won't do that in the future. That's irrelevant.

What matters is that, as an act of supererogation (which goes beyond the restraints of ordinary morality), I LENT LIFTON MONEY,

$300 in 2005 and $1,000 in 2007. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ROYALTIES. Thompson and Lifton are extremely skilled in the

arts of obfuscation and deception, where they love to pull the wool over other people's eyes. He owes me the money for LOANS,

which he acknowledged were LOANS at the time and where the checks he negotiated said on them "LOAN". This is not rocket science.

Lifton owes me the money separate and apart from the royalty arrangement. If I owe him for royalties, he will get them. I have

asked him if, when the dust has settled, it turns out that he owes me, will he repay me? I think it is a stunning revelation of

his true character that he refuses to answer the question. Anyone who wants to believe that this man is an upright and ethical

person should ponder than fact. Lifton is unwilling to grant that he will repay me if by some chance I have overpaid him! Q.E.D.

....I was simply trying to point out that--based upon my extensive record industry experience--he would have strong reasons to suspect you had sold many more books than he was ever paid for--and that he would therefore feel well within his rights to hold onto every penny from you that had ever come his way. I note that you still have not told us even a rough estimate for the sales of Hoax, something you clearly know. If you were to provide such an estimate, and then divulge the total amount of money you've sent Lifton, an appraisal of who is in the wrong would be much easier to come by.

A bullseye Pat! Right on target.

(1) Fetzer posts checks to Lifton on this forum and claims Lifton owes him over $1,000. Fetzer neglects to mention that he signed a contract with Lifton in 2003 that gave Lifton a percentage of the royalties of Hoax that might amount to 25%. He also fails to mention that since 2003 he has never given Lifton an accounting of royalties.

(2) Lifton fires back, pointing out that Fetzer owes him royalty money and has never received an accounting of royalties.

(3) Fetzer says his wife rustled around and came up with a royalty statement for 2008 that shows $262.00 of royalties for that year.

This is incredibly lame and evasive. Fetzer has royalty statements for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. I can even tell him where to look for them... your tax returns, Ninny. You had to pay income tax on those royalties! Somewhere I saw that this book sold 12,000 or 14,000 copies. If so, Fetzer still owes Lifton a bundle.

If Fetzer comes up with a figure for royalties, should we believe him at this late date? I'd have a problem. If Fetzer can figure out how to post checks, he should be able to figure out how to post royalty statements. I'm sure Fetzer would rather talk about Judy Wood and 9/11 than deal directly with the brouhaha that he himself started.

But it's there, Pat... just as you pointed out. Fetzer can run and try to lead the debate elsewhere. But he can't hide. He started it.

JT

[Josiah Thompson]

"Maybe when the final tally is done--and I have asked the publisher for a full accounting, where, contrary to his insinuation, they have not come on a regular basis--if I owe him more than I have in royalties due I will pay it."

Thank you. Will you also apologize to David Lifton for your obvious below-the-belt attempt at character assassination?

JT

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are not mentally retarded, so that does not excuse this blunder. I GIVE HIM ROYALTIES. That is a debt I owe to him. I LENT HIM MONEY. That is a debt he owes to me. They are not the same. You have to know better. I can only infer that this is one more gambit in your ongoing efforts to obfuscate the situation. I have told him that, if I owe him more royalties, he will get them. I told him that long before he set off on this ridiculous tirade. He, however, is not only refusing to repay the loans I extended to him but is unwilling to grant that, if by chance, I have actually overpaid him, then he will repay me! How bad is that? You, of course, are on the wrong side of the ethical and factual equation. That, however, should come as no surprise to anyone here. None of this excuses him for his baseless attacks upon me.

"Maybe when the final tally is done--and I have asked the publisher for a full accounting, where, contrary to his insinuation, they have not come on a regular basis--if I owe him more than I have in royalties due I will pay it."

Thank you. Will you also apologize to David Lifton for your obvious below-the-belt attempt at character assassination?

JT

Edited July 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[John Dolva]

Posted 10 July 2007 - 10:30 PM

Unfortunately, Costellas Zfilm Hoax version is just that, and, unfortunately, while being the most readily available, it is also the most altered Z film version available, a hoax, just like the most used and readily available "Don Robardeau's Plat", all distortions of the original.

Why do we have the worst material to work with?

(Meanwhile the flawed material continues to be pushed as a basis for study.)

Definitive conclusions based on them, because of their fundamental flaws, also must be suspected as being flawed.

Why can't we have a copy of the pre-broken Z film, un-altered by assorted processing?

Why can't we have the whole West Plat in toto, at full resolution?

Without them any conclusions are just castles in the sky with no dependable foundation.

The conclusions may possibly be correct, but there is NO way of KNOWING that for the average independent researcher.

Time and again, the academic credentials of the Hoaxers are asked for. Where are the study abstracts? In what Scientific publications? Where are the independent confirmations/debunkings by credible scientists? Where are their abstracts/papers? What heading? What names?

One is continually exhorted to read the Hoaxers book for the truth. But woe to any attempt at questioning as it is derided as not credible if one is not a scientist in that field. So how can a non scientist possibly accept something that the producers of state are only refutable by credible scientists in that field, yet any request for the details of the scientific papers forming its basis are met with...nothing.

To know the truth one must read the Hoaxers book (ie provide the authors with royalties) but one may not question the conclusions unless one is regarded by the Hoaxers as credible and that only happens when one accepts it blindly and then there are no questions to ask as is 'true' anyway. What a lot of pseudo scientific BS.

Believe, and you're 'in', it doesn't matter how much you actually have as an education to base such belief on. You can be a dunce but as long as you 'believe', you're worth talking to. Question it, or critisise it, and a series of set responses follow which ultimately ends with only credible scientists having a right to question it.

In effect, the Hoaxers have worked theirselves into a corner and the best advice is really to not read/buy it. Or if one does, do so with a big bucket of salt.

This is about when jim declared me persona non grata ( other words and not to be listened to. Simply because I asked for this and for John Costellas information, is go to the soure and find out, Well what I found out is that Costalla is a smug oportunist with a very selfserving grudging grasp at truth and fetzer, well, it's rare I don't do the honor of calling him by any title ( as with all, except a few ).

Some of the stuff I was saying back then is only now beginning to be an issue. I think enough time has been wasted on jim. Yesterday.

_________________