Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

_________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Try this out.

I owe Lifton royalties for seven years of Hoax. I once let it slip that the book sold about 14,000 copies. That means I probably owe him a fair amount of money. But I can argue about what his contribution to the book was. I'll just forget about the fact that I probably owe him more than he owes me. Instead, I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat for not repaying what he owes me. That's it. I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat and hope the whole issue of royalties I owe him never comes up.

Isn't this a pretty good facsimile of what went through your twisted little head?

JT

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

John,

You seem to be out of touch with the reality of research on the Z-film. I take it you have studied John's

tutorial on assassinationscience.com? It's at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

I am quite sure he and I and others would welcome a critique. Have you read the following articles:

US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

New Proof of JFK Film Fakery

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

Mary in the Street Revisited

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/

I would welcome a critique of any or of all of these sources. It would be refreshing to actually deal

with some of the evidence for a change, even if it involves JFK film fakery rather than that of 9/11.

Jim

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.

_________________

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

No. Accountants do not approve of mixing debts owed with royalties due. That is an improper accounting

practice. I have been sending him royalties in the past and even advances against royalties. It has been a

while since I received a statement from the publisher, which might have initiated more. But his debt to me

is an entirely different matter. I would have thought a professional PI would be capable of drawing simple

distinctions like this. But apparently not in the case of Josiah Thompson, non-distinguisher of the distinct.

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

Try this out.

I owe Lifton royalties for seven years of Hoax. I once let it slip that the book sold about 14,000 copies. That means I probably owe him a fair amount of money. But I can argue about what his contribution to the book was. I'll just forget about the fact that I probably owe him more than he owes me. Instead, I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat for not repaying what he owes me. That's it. I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat and hope the whole issue of royalties I owe him never comes up.

Isn't this a pretty good facsimile of what went through your twisted little head?

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

You seem to be out of touch with the reality of research on the Z-film. I take it you have studied John's

tutorial on assassinationscience.com? It's at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Oh, the very same John Costella, Phd in Physics who fails to understand the very basics of photogrpahic parallax...the bedreock of his arguement? Poof...thats Costella's creds blowing up in his face...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com./costella2.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, Jim, this just shows that you are incompetent in relation to 9/11 research. Everyone involved in 9/11

research knows it was a hit piece. Your ignorance is showing. The problem I am having with all of this is

that I have cited you several times in a recent piece of mine on JFK and RFK. I no longer have confidence

in you--and this exchange has shaken my belief in you to its core--meaning I don't think I'll be able to do

that in the future. It is painful to see you faking it as though you knew what you were talking about. I can

only infer that someone is feeding your information and you are parroting it back on this forum. Very sad.

If you want to learn about video fakery on 9/11, read some of the posts I have provided with articles and

links. But then, you don't even know the score regarding video fakery (with regard to the Zapruder film).

Here' s the article in which I cited you several times. But I don't think that will be possible in the future.

JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn't

http://www.voltairenet.org/article165721.html

I'm not the only student of JFK whose confidence in you has been tattered and torn, by the way. I think

you will discover that, after this exchange, your standing in the community will have taken a major hit.

You seem to think you are being cute, but your reputation is slowing flowing down the proverbial drain.

JIm:

How can you say that the interview with Wood was a hit piece? Or to compare Jenkins with DVP.

He was very civil with her. He asked her rational and pertinent questions in a calm way. He did not smear her or attack her or attempt to excite her. Which are all things that DVP does. Again, this is a false comparison on your part to disguise a woman who comes out looking like a charlatan. Many people who think there was a 9-11 plot said that Jenkins did you all a service with his interview.

Why? Because under those conditions, when you cannot answer things like: what was the energy calculation you made? Or: What types of directed energy weapon are you theorizing about? What is dustification? What is nano dust? What are nano particles. And then she makes a comparison with a microwave oven. And she reveals that she did not do the double checking on the Kingdome demolition.

And that is just the first half of the interview. It got kind of painful to watch.

See Jim, when you take a position that somehow you are the be and end all of the 9-11 movement, well that is simply not the case. Many, many persons who beleive it was a conspiracy think you have fallen for people who are at best half-baked, at worst COINTELPRO operators. I mean, if there were no planes,what did thousands of people see? Holograms disguising missiles? Are you for real? Why?

And your comparison with the JFK case is really out there. To compare altering x -rays afterwards to setting up a huge hologram illusion that thousands of people saw AS IT HAPPENED-- that is just not analogous. In any way. What would be an analogy is that what everyone saw in Dealey Plaza did not really occur. Kennedy was actually killed beforehand on the plane, and then a huge illusion was set up in Dealey Plaza with hundreds of extras sworn to secrecy, and perfect physical doubles were employed, blanks were fired, and then these actors were switched at Parkland for the real deal in a giant pre-planned conspiracy that went unnoted by anyone. (I can't use the hologram example since I don't think they existed back then. Or the technology was quite primitive.)

Now if anyone ever suggested such a thing, I would hope that he would be either laughed out of a COPA conference or shown to the back of the room to play with his dominoes. But you actually seem to give these people time and space! When I would sincerely believe that Reynolds and Shayler--who used to work for their respective governments- are spooks. They have no real scientific backgrounds yet they are eloquent speakers who manage to cover their nonsensical positions with passionate rhetoric and flourishes. There were many types in the Black Panthers toward the end. Just like there were many of these types sent in to start rival black nationalist groups by Hoover and then to create conflict between these rival groups and the Panthers--which many times ended in bloody gun battles. See, I do know my history Jim. And that was a classic COINTELPRO model that the FBI was proud of. It was the jewel in the crown so to speak.

The incredible thing that you don't seem to understand is that these guys have now marked up the man who used to be the poster boy for your movement: David Ray Griffin. And another guy who used to have some credibility, Steve Jones, is called by Reynolds "a retard". He is also criticized by Wood in academic papers that are peppered with ad hominem attacks. (BTW, this is the technique used by DVP. To smear and diminish someone by invective. Except Reynolds is apparently a guy you now support.) So Jones loses his job--is put out to pasture so to speak. And what happens with Reynolds who holds an even more outlandish thesis? Its then Reynolds who gets on TV during the 5th anniversary to spout this nonsense to hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. I may not know all the evidence in that case, but I sure do know a discrediting paradigm when I see it. In the JFK case, who do you think the media would want on at a time of high visibility: Lamar Waldron or me?

Ignoring all the above, you are actually quoted as saying: "I know a whole lot about how these games are played. When I come into this 9/11 thing, .... I have this wealth of experience. The others don' t know diddly xxxx about disinformation. But, man, I've lived through it." In light of the above Jim, this reminds me of Custer's last words at Little Big Horn: "We've got them on the run men!" I think you've been played Jim. To swallow something as preposterous as beamed weapons in orbit! Jim, please! Tell me you weren't serious. Do you also believe it wasn't really JFK's body at Bethesda, but really JD Tippit's? And you can't see why others are trying to dislodge you as a spokesman for 9-11? And you tell me I don' t know the evidence enough to criticize you?

It will be a cold day in Hades when I listen to a talk or read an essay by Shayler, Wood, or Reynolds. To each his own.

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

No. Accountants do not approve of mixing debts owed with royalties due. That is an improper accounting

practice. I have been sending him royalties in the past and even advances against royalties. It has been a

while since I received a statement from the publisher, which might have initiated more. But his debt to me

is an entirely different matter. I would have thought a professional PI would be capable of drawing simple

distinctions like this. But apparently not in the case of Josiah Thompson, non-distinguisher of the distinct.

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

Try this out.

I owe Lifton royalties for seven years of Hoax. I once let it slip that the book sold about 14,000 copies. That means I probably owe him a fair amount of money. But I can argue about what his contribution to the book was. I'll just forget about the fact that I probably owe him more than he owes me. Instead, I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat for not repaying what he owes me. That's it. I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat and hope the whole issue of royalties I owe him never comes up.

Isn't this a pretty good facsimile of what went through your twisted little head?

JT

No, you hopeless twit! This is not about Lifton failing to observe accounting standards.

You went on the Internet and accused him of being "immoral," of being a deadbeat who didn't pay back personal loans. Only today did you admit that you may owe Lifton more in royalty payments than he owes you in loans. Like most members of this Forum and most other people in the world, Lifton was simply waiting for an accounting from you before paying back money to you. Simple, easy to understand, exactly what any of us would do. So what are you going to do now? Accuse Lifton of violating procedures endorsed by the American Academy of Accountancy?

Why did you bother the rest of us with something of no consequence to anyone?

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lifton continues to perpetrate this travesty by offering phony arguments to defend his indefensible position. This entire dispute is predicated upon an absurdity. In case anyone hasn't noticed, DAVID LIFTON IS JEWISH. If I am an anti-Semite, then what am I doing lending money to David Lifton?

Logical fallacy people change you last supposedly lent him money 3 years ago, your endorsement of anti-Semtic trash is more recent. And you have yet to clarify is the "James H. Fetzer / Assassination Research" bank account the checks were drawn from a personal or a business account?

Apparently, I am an anti-Semite because I have asked him to repay loans I gave him when he was in need, because I am now in need. For that offense, I am being subjected to this rabid, vicious and baseless attack by him!

Strawman

Lifton claims to be knowledgeable about the history of Israel and Zionism. Well, if that is the case, then he should endorse a book like STRANGER THAN FICTION, which presents a very clear and straightforward account of the history of Zionism and the role of terrorist organizations like the bombing of the King David Hotel by a group of Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs on 22 July 1946, which killed 91 persons, mostly British; or the massacre in the village of Deir Yassein on 9 April 1948, killing 254 defenseless Christian Arabs; or the attack on the USS Liberty, an American spy ship, on 8 June 1967, killing 35 and injuring 170 others.

It has repeatedly been pointed out to you the most objectionable parts of the book are the one which relate to WWI and WWII, why do refuse to deal with them? There is little to distinguish them from Mein Kampf and other Nazi tracts. The above is a logical fallacy if some socialists act deplorably does that mean all socialist are inherently evil? Does it make sense to accuse people with an ideological orientation of doing something evil because others with similar orientations did evil things decades earlier?

Lifton would have you believe that all of these are lies, when they are part of the historical record.

Yet another strawman

He likes to quote the saying, "Facts are stubborn things", while denying obvious events from the past.

Strawman #3

And while he insinuates that I am a Holocaust denier, that is simply not the case.

#4

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

The loans are a separate matter, independent of the royalty agreement. I have explained this several times

already. If you can't understand that, then you as well as Lifton are both ethically and mentally challenged. I

did not owe him the loans. He replied to my request to repay me with this anti-Semitic absurdity. I suppose

you endorse that, too? But then, you have shown yourself to be unscrupulous in most of our past encounters.

Lifton launches a vicious and unwarranted assault upon me for being "anti-Semitic" because I have asked him

to repay loans and you want to apologize for him? I didn't think that even you were that unethical and debased.

No. Accountants do not approve of mixing debts owed with royalties due. That is an improper accounting

practice. I have been sending him royalties in the past and even advances against royalties. It has been a

while since I received a statement from the publisher, which might have initiated more. But his debt to me

is an entirely different matter. I would have thought a professional PI would be capable of drawing simple

distinctions like this. But apparently not in the case of Josiah Thompson, non-distinguisher of the distinct.

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

Try this out.

I owe Lifton royalties for seven years of Hoax. I once let it slip that the book sold about 14,000 copies. That means I probably owe him a fair amount of money. But I can argue about what his contribution to the book was. I'll just forget about the fact that I probably owe him more than he owes me. Instead, I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat for not repaying what he owes me. That's it. I'll accuse him of being a deadbeat and hope the whole issue of royalties I owe him never comes up.

Isn't this a pretty good facsimile of what went through your twisted little head?

JT

No, you hopeless twit! This is not about Lifton failing to observe accounting standards.

You went on the Internet and accused him of being "immoral," of being a deadbeat who didn't pay back personal loans. Only today did you admit that you may owe Lifton more in royalty payments than he owes you in loans. Like most members of this Forum and most other people in the world, Lifton was simply waiting for an accounting from you before paying back money to you. Simple, easy to understand, exactly what any of us would do. So what are you going to do now? Accuse Lifton of violating procedures endorsed by the American Academy of Accountancy?

Why did you bother the rest of us with something of no consequence to anyone?

JT

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

Prof. Fetzer,

Your dense paragraph--which has the quality of a run-on sentence--is filled with misrepresentations and self-pitying sophistry. And that’s what you really are: a sophist.

No wonder these threads run on endlessly. When it comes to matters of fact and logic, your mental processes don't converge to any truth.

1. In August, 2003, I made a contract with you to write for your anthology. Under that contract, I wrote the essay titled "PIG ON A LEASH". You made an initial payment—what is called an advance—at that time. That was for $1,000. That’s all I ever got. (Yes, I’m ignoring a subsequent check for a few hundred dollars on which YOU have marked “royalties”. I have no idea what that was for, since it is not connected to any royalty statement; further, I have no idea when that word was written on that check. Certainly, if there was any "reality" to that check being connected with a valid royalty, I would have known it at the time.)

But here is a basic unavoidable fact: Since 2003, neither you nor your publisher has ever sent me a royalty statement. That’s seven years without a royalty statement. But that's what publishers normally do--they keep track of such things. They keep track of book sales just as Apple keeps track of the number of ipods solds. (In a previous email, you yourself explained this bizarre situation by saying the publisher was “in dire straits.”)

So stop telling falsehoods about this situation. HOAX is in its third printing. How many copies were sold: 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? I have no idea. But what I do know is that the statements you repeatedly have made on this thread are completely false. For example, this statement: “I made an agreement and I have not only sent him royalties but even ADVANCES ON ROYALTIES, which I was not obligated to send.”

Baloney. Utter nonsense.

In seven years no royalty statements were sent—not a single one—and no subsequent royalties (other than that initial advance) was made; and yes, contrary to your false statement, you were in fact “obligated” to make such payments.

How dare you say: “I have not only sent him royalties but even ADVANCES ON ROYALTIES, which I was not obligated to send.”

". . . which you were not obligated to send...?"

Try selling that proposition to any law school class on Contracts.

Oh pleez. . .On what planet are you living?

If you can ignore these basic realities, no wonder you believe we did not go to the moon, or can look at the evidence of 9/11 and believe no planes hit the World Trade Center in New York, or that the TV broadcasts of the plane hitting was all faked, or that the hijackers are still alive, or that a missile hit the Pentagon. (And you expect people to take you seriously?)

The World Trade Center had a beautiful restaurant on the 102nd floor called “Windows on the World” where I and my family used to eat on special occasions. Apparently you are someone who’s elevator, unlike the one in the World Trade Center, “doesn’t run to the top.” I have no other satisfactory explanation for what appears to be a congenital inability on your part to face certain obvious realities.

DSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

You have made so many blatantly false claims in the course of this exchange that I find you completely disgusting. I have not only sent you royalties and advances against royalties, but I have the cancelled checks, which bear your signature, to prove it! I have extended you so many benefits, including loans that I had no obligation to provide, that it never crossed my mind that you would want to have copies of the royalty statements. Well, I have requested them and I have told you that I am going to send them when I have them. You, however, have not even affirmed that if, when the dust settles, it turns out I have overpaid you, you will reimburse me. The debts you owe me for these loans are not in the same category with the debts I owe you because of our contract. You are engaging in sleazy business practices. No accountant would endorse mixing them. I lent you the money when you needed it then. I have asked for repayment because I need it now. Instead of repaying me, you have launched this bizarre and unfounded attack upon me for being anti-Semitic! Well, that's about as low-life as it gets. At least we are seeing the true colors of David Lifton. He is out for himself and he will use any technique, fair or foul, to smear anyone who crosses his path in a way he does not like, even if that person happens to be someone who has strongly supported him in the past, published his work, and extended him loans. Your corruption is manifest for everyone to see. There is no way around it--and all of the new smears you want to add is not going to change a word of it. You continue to misrepresent the record, which I have laid out in post #211. And your claim that I owed you "advances on royalties" is simply absurd. I owe you ROYALTIES when I receive them, not ADVANCES ON ROYALTIES. That was another act of kindness on my part to benefit you, at a time when I still believed you were a trustworthy person. But even that is not the dumbest argument you have advanced in your frantic efforts to obfuscate your debts to me, which I have ripped apart in post #256! You don't even know my positions on 9/11 or why I hold them, which is another transparent tactic to evade your indebtedness. What difference would it make to your obligation to repay my loans if I were wrong on every aspect of 9/11? You love to indulge in fallacious arguments I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid, especially ad hominems. And why do you continue to misrepresent my views on 9/11, which you have never studied? That is equally disgusting. You stand revealed as a phony, a fraud, and a charlatan who will abuse anyone for the sake of a few miserable dollars. That is about as contemptible as it gets. That's David Lifton!

Prof. Fetzer,

Your dense paragraph--which has the quality of a run-on sentence--is filled with misrepresentations and self-pitying sophistry. And that’s what you really are: a sophist.

No wonder these threads run on endlessly. When it comes to matters of fact and logic, your mental processes don't converge to any truth.

1. In August, 2003, I made a contract with you to write for your anthology. Under that contract, I wrote the essay titled "PIG ON A LEASH". You made an initial payment—what is called an advance—at that time. That was for $1,000. That’s all I ever got. (Yes, I’m ignoring a subsequent check for a few hundred dollars on which YOU have marked “royalties”. I have no idea what that was for, since it is not connected to any royalty statement; further, I have no idea when that word was written on that check. Certainly, if there was any "reality" to that check being connected with a valid royalty, I would have known it at the time.)

But here is a basic unavoidable fact: Since 2003, neither you nor your publisher has ever sent me a royalty statement. That’s seven years without a royalty statement. But that's what publishers normally do--they keep track of such things. They keep track of book sales just as Apple keeps track of the number of ipods solds. (In a previous email, you yourself explained this bizarre situation by saying the publisher was “in dire straits.”)

So stop telling falsehoods about this situation. HOAX is in its third printing. How many copies were sold: 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? I have no idea. But what I do know is that the statements you repeatedly have made on this thread are completely false. For example, this statement: “I made an agreement and I have not only sent him royalties but even ADVANCES ON ROYALTIES, which I was not obligated to send.”

Baloney. Utter nonsense.

In seven years no royalty statements were sent—not a single one—and no subsequent royalties (other than that initial advance) was made; and yes, contrary to your false statement, you were in fact “obligated” to make such payments.

How dare you say: “I have not only sent him royalties but even ADVANCES ON ROYALTIES, which I was not obligated to send.”

". . . which you were not obligated to send...?"

Try selling that proposition to any law school class on Contracts.

Oh pleez. . .On what planet are you living?

If you can ignore these basic realities, no wonder you believe we did not go to the moon, or can look at the evidence of 9/11 and believe no planes hit the World Trade Center in New York, or that the TV broadcasts of the plane hitting was all faked, or that the hijackers are still alive, or that a missile hit the Pentagon. (And you expect people to take you seriously?)

The World Trade Center had a beautiful restaurant on the 102nd floor called “Windows on the World” where I and my family used to eat on special occasions. Apparently you are someone who’s elevator, unlike the one in the World Trade Center, “doesn’t run to the top.” I have no other satisfactory explanation for what appears to be a congenital inability on your part to face certain obvious realities.

DSL

Edited by James H. Fetzer
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...