Jump to content
The Education Forum

How we eat our young


Recommended Posts

(If not appropriate for this section, please move to appropriate area)

People who know me will know I don't agree with Jim Fetzer on most issues (e.g. 9-11, Apollo). Hell, I can't think of an issue where we do agree. Still, as a non-JFK person, I am pretty amazed at the way some people have turned against him and all but declared him as the antichrist. He has posted material and opinions which many people do not agree with. Some of those people have previously been his ardent supporters. Now that he differs in aspects of his beliefs (with respect to historical events, not religious or spiritual beliefs), some people have now started not just disagreeing with him but are disowning him, actively calling into question his abilities / sanity / whatever.

Why can't his previous 'friends' just say they disagree with - but still respect - him? It seems that some researchers are unable to tolerate anyone who disagrees with their particular theories, who differ from their cult.

What does this say about those people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the post I made first which Fetzer responded to with disgust was apt. Some people are just nuts. I thought a daft comment like that could prove telling. Anyway, I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just that he recycles ideas long discarded by better-informed researchers; that he almost never budges from his viewpoints; or that he has false faith in critical thinking, which can be easily misused to push a bias. The reason that he gets little respect - that he, himself, has squandered his respect - is that he treats anyone who disagrees with him with condescending disrespect.

Any good teacher knows that you have to teach on a wavelength to which the listener is attuned; But his teaching style seems to be that "I'm smarter than you, and you must be uninformed, unintelligent or a disinfo agent if you don't agree." I'll never admit to his face that he's a smart guy of some substance, but he has a fatal flaw in terms of intellectual maturity which draws him into conflict with others and prevents him from seeing the causal connection between his own actions and the response by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Dr. Fetzer started referring to anyone who raised questions about his points as a "disinformation agent" or worse, he lost most of his credibility with me. Most who would educate would WELCOME questions, in order to better explain their points. Fetzer, on the other hand, apparently sees any and all questions as attacks. So in that respect, I'm done with Dr. Fetzer....and for the record, I'm simply a student of the JFK assassination, and not a "disinformation agent."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably going to get a bit of trouble for this ( other moderators, if this post needs to be hidden, by all means, do so.)

Many of us argue, and yet keep a level of respect. Most folk here will take evidence to heart, and if they make a mistake, they will admit it. We are supposed to be providing ideas and evidence to each other. Sometimes we are wrong. It is OK to be wrong. It is how we react to it that is important.

Many of the people here have endearing qualities as well which shine through what they write. Their posts exhibit the human qualities that we all possess. That is what makes them likeable.

Dr. Fetzer doesn't do that, IMO. His posts are written in a yelling manner, and I almost feel that I am reading things written by Oz, the Great and Powerful, instead of the man behind the curtain. This is exactly how it is to me:

" Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan,

It takes a big man to defend someone who is your ideological opposite. Not only that, but someone who has said some unkind things about you in the past. I seldom agree with you about anything either, but I admire you for your magnanimous posture.

Jim Fetzer's style is grating, and he manages to sound pompous no matter what he says. I cringe every time he uses the word "egad!" However, until recently (and yes, I agree it is sad to see how tenaciously he clings to Cinque's uncredible photo interpretations), his substance has usually been impressive. It's not like he's claiming JFK survived the shooting or something. Extreme? Certainly. Outlandish. To most of us, yes. But I don't think it warrants the kind of blanket condemnation he's received from nearly everyone.

Fetzer refuses to give up, will not back down, and won't admit he's wrong. However, why do so many here keep arguing with him, when you know what the response is going to be? The same thing with Cinque; I didn't understand what he was seeing in the photos, but I did defend his right to air his opinion. I also think he made some good points, on the rare occasions he strayed from his film interpretations. In my view, there are more than reasonable doubts about the identity of the figure in the doorway. I hope that the circus sideshow surrounding Cinque's theories don't create a false consensus that this issue has been settled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(If not appropriate for this section, please move to appropriate area)

People who know me will know I don't agree with Jim Fetzer on most issues (e.g. 9-11, Apollo). Hell, I can't think of an issue where we do agree. Still, as a non-JFK person, I am pretty amazed at the way some people have turned against him and all but declared him as the antichrist. He has posted material and opinions which many people do not agree with. Some of those people have previously been his ardent supporters. Now that he differs in aspects of his beliefs (with respect to historical events, not religious or spiritual beliefs), some people have now started not just disagreeing with him but are disowning him, actively calling into question his abilities / sanity / whatever.

Why can't his previous 'friends' just say they disagree with - but still respect - him? It seems that some researchers are unable to tolerate anyone who disagrees with their particular theories, who differ from their cult.

What does this say about those people?

Evan has prefaced his questions with certain premises which, in my opinion, could have been phrased more accurately than they were.

Who are Jim Fetzer's ardent supporters that have turned against him?

Evan merely says how he can't think of an issue where he and Fetzer agree, but he leaves unsaid just how ascerbic some of his discussions with Fetzer were.

There is one good friend that we all know of, but the reason for that estrangement is a personal and complicated one.

What cult is Evan referring to? Who are these "previous friends" that Evan is referring to? Who are "those people?"

Evan does not claim to respect Jim Fetzer. If he does not, why should others?

Although Don Jeffries feels that Evan is defending Jim Fetzer, I actually don't think that's the case. Evan's post was destined to get members

to say negative things about Jim Fetzer, and that is exactly what has happened so far.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably going to get a bit of trouble for this ( other moderators, if this post needs to be hidden, by all means, do so.)

Many of us argue, and yet keep a level of respect. Most folk here will take evidence to heart, and if they make a mistake, they will admit it. We are supposed to be providing ideas and evidence to each other. Sometimes we are wrong. It is OK to be wrong. It is how we react to it that is important.

Many of the people here have endearing qualities as well which shine through what they write. Their posts exhibit the human qualities that we all possess. That is what makes them likeable.

Dr. Fetzer doesn't do that, IMO. His posts are written in a yelling manner, and I almost feel that I am reading things written by Oz, the Great and Powerful, instead of the man behind the curtain. This is exactly how it is to me:

"

Kathy,

Wow.

You said a great deal there. I very much appreciate your courage to say what you said...and your very (IMO) astute observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(If not appropriate for this section, please move to appropriate area)

People who know me will know I don't agree with Jim Fetzer on most issues (e.g. 9-11, Apollo). Hell, I can't think of an issue where we do agree. Still, as a non-JFK person, I am pretty amazed at the way some people have turned against him and all but declared him as the antichrist. He has posted material and opinions which many people do not agree with. Some of those people have previously been his ardent supporters. Now that he differs in aspects of his beliefs (with respect to historical events, not religious or spiritual beliefs), some people have now started not just disagreeing with him but are disowning him, actively calling into question his abilities / sanity / whatever.

Why can't his previous 'friends' just say they disagree with - but still respect - him? It seems that some researchers are unable to tolerate anyone who disagrees with their particular theories, who differ from their cult.

What does this say about those people?

Evan has prefaced his questions with certain premises which, in my opinion, could have been phrased more accurately than they were.

Who are Jim Fetzer's ardent supporters that have turned against him?

Evan merely says how he can't think of an issue where he and Fetzer agree, but he leaves unsaid just how ascerbic some of his discussions with Fetzer were.

There is one good friend that we all know of, but the reason for that estrangement is a personal and complicated one.

What cult is Evan referring to? Who are these "previous friends" that Evan is referring to? Who are "those people?"

Evan does not claim to respect Jim Fetzer. If he does not, why should others?

Although Don Jeffries feels that Evan is defending Jim Fetzer, I actually don't think that's the case. Evan's post was destined to get members

to say negative things about Jim Fetzer, and that is exactly what has happened so far.

Great stuff, Michael. "Spot on" as they say in the vernacular across the pond...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[deleted by author due to repetition of previously posted information.]

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if people have misintrepted what I meant, but Don is pretty much spot on. Even though people who have previously been strong supporters of Jim Fetzer now disagree with him, I am surprised that some have turned on him with such venom. Why can't they just disagree with him on issues?

I do the same with people here: I disagree with Len Colby on a number of issues but still respect him and support his right to voice his opinion. The same applies to Craig Lamson; I suspect much of our politics are opposite and I have said in the past he is just plain wrong on some issues... but I still respect him. I don't think he has somehow been "turned to the dark side" or has become my arch enemy... I just disagree with him.

The purpose of the thread was not to Fetzer bash; it was to ask why some researchers cannot accept that someone - who has common goals with them - can hold a divergent opinion. After all, most of you believe that JFK was not assassinated by LHO but by other forces, that there was a conspiracy involved. If you believe that LBJ conspired with the CIA to have JFK knocked off, why is someone who believes that LBJ conspired with the mafia to kill JFK so horrible? Aren't you all seeking what you believe to be the truth?

It seems that some people treat it like a religion: if you don't agree with MY intrepretation, well you're going to hell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh - and I do not respect Jim's method of debate, I agree he refuses to admit when he is wrong. But I have never been a supporter of his, have I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if people have misintrepted what I meant, but Don is pretty much spot on. Even though people who have previously been strong supporters of Jim Fetzer now disagree with him, I am surprised that some have turned on him with such venom. Why can't they just disagree with him on issues?

I do the same with people here: I disagree with Len Colby on a number of issues but still respect him and support his right to voice his opinion. The same applies to Craig Lamson; I suspect much of our politics are opposite and I have said in the past he is just plain wrong on some issues... but I still respect him. I don't think he has somehow been "turned to the dark side" or has become my arch enemy... I just disagree with him.

The purpose of the thread was not to Fetzer bash; it was to ask why some researchers cannot accept that someone - who has common goals with them - can hold a divergent opinion. After all, most of you believe that JFK was not assassinated by LHO but by other forces, that there was a conspiracy involved. If you believe that LBJ conspired with the CIA to have JFK knocked off, why is someone who believes that LBJ conspired with the mafia to kill JFK so horrible? Aren't you all seeking what you believe to be the truth?

It seems that some people treat it like a religion: if you don't agree with MY intrepretation, well you're going to hell!

Evan, instead of claiming that people misinterpreted what you meant (wrote?) why not address the questions in my post?

Who has "turned on Fetzer with such venom?"

What cult are you referring to?

Who are these ardent supporters of Jim Fetzer that you keep referring to?

You state that you do not respect Jim Fetzer's method of debate. Why would you expect anyone else to?

I believe you and Jim Fetzer may have common goals. Aren't both of you seeking what you believe to be the truth about 9/11?

You claim that you respect the right of LC or CL to voice their opinion. If they started insulting you for no reason and ridiculing

you for posting facts (not opinions) and consistently misrepresented your claims, what would be your response?

It's been a few years but I used to read some of the things you wrote about Fetzer and he about you. It wasn't always pretty.

You've almost tempted me to go back and find some of them. Some of them contained marked rancor on both sides.

Most of the posters in the JFK section allow for divergent opinions. It happens hundreds of times a day and there is no venom or rancor

exchanged. I think you're smart enough to figure out why Fetzer is a different story.

Evan, you've been a moderator for a long time. Do you think there are members that violate the spirit of Forum rules more often than Jim Fetzer?

I'm sure you think Don Jeffries is "spot on." After all, he describes you as a big man with a magnanimous posture.

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...