How we eat our young

[Michael Hogan]

Hi Evan, I think what you meant was clear to most. The short answer is a long history in which his "method of debate" has always been the 'you're either with me or you are against me' mentality ... and if you happen to be in disagreement with whatever he is espousing at the time, there is something wrong with you personally .... and he makes that loud and clear incessantly. You are suspicious, an intel op, stupid, unqualified, dishonest, and one of the greatest sins of all is that you obviously haven't read all of his wonderful materials as he has told you to do so it is no wonder you are so stupid. Unfortunately, many of his friends, for whatever reason, went along with him and lauded his behavior. Until it happened to them.

But in the last few years, there have been several who put their foot down about something, stuck to their guns, and the result has been a few quite public falls from his grace. The most recent example is one case. There were a few during the Judyth Exile thread, perhaps most notably the quite public "divorce" from Jack White who was deeply hurt, but to Jack's credit, he stuck to what he believed was right, and in the Limo Windshield thread, Doug Weldon. Both, as well as several others did do exactly what you asked about ..... saying 'on this we disagree, let's just leave it at that and move on and keep it on the evidence' and some, like Greg, as I recall, asked for an apology.

It only works when *both* parties have the ability to do that. Fetzer, in my 15 or so years experience with him, has never demonstrated that ability. It seems apparent to most that he doesn't even listen, read or consider what the other party is saying .... he just pronounces himself right and there is something wrong with anyone who does not agree so he just repeats himself over and over and over. I got messages from a few different people during those threads from people who told me they didn't know how they could have ever been so blind and were just devastated at the loss of what they had thought was a real friendship with Fetzer. They felt so used.

It is sad really .... not just because people, including Fetzer, get hurt, but because whatever anyone believes about any element of the case, if we could step back and consider things from the other guy's perspective, we could all learn more and just maybe actually resolve some issues and move things forward.

As someone I admire once said, if you keep at people long enough, they are eventually going to respond in kind. And I think that is one reason this thread you started, the question you asked, and people's ability to vent a bit, is important. Thank you for that. I hope we can move on to a better place in this crazy arena, and have important rigorous debates that attack evidence, not one another on a personal level, just because they disagree.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Thank you Barb. Your post made it clearer to me.

It helped that you named names.

[Len Colby]

Barb,

Very well put. Fetzer is his own worst enemy due to his predilections for supporting the most outlandish theories and attacking any with the temerity to disagree he is pretty much a pariah in both the JFK research and 9/11 "truth" communities.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Barb,

Very well put. Fetzer is his own worst enemy due to his predilections for supporting the most outlandish theories and attacking any with the temerity to disagree he is pretty much a pariah in both the JFK research and 9/11 "truth" communities.

Len,

Who in the JFK research or 9/11 "truth" communities has put out the research and analysis you are most impressed by or satisfied with?

[Evan Burton]

Michael,

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?"

To mind:

Dawn Meredith

Charles "The Round Mound of Sound" Drago

Greg Burnham

Peter "Everyone is out to get me!" Lemkin

Jan Klimkowski

Some dude called Seamus Coogan

What cult are you referring to?

Perhaps cult is not the correct word but I refer to the thinking over at "The Swamp" (or as I call it, the Deep Bulls**t Forum). They're all brown monkeys over there; heaven forbit you're a white monkey (or perhaps the wrong shade of brown). If any prominent member over there changed their mind decided that 9-11 was not a government operation but really a terrorist attack, you watch how the jackals would turn on them. They'd be denouncing the poor sod faster than you can write Trotskyite. Wait - did that already happen? Or am I thinking of somewhere else?

Anyway, I think you are aware that anyone who does not follow the party line over there is immediately tagged as a provocateur

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

See the names I posted earlier.

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

I don't. That doesn't mean they have to stop being their friend, or respecting them. They can just agree to disagree.

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?

I think we already know the truth - Islamic terrorists attacked the US, and the US failed to see the warning signs. Some people who should have been held responsible - even face criminal charges - got off because it's politics.

(more to come)

[Evan Burton]

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?

I would report the insulting behaviour, and counter the misrepresentation with clear definitions, examples, quotes, etc. Make sure the readers of the posts have all the resources to judge for themselves.

In general, you know what is the best way to piss off someone who is getting angry and insulting you, to really make them mad? Be calm, reasoned and polite. Drives them batty.

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.

You might well be correct; I am far from perfect. If you think it serves a purpose, bring them up and we can discuss them.

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.

Perhaps you credit me with too much intelligence.

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?

Difficult to say, because it can be highly subjective. Generally I do think so but we have come to a loose agreement that unless something is a clear violation, we'll only act if there is a report about it. If it doesn't upset the person it is directed at, then perhaps it is better not to interfere.

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

Yeah, I'm a sucker for a compliment! My ego needs feeding I tells ya!

[Greg Parker]

the US failed to see the warning signs.

Yes, Evan.... it's called "intelligence failure" and it's been a problem for long time....

Pear Harbor, Hawaii, US 1941

The Bogotazo, Bogota, Colombia, 1948

Korea - North Korea invades South Korea, 1950

Hungarian Uprising, 1956

JFK, 1963

9/11, US, 2001

Iraq WMD

Death of Kim Jong-Il, North Korea, 2011

------------------------

No doubt there is a large number of others that could be included.

-------------------------

The CIA was dragged before a congressional committee to explain the intel failure in Bogota. But the Bogotazo worked in favor of the US in that it successfully (but falsely) linked what happened to Communist influence and thereby signed up many Latin American countries to an Anti-Communist union. And the CIA? It walked away from the committee, not with its tail between it's legs, as it should have - but with more power to act unilaterally.

Historians - who should all hang their heads in shame - have long regarded the Hungarian Uprising as a CIA intel failure. Yet the NSC had issued a report in 1953 stating that it wanted to create situations which would provoke "open Soviet intervention" - which again - is exactly what happened. It was only a "failure" to protect the sickening truth.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t38-the-truth-about-the-hungarian-uprising

Those are just two examples. But if you go through the list, you'll find that the MIC got what it wanted each time - as a direct result of these "failures". That doesn't mean they were all orchestrated by US intel, however (though some certainly were).

ps

how come you can say "piss" when I can't say "ass" without being "free speeched"?

[Len Colby]

Barb,

Very well put. Fetzer is his own worst enemy due to his predilections for supporting the most outlandish theories and attacking any with the temerity to disagree he is pretty much a pariah in both the JFK research and 9/11 "truth" communities.

Len,

Who in the JFK research or 9/11 "truth" communities has put out the research and analysis you are most impressed by or satisfied with?

The only JFK book I've read since high school was JFK and the Unspeakable I thought it was pretty good though Douglas stretched and tweaked the truth a bit. I've read some chapters and excepts from Fetzer's books which I thought were pretty bad. I think one of the books I read in HS was Six Seconds In Dallas. I've know Tink 'virtually' since 2005 and have been impressed by his insight and intelligence and would like to re-read his book one day.

As for truthers the best is Paul Thompson his analysis is crap but his The Terror Timeline is invaluable. Jim Hoffman's sites are good sources of info and he is good at debunking many of the loonier theories but he is not above pushing woo himself and making gross math errors. There used to be a very good site called Pentagon Research run Russell Pickering but he pulled it after descending further down the rabbit hole and is now tied in with the CIT heads. 911Myths.com and http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ are the best antidotes to truther nuttery.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Len Colby

[Guest Tom Scully]

Len, thank you for your serious and open answers to my earnestly asked questions. I came away from the discussions we shared after the FBI accused Dr. Bruce Ivins of being the lone anthrax terrorist, believing that you are a skeptic first, but less so when it comes to claims made by the government.

You gave Ted Olson every benefit of the doubt when we discussed the many oddities I perceived in the reporting of his wife's communications to his office at the DOJ and it was claimed, to him directly from the doomed Pentagon bound airliner on which his wife, Barbara was reported to have been a passenger and a fatality on 11 Sept., 2001.

I don't want to pull this thread further off track, so I am going to continue this response to you, here :

http://educationforu...=0

Edited May 27, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Bernice Moore]

I regret any stepping on toes in this post, if so it is not intentionally done with any malice..

Dr.Jim. in this time of Vinegar,and keeping in mind the Honey times as they say will return..IMO you are far from the only here and elsewhere, that are understandably stubborn in their beliefs of their research and fight for such,......., getting carried away with their responses, and you do get very carried away at times.., as many others do as well, researchers are it seems so emphatically positive of their positions before presentation or not.....that they, we, are and can be very touchy in our efforts, i have never known one not to be, and..It appears with many that ,that

is the research way, we CTRS many times are own worse enemies,I also have no

doubt that i have assumed similarly in the past....it is in general hard not to do

so as we are only human, and therefore full of errors, whether acknowledged or not, we believe our findings and having come to

the conclusions after much work and time spent, it is difficult to take, any, even constructive fault finding..We cannot

blame researchers for their convictions...as they believe in their work and conclusions

period,and rightly so,after all their time and great effort..... It does seem to me that some on here who have posted in reply previously,

should take a long thought and perhaps a look into the mirror before they

down another for the same action as they are finding fault in.. having done

so in the past themselves, ....perhaps we all could back off somewhat with our

many critical presumptions and harsh retaliation reply posts, in threads, by trying to reread and

adjust before posting, and try to do so with a somewhat kinder frame of

mind...which is so very lacking in this sad world we all share, more times than not,and reply not with a get back, or get the better of them mentality as it often seems.

Dr.Jim you have been so very selfless in the past with your research and aid in enabling certain young researchers to have the ways and means of attending such as the Lancer and or Copa conventions,and thereby having the opportunity to present their new found research hopefully for all,and you have by investing any profits from your book sales to be returned into the research community in many ways, I for one salute you Sir,for all you have done in the past for the community,with your generousity and research and hope that all will continue.

You are my friend, have been and still remain so, you have only been kind to me as well as in generously sharing your information very unselfishly,we do not always agree, we differ as all people do, it seems, but have been able all these years to have kept such on friendly terms, but a word of friendly advice, if i may, tone down the rhetoric.to some degree, it is acceptable to not agree, as you do not and we all do not at times,in reply to others information and responses....like can we not all cool it and take a step back, say halleluah and return to the continuing research..with much less baggage, can we not, let some past ,replies.looked upon as sins it seems ,by some by their reactions to, that they have retained and hopefully not do so forever it appears some will cherishingly, and some gleefully it seems will repeat the fault by another, no matter how far in the distant past they may have happened,but will do so at any given opportunity ,as they cannot get past them, those responses that they felt were unfair,and it is regrettful that by some to be held onto now as almost seemingly grudges so that they can be mentioned again and again, at the given opportunity, some it seems are not able to forgive, the human frailties that we at times have all shareed in, by conveniently forgetting their past behaviour, can we not let sleeping dogs lie, and forgive any who have recently and in the past responded in an uncivil way, perhaps by getting in touch, and or letting it go,and getting over it and get on and hopefully return to the research..as life is too shrt not to imo...the THEY are very pleased every time that this has been temporarily stopped, by allowing the latest disagreements to sidetrack and to their merriment...as they ponder, ''there they go again'' and perhaps thinking, again, they only continually hurt themselves every time they allow their differences to get in the way''.......Just give it a second thought , please.. ...thank you all....best b

Edited May 27, 2012 by Bernice Moore

[Don Jeffries]

Bernice, you are a really special person. Beautiful post.

Not only do you provide invaluable links to us all at the drop of a hat, but you may very well be the only poster on a JFK forum I've ever seen who seems respected and liked by everyone else.

[Paul Rigby]

The CIA was dragged before a congressional committee to explain the intel failure in Bogota. But the Bogotazo worked in favor of the US in that it successfully (but falsely) linked what happened to Communist influence and thereby signed up many Latin American countries to an Anti-Communist union. And the CIA? It walked away from the committee, not with its tail between it's legs, as it should have - but with more power to act unilaterally.

Historians - who should all hang their heads in shame - have long regarded the Hungarian Uprising as a CIA intel failure. Yet the NSC had issued a report in 1953 stating that it wanted to create situations which would provoke "open Soviet intervention" - which again - is exactly what happened. It was only a "failure" to protect the sickening truth.

http://reopenkennedy...garian-uprising

Those are just two examples. But if you go through the list, you'll find that the MIC got what it wanted each time - as a direct result of these "failures". That doesn't mean they were all orchestrated by US intel, however (though some certainly were).

Outstanding; and of considerable relevance to the Dallas coup.

[Michael Hogan]

One of the problems, I sometimes think, is that members are only able to form overall opinions of each other by the posts that are made.

And those written words are generally confined to a topic that borders on obsession (to a widely varying degree) for many.

We may think that a person that posts only occasionally or briefly is shy in the real world too, when in fact the opposite might just as well be true.

That person may actually be quite gregarious and loquacious. With their friends and family, or even strangers, that person might be the life of the party.

If someone's posts seem logical we might presume that logic governs the rest of their life. But who knows?

We may form a low opinion of someone who we think can't see the forest for the trees, yet insults us individually or collectively. It can be damn hard not to respond in kind.

For all I know, David von Pein might volunteer at a soup kitchen or help widows across the street.

I have heard others say that Jim Fetzer is a generous man, generally an admirable quality. I'm sure that in many other arenas of his life, Jim Fetzer behaves differently than he does here.

I do think that this Forum tends to bring out the best and worst of almost everyone's ego, mine included. I know there are exceptions.

Although I still tend to think that you can tell a lot about a person by what they write, it might be good to keep in mind that things are not always exactly as they seem.

In a setting like this there is always going to be much more about a person than meets the eye.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[David G. Healy]

Hi Evan, I think what you meant was clear to most. The short answer is a long history in which his "method of debate" has always been the 'you're either with me or you are against me' mentality ... and if you happen to be in disagreement with whatever he is espousing at the time, there is something wrong with you personally .... and he makes that loud and clear incessantly. You are suspicious, an intel op, stupid, unqualified, dishonest, and one of the greatest sins of all is that you obviously haven't read all of his wonderful materials as he has told you to do so it is no wonder you are so stupid. Unfortunately, many of his friends, for whatever reason, went along with him and lauded his behavior. Until it happened to them.

But in the last few years, there have been several who put their foot down about something, stuck to their guns, and the result has been a few quite public falls from his grace. The most recent example is one case. There were a few during the Judyth Exile thread, perhaps most notably the quite public "divorce" from Jack White who was deeply hurt, but to Jack's credit, he stuck to what he believed was right, and in the Limo Windshield thread, Doug Weldon. Both, as well as several others did do exactly what you asked about ..... saying 'on this we disagree, let's just leave it at that and move on and keep it on the evidence' and some, like Greg, as I recall, asked for an apology.

It only works when *both* parties have the ability to do that. Fetzer, in my 15 or so years experience with him, has never demonstrated that ability. It seems apparent to most that he doesn't even listen, read or consider what the other party is saying .... he just pronounces himself right and there is something wrong with anyone who does not agree so he just repeats himself over and over and over. I got messages from a few different people during those threads from people who told me they didn't know how they could have ever been so blind and were just devastated at the loss of what they had thought was a real friendship with Fetzer. They felt so used.

It is sad really .... not just because people, including Fetzer, get hurt, but because whatever anyone believes about any element of the case, if we could step back and consider things from the other guy's perspective, we could all learn more and just maybe actually resolve some issues and move things forward.

As someone I admire once said, if you keep at people long enough, they are eventually going to respond in kind. And I think that is one reason this thread you started, the question you asked, and people's ability to vent a bit, is important. Thank you for that. I hope we can move on to a better place in this crazy arena, and have important rigorous debates that attack evidence, not one another on a personal level, just because they disagree.

Bests,

Barb :-)

nonsense... play nice? do you for one second believe the WC "debated" evidence that wasn't in full agreement with the preconcieved position that LHO was the lone gunman?

There are some that feel this "quote" method of debate "un-quote" is a war, a war that began with the cold blooded murder of the president of the United States on the streets of Dallas Texas Nov 22nd 1963, resulting in the long down hill slide into obscurity and **failure** this country now faces.

And this on Memorial Day 2012? Such-a-farce!

[David G. Healy]

One of the problems, I sometimes think, is that members are only able to form overall opinions of each other by the posts that are made.

And those written words are generally confined to a topic that borders on obsession (to a widely varying degree) for many.

We may think that a person that posts only occasionally or briefly is shy in the real world too, when in fact the opposite might just as well be true.

That person may actually be quite gregarious and loquacious. With their friends and family, or even strangers, that person might be the life of the party.

If someone's posts seem logical we might presume that logic governs the rest of their life. But who knows?

We may form a low opinion of someone who we think can't see the forest for the trees, yet insults us individually or collectively. It can be damn hard not to respond in kind.

For all I know, David von Pein might volunteer at a soup kitchen or help widows across the street.

I have heard others say that Jim Fetzer is a generous man, generally an admirable quality. I'm sure that in many other arenas of his life, Jim Fetzer behaves differently than he does here.

I do think that this Forum tends to bring out the best and worst of almost everyone's ego, mine included. I know there are exceptions.

Although I still tend to think that you can tell a lot about a person by what they write, it might be good to keep in mind that things are not always exactly as they seem.

In a setting like this there is always going to be much more about a person than meets the eye.

AMEN, Michael....

[Guest Tom Scully]

Barb,

Very well put. Fetzer is his own worst enemy due to his predilections for supporting the most outlandish theories and attacking any with the temerity to disagree he is pretty much a pariah in both the JFK research and 9/11 "truth" communities.

The day you, Len, personally (__________________), for the record, discussing/opining any issue/topic discussed on this board, I'll THEN consider what you have say. Till then, you and your (_________) are simply making noise (the same noise a few of us have heard for 45+ years) along with a few, 'expected' others in this thread.

Have a reflective Memorial Day 2012

David, I don't often edit posts of other members. This is the best I can do. You are not supposed to question motives and agendas. It tends to be inflammatory.

Maybe another moderator will be willing to work with you to edit your post and make it visible again.