Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Even if the link was working if Ron's readers read the articles in the order he listed them from beginning to end he or she would have to go through about 75 paragraphs before reaching the relevant passage. Ron also cites the 9/11 Commission report and testimony, in several cases the relevant passages are many paragraphs down from the top of the page.

Please tell me how to link to a particular paragraph in a long article or transcript of testimony online. I would like to know how to do that.

My pont exactly Ron, I don't think there is any way to do this which is why Mike's complaint that "even if the reader were able to find that link he or she would have to read through some fifty paragraphs of an article to find the paragraph that refers to your claim" was totally absurd. I don't what he expects a researcher to do in such cases. I was merely pointing out that the same could be said about some of the sources you cited

BTW the article says incorrectly that Cramer took the 911 call.

If you're referring to my article, please quote where I say that Cramer took the call. (Or link to the specific paragraph in the long article. I would like to see you do that.)

My applogies Ron. My post as written made it sound like I was refering to your article rather than the Mirror's. That was inadvertant, I fixed the error.

Once again my only beef with your article was the lack of links to your sources and you fixed that. I don't want my response to Mike to be misinterpreted as a swipe at your article. I don't agree with you conclusions but it is well written, researched and documented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Len Colby replied to me:

"The time I spent replying to you I could have much better spent doing other things, including responding to Ron's post itself. This is my last reply to you on this issue, unless you say something too outrageous to go unresponded to. There is a saying in these parts "deixe ele late só" which roughly translates as,
"let him bark alone" which is my intention; you can continue barking I'm done with this matter."
(Emphasis mine)

There was no response from me to his lengthy post. Then in his very next post he says to Ron Ecker:

"My point exactly Ron, I don't think there is any way to do this which is why Mike's complaint that "even if the reader were able to find that link he or she would have to read through some fifty paragraphs of an article to find the paragraph that refers to your claim" was totally absurd. I don't what he expects a researcher to do in such cases."

(See answer below)

It seems like Len Colby had difficulty in keeping his word for more than a few hours. Oh yes, I count on him to say he was not replying to me, but to Ron Ecker.

Nevertheless it seems like he wasn't really done with the matter, after all. It seems like he was the one that felt compelled to "continue barking."

If one is going to cite one paragraph from a 50 paragraph article it is easy enough to cut and paste the paragraph in its entirety, and follow it with a link to the article from whence the paragraph came for the reader that is interested.

And Len, if you are reading this....I asked a simple question twice to you:

Why is it not your responsibilty to at the very least provide a link that works? Laziness? Sloppiness? Or both?

Let me repeat Len. Why is it not your responsibility to see that the links you provide are working?

Len Colby's answer? It was that Ron Ecker does it too:

"Ron also cites the 9/11 Commission report and testimony, in several cases the relevant passages are many paragraphs down from the top of the page. So to be consistent YOU should criticize Ron now, not doing so would be hypocritical."

and:

"I was NOT being hypocritical for reasons cited above. I have shown there are similar 'problems' in Ron's article, I am NOT criticizing Ron for them, I consider it normal that links go dead and that researchers will back their claims by citing articles which only document their claims after many paragraphs. To not be hypocritical YOU should knock Ron."

Instead of addressing a direct question about his research, Len Colby's tactic is "the other fellow did it too."

And Len Colby apparently feels that in my critique of his methods, I am somehow obliged to read Ron Ecker's post and criticize him.

I find it much more compelling to critique hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and extreme selective reasoning.

I can't help it that Len Colby makes himself such an easy target.

I was going to let this matter drop and let Len Colby have the last word. But the incessant noise of his barking woke me up.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

During the question-and-answer session, an audience member asked whether there might be a way to capture a TV station, to get the word out about September 11. Mr. Fetzer upped the ante on the idea.

"Let me tell you, for years, I've been waiting for there to be a military coup to depose these traitors," he said from the podium.

"Yeah!" shouted some men in the audience.

"There actually was one weekend," Mr. Fetzer went on, "where I said to myself, my God, it's going to happen this weekend, and I'm going to wake up and they will have taken these guys off in chains."

His voice was building. "Listen to me," he said. "The degree of perfidy involved here is so great, that in the time of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, frenzied mobs would have dragged these men out of their beds in the middle of the night and ripped them to shreds!"

"Yeah!" cried a chorus of voices in the audience. "Yeah!"

Amid the cheers and applause that swept the room…

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=j2dll9sp4mf4rtkp62dhg6yxsm3jt43c

Much as I detest Bush, Fetzer's call for a military take over in the US is truly sickening and should be condemned by all members of this forum. The man seems to be loosing it. Worse is that the idea was a popular one among the "Truth" movement. Steve Jones to his credit seemed uncomfortable with Fetzer's rabble rousing (see the article).

It is also interesting how closed minded he admits to being.

From the same article:

911myths.com, a Web site run by a software developer in England, is one of the few venues that offers a running scrutiny of the various claims and arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement. Mr. Fetzer has heard of 911myths .com, but he has never visited the site.

"I have been dealing with disinformation and phony stories about the death of JFK for all these years. There's a huge amount of phoniness out there," he says. "You have to be very selective in how you approach these things."

"I can assure you the things I'm telling you about 9/11 have objective scientific status," he says. 911myths.com, he says, "is going to be built on either fabricated evidence, or disregard of the real evidence, or violations of the principles of scientific reasoning."

"They cannot be right," he says.

So he knows the site is wrong without even looking at it!! So much for his self proclaimed "critical thinking skills" and willingness to look at the "totality of the evidence". His position is 'the site contradicts what I know to be true, therefore it is nothing but disinformation and not worth looking at', very circular logic and not at all rational.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Must be because the Military have done such a bang up job of running other countries, Greece, Chile, Argentina and any number of African Nations spring to mind. I despise the Neo-Cons and all they stand for, and I would bet a pile of money they stole the 2000 election. But a military coup, get real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colby shows he is incapable of understanding, when he said:

"Much as I detest Bush, Fetzer's call for a military take over in the US is truly sickening and should be condemned by all members of this forum. "

Fetzer was calling for a TAKEOVER BY THE PEOPLE...not by the MILITARY!

When someone is 180 degrees from what is stated, they have mental

problems or an agenda.

Colby should be condemned by all members of this forum.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colby shows he is incapable of understanding, when he said:

"Much as I detest Bush, Fetzer's call for a military take over in the US is truly sickening and should be condemned by all members of this forum. "

Fetzer was calling for a TAKEOVER BY THE PEOPLE...not by the MILITARY!

When someone is 180 degrees from what is stated, they have mental

problems or an agenda.

Colby should be condemned by all members of this forum.

Jack

What part of, "...for years, I've been waiting for there to be a military coup to depose these traitors. There actually was one weekend, where I said to myself, my God, it's going to happen this weekend, and I'm going to wake up and they will have taken these guys off in chains", did you fail to comprehend Jack? Your lunatic friend called for a military coup and antendees at the "9/11 'Truth' Conference" cheering. The reporter makes no mention of anybody objecting. Now we know who the real "sheeple" are!

"When someone is 180 degrees from what is stated, they have mental problems or an agenda."

Or both. Despite Jack's poor grammar I couldn't agree more!!

Len

Correction, the article was from flag_chename_322.gif not the San Francisco Chronicle as I first indicated.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Since I already responded to Colby on another forum, he knows better

and is merely milking your ignorance for all it's worth! He is playing

the forum for saps! Let me ask a simple question: How many of the

members of this forum who voted in this "poll" have listened to what I

said in my presentation in Chicago, which is archived on st911.org? My

guess: zero! That's a fine record for a group that pretends to take any

historical issue seriously. What a bunch of phoneys to allow someone

like Colby to pay you for suckers. In presenting any complex argument

on a controversial subject, it is easy to make someone look silly: just

give their conclusions and ignore all their premises! That's what this

guy from the Chronicle did. It was a nice hit piece! Very nice. And he

took a response to a question I was asked about whether the military

offered any hope of resolving the constitutional crisis we face with my

reports of my own thoughts about it, not as an ENDORSEMENT but as a

REFLECTION of my belief that it might actually happen. Cobly couldn't

possibly know because he wasn't there, but I was NOT CALLING FOR A

COUP but DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY. That Hitler might have been

deposed in a coup is an outcome that most historians today probably

wish had occurred. It was in a parallel context that the question arose.

A recording of the question session is not yet available, to the best of

my knowledge, the perfect opportunity for a smear! He relishes having

the chance to misrepresent information that neither he nor you possess!

It is "made to order" for an operator of his caliber. With Leonard Colby

around, we can't even discuss controversial issues without having him

trash us! Well, consider the source. Anyone who wants to think about

what I actually said in my presentation can listen to it on st911.org. I

find the ease with which the members of this forum are manipulated by

a clever guy who is willing to disseminate false information to promote

an agenda rather appalling. But that's the state of this forum today!

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:32:12 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: [jfk-research] Fetzer calls for a coup detat in the US and

members of the 9/11 Truth Movement cheer.

This guy is such a sad sack when it comes to research that he doesn't even

know what publication he is talking about! The author of this hit piece

used many techniques familiar to Colby and his cronies, including selective

use of quotations. When I said, "They can't be right!", I followed it by

adding, "The evidence is too overwhelming and the physics too elementary!

We're not talking about rocket science!", but of course that was omitted.

Remarking on the propect of a coup to rid the nation of a fascist gang of

thugs is not calling for a military/police state, which is what they have

in mind for us. On the contrary, it is ridding the nation of having to

endure such a fate by restoring constitutional government. But of course

you would not know that from reading this article or Colby's commentaries.

If anyone would like to hear what I actually had to say, go to st911.org

and check out the link for 4-6 June 2006 announcing my presentation. My

purpose was to address moral, political, and religious dimensions of 9/11.

Quoting len colby <lenbrasil@yahoo.com>:

> Fetzer calls for a coup d’etat in the US and members of the “9/11 ‘Truth’

> Movement” cheer.

>

> From an article in the San Francisco Chronicle:

>

> Mr. Fetzer upped the ante on the idea.

> "Let me tell you, for years, I've been waiting for there to be a military

> coup to depose these traitors," he said from the podium.

>

> "Yeah!" shouted some men in the audience.

>

> "There actually was one weekend," Mr. Fetzer went on, "where I said to

> myself, my God, it's going to happen this weekend, and I'm going to wake up

> and they will have taken these guys off in chains."

>

> His voice was building. "Listen to me," he said. "The degree of perfidy

> involved here is so great, that in the time of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and

> Euripides, frenzied mobs would have dragged these men out of their beds in

> the middle of the night and ripped them to shreds!"

>

> "Yeah!" cried a chorus of voices in the audience. "Yeah!"

>

> Amid the cheers and applause that swept the room…

>

> http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=j...2dhg6yxsm3jt43c

>

> Much as I detest Bush, Fetzer’s call for a military take over in the US is

> truly sickening and should be condemned by all members of this group no

> matter what they think about 9/11, the Zapruder Film and Fetzer’s other

> ideas. The man seems to be loosing it. Worse is that the idea seemed to be a

> popular one among the “Truth” movement. Steve Jones to his credit seemed

> uncomfortable with Fetzer’s rabble rousing (see the article).

>

> It is also interesting how closed minded he admits to being.

>

> From the same article:

>

> 911myths.com, a Web site run by a software developer in England, is one of

> the few venues that offers a running scrutiny of the various claims and

> arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement. Mr. Fetzer has heard of

> 911myths .com, but he has never visited the site.

>

> "I have been dealing with disinformation and phony stories about the death

> of JFK for all these years. There's a huge amount of phoniness out there," he

> says. "You have to be very selective in how you approach these things."

>

> "I can assure you the things I'm telling you about 9/11 have objective

> scientific status," he says. 911myths.com, he says, "is going to be built on

> either fabricated evidence, or disregard of the real evidence, or violations

> of the principles of scientific reasoning."

>

> "They cannot be right," he says.

>

> So he knows the site is wrong without even looking at it!! So much for his

> self proclaimed “critical thinking skills” and willingness to look at the

> “totality of the evidence”. His position is ‘the site contradicts what I know

> to be true, therefore it is nothing but disinformation and not worth looking

> at’, very circular logic and not at all rational.

>

> Len

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates

> starting at 1¢/min.

Colby shows he is incapable of understanding, when he said:

"Much as I detest Bush, Fetzer's call for a military take over in the US is truly sickening and should be condemned by all members of this forum. "

Fetzer was calling for a TAKEOVER BY THE PEOPLE...not by the MILITARY!

When someone is 180 degrees from what is stated, they have mental

problems or an agenda.

Colby should be condemned by all members of this forum.

Jack

What part of, "...for years, I've been waiting for there to be a military coup to depose these traitors. There actually was one weekend, where I said to myself, my God, it's going to happen this weekend, and I'm going to wake up and they will have taken these guys off in chains", did you fail to comprehend Jack? Your lunatic friend called for a military coup and antendees at the "9/11 'Truth' Conference" cheering. The reporter makes no mention of anybody objecting. Now we know who the real "sheeple" are!

"When someone is 180 degrees from what is stated, they have mental problems or an agenda."

Or both. Despite Jack's poor grammar I couldn't agree more!!

Len

Correction, the article was from flag_chename_322.gif not the San Francisco Chronicle as I first indicated.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Since I already responded to Colby on another forum, he knows better

and is merely milking your ignorance for all it's worth! He is playing

the forum for saps! Let me ask a simple question: How many of the

members of this forum who voted in this "poll" have listened to what I

said in my presentation in Chicago, which is archived on st911.org? My

guess: zero! That's a fine record for a group that pretends to take any

historical issue seriously. What a bunch of phoneys to allow someone

like Colby to pay you for suckers. In presenting any complex argument

on a controversial subject, it is easy to make someone look silly: just

give their conclusions and ignore all their premises! That's what this

guy from the Chronicle did. It was a nice hit piece! Very nice. And he

took a response to a question I was asked about whether the military

offered any hope of resolving the constitutional crisis we face with my

reports of my own thoughts about it, not as an ENDORSEMENT but as a

REFLECTION of my belief that it might actually happen. Cobly couldn't

possibly know because he wasn't there, but I was NOT CALLING FOR A

COUP but DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY. That Hitler might have been

deposed in a coup is an outcome that most historians today probably

wish had occurred. It was in a parallel context that the question arose.

A recording of the question session is not yet available, to the best of

my knowledge, the perfect opportunity for a smear! He relishes having

the chance to misrepresent information that neither he nor you possess!

It is "made to order" for an operator of his caliber. With Leonard Colby

around, we can't even discuss controversial issues without having him

trash us! Well, consider the source. Anyone who wants to think about

what I actually said in my presentation can listen to it on st911.org. I

find the ease with which the members of this forum are manipulated by

a clever guy who is willing to disseminate false information to promote

an agenda rather appalling. But that's the state of this forum today!

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:32:12 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: [jfk-research] Fetzer calls for a coup detat in the US and

members of the 9/11 Truth Movement cheer.

This guy is such a sad sack when it comes to research that he doesn't even

know what publication he is talking about! The author of this hit piece

used many techniques familiar to Colby and his cronies, including selective

use of quotations. When I said, "They can't be right!", I followed it by

adding, "The evidence is too overwhelming and the physics too elementary!

We're not talking about rocket science!", but of course that was omitted.

Remarking on the propect of a coup to rid the nation of a fascist gang of

thugs is not calling for a military/police state, which is what they have

in mind for us. On the contrary, it is ridding the nation of having to

endure such a fate by restoring constitutional government. But of course

you would not know that from reading this article or Colby's commentaries.

If anyone would like to hear what I actually had to say, go to st911.org

and check out the link for 4-6 June 2006 announcing my presentation. My

purpose was to address moral, political, and religious dimensions of 9/11.

Quoting len colby <lenbrasil@yahoo.com>:

> Fetzer calls for a coup d’etat in the US and members of the “9/11 ‘Truth’

> Movement” cheer.

>

> From an article in the San Francisco Chronicle:

>

> Mr. Fetzer upped the ante on the idea.

> "Let me tell you, for years, I've been waiting for there to be a military

> coup to depose these traitors," he said from the podium.

>

> "Yeah!" shouted some men in the audience.

>

> "There actually was one weekend," Mr. Fetzer went on, "where I said to

> myself, my God, it's going to happen this weekend, and I'm going to wake up

> and they will have taken these guys off in chains."

>

> His voice was building. "Listen to me," he said. "The degree of perfidy

> involved here is so great, that in the time of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and

> Euripides, frenzied mobs would have dragged these men out of their beds in

> the middle of the night and ripped them to shreds!"

>

> "Yeah!" cried a chorus of voices in the audience. "Yeah!"

>

> Amid the cheers and applause that swept the room…

>

> http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=j...2dhg6yxsm3jt43c

>

> Much as I detest Bush, Fetzer’s call for a military take over in the US is

> truly sickening and should be condemned by all members of this group no

> matter what they think about 9/11, the Zapruder Film and Fetzer’s other

> ideas. The man seems to be loosing it. Worse is that the idea seemed to be a

> popular one among the “Truth” movement. Steve Jones to his credit seemed

> uncomfortable with Fetzer’s rabble rousing (see the article).

>

> It is also interesting how closed minded he admits to being.

>

> From the same article:

>

> 911myths.com, a Web site run by a software developer in England, is one of

> the few venues that offers a running scrutiny of the various claims and

> arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement. Mr. Fetzer has heard of

> 911myths .com, but he has never visited the site.

>

> "I have been dealing with disinformation and phony stories about the death

> of JFK for all these years. There's a huge amount of phoniness out there," he

> says. "You have to be very selective in how you approach these things."

>

> "I can assure you the things I'm telling you about 9/11 have objective

> scientific status," he says. 911myths.com, he says, "is going to be built on

> either fabricated evidence, or disregard of the real evidence, or violations

> of the principles of scientific reasoning."

>

> "They cannot be right," he says.

>

> So he knows the site is wrong without even looking at it!! So much for his

> self proclaimed “critical thinking skills” and willingness to look at the

> “totality of the evidence”. His position is ‘the site contradicts what I know

> to be true, therefore it is nothing but disinformation and not worth looking

> at’, very circular logic and not at all rational.

>

> Len

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates

> starting at 1¢/min.

Colby shows he is incapable of understanding, when he said:

"Much as I detest Bush, Fetzer's call for a military take over in the US is truly sickening and should be condemned by all members of this forum. "

Fetzer was calling for a TAKEOVER BY THE PEOPLE...not by the MILITARY!

When someone is 180 degrees from what is stated, they have mental

problems or an agenda.

Colby should be condemned by all members of this forum.

Jack

What part of, "...for years, I've been waiting for there to be a military coup to depose these traitors. There actually was one weekend, where I said to myself, my God, it's going to happen this weekend, and I'm going to wake up and they will have taken these guys off in chains", did you fail to comprehend Jack? Your lunatic friend called for a military coup and antendees at the "9/11 'Truth' Conference" cheering. The reporter makes no mention of anybody objecting. Now we know who the real "sheeple" are!

"When someone is 180 degrees from what is stated, they have mental problems or an agenda."

Or both. Despite Jack's poor grammar I couldn't agree more!!

Len

Correction, the article was from flag_chename_322.gif not the San Francisco Chronicle as I first indicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I already responded to Colby on another forum, he knows better

and is merely milking your ignorance for all it's worth! He is playing

the forum for saps!

It seems the professor is unable to understand something as simple as the time stamps on posts here and the Yahoo forum he is referring to. If he did he would have realized that not only did I start this thread hours before his reply to me on jfk-research but I started it minutes before posting there.

"Let me ask a simple question: How many of the members of this forum who voted in this "poll" have listened to what I said in my presentation in Chicago, which is archived on st911.org? My guess: zero! That's a fine record for a group that pretends to take any historical issue seriously. What a bunch of phoneys to allow someone like Colby to pay you for suckers."

I already commented on the "Wrath of Fetzer" on this forum*, he true to form seems determined to make my case for me. Seven (so far) other members joined me in stating they opposed a coup d'etat in the US, what a bunch of dupes! What would have preferred that they voted 'yes' or abstained? I assume (hope!) that the lone 'yes' vote was meant as a joke. If not I hope the person who so voted justifies their view. Was that you Jim?

Jim - How many members were even aware that a video clip of your presentation was available? How many of them would have the free time and patience to let alone any interest in spending 56 minutes of their lives, plus the time to find the link and wait for it to load, watch and listen to you rave on! What difference would it make since you say the part in discussion weren't recorded? My sound card isn't working, I'll try and watch it at a friends house or internet café in a couple of days.

* [ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7115&view=findpost&p=65819 – for those who missed it the post contains an interesting example of his delusion of grandur]

"In presenting any complex argument on a controversial subject, it is easy to make someone look silly: just give their conclusions and ignore all their premises! That's what this guy from the Chronicle did. It was a nice hit piece! Very nice."

This is of course the typical response of anyone who is portrayed poorly by the press didn't Nixon and Agnew complain about their press coverage? Baghdad Bob said that the Western media was lying about the Iraqi Army being defeated even as US soldiers were showering in one of Saddam's palaces in Baghdad. Typical Fetzer, blame it on the messenger.

And he took a response to a question I was asked about whether the military offered any hope of resolving the constitutional crisis we face with my reports of my own thoughts about it, not as an ENDORSEMENT but as a REFLECTION of my belief that it might actually happen.

Jim - Are you saying you were misquoted? According to the article your were responding to a question about members of the "truth" movement taking over a TV station in order to spread the movements message NOT a question "about whether the military offered any hope of resolving the constitutional crisis we face". Perhaps you could tell us your version of what the question asked and your response were.

"Cobly couldn't possibly know because he wasn't there"

I've never been to Baghdad but I know that one of Hussein's lawyers was killed yesterday, I only visited Rome two millennia after the fact but I know Caesar was stabbed to death; we don't have to witness events to know what happened that's what journalists and historians are for.

"but I was NOT CALLING FOR A COUP but DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY"

Unless he was completely misquoted he was, as per the quote he was endorsing the idea of the military deposing Bush.

That Hitler might have been deposed in a coup is an outcome that most historians today probably wish had curred.

Poor analogy for several reasons such as: 1) AFAIK none of the failed/aborted coups against Hitler were motivated by objections to his trampling on democracy and civil rights but because elements of the military understood that Germany would ultimately be defeated in a war with the Allies, we don't know if constitutional government would have replaced him. 2) As bad as the situation currently is in the US it is not (yet al least) comparable to that of Germany 1938* - 1945. 3) Germany's democratic tradition only stretched back to 1918 in the US to the end of the 18th century. Once the precedent of the military deposing a president who (at least nominally) was democratically elected it would be hard to "put back in the bottle".

* The first reliable report of a possible coup against Hitler I have heard of was around the time of the appeasement in Munich.

"It was in a parallel context that the question arose."

Again, not according to the article.

A recording of the question session is not yet available, to the best of my knowledge, the perfect opportunity for a smear!

Or I could say a perfect opportunity for Fetzer to deny saying what he really said. Obviously I had no way of knowing if a recording of the session existed or not so Fetzer's comments are absurd. As he pointed out I wasn't at the conference, if indeed he was completely misquoted as he seems to be alleging I had no way of knowing this, my comments were reasonable based upon his comments as reported in the article. I will contact the author of the article for his reaction, perhaps he has a recording of the session.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He relishes having the chance to misrepresent information that neither he nor you possess! It is "made to order" for an operator of his caliber."

One can't misrepresent information they don't posses as it implies an intent to deceive I based my comments on an account of Fetzer's comments from a respected publication. According to Fetzer's logic that's not enough.

"With Leonard Colby around, we can't even discuss controversial issues without having him trash us!"

Nice attempt at FUD but:

1) I "trashed" him for proposing a coup d'etat not merely discussing the idea. If he was misquoted by the Chronicle for Higher Education a well respected publication, the fault is not mine.

2) I am not calling for censorship but there are ideas which reasonable people would not consider worthy of discussion: "Was the Holocaust a good thing?", "Are George Bush and Queen Elizabeth etc really shape-shifting lizard people?", "Did God create the World in 6 days?" are a few examples. Ann Coulter is upset because "godless secularist" liberals reject the idea that African Americans are inherently less intelligent than Whites [ http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.p...=15708&o=ANN001 search the page for "bell curve"].

3) My track record here and on other forums shows that I don't normally "trash" people for discussing "controversial issues" after initially expressing discomfort with the idea I supported Michael Collins Piper being allowed to join the forum. I did however crticize him for his exposal of Holocaust denial, how close minded of me!

"Well, consider the source."

Jim – Don't forget that saying about people who live in glass houses, your published works about the Wellstone crash and Zapruder film are replete with omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods. I believe my reputation among most members is a decent one, I've gotten positive feedback publicly and privately. In any case I am not the source of the quote. I urge all interested parties to read the article in it entirety consider the reputation of the publication and Fetzer's track record.

"Anyone who wants to think about what I actually said in my presentation can listen to it on st911.org."

Jim – You are contradicting yourself again, you said that the question session was not available, what would the benefit be of watching to you ramble and rave on for an hour if the disputed question and answer aren't included? Aren't you just milking this as an excuse to promote your presentation.

"I find the ease with which the members of this forum are manipulated by a clever guy who is willing to disseminate false information to promote an agenda rather appalling. But that's the state of this forum today!"

The above is indicative of Jim's circular logic, he believes that people who disagree with him are either:

1) "intellectually challenged" (he USED to say that about me, now he thinks I'm clever),

2) mentally unstable (he used to say that about me too!)

3) dishonest operators with an agenda (my current classification) and probably a government operative (he has accused me of this in the past, typically with out any evidence) or

4) some combination of the above.

Since his and his clique's theories haven't proven popular here he takes it as proof most members of this forum belong to one of the above groups.

I'll respond to Fetzer's reply to me on the Yahoo group when I find the time hopefully today but since Brazil is playing in the World Cup today perhaps only tomorrow.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:32:12 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: [jfk-research] Fetzer calls for a coup detat in the US and members of the 9/11 Truth Movement cheer.

This guy is such a sad sack when it comes to research that he doesn't even know what publication he is talking about!

It's true I initially misidentified the publication as the SF Chronicle. That really doesn't change the substance of my post or the article it cites.

Jim - Considering the numerous errors in your published works (as opposed to a forum posting) you are not one to complain. Who for example found the duplicate log book? Where there discrepancies between the "the pilots' log books" or "the pilot's log books"? What frequency was the radio on when the plane crashed? What and when was the last transmission from the plane?

The author of this hit piece used many techniques familiar to Colby and his cronies, including selective use of quotations. When I said, "They can't be right!", I followed it by adding, "The evidence is too overwhelming and the physics too elementary! We're not talking about rocket science!", but of course that was omitted.

It is not reasonable expect a journalist to report every word every person he speaks to tells him. He had to be selective and choose. The total story length was under 3300 words in addition to Fetzer he quoted, Dr. Steve Jones, Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin and other attendees at the conference as well as (briefly) some scientists who support the collapse theory and had to give background information. The two sentences that were not included would not have made much difference and have nothing to do with Fetzer dismissing the 911myths site without even taking a look.

Jim - Considering all the information contrary to your theory about the Wellstone crash you left out of your book and articles you are hardly one to complain about omissions – for example don't you think it is relevant that: Conry, the crash pilot, told a childhood friend who was also a pilot that he had difficulty flying and landing the very type of plane that crashed or that one of the two pilots his wife said he most confided in at the company suggested that he retire after flying with him 3 days before the crash or that Conry told his wife that the other pilots though that Guess, the co-pilot, was a bad pilot; or that Guess had been fired from his only previous piloting job for incompetence? I guess you just could find space for those facts in your 180 page book or any of the various articles you wrote about the crash. Selective quoting is a specialty of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement too.

Remarking on the propect of a coup to rid the nation of a fascist gang of thugs is not calling for a military/police state, which is what they have in mind for us. On the contrary, it is ridding the nation of having to endure such a fate by restoring constitutional government. But of course you would not know that from reading this article or Colby's commentaries.

Jim – At least be clear and consistent in your replies. Do you or don't think it would be a good idea for the military to overthrow Bush? Who is to guarantee civil war wouldn't break out? Even if elements in the military tried such a thing there would be widespred military and civilian opposition. Who is to guarantee that if they were successful that they wouldn't military/police state but rather turn over power to civilians? After most coups the return to democratic rule took years. Since the Constitution doesn't anticipate a coup who would they turn power over to? All the people constitutionally in the line of succession are Republicans all but two of them Bush appointees. What kind of precedent would be set? At some other point might not a group of generals feel justified in deposing a president they didn't like?

People like you are a menace to progressive causes because when independent voters in middle America hear the kind of nonsense you spout it makes them less likely to support such causes and vote for candidates who support them. There are serious questions about whether votes are being fairly counted, most Americans don't believe Bush intentionally altered the intelligence concerning WMD's. It becomes more difficult get people to take these allegations seriously when some of the people speaking up about them also endorse a coup as a possible solution to America's problems or saying the Pentagon wasn't hit by a jetliner.

If anyone would like to hear what I actually had to say, go to st911.org and check out the link for 4-6 June 2006 announcing my presentation. My purpose was to address moral, political, and religious dimensions of 9/11.

The points you addressed in your presentation are irrelevant to this discussion because they are not in dispute. Your apparent call for a coup and support for that idea by the audience are and you said these weren't recorded, how very conveinient for you!

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

It should also be remembered that the guy in the SDS meetings in the 60's, and 70's who was constantly urging the group to more direct, violent action, known as "doing a weatherman" was frequently an agent provoceteur, who's aim was to discredit the movement in the eyes of the wider society. I have provided direct evidence in the thread "bush, Blair memo" of a conspiracy between British, and American government, and their various agencies to hoodwink both the public, and the UN into supporting our illegal invasion. Nobody except Len has even bothered to respond to this. Ah well back to your controlled demolitions, and HAARP strikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A member of ST911 which now calls itself S911T or SfT disagreed with Fetzer’s call for a coup. He was suspended from the group by Fetzer and resigned. The suspension might have caused by the ex-member’s creation of an open forum to discuss the groups articles rather than the disagreement. Perhaps Fetzer would be willing to clarify that here.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42548&page=6

Apparently Fetzer or Jones can arbitrarily suspend or expel any member of the group without consulting other members or even each other and without explaining the reason for the expulsion. Fetzer’s tendency to dictatorial control fits with his endorsement of a coup and violence against the news media.

It should also be remembered that the guy in the SDS meetings in the 60's, and 70's who was constantly urging the group to more direct, violent action, known as "doing a weatherman" was frequently an agent provoceteur, who's aim was to discredit the movement in the eyes of the wider society. I have provided direct evidence in the thread "bush, Blair memo" of a conspiracy between British, and American government, and their various agencies to hoodwink both the public, and the UN into supporting our illegal invasion. Nobody except Len has even bothered to respond to this. Ah well back to your controlled demolitions, and HAARP strikes.

I don't think Fetzer is an "agent provoceteur" just a genuine nutcase. I would be surprised if the FBI thought of infiltrating a couple of agents provoceteurs in the group but then realized that it wouldn't be nessicary.

Len

PS - I remember the good ol days when HAARP was a typo for

1) a tasty Irish beer.

2) a large string instument

3) short for harmonica

4) a type of seal

5) to talk continuosly about something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

I don't think Fetzer is an "agent provoceteur"

Len

Neither do I, I was just (a) Bashing home a nail, using the biggest hammer I could find, (B) Seeing how Mr fetzer liked finding a fly in HIS soup!!!

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...