Len Colby Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Evan Burton' dronned on:Mr Fetzer, I challenge you to put your hypothesis to any recognised organisation of professional pilots and publish their unedited reply here. _____________________ Ah, Mr. Burton, since when does ANY "organization of professional pilots" comment on American airplane crash investigations? Hypothesis included? Especially when a nationally recognized political leader found himself dead in said crash? Sounds like right-wing rationality to me... kinda like the White House investigating Karl Rove for some sort of flight of fancy (pardon the pun). This post has been edited by David G. Healy: Oct 4 2005, 09:57 PM what do they feed you dolt's down there in the amazon basin? your last sentence in your post above [finally, one beyond the 3rd grade level] a few of us can agree on Healy's tendency to insult instead of articulate any argument reminds me of Ann Coulter. He could be a "poor man's" liberal version of her. She wrote: "If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said...In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder". She is of course guilty of what she ascribes to liberals but it seems like Healy is doing his best to prove her right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Evan Burton' dronned on:Mr Fetzer, I challenge you to put your hypothesis to any recognised organisation of professional pilots and publish their unedited reply here. _____________________ Ah, Mr. Burton, since when does ANY "organization of professional pilots" comment on American airplane crash investigations? Hypothesis included? Especially when a nationally recognized political leader found himself dead in said crash? Sounds like right-wing rationality to me... kinda like the White House investigating Karl Rove for some sort of flight of fancy (pardon the pun). This post has been edited by David G. Healy: Oct 4 2005, 09:57 PM what do they feed you dolt's down there in the amazon basin? your last sentence in your post above [finally, one beyond the 3rd grade level] a few of us can agree on Healy's tendency to insult instead of articulate any argument reminds me of Ann Coulter. He could be a "poor man's" liberal version of her. She wrote: "If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said...In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder". She is of course guilty of what she ascribes to liberals but it seems like Healy is doing his best to prove her right. We know what's going on here, Mr. Colby. You've attained *full* BUMP artist status on the board. Might I make a suggestion; get a book in print! Hell, even Ann Coulter can do THAT... Jealousy, is unbecoming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I've already offered - twice - to have the report scrutinised by two senior accident investigators here in Australia. There was a resounding silence to that offer.... Evan there's no reason for you to get Fetzer's approval. You could also submit Fetzer's articles to them. I would be very interested to hear what they have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 (edited) We know what's going on here, Mr. Colby. You've attained *full* BUMP artist status on the board. Might I make a suggestion; get a book in print! Hell, even Ann Coulter can do THAT... Jealousy, is unbecoming! You've attained *full* BUMP artist status on the board ??????????????????????? Might I make a suggestion; get a book in print! Hell, even Ann Coulter can do THAT... Jealousy, is unbecoming! Who do you think I'm jealous of you? ROTF!!! Why on earth would I be jealous of you? Exactly how many books have gotten published? I am not aware of any (didn't bother to check though) Why do you assume I'm a "wanna be" writer? I've written an article or two but that's not my ambition. Edited October 8, 2005 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 According to Josiah Thompson: "When Fetzer cannot win an argument on the merits, he attacks the motives and character of those who disagree with him." That raises an interesting question. Is it his intention to write a silly book about the murder of Paul Wellstone, to discredit the possibility that Paul Wellstone was murdered? Just a speculation. Is that possible? Is Fetzer playing "reverse psychology" with Josiah Thompson. Wasn't it Intel's CIO who said, "If you are not paranoid, you won't survive." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 According to Josiah Thompson:"When Fetzer cannot win an argument on the merits, he attacks the motives and character of those who disagree with him." That raises an interesting question. Is it his intention to write a silly book about the murder of Paul Wellstone, to discredit the possibility that Paul Wellstone was murdered? Just a speculation. Is that possible? The answer is NO. Fetzer is as serious as a heart attack, as should be obvious by this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I believe Cheney stated publicly before the elections that it was the White House's #1 priority to remove Wellstone from the Senate. I think this makes it less likely that he was 'whacked'. Killing him after stating publicly that they wanted to get rid of him so badly would draw too much attention, as indeed it did. It did? When? In a rational world what you say, that it would "draw too much attention," might be true. But nowadays Americans, at least, do not live in such a world. How could killing Wellstone after saying they wanted to get rid of him "draw too much attention," when the only people who believe he was assassinated are tinfoil-hat flakes (of which I am one)? The powers that be who perform political assassinations in this country have been doing it long enough (since at least 1963) to know that there will be no questions asked in the mainstream media. They can rub out who they want to in whatever way they want to do it, with plane crashes being a tried and true means for "accidents" (out-and-out assassinations or public executions of politicians of course require patsies; "suicides" are also handy, but apparently Wellstone was not a good candidate for "depression"). If there is any investigation at all, it will be a government whitewash. The possibility that Wellstone was assassinated was given no serious consideration at all that I know of in the mainstream media, which unfortunately is all that really counts. Fetzer wrote a good book on the case, but only so many people are going to read it. We can talk about Wellstone being assassinated in forums like this on the Internet, but to quote Abraham Lincoln, "The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here," at least about the government assassinating its own. In sum, the killers of Wellstone would have a good laugh at the suggestion that it would "draw too much attention" to those who wanted to get rid of him. Because such things don't happen in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I believe Cheney stated publicly before the elections that it was the White House's #1 priority to remove Wellstone from the Senate. I think this makes it less likely that he was 'whacked'. Killing him after stating publicly that they wanted to get rid of him so badly would draw too much attention, as indeed it did. It did? When? In a rational world what you say, that it would "draw too much attention," might be true. But nowadays Americans, at least, do not live in such a world. How could killing Wellstone after saying they wanted to get rid of him "draw too much attention," when the only people who believe he was assassinated are tinfoil-hat flakes (of which I am one)? The powers that be who perform political assassinations in this country have been doing it long enough (since at least 1963) to know that there will be no questions asked in the mainstream media. They can rub out who they want to in whatever way they want to do it, with plane crashes being a tried and true means for "accidents" (out-and-out assassinations or public executions of politicians of course require patsies; "suicides" are also handy, but apparently Wellstone was not a good candidate for "depression"). If there is any investigation at all, it will be a government whitewash. The possibility that Wellstone was assassinated was given no serious consideration at all that I know of in the mainstream media, which unfortunately is all that really counts. Fetzer wrote a good book on the case, but only so many people are going to read it. We can talk about Wellstone being assassinated in forums like this on the Internet, but to quote Abraham Lincoln, "The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here," at least about the government assassinating its own. In sum, the killers of Wellstone would have a good laugh at the suggestion that it would "draw too much attention" to those who wanted to get rid of him. Because such things don't happen in America. __________________________ As "2nd Banana" Ed McMahan on the "Johnny Carson Show" would loudly proclaim: "...CORRECTO ! ...Oh great Wizard who so generously expounds and gives forth with such great wisdom..!!" And even if Kostner starred in an award winning movie about a "whack-job" on the good Senator, the perps would howl even louder. Of course, if they howled too loudly in public -- they might suffer an untoward and sudden detioration in personal health -- such as "depression" or a speech depriving stroke -- or worse !! Chairs, GPH ________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Jack White, who has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation than anyone else in the JFK research community, developed an axiom some time back, which holds that the more intense the attack, the closer you are to the truth. By that standard, I believe we must be right on the money .... I hardly consider Jack's "axiom" as any kind of "standard," but rather as something that "just goes to show" how, when you're proven wrong, you're really right. It is perhaps understandable why Jack "has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation than anyone else in the JFK research community:" have you see his work to prove how Apollo 11 and 14's moon landings were hoaxes? Click here to view these wondrous analyses! Of course, Jack has also determined that I am a "disinformation agent" and implied that I work(ed) for the CIA. I gather that determination to be rooted in the fact that I have dared to not agree with every theory espoused in the JFK thing, and even managed to discredit one or two of them, as well as the fact that I said that "my company" was transferring me to Virginia some years back (equation: "company" + "Virginia" = "CIA"). If Jack had even the slightest clue about me, he'd know otherwise. If he believes what he says, he is a fool. He suggests that I am paranoid for asking whether he works for the US, but does not answer the question. Which must mean that he does not, otherwise "the more intense the attack, the closer you are to the truth," ergo "no attack" = "far from the truth." He tells me that he does not believe me, even when I explain that I do not make any money from royalties on the book but recycle it to support further research. "Making" money and "keeping" money are two different things. It's like saying you don't "make" money at work because you spend it all on food, shelter and clothing. Whether he believes it or not I could care less. One spends an awful lot of time dealing with something one "couldn't" care less about. Why would we expend the time, money, and effort to get to the bottom of this case if we did not believe what we were doing? To make money to recycle it to support further research? We have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was not an accident. Clearly, some people have doubts, whether or not you consider them reasonable. This amounts to nothing more than saying "we've proven it to our own satisfaction." If that was a "standard" of any sort, no defendant would ever be acquitted as long as the prosecutors believed he was guilty! (Check out my websites) and ask if I appear to be some sort of nut case or a serious scholar with important accomplishments to his credit. And if you conclude that I am a serious scholar, ask yourself why my research on Wellstone should be inferior to my research on other subjects. Even the most painstaking research can reach incorrect conclusions. This response will, of course, "prove" that I am the "disinformation agent like [my] mentor David Perry," as Jack has charged (that "some people think") elsewhere on this forum. C'est la vie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted November 27, 2005 Share Posted November 27, 2005 (edited) Jack White, who has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation than anyone else in the JFK research community, developed an axiom some time back, which holds that the more intense the attack, the closer you are to the truth. By that standard, I believe we must be right on the money .... I hardly consider Jack's "axiom" as any kind of "standard," but rather as something that "just goes to show" how, when you're proven wrong, you're really right. It is perhaps understandable why Jack "has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation than anyone else in the JFK research community:" have you see his work to prove how Apollo 11 and 14's moon landings were hoaxes? Click here to view these wondrous analyses! Of course, Jack has also determined that I am a "disinformation agent" and implied that I work(ed) for the CIA. I gather that determination to be rooted in the fact that I have dared to not agree with every theory espoused in the JFK thing, and even managed to discredit one or two of them, as well as the fact that I said that "my company" was transferring me to Virginia some years back (equation: "company" + "Virginia" = "CIA"). If Jack had even the slightest clue about me, he'd know otherwise. If he believes what he says, he is a fool. He suggests that I am paranoid for asking whether he works for the US, but does not answer the question. Which must mean that he does not, otherwise "the more intense the attack, the closer you are to the truth," ergo "no attack" = "far from the truth." He tells me that he does not believe me, even when I explain that I do not make any money from royalties on the book but recycle it to support further research. "Making" money and "keeping" money are two different things. It's like saying you don't "make" money at work because you spend it all on food, shelter and clothing. Whether he believes it or not I could care less. One spends an awful lot of time dealing with something one "couldn't" care less about. Why would we expend the time, money, and effort to get to the bottom of this case if we did not believe what we were doing? To make money to recycle it to support further research? We have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was not an accident. Clearly, some people have doubts, whether or not you consider them reasonable. This amounts to nothing more than saying "we've proven it to our own satisfaction." If that was a "standard" of any sort, no defendant would ever be acquitted as long as the prosecutors believed he was guilty! (Check out my websites) and ask if I appear to be some sort of nut case or a serious scholar with important accomplishments to his credit. And if you conclude that I am a serious scholar, ask yourself why my research on Wellstone should be inferior to my research on other subjects. Even the most painstaking research can reach incorrect conclusions. This response will, of course, "prove" that I am the "disinformation agent like [my] mentor David Perry," as Jack has charged (that "some people think") elsewhere on this forum. C'est la vie. ******************************** No ,it just proves that you have replied in a thread in which you have no interest, seeing that you have said nothing in reference to said subject.....your just xxxxe disturbing in otherwords... B... Edited November 27, 2005 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 According to Josiah Thompson: "When Fetzer cannot win an argument on the merits, he attacks the motives and character of those who disagree with him." That raises an interesting question. Is it his intention to write a silly book about the murder of Paul Wellstone, to discredit the possibility that Paul Wellstone was murdered? Just a speculation. Is that possible? The answer is NO. Fetzer is as serious as a heart attack, as should be obvious by this thread. He is about as pleasent as a heart attack as well! Jack White, who has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation than anyone else in the JFK research community, developed an axiom some time back, which holds that the more intense the attack, the closer you are to the truth. By that standard, I believe we must be right on the money .... I hardly consider Jack's "axiom" as any kind of "standard," but rather as something that "just goes to show" how, when you're proven wrong, you're really right. It is perhaps understandable why Jack "has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation than anyone else in the JFK research community:" have you see his work to prove how Apollo 11 and 14's moon landings were hoaxes? Click here to view these wondrous analyses! Of course, Jack has also determined that I am a "disinformation agent" and implied that I work(ed) for the CIA. I gather that determination to be rooted in the fact that I have dared to not agree with every theory espoused in the JFK thing, and even managed to discredit one or two of them, as well as the fact that I said that "my company" was transferring me to Virginia some years back (equation: "company" + "Virginia" = "CIA"). If Jack had even the slightest clue about me, he'd know otherwise. If he believes what he says, he is a fool. He suggests that I am paranoid for asking whether he works for the US, but does not answer the question. Which must mean that he does not, otherwise "the more intense the attack, the closer you are to the truth," ergo "no attack" = "far from the truth." He tells me that he does not believe me, even when I explain that I do not make any money from royalties on the book but recycle it to support further research. "Making" money and "keeping" money are two different things. It's like saying you don't "make" money at work because you spend it all on food, shelter and clothing. Whether he believes it or not I could care less. One spends an awful lot of time dealing with something one "couldn't" care less about. Why would we expend the time, money, and effort to get to the bottom of this case if we did not believe what we were doing? To make money to recycle it to support further research? We have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was not an accident. Clearly, some people have doubts, whether or not you consider them reasonable. This amounts to nothing more than saying "we've proven it to our own satisfaction." If that was a "standard" of any sort, no defendant would ever be acquitted as long as the prosecutors believed he was guilty! (Check out my websites) and ask if I appear to be some sort of nut case or a serious scholar with important accomplishments to his credit. And if you conclude that I am a serious scholar, ask yourself why my research on Wellstone should be inferior to my research on other subjects. Even the most painstaking research can reach incorrect conclusions. This response will, of course, "prove" that I am the "disinformation agent like [my] mentor David Perry," as Jack has charged (that "some people think") elsewhere on this forum. C'est la vie. ******************************** No ,it just proves that you have replied in a thread in which you have no interest, seeing that you have said nothing in reference to said subject.....your just xxxxe disturbing in otherwords... B... B) Bernice, Duke obviously read through much of this thread, I find his criticisms of Fetzer's logic well taken. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) The apperence of someone claiming to have been an EMT at the scene has revived the Wellstone group on Yahoo. I am posting my reponse to Fetzer here because Yahoo unformats it to the point that it becomes unreadable. Got to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/ to see the original messages. My original comments are in this font and are preceded by ">" or paragraph #s 1. – 6. Jim's response is in bold. My replies to his response are in bold blue in this font and the paragraphs start with 3 asterisks ***. Sorry for any typos carnival is in full swing!!! I don't know why I took time away to reply to Jim's bunk. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A group of paramedics arrived at crash site took photos and video> footage but didn't treat the wounded and then left them behind to> die just because someone claiming to be from the FBI called them on> their cell phones. They didn't report the location of the crash to> anyone else.> My impression, heretofore, has been that no one could have "treated the wounded", because the fire burned so intensely they were not even able to remove the bodies from the plane until the next day, when it had cooled down. My impression, therefore, would be that no one was "left behind to die" because the occupants were already dead. If that is not the case--if the plane was not on fire, if at least some passengers were still alive--that would be of enormous importance! I must talk with him. ***Jim, I thought you were smarter than that, I over estimated you it seems. You missed something that 2 "ignoramuses" and "strange misfits" like Hobo and I picked up on immediately; the coroner found that 3 or 4 of the victims had smoke in there lungs and thus were alive and breathing BEFORE the fire broke out. If the fire broke out after "Marc's" team left that would mean they left live victims behind. Why didn't he mention they were survivors? Why did they take photos and video footage before treating them? The question "why would EMT's leave live victims behind?" remains. I wasn't referring to your impressions very egotistical that you think I would be. So yes Jim this is a GLARING hole. > 2. His team was dispatched to the site BEFORE anybody knew the plane> was in trouble.> This is very interesting, comparable to the early arrival of the FBI. How would Leonard be in the position to evaluate any of this? Something we know for a certainty is that LEONARD was not at the scene! ***Once again you disappoint me! He said they were at the crash site 20 minutes after the last radio contact. My PC is being fixed Jim so I don't have access to my files but that would have it around 10:40 just about the time the tower in Duluth was starting to ask what happened to the plane. Even if he was off by a few minutes what do think would have been the minimum time to scramble a volunteer EMT crew and for them to LOCATE and get to the crash site? You argued that it would have taken at least 10 minutes for the FBI to get to the site from Eveleth after the site had already been located (http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf pg. 5). "Marc" claims his crew was based in Midway a few minutes further away and that they walked it (presumably the FBI would have gotten their with ATV's). Also his crew would had to have left the site well before Ulman spotted the smoke or the other EMT's got there. So once again his story doesn't add up. No inside or on site knowledge required, just an awareness of the undisputed facts. > 3. They mysteriously found the wreckage in a desolate spot in the> middle of a swamp despite that it had not yet been spotted from the> air, it was not on the approach path and there wasn't any smoke.> If Marc says the fire had not started yet, I want to know. I have discussed the bluish-white smoke at the scene many times, because it was from the smoke that Gary Ulman was ultimately able to locate the crash. Others could have used it to find it as well. The crash site was in a wooded area but it didn't qualify as a "swamp" and was only a few hundred yards from a county road, if you'd had a fix on it. But if the plane was not actually burning at the scene and the fire was set with the passengers still inside it, I need to know that. ***The "if" in "if you'd had a fix on it" is a very big "if" Jim, that's begging the question; how did they "get a fix on it"? The other EMT crew said it took them a long time to locate the wreckage because the mud impeded their progress and they didn't know where it was (and they had smoke to guide them). "Marc" said nothing about smoke and "the plane was not burnt nor was it on fire". You argued previously that the crash site was in a very desolate spot and as mentioned above that it would have taken 10 minutes to get there and quoted a Pioneer Press article that called the area a "swamp" (same link as above page 4). Now when it's convenient for you it was "only a few hundred yards from a county road" and wasn't a swamp, get your stories straight Jim. > 4. He took his images to a TV station but they refused to use them> after this he sat on the images for 3 ½ years only bring them up> here. During this interim he never tried to contact anybody else not> even Fetzer even though they lives only about 85 miles away.> This is extremely interesting and I certainly hope he will contact me. ***The only thing interesting is that you're buying this bullxxxx. You didn't even attempt to rationalize this, the "glaring hole" stands. He didn't contact you or anybody because his story is made up. Even you can't come up with a reasonable explanation for his claimed actions. > 5. The group reported to be the "first" to get to the sight, weren't> really the first because "Marc's" had already been there and left.> How did they miss all those footprints (including those of the> person [people] who started the fire)?> Egad! If this is the case, I certainly want to know. I hope Marc will contact me: (218) 724-7206 (home) or (218) 726-7269 (office). *** Man you are desperate Jim. Once again you aren't able to make sense of his nonsense. > 6. Fetzer, Bollyn and the other CT's, not to mention the mainstream> journalists failed to notice the Midway, Mn 9/11 logs which showed> that a crew of EMT's got to the site earlier than previously> believed.> This is classic Leonard! To the best of my knowledge, no one is a "conspiracy theorist" until the evidence doesn't add up. Since none of them--Christopher Bollyn or the mainstream media--would have known about the crash until long after this "crew of EMTs" had come and gone, if I understand the story correctly, it would hardly be surprising to overlook it. When I checked the Sheriff's "log book" in Eveleth, it recorded nothing before about 3:30 PM that afternoon. The existence of another log is extremely interesting and potentially important. *** Jim, pay attention "Marc" said his crew's being dispatched to the site was still in the logs. I though you'd gone over all the 9-11 logs from that day. But since you failed to do so drive over to Midway and take a look at their 9-11 logs from the day of the crash. See if they dispatched a volunteer EMTs around the time the plane was scheduled to land!! > These are just some of the more glaring holes in his story.> From my comments, it should be apparent there are no "glaring holes". *** The 'glaring holes' remain Jim, your comments as per the norm didn't prove a thing > The guy is obviously lying, seeing that you are so gullable as to> buy his nonsense it is no wonder that you bought Fetzer's too. I> finally read Fetzer's book and am appalled by his intellectual> dishonesty, he vastly under reported indications of Conry's> incompetence. This has been going on for YEARS, but NOW he gets around to reading the book! That's very revealing of his dedication to discovering the truth and his interest in knowing what he is talking about. Obviously, for Leonard and the others, attack first, read later--if at all. Why even bother? It may make some of your attacks less biting when you have actually read the book and know how off-base they are. ***Two years Jim!! I only joined the fray last June, I picked up your book in December. I don't get up to the US a lot and getting books here in Brazil is expensive. You made you case on your site. I always made it clear I was basing my critique upon I what I could find on the Net. There wasn't really anything in the book that's not on your site. I also extensively researched the NTSB reports, mainstream, alternative, industry and 'conspiracist' press articles relating to the crash. Alleged problems with his flying appear to have been made-up after the fact. Conry had 5,000 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's certification (the highest commercial rating), and had passed his FAA Flight Check just two days before the fatal flight. Anyone with a serious interest knows that his man was highly qualified to fly this aircraft, even by the government's own standard! The very idea that he was not competent is non-sense. And of course a second pilot was on the plane. *** Christ Jim!!! How many times have we been over this, his supposed 5000 + Edited February 27, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) *** Christ Jim!!! How many times have we been over this, his supposed 5000 + hours was based on forged log book entries, he had only 3400 hours AT BEST, which is what his WIFE said he had. As even you acknowledge he repeatedly exaggerated his flying experience. In any case he had accrued most of those hours before a 12 year hiatus from flying due to his imprisonment for fraud and poor eyesight. During the vast majority of the few hundred hours he earned during the 17 months between when he started flying again and died in the crash he wasn't actually flying but let his co-pilot's fly. His certification was the highest of only 2 commercial pilot ratings and is held by 80% of commercial pilots. He had recently passed his flight test but all professional pilots are tested every 6 months and he didn't do very well on his. The examiner had to coach him to react faster in recovering from a simulated stall (I guess you just forgot to mention that in your book and articles). The reports of his incompetence all came from his colleagues at Aviation Charter including one the two pilots his wife said he was closest to at the company. A close friend who had know him since childhood said Conry told him a few months before the crash he had difficulty flying and landing King Air's (funny how you left that out of all you writings on the crash). ***Guess, the 2nd pilot, of course had been fired from both of his previous piloting jobs for incompetence and there were several reports from his fellow pilots at Aviation Charter that he was incompetent. Conry's wife said he told her that all the other pilot's thought Guess couldn't fly (funny how that didn't make it in to any of your writing either). There is no evidence to suggest that the reports of the pilots' incompetence was "made up". >He also mislead his readers by saying that the plane> changed course after the last radio contact when in fact it> maintained the same heading it had been on since the late turn. Questions remain about the plane's course, which concern differences between witnesses on the ground and the official account. Of course, I had a co-author on the book, Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, Ed.D., Ph.D., who must have been duped along with me. *** I didn't say you were duped, I believe you are the one doing the duping. Which of your witnesses contradicts the FAA's radar track of the plane? In any case you should have made your readers aware that according to the radar the plane HAD NOT changed course. But there have been important developments in the case since AMERICAN ASSASSINATION appeared. The most important was enlisting the assistance of John P. Costella, Ph.D., who is an expert in electromagnetism. I flew John to Minnesota so he could work on the case with me. The results of our collaboration have been pubished in "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", which was published in, Michael Ruppert's fromthewilderness.com and subsequently in his news- letter, FROM THE WILDERNESS. It is archived on my public issues web site, http://www.assassinationscience.com, and runs four pages with six photos and 115 endnotes. The most important finding may be the discovery of meteorological evidence that there was a melted pattern at the ice level above the crash site that could not have been caused by the fire (temperatures of which dissipate rapidly) but appears to be an effect of the use of a directed-energy weapon, thus confirming the conclusion drawn in AMERICAN ASSASSINATION. Moreover, the plot has thickened by indirect evidence about how the plane may have been drawn off-course without alarming the pilots. All of this has been explained in a lecture that I presented at UMD on 16 November 2005, which has been turned into a series of DVDs. But there is also free access to three hours of the presentation, including one on JFK, one on 9/11, and one on Wellstone, in the form of "Flash lectures" that are accessible from the bottom of that web site on the menu bar. So anyone who wants to know the current state of our knowledge about the death of Senator Wellstone might want to take a look. If he stays on his past schedule, Leonard will get around to this sometime in 2008! But those who have a serious interest might want to check it out now. ***I read your article with Costella and most of that other bunk when you released it as you know because I debunked it. If you want to send me your DVD's I'll e-mail you my address. Edited February 27, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Fetzer slanders the Wellstone family . On page 100 of American Assassination (1st edition, chapter 6 – "Pilot Error" section) Fetzer wrote, "The conclusion of the NTSB was that pilot error caused the crash. The local mainstream media and the Wellstone family also agreed with this, at least in public. In the case of the family, they had to, in order to successfully sue the charter company." Thus he insinuates that Wellstone's next of kin remained quiet about their suspicions about the crash in order to fraudulently get money from Aviation Charter. Selling out a murdered loved one in order to sue an innocent party is about as morally corrupt as a person can get; odd that Fetzer could think that Paul and Sheila Wellstone's sons could be so low. Another problem with this is that he offers no evidence that they suspected foul play. Fetzer, as Joseph Welch asked Joe McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Superreporter, faster than a speeding FBI agent!!! On page 50 of the 1st edition (Ch. 3 “Crash Scene Wreckage” section), recounts with out attribution (just as most of the information in the book is not sourced) that reporters and a camera crew from a Twin Cities TV station made it to “the [Eveleth] airport 90 minutes from the time they first received the news”. Ironically 32 pages later he concludes after rather specious analysis that it would have taken FBI “agents at the very least 2:32 minutes to make their trip”* from there office to the crash site. Fetzer of course will hem and haw and point out that the folks KSTP flew to Hibbing while the FBI supposedly flew to Duluth (which is about 20 minutes further from Eveleth than Hibbing) and that the reporters went to the airport rather than the crash site**. This is not enough to explain the discrepancy. According to Fetzer it would have taken the FBI 92 minutes to get from their offices in Minneapolis to their rental car in Duluth, 2 minutes longer than it took the TV crew to get to Eveleth via Hibbing even though that town is (about 30 miles as the bird flies) further from the Twin Cities than Duluth! According to Yahoo maps it takes over 30 minutes to get from Hibbing to Eveleth (http://maps.yahoo.com/dd_result?newaddr=&t...y=us&terr=-1001 ) so it must have taken the FBI about half an hour longer to get to a closer airport, even though as Fetzer correctly points out FBI agents should be able to get in and out of airports and planes faster than private citizens What remains unsettled is if Minneapolis agents even flew to Duluth. At first Fetzer made it seem that Herr Bollyn said they did, “As Christopher Bollyn discovered, these special agents were from the Twin Cities, not from Duluth, even though they had driven to Eveleth from Duluth using cars they had rented there.”* then when called on it on the Yahoo forum, he claimed he got the info from a secret source (as opposed to a secret sauce!!! LOL). Oddly this source couldn’t give him any specifics (how many agent flew to Duluth, their names, how they got there (private, chartered or scheduled flight), what time they got there, what time they left, how many cars they rented, from what company etc. Nor does he explain why they would have taken such a “Rube Goldbergian” route when they could have driven up in their own cars in less time. * He gave the same account in an article for the Reader: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf ** According to Fetzer (see linked article above) it would have taken at least 10 minutes to get from the side of the road to the crash site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now