.

The JFK War: The Empire Strikes Back


by Jim Fetzer

 

It did not take long for The Empire to strike back.  In “The JFK War: An Insider’s Guide to Assassination Research”, I observed that other forums were less subtle in dealing with our new findings. On the “Deep Politics Forum”, for example, when I introduced a new thread, “JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn’t even a shooter”, Charles Drago, who was a founding member and who dominates that forum, embedded it within an older thread, “TSBD Doorway man – Oswald or Lovelady?”, even boasting on the thread that he had done it so others would not know it was there!  In response to my earlier post, #284, “Reasoning about Doorman: The Oswald Innocence Project”, in post #286, he wrote that we had been “totally discredited” and that we represented “an attack on the community of JFK assassination researchers”:

Think about this carefully: If the JFK-related oeuvres of Fetzer and “Cinque” did not exist, the truth of conspiracy in the murder of JFK would be no less firmly established.

Accordingly, I submit that it is high time that we, as a community, remove Jim Fetzer from our midst and in effect institutionalize him as a once-important, now fatally, irrevocably impaired, and dangerous man who is being manipulated by his enemies to do their work and undermine his own legacy.

We do not debate the likes of Gerald Posner, Vince Bugliosi, David von Pein, John McAdams, and Ken Rahn. Rather, we expose their lies and agendas and then banish them from the company of honorable, civilized human beings.

But of course “the truth of conspiracy in the murder of JFK” would be OVERWHELMINGLY MORE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED by direct proof that the alleged assassin had actually been watching the motorcade from the doorway of the Book Depository!  How dumb are we supposed to be?

Apparently that observation and the arguments that I had been presenting did not go down well with Drago and the other “owners” of DPF, who decided that I had to go and announced this morning that I had been “banned”, about which they have posted several new threads:

 

 

Their rationale was rather strained, since the key sentence is simply that, in their judgment, “Fundamentally, Altgens 6 cannot support the weight of interpretation placed upon it by [me and the] OIC (“Oswald Innocence Campaign”), which is calling the fight when you are losing:

 

 

As anyone who has the patience to wade through the discussion, “TSBD Doorway Man – Oswald or Lovelady?”, can ascertain for themselves (especially by starting at page 31, where Drago had moved the new thread, “JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn’t even a shooter!”, to make it less accessible to the members of the forum, an act of paternalism in which he wanted to make sure that they would not be contaminated by arguments for positions which he personally does not like), they never refuted even the most basic elements of our position, where the proof that we have exposed of the government’s massive duplicity is gradually making its way into the public domain.

 


YouTube - Veterans Today -

The Oswald Innocence Campaign

 

From the rationale presented in the formal notice banning me, you would suppose that the Oswald Innocence Campaign was a fringe group of one or two misguided thinkers–such as Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque–who had simply lost their way.  But there are more than a dozen rather formidable senior members of the campaign, all of whom agree with the central contention that, at the time of the assassination, the accused, Lee Oswald, was caught in a photograph (known as “Altgens6″) taken by AP photographer James “Ike” Altgens, which offers direct proof that he cannot have been a shooter, much less a “lone assassin”.  Among those who subscribe to that position (with bio sketches) are the following:

 

 

David Wrone, retired Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UWSP), is the honored mentor of the Oswald Innocence Campaign. Professor Wrone offered courses on The Great Books of Western Civilization, Native American history, and the JFK assassination. He is the author of The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Bibliography and of The Zapruder Film: Reframing the JFK Assassination. In the latter book, Chapter 11 promotes Oswald as the “Man in the Doorway.” A synopsis thereof headlines the Wrap page.
 
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., former Marine Corps officer and McKnight University Professor Emeritus, has chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the death of JFK. He produced the documentary JFK: The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond (1994). He also edited Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003). He co-edits the on-line journal assassinationresearch.com with John Costella and publishes on Veterans Today.
 
Ralph C. Cinque has worked in the health field as a chiropractor and health spa operator, and he is the former president of an international physicians group. Ralph has also been an avid student of the JFK assassination for many years, and he has had his articles on the assassination published on Veterans Today and on LewRockwell.com–one of the most widely read alternative news sites in the world.

Donald Miller is a leading cardiovascular surgeon, and he is a professor of cardiac surgery at the University of Washington. He is also a leading nutritional physician. And, he has a longstanding interest in the JFK assassination, borne in-part by his friendship with Dr. Malcolm Perry, who told him the truth about JFK’s neck wound seen at Parkland Hospital.

Richard Hooke has a degree in Cultural Anthropology from UC Santa Barbara, is a former computer systems analyst for Bank of America and is a writer and researcher on the JFK assassination. He has proven astute at figuring out how images were altered and shifted to perpetrate the deception. Richard’s ability to communicate with graphics is astounding.

Orlando Martin spent 20 years in the US Navy where he was a firearms and ballistics expert. As a drill instructor, he received the Navy/Marine Corp Achievement Medal for the outstanding performance of his company. He participated in Operation Desert Storm and the ensuing liberation of Kuwait. Orlando is also an avid JFK assassination researcher and the author of JFK: Analysis of a Shooting (2010).

Craig Roberts is a former military and police sharpshooter with a long career in the Marines and the Tulsa Police Department. He is the author of Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza (1994). Craig is also a certified firearms instructor, helicopter pilot, and black belt in karate. Craig’s account of his visit to the Assassination Museum in Dallas, where he got to size up the kill zone, is very gripping. Craig knew immediately that Oswald could not have done it.

Phillip F. Nelson is the author of LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (2nd edition, 2011), in which he contends that Johnson was a cardinal instigator of the plot to kill JFK. LBJ conceived of it perhaps as early as 1961 before enlisting others in 1962-63 to handle its design and execution. Phillip explains how Johnson was uniquely positioned to assemble all the key men–from the financiers to the operational planners and the cover-up experts–to complete the job. And it was all done at the expense of a “patsy” named Lee Harvey Oswald.

Peter Janney grew up in Washington D.C. during the Cold War era of the 1950s and 1960s. His father Wistar Janney was a senior career CIA official. The Janney family was intimately involved with many of the Washington political elite that included the family of Mary and Cord Meyer, as well as other high-ranking CIA officials such as Richard Helms, Jim Angleton, Tracy Barnes, Desmond FitzGerald, and William Colby. In his gripping book, Mary’s Mosaic (2012), Peter illuminates a magnitude of real-life evil that most of us could never imagine.

Pete Mellor lives in England. He is a retired college lecturer in marine electronics (radio and radar) much like the work Lee Oswald did in Japan. Pete has been an avid student of the JFK assassination since 1990 and has travelled to the US to attend JFK conferences, including the JFK Lancer symposium in Dallas in 2003 to commemorate the 40th anniversary. He is also a member of the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Pete edits the pages of the OIC site.

Larry Rivera was born in Alaska, the son of a career military man who served as CID officer in the Army. He was in Germany on 11/22/63, age 6, and will never forget his father’s reaction upon hearing of JFK’s murder (“Johnson!”) Larry is a Certified Network Engineer and also owns an automotive wholesale parts business. He has made a lifelong study of the JFK assassination, making his first trip to Dealey Plaza in 1991. He attended ASK Symposium in 1993 for the 30th anniversary. He has given interviews about the assassination to Spanish media. Larry has assembled the most complete dossier on Billly Nolan Lovelady ever done.

Roy Schaeffer graduated from Aviation Electronics school in the Marine Corps in 1960. After graduating, he was assigned to the El Toro Air Station in California, just like Oswald. In 1963, he was working as a photo processor at the Dayton Daily News when he personally received the Altgens6 photo-fax. Immediately, he could see signs of alteration, such as “masking” and “opaquing.” That began a lifelong commitment to the cause of JFK truth. Roy is the author of 3 books on the JFK assassination (unpublished), plus 9 articles, and his many JFK scrapbooks were donated to the University of Dayton. Roy was among the first researchers to say that it was Oswald in the doorway.
 
So What’s Going On?
 

I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but the qualifications and expertise of the members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign far outweigh those of the members of the Deep Politics Forum, especially with respect to those who post there most frequently.  While they no doubt have members who have published, such as Peter Dale Scott, they are not active; and I would be surprised if any of those with whom I have engaged had a single book between them.  I could be wrong, of course, but if they have publications, they are not known for them.  The situation, I believe, is one that is comparable to the result of a new study showing that FOX NEWS viewers have an average IQ that is 20 points below average:

 


 
Indeed, it is embarrassing that the bookstores are stacked with copies of Bill O’Reilly, Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot (2012), which I have reviewed, but where the publishers may be counting on the dumbed-down, Fox News-following. American public to purchase by the score:

 

41 of 115 people found the following review helpful
For those who prefer historical fiction over fact . . ., October 3, 2012
By James H. Fetzer

 
There are many proofs that Lee Oswald did not kill JFK, which, of course, contradict the all-too-familiar thesis presented by Bill O’Reilly here. He got Lincoln right, but he has JFK wrong. Serious scientific, medical and ballistic research has shown that the autopsy X-rays were altered to conceal a massive blow-out at the back of his head, that another man’s brain was substituted for that of JFK (since, after they had patched up the X-rays, there was no where for his brains to have gone), and that the home movies of the assassination, including the Zapruder film were edited to remove the limo stop, which more than 60 witnesses reported, because it was such a blatant indication of Secret Service complicity. See, for example, “US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication”, “Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”, and “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?” Here I offer three short takes for anyone who has access to a computer, because the proof of conspiracy and cover-up is both abundant and compelling. Try these, all found on-line:
 
(1) The existence of conspiracy is proven by establishing where JFK was hit by the shot to his back. We have overwhelming evidence (from his shirt and jacket, the autopsy diagram, the FBI sketch, his personal physician’s death certificate, the re-enactment photographs, and the mortician’s description of the wounds) that it was about 5 1/2″ below the collar and to the right of the spinal column, where it entered at a downward angle and had no point of exit. This means that the throat wound was a wound of entrance, as Malcolm Perry, M.D., explained during the Parkland Press Conference, which I published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) along with a diagram by Charles Crenshaw, M.D., the last physician to observe the body before it was placed in the casket. I explain all this in “Reasoning about Assassinations” (on line), which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. Look at the evidence for yourself. The “magic bullet” trajectory is not even anatomically possible. Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the description changed from his “uppermost back”, already an exaggeration, alas, to “the base of the back of his neck”.
 
(2) If the “magic bullet” did not pass through JFK’s neck and exit his throat, then the wound to his throat and those to John Connally have to have been caused by other shots and other shooters, which proves conspiracy by itself. There is also an enormous body of proof that Lee was framed using manufactured evidence, among the most telling of which are the “backyard photographs”. When Will Fritz showed one to Lee, he asserted that it was his face pasted on someone else’s body–and he was right! Jim Marrs and I demonstrate the fakery in “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald”. There are four poses, but the face and expression is exactly the same in all four, which is quite a stretch. Moreover, the chin is a block chin, not Oswald’s rather pointed chin. And there is an insert line between the chin and his lower lip. As if that were not enough, the finger-tips of his right hand are cut off, where the newspapers he is holding have known dimensions. When they are used as an internal ruler, the subject is too short to be Lee or else they were introduced too large when the photos were faked. Yet there are shills who continue to insist Oswald was the assassin.

(3) It should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man, but he even passes his nitrate test, which showed he had not fired a rifle or a carbine that day. Indeed, a new line of research on the Altgens’ photograph has produced fascinating proof that Lee was actually in the doorway watching the motorcade as it passed by. We knew that he had been observed by co-workers at 11:50, Noon, 12:15 and as late as 12:25 in and around the 2nd floor lunchroom, where he was confronted by Motorcycle Office Marrion Baker within 90 seconds of the shooting. New research has now established that he can been seen in the photo, where extremely patient and thorough study has shown that the figure often identified as Billy Lovelady was actually Lee Oswald–unless Billy was wearing Lee’s clothes! This is one of the most astonishing revelations in the history of the study of the assassination, where you can follow it for yourself in a series of five articles, “JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”, which I have published at Veterans Today. For the latest research on this issue, visit the “Oswald Innocence Project”. If he was in the doorway, after all, he wasn’t shooting at JFK.
 

The exchange on the DPF
 
Over the 500 posts that I exchanged with those who post most often on the DPF, I found only a handful who displayed even a glimmer of intelligence.  One of them (whom I shall spare from embarrassment by not actually identifying by name), for example, responded to a study by Richard Hooke that demonstrated 27 points of agreement between Doorman and Oswald by contending that he could find any number of points of identity between two shirts provided only they were not of different colors. When I pointed out these were not literal points but actually features (such as the lapel, the button loop, and such), he insisted that, if they differed in even one feature, then we were wrong! 

Part of the problem with that post–which he may have removed–is that there were differences in color between the shirts, since Lovelady went to the FBI on 29 February 1964 and told them he had been wearing a red-and-white vertically striped short-sleeved shirt, which bears no resemblance to the richly textured, long-sleeved shirt that Doorman was wearing in the Altgens6, where the claim has been made that Billy was actually wearing a red-and-black checkered shirt, which similarly bears only a slight resemblance  to the shirt that Doorman was wearing:

 
Since their physical shapes and especially their facial profiles are strikingly different–where the man in the checkered shirt probably weighs 20 lbs more than Lovelady and, compared with his rather normal profile, has the face of a gorilla, I was astonished at how many members of the DPF insisted that they were one and the same.  This isn’t rocket science, but I was astonished at the mediocre caliber of reasoning there.

Insofar as we are dealing with a photograph that has been subjected to extensive and subtle alteration, of course, it would be remarkable if there were not some differences between the shirt in the altered photograph and the shirt that Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. I could tell he had a tenuous grasp of the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, so I sought to explain how to think about this:

Your blunders are massive, but none as striking as taking for granted that we are talking about ABSOLUTE IDENTITIES when we are talking about relative probabilities. Since we know the photo has been faked (because of the obfuscated man, the missing shoulder, the BTM in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, and the profile of the black man), it would be RIDICULOUS to suppose that the shirt on Doorman and the shirt on Oswald SHOULD MATCH IN EVERY RESPECT when they are altering the photograph to conceal his identity. What is remarkable is that we have been able to establish 27 points of identity–50, if you review the more recent and detailed comparison–where numerous dissimilarities to not affect the pattern of commonality. We are comparing the probabilities (likelihoods, technically) of two hypothesis, Doorman as Oswald vs. Doorman as Lovelady:

(h1) If Doorman is Oswald, what is the probability that they would share the same right ear, the same left eye, and the large number of other features of their clothing and build, which, given the number, turns out to be extremely high approaching one.

(h2) If Doorman is Lovelady, what is the probability that he would have Oswald’s right ear, Oswald’s left eye, and such, and that Lovelady would repeatedly deny that he was wearing Doorman’s shirt to the FBI and others, which approaches zero.

You appear to be constrained by deductive reasoning, where you seem to think that (h1) can be refuted BY EVEN ONE POINT OF DISSIMILARITY. But that is ridiculous, under the circumstances, since many changes have been made to these images, which you appear to be incapable of confronting. When the proof that the photo has been “fixed” is overwhelming (given the face that has been obfuscated, the shoulder that is missing, BTM being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, and the black man’s profile), why do you adopt an attitude OF INSISTING UPON A PERFECT MATCH that is indefensible and completely unreasonable under the circumstances? I began thinking you were a smart guy, but you are persisting in promoting falsehoods and blunders, which has convinced me you are either unfamiliar with the evidence, cognitively impaired, or wholly insincere.

The bottom line is that it is the pattern of similarity that matters rather than every single point.  Another member was adamant that we were misleading the research community and was wildly praised by Charles Drago even though, when I asked her if she had read any of our studies, she replied, “No”.  Indeed, that was the attitude that prevailed on this forum.  Their minds were made up and it was unnecessary for them to study the evidence!  Even when I pointed out that one of the most brilliant of the early critics, Harold Weisberg, Whitewash II (1966), had explained the chicanery taking place to conceal that Oswald had been standing in the doorway and not Lovelady, they paid no attention at all.  But the problems that I had were not  simply with the dimmer bulbs on that forum but even with the brightest among them.
 
The Case of Gregory Burnham
 
One of the most active members of the DPF during the period following my posting, “JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn’t even a shooter!”, was an old friend of mine, who lives in San Diego, by the name of Gregory Burnham.  He and I became acquainted long ago though an earlier forum, jfkresearch.com, which was managed by Rich DellaRosa, where Greg (nicknamed “Monk”) served as the “Sergeant at Arms” in dealing with controversies on the forum, especially when members engaged in “flame wars” and indulged in their propensity for ad hominem attacks.

It may be worth noting that, when Rich died a few years ago, I arranged for his archives to be maintained at another forum, which was the DPF, where they can be found to this day.  More important than our generally cordial relations in the past, however, is that Monk and I go way back.  We participated in a JFK presentation at the La Paloma Theater in Encinitas, CA, where Noel Twyman, David W. Mantik, Monk and I spoke, which was the last time I was with Bob Livingston before his death in 2002.  I have long regarded Monk as a friend of mine.

The tensions that emerged on the forum, where he became a caustic critic, therefore, deserve a few words of explanation.  During an earlier exchange about this very issue, Monk asked his wife, Julie, to look at the Altgens6 and tell him if she saw anything odd about it.  She did and did not.  I thought that that was highly inappropriate, since Julie had no background or appreciation of the issues.  Monk thought that was a virtue, while I thought it was a mistake.  He hasn’t forgiven me.  In any case, I posed nine questions to him as perhaps the forum’s most intelligent member:

Yesterday 10:26 PM #506
Quote Originally Posted by James H. Fetzer View Post
So I guess you think no one will notice that you have not responded to my questions from post #472? What’s wrong with you? They are simple questions:

Ok, I’ll play along.

Given this Groden copy, please affirm or deny the following questions:

(1) the face of a man in the Altgens6 has been obfuscated: YES or NO

Unknown. I cannot tell. Perhaps? Yes. But, perhaps no, just as well. It is entirely inconclusive in my view. Therefore, I will not commit to a Yes or No answer. Jim, if I answered “yes or no” either one would be dishonest! Unless what you are calling “the obfuscated face” is what I already identified as the ELBOW pointing directly at the camera? If that is the case, then I change my answer to NO.

“Unknown”! Surely you jest. The face I am talking about is circled above in
orange. Is it missing or not? I am asking a simple question: Is it missing?

(2) the shoulder of Doorman is missing, completely gone: YES or NO

NO



Well then, WHERE IS HIS SHOULDER?

(3) the Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind him: YES or NO

NO

But the anomalous shoulder is at once missing and overlapped by the man with the black tie, who is ostensibly standing behind him. I once thought that he had a towel draped over his shoulder. But it is the Black Tie Man who is behind him BUT ALSO IN FRONT OF HIM AT THE SAME TIME. Just for the record, you can’t see that?

Apparently, Gregory Burnham is ignorant of human anatomy, because there can be no serious doubt that, for anyone with a clavicle, this position is anatomically impossible, where, in my opinion, none of those who have disputed our discoveries has ever actually succeeded in showing we have anything wrong–certainly not Burnham:



What could be a more stunning proof of the alteration of Altgens6 than that the most important figure is standing in a position that would be anatomically impossible unless he were missing one of his skeleton’s most important bones? Yet Gregory Burnham is here with a straight face telling us that he cannot tell if the shoulder is missing.

(4) the profile of a black man appears around mid-torso: YES or NO

YES. The man appears to be on a lower step than Doorman.

So you think it is reasonable for a black man to be looking straight across the doorway when the motorcade is passing by than to be looking at Jack and Jackie like the others who are in that vicinity with him? That’s really quite implausible. I will check with Ralph as to whether your conjecture about a lower step was even possible.

Based upon your knowledge of the Fritz notes from his interrogation:

(5) Lee told Fritz he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”: YES or NO

YES. However, the notes are not well taken–the timeline is not established.

Why do you say that? If this is not in response to the question, “Where were you during the shooting?”, Will Fritz must have not asked the most important question he could ask. Given your experience with law enforcement, is that a reasonable assumption? Why are you being so very evasive about such an obvious question and answer? 

Based upon your knowledge of the FBI document and photographs:

(6) Billy told the FBI he was wearing a different shirt: YES or NO

Not prior to his showing up at their request. However, the shirt he wore when he met them was, according to him, different than what he wore 11/22/1963.

He said that he didn’t know they wanted him to wear the same shirt–or something to that effect. I have no way of knowing if that is true or false.

Why are you playing games? We have the photographs the FBI took at the time and the formal report that they submitted to FBI Headquarters. It clearly states that he said the shirt he was wearing–which the photographed–was the same shirt he had been wearing on 22 November 1963. Is that something that you do not understand?

(7) Billy showed the FBI the shirt he had been wearing: YES or NO

Nice trick question counselor. I’ve been an expert witness so that won’t work with me. I do not know if the shirt he showed the FBI was or was not the same shirt he wore on 11/22/1963. He claims that it was NOT. Therefore, if we believe him, the red-and-white, vertically striped shirt that he showed the FBI was NOT the shirt he wore on 11/22/1963.

Well, he told the FBI on 29 February 1964 that he had been wearing a red-and-white vertically striped shirt and blue jeans on the day of the assassination. He may well have been pressured to change his testimony later on, but at the time–on this occasion–he told the FBI he was wearing a red-and-white vertically striped shirt as reported.

(8) It was a red-and-white, vertically striped shirt: YES or NO

I don’t know. If we believe him, he apparently wore a different shirt for the FBI than what he wore 11/22/1963.

Since these are the photographs taken by the FBI–where the one on the left appears to have been Oswaldified (by imposing features of Oswald), just as Doorman appears to have been Loveladyfied (by imposing features of Lovelady), there really can’t be any doubt about the shirt, can there? I don’t understand all of these evasions.

(9) It is not the shirt that Doorman is wearing: YES or NO

I do not know. The image is too obscure for me to be sure. However, I do not think that striped shirt is the same shirt. But, then again, neither did Billy Lovelady think it was the same shirt.

I am asking whether the shirt shown in these FBI photographs of Billy Lovelady taken on 2 March 1964 is the same shirt on Doorman in the photographs above. This is not a trick question, but you are being very evasive when I am asking a very simple question. Is this shirt the same as the shirt seen on Doorman in the Altgens6?

You aren’t leaving a lot of latitude for choice about your conduct here. Either you are unwilling to admit you are wrong or you are completely incompetent.

I am glad that Jack and Rich are not alive to see what’s happening to you.

That’s silly. They would be on my side. You are the embarrassment, not I. Your evasions about even these simple questions demonstrates (conclusively, in my mind) that you are not an honest researcher and that you will go to any lengths (including lying) to evade acknowledging you are wrong and that we are right even about basics.

 
I pursued a few of these points with Ralph Cinque, who had recently done a reenactment of the Altgens6.  Ralph confirmed that the black man whose profile appears at mid-torso had presumably been standing on a lower step, but that Doorman’s sleeve-cuff appears to be wrapped IN FRONT of his neck, which is impossible because Doorman was standing further back.  In relation to Burnham’s uncertaintly about the time at which Lee had said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”, he must have meant DURING the shooting, insofar as Shelley and Lovelady left and headed toward the Triple Underpass immediately after–before Baker and Truly confronted Oswald in the lunchroom, since they looked back and saw them from a distance.  When they returned, moreover, they entered the building through the back door and were there long past the time that Lee departed for his rooming house.

I cannot begin to convey my distress over his responses to questions with answers that are obvious.  In relation to (9), for example, how can a short-sleeved shirt be confounded with a long-sleeved shirt?  He subsequently posted, “I submit that the questions asked in post #495 — . . . — as poorly constructed as they are, can not possibly have been authored by my formerly brilliant friend, James Fetzer, Ph.D. because he is much too bright to make such elementary errors in reasoning.” But I was not making any “errors in reasoning”, elementary or not.  It pained me to have to explain to him, “No, I made them very simple so your lies would be all the more conspicuous . . .”  But perhaps because of our previous conflict, he simply couldn’t bring himself to say the true.
 
What does it mean?
 
Not only have even the smartest members of the DPF been in denial and refused to acknowledge even the most obvious features of the photo but they have refused to study the evidence presented in seven different articles, including “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cinque), “JFK Special 2 : Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cinque and Clare Kuehn), “JFK Special 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cinque), “JFK Special 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Richard Hooke), “JFK Special 5: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cinqe), “JFK Believe it or not: Oswald wasn’t even a shooter!” (with Richard Hooke), and (most recently) “49 years in the offing: The Altgens Reenactment” (with Ralph Cinque).

Since I am among the only professional scholars to be involved in JFK research (apart from Peter Dale Scott, who was Professor of English) and spent 35 years offering course in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, I have been dumbfounded at the resistance to multiple lines of proof that converge in the conclusion that Oswald was Doorman.  One of the most important indications that an hypothesis is true, moreover, is that, the deeper you dig and the more evidence you acquire (in the form of observations, measurements and experiments), the stronger the case becomes.  If we were mistaken, surely proof that we were wrong would have emerged by now.  But not only has that not been the case, but even  the most blatant forms of deceit and deception predominate at web sites like the Deep Politics Forum.

Among the posts with which the thread concluded, I was struck by the vicious assault launched by Seamus Coogan, an ally of Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio, who has gone so far as to contend that, in relation to Jesse Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” program about JFK–which I regard as the best one-hour documentary ever produced about his death–I had not only assisted in replicating the shooting scenario using stationary targets–where Jesse is a far better marksman and was using a superior Mannlicher-Carcan, but could not come close to matching the feat attributed to “the lone gunman”–claimed that I had also played the role of “Ron”, a man in a wheel chair, who was filmed sharing confidential info with Jesse about the assassination.  That’s just pitiful but what we can expect from fakes posing as “JFK researchers”.


YouTube - Veterans Today -

Seamus also maintains that my observation that Harold Weisberg, Whitewash II (1966), was on our side is wrong “because he died in 2002″, as though that affected the conclusions that he drew in his book–which are on “our side”.  He claims that Weisberg “dropped the Lovelady angle altogether in his later years”, when he reiterates his position in his Photographic Whitewash (1967 and 1976).  How many times does he have to assert his position to satisfy Coogan?  He also reiterates nonsense about Part 9 of “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”, which examines Madeleine Duncan Brown’s account of the ratification meeting that occurred at the home of Clint Murchison, Sr., the night before the assassination, where J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, and John J. McCoy were present, while LBJ showed up late, as reporting it but not confirming it.  As anyone who has seen “The Guilty Men” can attest, it goes much farther by locating the chauffeur who drove J. Edgar Hoover to the meeting and the chef who prepared the hors d’oeuvres.

Lyndon’s role has also surfaced in a new discussion of the assassination, which is far more civilized and rational that what I have found at the DPF.  That Seamus has been there badgering me comes as no surprise, given my past encounters with Jim DiEugenio.  In “RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador”, for example, I discovered he was engaging in apologetics for shoddy research that undermined efforts to establish the role of David Sanchez Morales in Los Angeles.  In “Mary’s Mosaic: A litmus test for JFK research integrity” (with Peter Janney), I rebutted Lisa Pease’s effort to undermine one of the most brilliant studies tying together the death of JFK with that of Mary Meyer and the role of the CIA in both.  While some readers may think I have been unkind to suggest that the reason our research was vehemently rejected at the DPF and I was banned–a decision that was driven by Charles Drago–is because of their lack of intelligence, consider the alternative.  I have been magnanimous, because, when the proof is so clear and compelling, as in this instance, those who reject it must be either cognitively impaired or complicit in the cover-up themselves.  Those are the only alternatives.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and an editor for Veterans Today.

Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.

McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. Notices

Posted by on 11:14 am, With 0 Reads, Filed under Corruption, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

27 Responses to "The JFK War: The Empire Strikes Back"

  1. Greg Burnham  January 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Stephen,

    Although your idea would be great under “normal” conditions, as it is, I don’t think it would be very productive. The fundamental difference with Jim that I hold can’t be overcome, namely: The images in that photo are not clear enough to make definitive conclusions. Make no mistake: the manner in which both Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque have presented their case has been extremely ABSOLUTE. They have NOT allowed dissenting opinions even from bona fide “proven to be honorable” researchers! All those with a dissenting opinion have been accused of “not acknowledging that which would be OBVIOUS even to a third grader!” Such sharp rhetoric cannot be reasonably excused as being due to the heat of the moment. Moreover, if their conclusion is obvious even to third graders, then why was it not obvious to me? Nor to my wife (who has no dog in this fight)? Nor to David Mantik? Nor to John Costella? — nor to many others. Why? Now, just because we don’t see it does not make them wrong. However, I never made that argument. Jim, on the other hand, seems very concerned with our lack of agreement.

    Jim would like to accuse me of not allowing for the tentative state of science when I accuse him of being too absolute in his arguments regarding, for instance, doorman’s alleged “missing shoulder” and the “obvious” alteration of Altgens 6. I understand that science is tentative, however, Fetzer and Company have NOT presented it as tentative at all! They have presented it as dogma. Absolutes that even a third grader can see! All this from a tiny portion of a very grainy black and white photograph taken nearly 50 years ago–compressed multiple times for uploading to the internet–and viewed by everyone on computer monitors of varying quality–in web browsers that are universally limited to 70 DPI resolution.

    This is not science. It is supposition. It is a hope chest. Most importantly: It is not proved.

  2. Greg Burnham  December 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Jim,

    First off, the reason I asked my wife to look at Altgens 6 and to give her impression is because you had claimed “ANYONE CAN SEE THAT DOORMAN IS OSWALD.” I challenged that claim since I and many others could not easily see any such thing. I asked my wife to look at the photo and give an opinion precisely BECAUSE she has no dog in this fight and is honest to a fault. She didn’t say Doorman was or was not Oswald. She said she couldn’t tell. She said the photo was too obscure to make those determinations TO HER EYE.

    The offense you committed against me and my wife occurred when you said: “I can’t believe you would commit a fraud against your own wife!” I have not forgiven it because you have not, publicly or privately, asked for forgiveness–not apologized–not even admitted an offense was committed. If and when you apologize you might be surprised at how forgiving I am.

    GO_SECURE

    monk

  3. mrfrisky  December 11, 2012 at 8:16 am

    I am humbled to be included in this select group of scholars. The irrepressible Ralph Cinque has recently coined this a “War” and I am pleased Professor Fetzer has come forth and identified it as such. Can the stakes be any higher as the 50th anniversary approaches? Of course not. With new documents and technology at hand, the OIC is doing research and opening doors that nobody thought possible, looking for and finding people many had thought no longer existed, doing re-enactments no one else thought about doing. Is this all worth being ostracized and attacked by certain individuals – ABSOLUTELY! If that is all the ammunition they have, they do not stand a chance of winning this War!

    Larry Rivera

  4. daquamarine  December 10, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Gee, with the style of writing that Drago employed, I kept waiting for him to call Jim Fetzer an anti-semite, LOL.

    BTW Jim. I am a PA forum member. Are you ever coming back? Were we that bad???

  5. Chandler  December 10, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    Sad to see so many defenders of the status quo/mainstream media lie taking stabs at some obvious and very convincing facts. In any country, when independent investigators must make it their life’s work to unveil the truth, something is cancerous within those concealing the truth from those off who they earn their living.
    After the multitude media I have read whether print or film, there is no doubt in my mind why it happened, and who was involved. Since their version is so rock solid, why don’t they release everything they now have stowed away, kept under lock and key, so we cannot see it? If they are so rock solid sure of their story, and think this author is so wayward in his quest, and spouting off wothint knowing anything he is talking about, then lets set the receord straight and get all the documents released and prove to us naysayers LBJ did not have a hand in planning it, LHO actually shot the rifle but avoided any gunpowder residue on his face and hands, JE Hoover did not cover anything up, and detour the investigation towards Oswald, each and every eyre witness was erroneous in what they saw; the Secret Service did not wave off Agent Rybka at the airport: and LBJ was not under investigation for the many crimes he was involved in and so on and so on. I chuckle at these platy defense and criticisms aimed at these independent investigators by those protecting the LIE, the blantant and macabre LIE that has been sold to us for 49 years now, when the who, what, when, where, how and why is so obvious, it has for many years reduced those protecting the LIE pure unadulterate foolishness. A lot of people wanted Kennedy dead because he was a “We the People…”, constitutional president, siding with us to salvage this country from what we are seeing today. No family since, NONE, can hold a candle to JFK and the dignity he brought to us all. He had to die for many reasons, but who gained the most…LBJ. All one has to do is read the serious crimes he was facing the very day JFk was slaughtered. Thaht, is all you have to do—read the list people, read it and weep. The veep had foreknowledge and a big hand in killing JFK. The world knows it was a coup d’etat, Johnson style. His lifelong obsession was within his grasp. All he had to do was duck down–and that is just exactly what he did. Congratulations Mr. Fetzer and all the rest.

  6. LC  December 10, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    New member of the Oswald Innocence Project blows the whistle:

    Judyth Vary Baker (Oswald’s girlfriend):

    ***********www.meandlee.com

  7. spearman  December 10, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    spearman says,
    Drago & Burnham are Libertarians it seems. This means every gubment action is a conspiracy. I was booted off DPF mainly because of my insistence on sticking to my guns that global warming is Human induced. They believe it is part of a “New World Order” conspiracy. They can’t get their head around that concept so it is no wonder they can’t comprehend “doorway man” as LHO.

    • Greg Burnham  December 11, 2012 at 6:29 pm

      Gary Severson was not booted of the DPF for his beliefs in anthropogenic global warming. Gary Severson was not booted off of JFKresearch Assassination Forum by Rich and I due to his beliefs in anthropogenic global warming. He was booted off the latter (and I suspect the former) because he engaged in ill-founded argumentation in a manner consistent with frustrating the truth and disrupting honest research into the matter. When confronted with undeniable evidence of his aberrant behavior he “dug in” and added insult to injury. Rich would not tolerate that behavior.

  8. dalethorn  December 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    Being banned, as I was so threatened at the Education Forum, should be seen as a badge of honor. I can read well, and have a fair knowledge of the assassination. Anyone who would not treasure Fetzer’s participation, let alone ban him, has to be held suspect. Can these forum meisters be serious about new research when they give the boot to one of the most active in new research? BTW, when I saw the leftmost Lovelady image I immediately thought “Hey, someone either altered that photo or somehow captured it in such a way, with some kind of camera distortions, to make it look more like Oswald”. If that was deliberate, then it was a stroke of disinformational genius.

  9. Solfeggio  December 10, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    I feel real pain at this moment; and before I rush in to lend my full trust in Jim’s sincerity and integrity, as will countless others, I hope instead that the adrenaline that runs through all of our veins, regardless of what camp we may identify with, will subside enough to draw back from this foolish precipice, particularly when we all have a collective enemy.

    That enemy should not be the man we disagree with, but that man who feels as if there must still be gatekeepers of truth. You can interpret that generally, as with the truth of who took the life of our beloved president, or you can interpret that more narrowly, as with the truth of whether an airliner hit the Pentagon, or whether the Zapruder film was altered. I thought it was the truth we all sought, not some fleeting dignity bestowed by those enemies of the truth that have none.

    What risk is it whether Fetzer proudly yells from the mountaintop that which may lead to more rarified air? And what vain and empty arguments can one make about dividing the armies of truth when the same concerned vanguard bans such an honest and wise man from their now discredited hobbyroom of delicate daisies?

    I am ashamed that such a disheartening move happens at this late stage of the game, when so much is at stake. I do not know this fellow, Drago but for this irresponsible gesture that has brought more shame upon us JFK Truthers than Fetzer ever could, even if he were wrong, which by the way, he is entitled to be!

    And the tragic thing here? He isn’t wrong, and all the more telling is this resistance to an armada of true researchers.

    The last time I felt this betrayed was when James DiEugenio unfairly tore Peter Janney’s Mary’s Mosaic to shreds in a book review that was over the top in its bombastic disrespect. James is better than that; and the day he starts leading, I will surely follow him. But come now, are we men here, allied in some great and overwhelming cause? Yes, and we can’t afford to throw our best minds, our best ideas, onto the fires of our insecurity. If you are researching JFK to get respect and mainstream approval, you are in the wrong field. But if you are trying to restore your Republic, vindicate a hero, and end injustice, then you are my friend. Let us fight together.

    Please, I pray that all parties withdraw their most venomous positions and make peace immediately, regardless of who is right or wrong, or the history of this provocation.

    Please, for the sake of our slain King.

    James

    • Greg Burnham  December 11, 2012 at 2:47 pm

      James,

      I assure you that I want Fetzer and co to be correct! If we could show LHO in the doorway of the TSBD building–especially for the benefit of those who are not up to speed on the VOLUMES of other compelling exculpatory evidence–then that would be great. The issue goes far beyond that, however. It is not enough that such wishful thinking is in our Hope Chest. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    • Jim Fetzer  December 12, 2012 at 10:16 am

      “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”, he says. But this man refuses to acknowledge that Doorman is missing his left shoulder, that the man behind him is also in front of him at the same time, and that the face of the man to his right/front (looking at the photo) has been obscured. Not only have even the smartest members of the DPF been in denial and refused to acknowledge even the most obvious features of the photo but they have refused to study the evidence presented in seven different articles, including “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cinque), “JFK Special 2 : Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cinque and Clare Kuehn), “JFK Special 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cinque), “JFK Special 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Richard Hooke), “JFK Special 5: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cinqe), “JFK Believe it or not: Oswald wasn’t even a shooter!” (with Richard Hooke), and (most recently) “49 years in the offing: The Altgens Reenactment” (with Ralph Cinque). If we have not produced “extraordinary proof” already, I can’t imagine what would qualify. Our proof IS “extraordinary”!

    • Greg Burnham  December 12, 2012 at 3:33 pm

      Jim, if I claimed to see what you are describing I would be dishonest. I simply do not see that. Please refrain from implying that I won’t “acknowledge” something that I see. Moreover, the image is of a very small area within a much larger photo–and without access to a much better version of it, that does not have degeneration due to multiple compressions as well as the display limitations inherent to any web browser (70 DPI), I cannot be certain. Having said that, to my eye, his left shoulder appears to be there–just leaning down. Also, please note: I have read every single article you wrote on the subject, 1 through 7, and I have studied the evidence you have presented. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from claiming otherwise in the future.

  10. Inez  December 10, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Jim, you’ve definitely made a noticeable niche in this wall of “Officially Denied Access”, secreted, Black Ops Contract Hit assignees, with their NAMES written in blood all over it. (the Wall)

    JFK’s assassination was the beginning, the ‘shot’ heard round the world, of a take-over by a (now well outed) criminal cabal hiding within the US, behind the most striking positions of power and influence spanning throughout our entire American infrastructure.

    That was the beginning of the end of an era of naivety, and the out-birth of a long dark evolving maelstrom of deceit and pillaging. A swarming underground of lowest-life slime-balls that few even understood existed to the extent they did at that time; not even JFK himself fully comprehended.

    You’ve helped tie many loose ends together! Exposing the inaccuracies in the Zapruder film. You clarify Oswald’s forced patsy involvement. The number of bullets via your dedicated investigative study of forensics which helped reveal positions of concealed locations of the shooters– by determining the direction of penetrating hits on JFK’s anatomy; with help from recklessly altered and/or discarded xrays. Testimonies ‘officially’ ignored of witnesses near the car and on-the-scene physicians as First Responders. The deliberate backing off orders given the Secret Service, official Presidential body guards, deliberately kept away from JFK’s limousine so the hit-men could lock better sights on their main target.

    Your thorough dedicated investigative attention to all the details SHOULD be cause for nail biting and knee-knocking regarding ANY who were involved in that murder– and the many more since then…

    I don’t think that salamandering mud-slinking critter could’ve chosen a more appropriate handle than Drago, Jim.

  11. lawrencedickerson  December 10, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    I am a relatively new comer to the ins and outs of the JFK assassination although I lived it as it occurred and still feel the pangs of horror that filled my very soul over the death of my Commander In Chief as I was in the military at the time.

    I can honestly sat that I fully appreciate the investigative efforts of Dr. Fetzer et al. I have taken the time to read the pros and cons of each side and follow the talking points as presented step by step.I fully agree with the innocence of Oswald and the evidence is clearly presented. Those who approach this without any bias can generally agree with the theory. I wonder how the cognitive dissonance is so strong that people’s minds cannot assimilate new information so that they can evaluate it on it’s own merits.

    I have noticed that Dr. Fetzer gets a little strong armed at times but with the constant bickering that he faces it gets old hat and sometimes the frustration shows. The old standby of manners and discussion without insults and name calling seems to be the norm today and for that I am totally dismayed. I refuse to even discuss the weather with those types because of it becoming a waste of my energies and I don’t have that many days, months or years left. So I pick and choose much to many people’s dismay.

    Keep up the good work Dr. Fetzer and keep your head high. The closer you get to the truth the louder the opposition becomes. You must be so near to the reality of the JFK event.

  12. socratez  December 10, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    EXCELLENT ARTICLE JIM!!!!!!!!

    Unfortunately the propaganda war to keep the US public in the dark about the massive JFK conspiracy continues. The inquiring citizen, surfing the internet, encounters a wall; a tidal wave of Orwellian disinformation, and abusive put downs, when he, or she, attempts to sort through the myriad nonsensical, and conflicting, explanations of the death of President Kennedy. Regular citizens do not have the means, or time, to sort through it all, and eventually many give up, saying, ‘Well, we will probably never know…’ And of course that’s the goal of the conspiratorial heirs: for people to never know what happened to JFK. Every year, come November 22, CIA disinformation agents pump out reams of useless noise in order to sweep JFK under America’s extremely worn, and stained, rug. The forums that purport to investigate the assassination details are false fronts, populated by government apologists, and shills of disinformation. Anyone who gets close to the truth, and continues to exercise their freedom of speech, is ultimately banned from these private, mini-fascist states; that persecute all individualism and independent thinking; as I can attest, having recently been banned from The JFK Assassination Forum by site owner, and administrator Duncan MacRae. Duncan MacRae deleted our thread that contained hundreds of pages of cutting edge collages and dialogue of the most current JFK Research. Duncan MacRae deleted this material in an attempt to mold history to his liking; well, that is not going to happen because our very literate, and capable, group is going to keep publishing the TRUTH, one way or another, until it is acknowledged.

    Professor Jim Fetzer and Dr. Ralph Cinque were also banned, earlier this summer, from The Education Forum, for eloquently and aggressively pursuing truth in JFK.

    In 2011, the JFK History Forum webmaster, Robert Harris, sent me the message, “You’re account has been closed due to undocumented assertions.” Robert Harris freaked out when I accused him of not having read the blockbuster Me & Lee, by Lee Oswald’s girlfriend, Judyth Vary Barker, who’s watershed book documents what Lee Harvey Oswald was really doing during the summer of 1963, in New Orleans; making it very plain Lee Harvey Oswald was a human being; in no way a killer; completely incapable of shooting our very fine president, John F. Kennedy. I had started the following threads, on The JFK History Forum, that sent Robert Harris into a tailspin:

    1 The Three Tramps Arrest Reports Are Frauds.
    2 The Tramp with the Hat Transported the Fake Secret Service ID’s to Dealey Plaza.
    3 Mac Wallace Was A Shooter On The Sixth Floor Of The TSBD.
    4 Jack Ruby’s Alibi’s are Full of Holes.
    5 Judyth Vary Baker’s account of Lee Oswald’s Trip to Jackson/ Clinton Brownell, La. is the only viable account, of that trip, ever given.

    Jim and Ralph informed me we are fighting a guerilla, propaganda, war on these websites; all of the sites having been infiltrated by CIA moles and mongers of misinformation; none of them honestly in search of the truth in the assassination of JFK. Obviously, I would never be admitted, as a Forum member, so I assisted Dr. Fetzer’s crew of researchers in their email conversations; Jim and Ralph posting our insights to Ralph’s Education Forum thread, Ralph Cinque on Lovelady and Oswald in the Doorway; that literally became the battlefront in the war to expose the truth in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nevertheless, despite all the negativity, opinion polls show more and more of the American public is becoming convinced there was a conspiracy. Confident in our quest; armed with the knowledge that those who lie leave an evidence trail; those who tell the truth do not; the conspiratorial CIA modus operandi being an arrogant belief that a lie can always be covered by another lie; a flawed premise guaranteeing the existence of trails of incriminating evidence all the way back to the God awful conspiratorial acts that were committed on that fateful day, November 22, 1963, that lives in infamy.

    Richard Hooke

    ۞

    “Future anthropologists could use this thread as a case study in how group conformity leads to mediocrity and abandonment of all standards of rationality for the sake of convergence of opinion among the members of this forum, which is officially dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the assassination of JFK, but which instead entails mutual support for others who are committed to false beliefs regardless of the evidence.” – Jim Fetzer, The Education Forum; before we were banned earlier this past summer.

    “The parallels with the rise of The Third Reich are both astounding and disturbing. I am sorry to say that we live in an Orwellian world where black is white, false is true, and the good are evil. We live in dangerous times.” – Jim Fetzer

    Richard Hooke, JFK Researcher

  13. Clare Kuehn  December 10, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Also, I know Jim is upset about the ban, but I understand Drago may not have been under Agency pressure, unless some in the group were doing it but not to Drago’s knowledge; rather, Drago seems at least to believe his own uncorrected impressions. Maybe not, but that’s what I think. I am saddened he doesn’t understand the direct and indirect evidence and reasoning between the two on this issue. It has caused a truly regrettable ban on Jim; White’s work on Zapruder was as dismissed for a while, Lifton’s bodysnatching theory (I use theory to mean explanation from evidence, not fantastical notion) was also dismissed. Not all ideas pan out but Drago is wrong this time. Dead wrong and it’s sad.

    • Jim Fetzer  December 10, 2012 at 3:52 pm

      Actually, I wasn’t upset about being banned at all! I doubted that I would ever come back. When even the most intelligent member of the forum, Gregory Burnham, cannot acknowledge the existence of some obvious indications of photographic fakery–including the obfuscated face, the missing shoulder, and the man both in front of him and behind him, which you so brilliantly described in “JFK Special 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!”–what’s the point?

      Even a 3rd grader could have identified those features, but the only one he was willing to grant–the very peculiar black man’s profile–was because he thought he could claim it was explainable non-anomalously (because he was standing on a lower step), but as Ralph explained to me (following his reenactment), even then Doorman’s sleeve-cuff appears to be wrapped IN FRONT of his neck, which is impossible because Doorman was standing too far behind him.

      With that level of detachment from reality–which I attribute to his distress over our falling out–it was over. Those who read through the thread will probably be astounded that I persevered as long as I did. But the responses that were being posted as though they constituted “rebuttals”, the vast majority of which were ad hominem attacks, had long since convinced me that I was past the point of diminishing returns. I welcome it as a badge of honor! I click “Okay”.

    • Jim Fetzer  December 10, 2012 at 3:55 pm

      I should add that Clare has made exceptional contributions to the study of the Altgens6, perhaps the most important of which is her discussion in “JFK Special 2″, which I recommend for its brilliance.

    • Solfeggio  December 10, 2012 at 5:10 pm

      Jim, I had no idea the divisions were like this. Black is white; white is black. I wish I could give you a hug, the “hang in there” variety. It must be tiring, and yet you are so vigilant, as if the greater cause of educating the younger generations outweighs the inevitable slings and arrows suffered from lesser fools.

      Well I am one of those in the rising generation, and your indefatigable quest has lit the way for countless enlightened minds trudging on behind you, with you, and there has not been one idle word you typed, nor one written in vain, for they all form a cumulus, a seed of rationality in the barren earth, or if you like, a candle light in the demon haunted universe, as Carl Sagan use to say.

      I only wish there were more soldiers of your dedication, or that the battle was not so long or so taxing, or that the threat from within was not so perilous..

      But then, I guess that’s why we signed up, wrote our names in that indelible ink entrusted to a chartered few: those men and women who each, in their diverse ages and callings, have taken their place among that elect college– we are not conjoined by status, money, prestige, or fame — but rather of a wounded heart that will not heal in absence of truth, justice, or the true kinship of souls.

      To better days, and making it happen…

    • Warlord Moneybags  December 11, 2012 at 3:13 am

      Here’s a good idea to help regain some credibility Jimbob.

      Set up a ‘JFK Truth Hearings’ in say, Vancouver.

      Put Homer Simpson in charge.

      That should do the trick !

    • killerman  December 11, 2012 at 12:09 am

      Jim

      Sorry to see your enforced departure from the DPF; they do seem a little over sensitive at times. One question: does the estimable John Costello have an opinion on this matter?

    • Jim Fetzer  December 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm

      It would be great if John or David were to become interested in this issue. I am sharing our work with them but it may be a while before they become involved, if they do so.

  14. Clare Kuehn  December 10, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    Drago may feel regret, justified in his own mind. I don’t doubt that. But his assessment is entirely wrong; Jim Fetzer isn’t off the rails here — and is often open to correction if he is off the rails, at least open eventually. Drago is simply wrong also about Doorman: the hairline (although Richard Hooke feels it’s Oswald) has a bald spot which scoops back the middle and leaves hair on either side of the middle, but also has side baldness of temples, so the head is a composite. Lane also has another version in his 1966 movie, where the t-shirt goes THROUGH the side of the head, showing a moved head or body. We know the head is altered, therefore. But what of the shirt? The shirt was clearly in the shape of Oswald’s, but then would have been altered with painting, to make it blotchier, as if it were a checkered shirt. Why? Because a man was on the steps in a few minutes with such a shirt. This man was not Lovelady as per Lovelady’s FBI photos (face or shirt), or Lovelady as per the wedding photo. So the hair and forehead are Lovelady’s. But the body was harder to easily alter. It’s easy to move a figure whole-hog than to alter part of it believably. We also have the messed-with arm of Lovelady’s HSCA photos, to leave us with impressions that the Doorway man was somehow natural with his messed-up arm and shoulder; Lovelady’s photos are differently altered, chopped up, but it leaves an impression if one doesn’t look closely and think about it. (See my contributions about KD Ruckman’s work, which I wrote in JFK Special 2 article here on VT — my paragraphs are the first 3 of the last 4 of the article). Whether Drago likes or doesn’t like the conclusions, Drago is in gist wrong. Jim’s manner is one thing sometimes, though he always shows he means well. And though I personally hold that not all suspicions about the photo end up being accurate, most are, so the gist is true. Body was Oswald then painted (checker blobs of grey) and masked out (shoulder), head more altered. — Aside another possible inaccuracy of the articles by Cinque and Hooke, who’ve done an amazing lot of good work as well, to my mind, is the idea that shirt and tie man was grabbed from the hatted man on the left of the photo, for that man seems to have been black or brown, per other filmic evidence and the way the light area on his forehead (not the direct shadow area) is darker than the white people’s light areas are in the same photo. The man may have been Cuban or black but an asset.

  15. Preston James, Ph.D  December 10, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Any reasonable person can see from a cursory examination of the Altgens photo that it has been messed with and such was done in a very shabby sloppy fashion. It couldn’t be more obvious.

    Perhaps those who covered up the JFK Assassination were in a hurry to cover many bases and never thought anyone would ever catch this.

    Most “official” JFK Assassination conferences have been either dirty, compromised or “intercepted”. Sometimes misinformation and disinformation and interception is provided by researchers with big egos and narcissistic tendencies (there have been plenty of them) and they are not personally dirty.

    Yes, many of these folks are not dirty, just have too much ego investment and are too heavily committed to a certain set of beliefs linked to the particular research subculture they have attained status in preventing them from making needed lane changes when new compelling evidence arises. Their solution: reject the information and the sender of that information out of hand and even perhaps label that reseracher with a demeaning name or classification.

    Some have hidden agendas and are working for one of the 45 American intel agencies and are dirty and have been all along. Of course the best “interceptions” are when 80-90% of the initial information they present or agree to is correct but followed by a very bad and harmful payload which undermines many years of good research and when the presenter has attained respect and status in one of the JFK Assassination research subcultures. And various measures used to psyop honest researchers into incoreect posituions can also be very effective. And intel agencies employ top experts to plan and enact these psyops which are usually quite effective.

    As Bill Colby used to say when it comes to the news the CIA has gotten to just about everybody one way or the other. They can plant any story they want in first line publications and media presented in a very convincing way by a paid liar with a straight face act. And they can have their teams of professional writers ghost right and/or produce any scientific study they want to be aired on prime time TV with very convincing stick figures and morphed computer graphics. They have assets throughout the whole society as Jesse Ventura learned when he was Governor of Minnesota. Most of the public has been so dumbed down and conditioned over the years that they are quite easy to psyop and con with these convincing TV shows.

    And inside sources have claimed for years that millions have been spent by American intel maintaining the BIG LIE that Oswald was the lone nut gunman and there was NO CONSPIRACY. They know that if this thread was pulled numerous high officials would be tried for being accessories after the fact, misprision of felonies, obstruction of justice (Felonies), and some still alive even would be tried for the murder of JFK, especially Mr. Drug Kingpin. They also know that much of the existing govt inside the beltway would collapse and many other crimes of state would be exposed.

    So there should be no surprises when a top notch academic researcher such as Prof. Fetzer finds himself personally attacked and banned from a supposedly serious JFK Assassination research site. This goes with the territory. The actual etiology of what was inside the heads of those banning him is not important but the overall reason is. And it’s like the old B-17 bomber pilots used to say about the air war over Germany, you know you are getting very close to the real target when the flak gets the heaviest. Looks like you are getting very close to completely cracking this case, Prof. Fetzer and may have already done it.

    Once the cat’s out of the bag, no sour grapes can put Lovelady back in the doorway. And such is the way these things go.

    • Clare Kuehn  December 10, 2012 at 2:44 pm

      Right. Yes. — Aside on Colby: Bill Colby’s son — maybe even unwitting of the trap — seems to have given Bob Marley the suspicious wired boots (possibly cancer-infected boots with a wire in one) which seem to have given Bob Marley’s cancer. Cancer as a bioweapon is known now to have been developed (see doctormarysmonkey.com ), and the doctor who came to treat Marley was Issels, whom Marley was told was a Nazi.

    • Clare Kuehn  December 10, 2012 at 2:44 pm

      Oops: good discussion re. Marley: http://repeatingislands.com/2011/04/15/a-death-by-skin-cancer-the-bob-marley-story/

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS WEEK