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.
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:
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 #506Ok, 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 NOUnknown. 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 NONO(3) the Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind him: YES or NONOBut 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 NOYES. 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 NOYES. 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 NONot 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 NONice 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 NOI 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 NOI 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”.
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. [NOTE: This is one in a series of articles being republished since veterans today.com deleted them in a dispute with its Senior Editor, Gordon Duff, about which I have since written several articles.]
Please follow and like us: