FWIW to anyone, I'm a big fan of Jim Fetzer and have followed his work for many years--since Duff and the VT days--but I'm certain he's way, way, way off on this. When I hear him talk about the JFK assassination, it's so erroneous I feel personally, well, unsettled is perhaps the word.
He's so far off that I've tried fitting the thesis that he was an extremely deep cover disinfo agent, but would They go so far as to have him write an authoritative expose on Sandy Hoax, then try to erase it from existence and preclude anyone from ever knowing it was written? No, that's way too far.
Jim Fetzer is highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and experienced--among the very best out there, IMHO--but he can still get things dead wrong--again, IMHO. I suppose the point here is that it would be instructive to examine exactly how that state of affairs came to be, but the much bigger point is that all of us should step carefully in our research, most particularly when we're sure we have it right.
Some years ago, I stumbled across the theory that Jackie did it, and the main source was on this site: http://jackiekilledjfk.webs.com/. That site died fairly recently, but you can still get to the content on archives.
As shocking as that sounds, the thesis is surprisingly simple and the evidence for it fairly straightforward. After that, I started paying very close attention to researchers discussing the assassination, to see how they addressed that same evidence. Plot twist: they did not.
What I came to realize was this: in order to cover up the truth, the CIA themselves (presumably) became the overwhelming contributors to conspiracy research on JFK. At a guess, they're responsible for maybe 80% of the primary research, then perhaps a further 15% of "honest" is based on that. The point is, though, that with all the voluminous publication, it is crafted so that none of it will lead back to the ultimate truth about Jackie. Here we are 60 years later and we see that it has been incredibly effective.
I view what goes on with Fetzer and so many others that fall into this trap as a "cycles within cycles" phenomenon. That is, suppose you think that the planets go around in perfect circles just as God intended. Inevitably, you'll begin to see anomalies. The fix? Well, as they go around in big perfect circles, they also go around in little perfect circles on that track, just as God intended. And then maybe also in smaller perfect circles than that. See how it goes? The thought never occurs, "Maybe it's not perfect circles?"
So we end up with racks and shelves of JFK research, and all of it could be true but it will never get you to where you should go.
If you're interested, I somehow stumbled across someone summarizing the Jackie story on some kind of rando sports podcast a year ago:
FWIW to anyone, I'm a big fan of Jim Fetzer and have followed his work for many years--since Duff and the VT days--but I'm certain he's way, way, way off on this. When I hear him talk about the JFK assassination, it's so erroneous I feel personally, well, unsettled is perhaps the word.
He's so far off that I've tried fitting the thesis that he was an extremely deep cover disinfo agent, but would They go so far as to have him write an authoritative expose on Sandy Hoax, then try to erase it from existence and preclude anyone from ever knowing it was written? No, that's way too far.
Jim Fetzer is highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and experienced--among the very best out there, IMHO--but he can still get things dead wrong--again, IMHO. I suppose the point here is that it would be instructive to examine exactly how that state of affairs came to be, but the much bigger point is that all of us should step carefully in our research, most particularly when we're sure we have it right.
Thought it was an interesting article but not attached to any particular POV. Where is he getting it wrong?
Some years ago, I stumbled across the theory that Jackie did it, and the main source was on this site: http://jackiekilledjfk.webs.com/. That site died fairly recently, but you can still get to the content on archives.
As shocking as that sounds, the thesis is surprisingly simple and the evidence for it fairly straightforward. After that, I started paying very close attention to researchers discussing the assassination, to see how they addressed that same evidence. Plot twist: they did not.
What I came to realize was this: in order to cover up the truth, the CIA themselves (presumably) became the overwhelming contributors to conspiracy research on JFK. At a guess, they're responsible for maybe 80% of the primary research, then perhaps a further 15% of "honest" is based on that. The point is, though, that with all the voluminous publication, it is crafted so that none of it will lead back to the ultimate truth about Jackie. Here we are 60 years later and we see that it has been incredibly effective.
I view what goes on with Fetzer and so many others that fall into this trap as a "cycles within cycles" phenomenon. That is, suppose you think that the planets go around in perfect circles just as God intended. Inevitably, you'll begin to see anomalies. The fix? Well, as they go around in big perfect circles, they also go around in little perfect circles on that track, just as God intended. And then maybe also in smaller perfect circles than that. See how it goes? The thought never occurs, "Maybe it's not perfect circles?"
So we end up with racks and shelves of JFK research, and all of it could be true but it will never get you to where you should go.
If you're interested, I somehow stumbled across someone summarizing the Jackie story on some kind of rando sports podcast a year ago:
Conspiracy Theories with Cousin Brother Matt: The Assassination of JFK