Wednesday, November 13, 2013

The Realist Report - Dr. Jim Fetzer: JFK Assassination

On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined once again by Dr. Jim Fetzer. Dr. Fetzer and I will be discussing the JFK assassination and the upcoming conference organized by the Oswald is Innocent Campaign commemorating the 50th observance of the murder of our 35th president.

You can download the mp3 for this program here, or visit The Realist Report on BlogTalkRadio to subscribe via iTunes and view past programs.

Below are relevant links for this program:


  1. How can Oswald be innocent when there's 53 pieces of evidence pointing to his guilt?

    1. At this point in time, I think it's pretty clear that Oswald was set up to take the fall for the JFK assassination. What exactly are you saying here? That Oswald did indeed act alone? Or just that he was involved in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and therefore is guilty of his murder, perhaps as an accomplice with others as part of a larger conspiracy?

    2. It's impossible to prove that he acted alone because you can't prove a negative. I was responding to the "Oswald's Innocent Campaign." That's crazy. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was shooting. Plus he killed officer J.D. Tippit which alone makes him guilty of murder and not a patsy. I don't know, I've researched a lot on both pro and anti JFK conspiracy and a lot of the stuff the pro conspiracy movement pushes is provably false.

      Also, what is the source for that quote above?

    3. I'm not convinced he was in fact shooting that day, and I'm sure Dr. Fetzer would disagree with you.

      The quote wasn't real - I removed that image because a lot of people think it's real and are asking about it. I shouldn't have even used that image in the first place.

  2. Fetzer seems to be full of hot air. Kennedy's head is thrown violently backward. That is not due to a shot from the rear. What a load of fast talking b.s. by Fetzer.

  3. I haven't listened yet..................but have a question --

    John, did Fetzer say anything about the book, "dynamic duo - white rose blooms..."

    Why would he allow his name be associated with yet another Jewish Lie?

    This just continues to propagate the lie of Hitler's Germany. Is Fetzer with us or against us???

    1. No, we didn't even talk about it. He mentioned to me via email that a new book was out about him and Dr. Barrett, so I linked it for this program.

      I will not be having Dr. Fetzer on again unless Noam Chomsky agrees to debate him. And I doubt that will happen.

  4. "....I will not be having Dr. Fetzer on again....."

    I think this is wise. Unless you would be willing to ask him some hard questions. Actually ONE question:

    Fetzer.....................what about the Jewish problem? Do you believe we have a Jewish problem?

    Fetzer was quick to dismiss Israel's involvement in JFK because there was only ONE shooter linked to the Mossad. What a fuckin cop out. He says LBJ is the key.

    HELLO!!! LBJ is a Jew. Fetzer is not a moron. Who benefited??? Jews. End of the investigation.

    Fetzer will moan and cry that he exposes Israeli crimes blah, blah, blah.

    But he won't say the word JEW. We have a Jew problem. Not an Israeli problem.

    There was one common denominator amoungst all the so called "factions" Fetzer lists as being responsible for JFK. And that one common denominator is the Jew. Period.

    I wonder about this upcoming JFK conference...............

    Will the Jew be exposed? I highly doubt it.

    If you don't name the Jew, your message isn't true.

    Hey Fetzer? Choose sides buddy.

    The fact that you allowed your name to be attached to a Jewish Lie I believe reveals all. You should be embarrassed and ashamed that someone compared you to the White Rose Society. Pathetic.

  5. All of Fetzer's comments regarding Israeli involvement in the assassination were reasonable given 1) the focus on Israeli culpability (rather than Jewish) and 2) the limited study Fetzer has made of Jewish subversion.

    For myself I do not believe that the Fed upper echelons (u.e.), the military u.e., the FBI u.e., the CIA u.e., the mob u.e., the Texas 'oil boys', George Bush, the anti-Castro Cubans et al were responsible for the assassination (the idea of so many disparate factions coming together to commit such a huge crime is patently absurd). But I am quite inclined to think that elements within all of those factions at the time could be controlled *and protected* by only one other faction, that being rich and powerful Jews. Advocates of the sprawling conspiracy Fetzer believes in ought to lay out some evidence for Jewish control of those groups before condemning him for not being aware of that evidence.

    Roy Hobs, who's the 'we' you refer to in 'we have a Jewish problem'? I don't believe LBJ was Jewish, having seen no clear evidence for the oft-made claim. It is not necessary for a person to be Jewish to serve Jewish interests and even act against the interests of one's own people. It happens all the time. That's what qualifies Jewish behaviour as parasitic.

    And as an aside, Ben, if you don't know how to theoretically prove a negative, for example if you were unable to offer proofs of why I cannot possibly have a fully grown elephant in my trouser pocket, you're probably not the best arbiter of complex arguments about evidence.

  6. "....Roy Hobs, who's the 'we' you refer to in 'we have a Jewish problem'?...."

    the 'we' is the world. The world has a jewish problem.

    In regards to LBJ -- Opium Lords Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination by Salvador Astucia

  7. Roy, the world is not a 'we'. Where the Jews collectively are a problem, they are a problem for certain other equivalent groups, ie., other ethnic groups (I would say all White peoples and all Islamic peoples). Fetzer doesn't understand that he's in an ethnic conflict whether he likes it or not.

    I took issue with your comment about "one common denominator amongst all the so called "factions" Fetzer lists as being responsible for JFK. And that one common denominator is the Jew." I said the connections need to be made explicit. Can that be done?

    I read Astucia. There's no compelling evidence there that LBJ was Jewish. He may have been, I just don't know. But he also may just have been like virtually every other damn politican: a Jew stooge. If it's the second case it hardly puts the Jews in a better light. It's reasonable for Jews to look out for their own interests, but not reasonable for them to have other people serve Jewish interests and betray their own people.

  8. The relevant excerpts from Astucia are online:

    It should be clear how these kinds of overstated critiques against Jewish aggression are not helpful. The brightest people can see the flaws in the arguments, and the most moral people are alarmed at the dishonesty. We need the brightest and the best on our side if we're gonna win.

  9. "....Roy, the world is not a 'we'. Where the Jews collectively are a problem, they are a problem for certain other equivalent groups, ie., other ethnic groups...."

    Ok win. You are more 'intellectual' than I. Where do I send the money?

    I really have no idea of what you are trying to say.

    Should I embrace Fetzer? Is this what you are saying?

    You have him over for your Thanksgiving Bird. I don't trust the man.

    I think time will prove me correct.

    Will that day ever come? I doubt it.

    Eternity will tell all.

    Email me if you want to have this need to clutter John's blog --

  10. I just got the chance to listen to this interview while on the road yesterday. Even though you were talking about having Fetzer on again, I knew in my heart that this would never happen. The end of the show showed how Fetzer wanted to get in several talking points, including an entire fast presentation regarding 911 and planes and dust and...

    From your new perspective on Shack's theory, I was somewhat surprised that you didn't ask Fetzer about it (maybe it was too late in the show), but by your silence, I knew that this might be the end of your fascination with Fetzer.

    I thought that he seemed desperate to hush any talk of Jew involvement of the JFK assassination and that his reasoning was not very sound. There are more connections to Israel than he let on.

    So, will you still go to the JFK presentation he is organizing? If so, keep us updated on what happens, for I assume that you will be prepared to pursue the Israel connection in Q&A.

  11. Nick@
    "....I said the connections need to be made explicit. Can that be done?....."

    Yes....they can.

    Nick -- what is it that you are trying to say? Are you sticking up for Fetzer? Is this your point here?

    It is my opinion, having listened to Fetzer for many years, that he is compromised in some way shape or form. If you disagree..............nothing more I can say.

    The single fact that he endorsed the book with his name giving credit to the Jewish lie of the White Rose Society, is enough for me to keep Fetzer on my 'enemy' list. He should have denounced that title/book.

    I guess your next response will be to try and convince me that Fetzer is ignorant as to the jew's involvement in ww2. "Not his expertise".....or something like that.

    If you want to support Fetzer,..........

    If you want to say that the jew is not a world problem..............

    Well you certainly have an audience. Popularity is on your side.

  12. An addendum to my last comment:

    Fetzer co-wrote the article at VT where he seems to lighten up on his poo pooing the Israeli connection. Wonder if your show was instrumental in his seeming movement towards the real culprits?

    1. See my latest post B'Man, I include some photos of the event. Fetzer did indeed mention the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination! Good for him!

  13. Roy,

    "Fetzer ... is compromised in some way shape or form."

    Of course he is. He's been semitically corrected on race and nation issues: Won't stand up for his own people, will stand up for others, especially (following the programming) Jews.

    There's a huge difference between a socialized, educated man of Fetzer's generation and the typical under-30 internet conspindustry consumer as regards their open-ness to ideas contradicting the Jewish / multicult line.

    Merely by virtue of his smarts, training and discipline Fetzer requires much more evidence to adopt a new position of important issues. This is without even considering the taboos on challenging Jewish power or distinguishing his interests as a White man from those of Jews.

    The heretical ecologist Garrett Harding once wrote that it takes around 5 years to overcome psychologically a false notion that's defended by social taboos. That was probably true of well-socialised people in a common culture.

    On the other hand the internet age readers don't typically have any mental discipline, or any real culture to speak of, and anything goes as long as it comes easy. These people are much easier to reach with the truth and the process of switching them over to common-sense goes much more quickly. But they're not as important to reach.

    Fetzer has come a long way in a fairly short time. He has been persuaded by the evidence to publicly challenge the holo myth. It is exceedingly rare to find a serious intellectual and public figure capable of such courage.

    Criticizing Fetzer for not knowing everything, or not agreeing on you with on everything, or because you suspect he has hooky motives is not helpful. Say where he's wrong and point out the where his errors will lead. That's the way to reach him and at the same time help inform other readers of your comments. Personal snarks do nothing good for anyone.

    1. Nick Dean, you are awesome. Thank you for your incredibly thoughtful and rational comments. I agree with you 100%.

  14. Nick Dean --

    I truly hope you are right. And John is correct, your comments are both thoughtful and rational. You are an intelligent man.

    But I am still left to wonder -- when Fetzer reads your comments, does he laugh?

    Time will tell.

  15. I have only read these comments for the first time. I am not "compromised" in any way and I am stunned by that suggestion. You really ought to check out my interviews on Press TV where I criticize Israel relentlessly and "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots" and "James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW Interview". Sabrosky, Bollyn, Barrett and I are the principle figures in the 9/11 Truth movement who talk about who was responsible and why 9/11 was carried out. If I have something wrong, let me know what that would be and how you know. Thanks.

  16. Anonymous appears to be oblivious of the fact that the Zapruder film was revised to remove the limo stop and merge two shots to the head into one. I can't believe he is comment in ignorance of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) or the many articles I have published on this, including "Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?" I recommend he watch "JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why" to bring himself up-to-speed:


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.