Monday, December 26, 2016

Wayne Madsen goes off the rails over Orlando, Jack Ruby and the moon landing hoax

Jim Fetzer
Imagine my surprise to open my email and find this message from Dr. Eowyn, who maintains the Fellowship of the Minds blog and whom I regard as the leading expert on the incident at the Pulse Club in Orlando, known as "the Orlando massacre". Not only have I edited a book about it with fifteen (15) contributors (some of whom were writing about the Dallas "false flag" and others about Hillary's use of body doubles), but Dr. Eowyn's research on this subject has been so exceptional that I included thirteen (13) chapters that were authored by her.
Because I have held Wayne Madsen in high esteem--so much so that on a large number of occasions, I have referred to him as "our nation's leading investigative journalist"--that I was stunned to discover that he was attacking me for my work on Orlando (on the basis of his having neighbors whose kids have friends who are supposed to have died there) and Ralph Cinque for his research on Jack Ruby (which supports the conclusion that it was not actually Jack who shot Lee, but an FBI agent playing the role) as well as taking pot shots at students of the moon landing hoax. Egad! I even included an article of his about the father of the alleged shooter in our Orlando book.

Here's a two-hour video on the Orlando "False Flag" Shooting. The slides did not come out right, but the commentary explains many of the reasons we know that the shooting was not a real event but a hoax, including that the license for the club expired in 2013; that its legal occupancy was only 150; that it had only 11 parking spaces; that if 50 had been killed and 53 injured, there would have been abandoned vehicles all over the place; and more, such as that (as in the case of Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing), there was also no surge of EMTs into the building and no string of ambulances to rush the bodies to hospitals where doctors could pronounce them dead or alive: 

Here is the original email from Dr. Eowyn, which I received this morning, which details the specifics of his remarks and displays reckless disregard for the evidence, especially in relation to events that he himself has obviously not investigated, presumably because he had superior knowledge based upon, in the case of the Pulse shooting, reports from the parents of children who claim to have friends who died there and, in the case of the death of Lee Oswald, from a reporter who was there, but where his off-the-cuff comments on those who do not believe we landed men on the moon are especially egregious and raise serious questions in my mind about his role as an "investigative journalist": 

Frankly, I cannot imagine why Wayne Madsen would attack research on JFK with which he has no familiarity at all! Has he mastered a new technique, such as searching within his soul (or crystal ball gazing or coin flipping) to determine whether a specific hypothesis is true or false? If Wayne Madsen does not believe in evidence-based research, what good is he? Because I have done overwhelmingly more investigation of the death of JFK than has Wayne Madsen (including three collections of expert studies and chairing or co-chairing five national conferences and over a thousand interviews about JFK) and find it impossible to dismiss the new hypothesis of Ralph Cinque--that someone who was impersonating Jack Ruby (specifically, FBI Agent James Bookhout) may have been the actual person who shot Lee in the basement of the Dallas Police Department--when I have studied the evidence and he has not, how can he dismiss it? 

The answer, of course, turns out to be that he knew a reporter who was present at the time and who told him that Jack Ruby had had to push him aside in order to shoot Lee. But since everyone at the time took for granted that it had been Jack Ruby--because that was something they had been told--how could Wayne Madsen know that his source, Ike Pappas, had not been fooled? After all, if Ralph Cinque has it right, then everyone not in on the deception was fooled, including Ike Pappas, assuming that he was not in on it himself. It's fine to take something for granted when it has not been challenged, but once the question has been raised and proof has been presented, it is no longer reasonable to continue to take for granted that what you have always believed to be the case was the case. I myself have had to do a double-take over this, but the evidence that Ralph has adduced is compelling:

It's embarrassing enough that Wayne Madsen, whom I have so long admired, would take for granted that the Orlando shooting was real on the basis of third-hand reports (by his neighbors based upon what they hear from their children about what other kids had told them), but for him to also dismiss research on JFK with which he has no familiarity at all is beyond the bounds of rationality. Here is the email that I sent in response to learning about his remarks, to which I have received no reply as yet--and may in fact never receive one. When someone who takes himself so seriously is caught with his pants down, it requires a great deal of integrity to acknowledge that you were wrong and to apologize for the offense, which in this case are multiple intellectual ones that go beyond ordinary mistakes and qualify as blunders:

James Fetzer
9:07 AM (4 hours ago)

to Wayne

On some recent remarks about Orlando and more

I am a bit taken aback by some remarks you made 
regarding Orlando and my research. You claim to 
have neighbors who have kids who have friends 
who died there. Do you know their names? Have 
you seen their death certificates? Did you read 
their obituaries? Since you are diligent in your 
research, have you read the book I edited about 
Orlando entitled FROM ORLANDO TO DALLAS 
AND BEYOND (2016)? I am sure you would not
want to be talking off the top of your head without 
doing the requisite research. Send me your mail 
address and I'll send you a copy of the book. Or 
is your mind already made up and facts don't 
matter? Are you aware that the license for the
club expired in 2013? that it's legal occupancy
was 150? that it had only 11 parking spaces? 
that if 50 had been killed and 53 injured, there 
would have been abandoned cars all over the 
place, but they weren't there? that the Orlando 
Emergency Center has declared that it is not 
going to bill anyone for services rendered?  
that there are two "Dance Orlando" videos 
of doctors and nurses dancing and police 
doing the same? I am just a bit stunned that, 
if you had reservations like those you have  
expressed in these chat exchanges, you did 
not send me an email to ask about them. So 
send me your address and I'll send the book. 
Are you also an expert on the moon landings? 
Because it would be rather embarrassing for 
"the nation's leading investigative journalist" 
to have no idea at all what he's talking about.  
Dr. Eowyn has called out Wayne Madsen for his grossly insulting remarks, where she is well-positioned to call him out as the leading expert on what really happened at Orlando:

Indeed, the issues raised go far beyond the kinds of arrogance of those who discount the work of others on issues they themselves have not investigated, such as Orlando and JFK (in relation to whether Jack Ruby was the man who shot Lee Oswald). But he displays (what I can only describe as) astounding naivete when he suggests that anyone who doubts that we went to the moon "needs professional help"! Egad! The man must be a complete moron to have swallowed that one hook, line and sinker! The proof that we did not go to the moon--indeed, could not have gone to the moon because of the limitations of propulsion power, of computing power and of such obvious obstacles as the Van Allan Radiation Belt--leaves me speechless. Here is my most recent discussion of the moon landing hoax with Dennis Cimino, who simply hits this one out of the park:

I have shared all of this with two experts on intel and psyops. One of them replied, "Excellent letter, Jim. If Wayne fails this double litmus test, then he is still working for someone. And that can be identified quite easily. Just connect the dots and find out who he never criticizes." The other wrote, "Madsen is a government shill. I used to trust his shit but no longer do." He said more but in language more colorful than I prefer to repeat here. I am in a quandary. Madsen's expose of John Brennan as a Saudi mole and of attempts by Saudi Arabia to toss the election to Hillary are first-class, in my estimation. But his irrational attacks on those who have done research on Orlando and on the identity of the man who shot Lee Oswald, not to mention his gullibility about the moon landings, have left my confidence tattered and torn. Another idol, alas, turns out to have feet of clay.  


In case anyone thought that Wayne Madsen would respond by explaining how he knows that Orland was real (that Jack Ruby actually was the guy who shot Lee Oswald; that we really did go to the moon), brace yourself for the most juvenile response possible, where Madsen declares himself to be a "real journalist" as opposed to those who offer "conspiracy tall tales in order to grab a fast buck"! Believe it or not, that's what he declares in his "Wayne Madsen Report" for 29 December 2016 to 2 January 2017. If I had any lingering respect for the man, he has shattered my last illusions. He further demonstrates his incompetence when it comes to Holocaust revisionism, which he describes as one of many "far out beliefs", where he seems to have no grasp of Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing or the Holocaust (to cite a few), where the evidence is against him. Here is a recent discussion of mine about JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust (from 2014):

For more on the most controversial of all, see "The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science"As though to complete his response, he adds (what he has to think is) a witty remark about some who obtained Ph.D.s in the '60s and the '70s because they thought it was a great way to get laid! I can only infer that Wayne Madsen suffers from an acute intellectual inferiority complex. Anyone who checks out my academic web site can determine for themselves whether that characterization fits me--even remotely! I am profoundly embarrassed that I have in the past regarded this man as "our nation's leading investigative journalist". What it tells me is that, in America today, even some of those who pass for our best are hopelessly immature and incapable of dealing with well-founded criticism, even about serious subjects that they haven't investigated themselves. Wayne Madsen turns out to be an astounding disappointment.