JFK Fakery...Is Fakeologist Really CrAzY?

Disclaimer: I absolutely DO NOT SUPPORT Dallas Goldbug! But his work on the Oswald Assassination caught my attention, so I will share it with you.
Do yourself a favor and do not watch this entire video.
Only watch from 31:10 to about 37:00. The rest is protractor on the ear bullshit. And if you watch these 6 min and wonder, the answer is: "No, I do not think David Rockefeller is Jack Ruby."
Sorry I don't have any idea how to just pull these 6 minutes out and edit them the way I would want to show them to you.

Again just watch 31:10 to about 37:00

Why am I showing you Dallas Goldbug? I believe many "shills" have some truth to tell. The other stuff is there to discredit ALL of their work. Goldbug does a good job of that. Starting to think the same about Dubay. I try to dissect it and ask myself what does and does not make sense.

He then interviewed the poster named Culto.

This is just 15min and doesn't really peak my interest until minute 7. I had trouble finding the entire interview on his site in the short time I just looked. Maybe if he sees this post he can put a link up.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the JFK assassination was faked.  Everything in this world is a scam and a lie, so that wouldn't shock me at all.

The one that seemed unlikely to me, but now seems quite likely, is that Jim Morrison of the Doors rock band, faked his death and became Rush Limbaugh.  Sound crazy?  But Caliberhitter has some good evidence for the possibility of that.  I was always suspicious of Rush Limbaugh anyway from the past, as he has always said, "there are no conspiracies", and refuses to acknowledge that there even is an NWO in the works.  That to me was always a red flag indicating controlled opposition.

But as for possible JKF fakery, I haven't studied it, and right now it's not really drawing me to study it.  I've seen other topics like that where it didn't initially interest me much, but later it did interest me and I did study.

Thanks, jayjay, great posts and thread. I appreciate that you took the time to make us all see that there is evidence on this subject and that we cannot discard it and dismiss it, whether by thinking that someone is crazy or some other of the usual undocumented hypotheses.

And thanks to this thread, now I know that the theory on JFK fakery is not just his theory, but also yours and Culto's. You all seem in good faith, you don't seem crazy, and I apologize for describing this theory as that of someone who is crazy or an agent. I will try to never do it again. Furthermore, I have not supported my claims with any evidence, nor have I gone through the evidence he offers on his websites.

Thank you for putting up with me all this time, and for reminding me to be fair not just only to Mark Sargent, and Eric Dubay but also to Fakeologist and all other people who are expressing their opinions.

Well, @jess and jayjay, now I don't have to remind you to give to Eric the same respect that we have established here fakeologist deserves.

---

I just listened to Fetzer getting mad on that audio. I am still with him on JFK, but I reiterate that I plan to respect your different opinion on it.

Fascinating interview with Fetzer. I like him even more. I feel he was not prepared to find people disagreeing so much with him. I feel he should have been warned about it. But I also understand your points of view and why the callers behaved how they behaved (and risked hurting his feelings during the show, and especially after he left).

Thanks @jess and flat earth truth for making this worth my time. I know JFK is not popular because of its age but I find it to be as important of a psy op as the moon landings. In fact I see it as the first big on screen psy op ever.
Also I don't necessary agree with how they treated Fetzer, but they obviously felt it was important to do so I'm not going to fault them. They wanted to see how hard he considered their views and got their answer.
I know this subject probably isn't worth your time but I get curious when you say you are still with him on JFK. Do you have a good explanation as to why Jackie's dress isn't soaked more with blood? Or are you just willing to let that pass?
I won't press you on this, I just get curious how people think.

Also as for Eric, I respect some of his work, but don't respect the man at all right now. I feel that is his doing and not mine. I went into his forum with the utmost respect for him and his work. Got 3 posts into asking why they keep calling people shills and then was banned. I thought that maybe after some fall out he would rethink his actions, but then I saw the post tinfoilgirl gave from a recently banned poster and that sealed it. I would need to hear a good, and I mean GOOD explanation from him, and if that happens I'll rethink my view. If he shows up on this board, I won't call him any more names, but I will expect a sincere apology and explanation to all of us. And I don't see that happening, ever.

Thanks for the video, Lion, I will watch it right now.

For jayjay, this is the long post I had written earlier for you:

JFK:

I am glad you want to know my reasoning. Here it is.
I have seen a few documentaries on it, so my limit is that I was convinced by the person making the documentary (you know how documentaries are, they just show the evidence proving the conclusion of the person who made it). These documentaries were also chosen by me, and proposed to me by YouTube related videos on the right tab, so obviously I chose the documentaries telling me what I already believed, and maybe a little more.

I could list all these documentaries to you, but to summarize it for now it is about 10 very convincing documentaries on JFK and they all say that he was killed, and show you how it was not done by Lee Harvey Oswald. So I was totally convinced. How many documentaries have I seen that say JFK was NOT killed? Zero. No, actually those 6 minutes by Ed Chiarini aka Dallas Goldbug. So yes, you have a point: I am not very impartial on the subject. Then I listened to Fetzer and he seemed genuinely offended, so here's how you can explain my sentence "I am still with Fetzer". Would you have a longer documentary that explains and demonstrates your thesis?


ERIC:

Yes, of course we all got very offended by how he treated us, and that's why we are here. I wasn't just happy abandoning the flat earth scene after being called a "shill". However, I feel that we should use this great new method of respecting everyone (I was calling others "shills" until recently), and it can be done even with those who do not respect us. I am not saying you have to keep being mistreated. I am saying our message to such people is: "you stop misbehaving, and I am ready to accept you".

We are not against them, but against their behaviors. We are not condemning Eric as a whole, but only certain of his behaviors. If he apologizes to all he has offended, unbans everyone, and resigns as administrator, we can forgive him. And even before he does that, we can say: you have poor interpersonal skills instead of calling him a psycho or a shill. I know we are angry, but now we are many people here and many banned people, so it is easier not to hold personal grudges. On top of it, he is destroying his own forum already.

I never said that I feel his behavior is good. It is deplorable. But let us always find something good, because it is too easy to get carried away and dismiss him entirely, with all his qualities. For example, I appreciate that he is a vegan. I appreciate the documentary on flat earth that woke me up... also I would not be coherent with myself if I went from saying that I was his fan to saying that he is a shill. The fact that he has a bad temper cannot magically corrupt the work that I appreciated before I knew he had a temper and that he has little subjectivity and interpersonal skills.

Thanks, Lion, this is the longer documentary I was looking for, by Dave Johnson (backup) davej:
www.youtube.com/user/davejhere/videos

He has other interesting videos by the way.

Yes, good points... I will have to watch a few documentaries, explaining your evidence, including the one that Lion just posted.

So many questions... but then again Fetzer would reply, as he did at minute 27:
www.therealnewsonline.com/uploads/6/5/2/9/6529494/fetzer_911_11_13_20_part_2_shortened.mp3


But what have I been studying? I just watched all those documentaries that convinced me. So I am not going to belittle your belief. For now I respectfully keep my belief.

I don't want you to be quiet. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. A person can look at this for 20min and see something I missed after years of analysis. Last thing I want is for you to just trust me. I want your thoughts. Also this subject is not why we are here, so if it is not worth your time I understand. I think you got my point that it is not crazy and that is what I was going for.

Alright, all I can do is try to open your eyes, but you have to be the one to ask the questions, find your answers, and decide, or throw your hands up and say "I don't know."
My strongest argument:
1) Everything I've posted on this thread.
2) You want to side with Fetzer on this, but look at what he has to lose if he changes his view to fakery. He has done years of research, written books and newspaper articles, and has a radio show where he constantly discusses that JFK was really killed. He can't just open his eyes and change his view like you and me. In all practicality, his life's work depends on JFK being dead. How easily would you consider fakery if you were him?
3) You still haven't answered a logical reason Jackie's dress was not more blood soaked if he was really shot and rode, bleeding out on and next to her the whole way to the hospital. HOW? Look at the shots, him lying his head down, and the pics of the limo at the hospital with all the blood on the seat where she was sitting, but not on the dress she was wearing. My "simple answer": The fake blood, brain and skull parts were planted there for a photo op after she got out of the limo. Fetzer's Answer: Look! She was covered in his blood as she held his head in her lap. (Do the pics of her dress show that?)
4) You have to look inside yourself, ask the questions, and find the answers from here. I understand its hard, you don't have to come to a solid conclusion, just admit when you do or do not have the answers.

PS Ironically, similar statements can be made about Dubay and Flat Earth. He wrote a book and put in a lot of time and research. How easy would it be for him to admit he can't explain the southern star movement?
I can admit when it comes to flat earth, i don't know, but I'm not done trying.

Ok, but I still want your answer about Jackie's dress. Let me answer you "witnesses" question with a few of my own.
Are the passengers that were supposedly in the flights on 9/11 really dead?
Are the children who were killed at Sandy Hook really dead?
Are the people who died in Boston bombings really dead?
If your answer is no, then that is also a long list of killed fake people.

It's a dummy in the car. Not JFK or the actor known as JFK

I think it could be either. The film is a proven fake, so splicing in some scene with a dummy after the fact is possible. I don't think they drove the parade with a dummy in the car. Nor do I think they stopped their route and made a switch. This operation was a big deal and they wanted to leave nothing to chance. She appears to be the one that activated it which doesn't seem necessary if there was a person there that should have been able to activate himself. Interesting to think about, but I'm not sure it's important to try to prove.

That video is more of a psychological way of trying to prove something. Repeat "It's a Dummy" over and over again until the viewer starts to believe it.

yea I saw that