Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

[jfetzer]

With regard to JFK and the holocaust, there are two threads where you can discuss your theories. 9/11 has its own subforum where every single theory regarding 9/11 can be discussed.

Well, my work has been under attack here for some time. I am fending off superficial and unwarranted posts that they authors cannot justify. What is the point of moving elsewhere? I am exposing that those attacking me are frauds. Surely THIS IS THE RIGHT FORUM FOR THAT. So there's no point in moving.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Nothing I have said here rises to the level of the insults and insinuations that have been published here before my arrival today. So what's this self-righteous rubbish? Where does that come from? I have actually been rather restrained.

I may have missed that your earlier post was in response to JayUtah, in which case I missed the boat. Sorry about that. I would be glad to make contact with you as a PM, if I can figure out how to do that. Thanks for coming back on this.

Thanks for your apology here and in PM.
I would suggest a higher level of attention to detail might help you avoid pissing in the wrong soup. This isn't Icke, or the "education" forum.

 

[jfetzer]

There is no change of subject. This thread is about you and your various conspiracy theories. It is not limited to any one or two of your theories that you choose now to defend, and to suggest now that it must be is disingenuous. A discussion of your various claims regarding Apollo has been part of this thread since its inception and has not abated or changed simply because of your arrival.

Whether this is "true to form" or not from me is an irrelevant personal characterization, i.e., a personal attack. Please endeavor to keep a civil tone.

Link, please.

Much earlier in this thread I reproduced items from your web site that purport to give your position on the Apollo landings. Given that you accuse your critics of failing to stay current with your activities, and that you have accused people of taking your quotes etc. out of context, it is not unreasonable to require you to link specifically to what you advance unmistakably as your current belief.

If you wish, I can start a specific thread in this forum for the discussion.

You have already been exposed JayUtah. It's no wonder you want to change the subject from JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust. But you are welcome to discuss that, too.

It's too much to do a search on "Sterling Harwood interviews James Fetzer on the Moon landings"? One more sign of how lazy you really are: kliv.gotdns.com/kliv/paid/2013_05_02_SpirtToSpirt.mp3

Some of the obvious indications of fakery on the basis of the Moon photos:

(1) they are all perfectly framed, when the camera were mounted on the front of the space suits and almost impossible to focus;

(2) there are many with shadows in different directions, indicating more than one source of light, when on the Moon, there was only the Sun;

(3) some show the Moon Rover with no tracks, indicating that it had been lifted into place using a crane, which left no tracks for its getting there;

(4) the background are just as in focus as the foreground, indicating that it was shot using "front screen" projection, as experts have observed.

There are excellent sources on all of this. I list some on assassinationscience.

 

[jfetzer]

Thanks for your apology here and in PM.
I would suggest a higher level of attention to detail might help you avoid pissing in the wrong soup. This isn't Icke, or the "education" forum.

You seem to be imposing standards on me that you are not imposing on those who have been attacking me. So far as I can see, I have been a model of propriety. I haven't come close to the insults and more foisted upon me in this thread.

 

[beachnut]

Since you appear to be incompetent to do a google search, let me help out:

“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

"Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?" (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):
Part 1
archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
Part 2
archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

“Fakery and Fraud in the 'Official Account' of 9/11”
donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/jim-fetzers-vancouver-powerpoint/

“9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I”
veteranstoday.com/2012/09/07/911-truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-i/

“Planes/No Planes in New York: Dick Eastman vs. Jim Fetzer”
nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-eastman%20debate.mp3

“The Complete 9/11 Midwest Truth Conference”, Part 2
veteranstoday.com/2013/10/03/the-complete-midwest-911-truth-conference-parts-1-2-and-3/

Since you are full of lies, hearsay, dumbed down lies, and big fat silly delusional lies. You better step up and try harder to produce evidence, so far all you have is BS, nonsense, more BS, and dumber nonsense.

Why do you lie about 911? Cause you can

How can you post that many sources of lies and idiotic claptrap only failed people like the Boston bombers would believe out of ignorance.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

(1) they are all perfectly framed, when the camera were mounted on the front of the space suits and almost impossible to focus;

Except for the ones that aren't perfectly frame, and anyone can learn to focus a camera by distance. I did it in college where we took event pictures using a 50mm lens with whiteout marks on the focus ring at something like 5, 9 and 11' using a narrow aperture to increase depth of field.

Claim rejected.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You seem to be imposing standards on me that you are not imposing on those who have been attacking me. So far as I can see, I have been a model of propriety. I haven't come close to the insults and more foisted upon me in this thread.

Well, as has been explained up thread, you're here now so we are all restricted to civilized behavior.

 

[frenat]

Some of the obvious indications of fakery on the basis of the Moon photos:

(1) they are all perfectly framed, when the camera were mounted on the front of the space suits and almost impossible to focus;

All of them? Really? Thanks for proving you have not looked at very many of them.

(2) there are many with shadows in different directions, indicating more than one source of light, when on the Moon, there was only the Sun;

Perspective and terrain explain them all. Multiple light sources would have multiple shadows on individual objects, always. This is never seen.

(3) some show the Moon Rover with no tracks, indicating that it had been lifted into place using a crane, which left no tracks for its getting there;

A crane? You're kidding right? A vehicle that is known to move under its own power and is also light enough for two people to pick up and move around and they used a crane? Nope. Far more likely when there are no tracks visible they were either obscured by kicked up dust from either the vehicle itself or the astronauts walking around (both of which are seen instead of your mythical and laughable crane) or the viewing angle makes them less visible.

(4) the background are just as in focus as the foreground, indicating that it was shot using "front screen" projection, as experts have observed.

front screen projection doesn't work with a bright foreground object like the bright and highly reflective space suits.

There are excellent sources on all of this. I list some on assassinationscience.

Your sources are wrong.

 

[beachnut]

Is this the best JREFers can do? Gang up on someone, misrepresent his views and savage him when he's not around? Then, when by a fluke he shows up, at all costs, IGNORE HIS ARGUMENTS AND HIS EVIDENCE. That's the JREF way!

This is the best 911 truth can do, present lies. Mock the murder of thousands with the dumbest claims in history. What failed movement

The dumbed down claptrap 911 truth followers recycled from the failed movement of 911 truth is total anti-intellectual claptrap based on ignorance and lies. If 911 truth claims were true 911 truth would have a Pulitzer Prize. Where it is? lol, no newspaper will touch 911 truth tripe, and it all fails; you have no evidence; you have big BS talk, and lies.

Google it is your solution; wowzer

911 truth is based on the work of clowns apologizing for 19 murderers.

Veterans Today? lol, the source of lies and nonsense. You lost all credibility when you use Veterans Today. Is that where you post your lies on 911, in articles based on lies about 911 at Veterans Today.

 

[jfetzer]

So no actual evidence then, just rants.

I know you don't appear to understand the concept but the unsupported opinion of yourself (or others) doesn't constitute evidence.

This is absurd. I give documents from the BTS showing that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day. I present FAA Registration Records showing that the planes used for Flight 93 and 175 were not "de-registered" or formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005. Which raise the obvious questions, "How can planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11?" and "How can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?"

I present Pilots for 9/11 Truth determinations that Fiight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crasehed in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was also in the air, but that it was over Harriburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had purportedly hit the South Tower. There is much more, but is this a standard practice here? To make up blatant lies about what is or is not presented on a give link? That is beneath contempt. Are there no standards here?

 

[beachnut]

If JayUtah is unwilling to exert any effort to actually substantiate his attacks upon me, his slack approach may be exceeded by DGM, who does not appear to understand the difference between ASSERTIONS and ARGUMENTS, which is, if anything, an even more conspicuous case. He offers no evidence to support his attack: NONE.

Far from “tap dancing” [my] way around the facts”, I provide proof for virtually every conclusion that I draw in all of my books, articles and presentations. I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. I don’t offer conclusions that are unsupported by evidence.

The only way that “Flight 175” could have effortlessly entered the South Tower with no collision effects, for example, would be if the laws of physics had been suspended on 9/11. Perhaps that is DGM’s position, because he appears to be completely uninformed and it would be unsurprising if he were ignorant of Newton’s laws.

But let me simply observe that, if he thinks I have something wrong and that I am “denying reality”, then take the time to prove it! What is wrong with people like these that they are so willing to attack me for research they do not understand and offer smears in lieu of proof? Is this what passes for ARGUMENT on the JREF Forum?

Total nonsense. Your post is a great example of complete ignorance of flying, aerodynamics, physics.

In fact saying "laws of physics had been suspended" is proof you don't do physics, and can't comprehend RADAR and video.

You don't do reality, you make up fantasy. You essentially say RADAR is not reality, and reject evidence to make up lies.

https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Flight_Path_Study_UA175.pdf
Science proves you are wrong, and at best spreading lies.
Why do you lie about 911, and ignore evidence.

 

[jfetzer]

This is the best 911 truth can do, present lies. Mock the murder of thousands with the dumbest claims in history. What failed movement

The dumbed down claptrap 911 truth followers recycled from the failed movement of 911 truth is total anti-intellectual claptrap based on ignorance and lies. If 911 truth claims were true 911 truth would have a Pulitzer Prize. Where it is? lol, no newspaper will touch 911 truth tripe, and it all fails; you have no evidence; you have big BS talk, and lies.

Google it is your solution; wowzer

911 truth is based on the work of clowns apologizing for 19 murderers.

Veterans Today? lol, the source of lies and nonsense. You lost all credibility when you use Veterans Today. Is that where you post your lies on 911, in articles based on lies about 911 at Veterans Today.

Is this guy competing for BIGGEST LIAR OF THE YEAR? Anyone can go to this article, which is archived at the following link, veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/ , and determine which of us is lying and which of us is telling the truth. The article is chock-full of photos, diagrams, images and other evidence. There is not a single "rant" there. Check if for yourself. I thought that JREF imposes at least some minimal ethical standards. It is now looking to me as though I am wrong.

 

[beachnut]

This is absurd. I give documents from the BTS showing that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day. I present FAA Registration Records showing that the planes used for Flight 93 and 175 were not "de-registered" or formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005. Which raise the obvious questions, "How can planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11?" and "How can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?"

I present Pilots for 9/11 Truth determinations that Fiight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crasehed in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was also in the air, but that it was over Harriburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had purportedly hit the South Tower. There is much more, but is this a standard practice here? To make up blatant lies about what is or is not presented on a give link? That is beneath contempt. Are there no standards here?

oops, I have transcripts of tower clearing each plane for take off. Why do you lie?

I have RADAR on all flight, raw RADAR data, and infact idiots like Balsamo have used the RADAR to spread lies about 911.

RADAR again proves you are spreading lies, or can't figure out evidence. Which is it, shallow research, or ignorance on your part.

Flight 93 did crash. you must not be about to google the evidence

OMG, thousands of aircraft parts. Why did you lie?

oops, more aircraft parts from 93, you lied about this. Why?

Why can't 911 truth do simple research? It would ruin their fantasy.

Is your google broke? RADAR proves you wrong, again. You don't do RADAR? Why?

 

[DGM]

Each of them answers that question. It is obvious to me that you are lying:

(1) No one I know has read (or watched) all of them, certainly not you;

(2) Only someone who was keenly interested in my work would do that;

(3) You are obviously NOT keenly interested in my work and are lying;

(4) You said I would use "numbers", but I don't use any numbers; hence,

(5) You are faking it--why precisely i do not know, but you are LYING.

I this your modus operandi? Just fake it and pretend you are serious?

So you expect me to except your opinion without question?

So, how exactly was Newtons law violated? You can say you don't really know. If your nice maybe I'll explain the physics to you (you obviously have no clue).

 

[jfetzer]

Total nonsense. Your post is a great example of complete ignorance of flying, aerodynamics, physics.

In fact saying "laws of physics had been suspended" is proof you don't do physics, and can't comprehend RADAR and video.

You don't do reality, you make up fantasy. You essentially say RADAR is not reality, and reject evidence to make up lies.

https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Flight_Path_Study_UA175.pdf
Science proves you are wrong, and at best spreading lies.
Why do you lie about 911, and ignore evidence.

This is unreal. The "plane" passes into the building with no loss in velocity. We have done frame-by-frame advance and found that it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air. This is physically impossible unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air. It was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns and were filled with 4-8" of concrete. At 208' per side, each floor represented an acre of concrete. We know what happens to plane when then encounter a small bird weighing a few ounces in flight. Imagine encountering an acre of concrete on a steel truss. I guess beachnut is the biggest fraud to show up yet. Notice he offers no arguments at all, only ad hominems and false assertions.

 

[DGM]

This is unreal. The "plane" passes into the building with no loss in velocity. We have done frame-by-frame advance and found that it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air. This is physically impossible unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air. It was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns, which were filled with 4-8" of concrete. At 208' per side, each floor represented an acre of concrete. We know what happens to plane when then encounter a small bird weighing a few ounces in flight. Imagine encountering an acre of concrete on a steel truss. I guess beachnut is the biggest phony to show up yet. Notice he offers no arguments, only ad hominems and false assertions.

Wow, you use broadcast video to do highspeed analysis. What frame rate would you think would be needed to see the deceleration? Use your numbers, we can handle it.

ETA: How many frames total did you analyse?

 

[beachnut]

Is this guy competing for BIGGEST LIAR OF THE YEAR? Anyone can go to this article, which is archived at the following link, veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/ , and determine which of us is lying and which of us is telling the truth. The article is chock-full of photos, diagrams, images and other evidence. There is not a single "rant" there. Check if for yourself. I thought that JREF imposes at least some minimal ethical standards. It is now looking to me as though I am wrong.

Veteran Today is full of lies, false junk, and BS. If you had proof, you would have a Pulitzer. It really is that simple, see Watergate for proof.

Where is your Pulitzer? Oh, goodness, gracious, they don't give out Pulitzers for spreading dumbed down lies.


I see you are not a trained aircraft accident investigator, and in the failed article which will never get more than credit from 911 truth followers who can't think for themselves.

Let me see, three jet fuel fireball smoke results, and you did not take the aircraft accident investigation course at USC; why not, you would not be spreading silly lies if you were trained properly.

LOL, you posted proof in the article of Flight 93 jet fuel fire ball, which matches exactly the right time verified by RADAR. OMG, science beats the woo you manufacture to spread lies about 911. 13th year after 911, and you can't connect the dots, you make up fantasy.

You might be a smart person, but your article is the biggest pile of lies and ignorance I have ever seen. The dumbest article on flight I have seen.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/
This has to be a great example of BS and anti-intellectual claptrap. This is another reason why Veterans Today is not a valid source for reality.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Except for the ones that aren't perfectly frame, and anyone can learn to focus a camera by distance. I did it in college where we took event pictures using a 50mm lens with whiteout marks on the focus ring at something like 5, 9 and 11' using a narrow aperture to increase depth of field.

Claim rejected.

I never took a picture with the Hasselblad cameras used on the Apollo missions, but I do own and have used a Mamya RB67, which has the same film format and pretty much the same configuration (it was generally considered "the poor man's Hasselblad", even though it wasn't all that cheap. It was just cheaper.) I can see no problem with either focusing or framing in the Apollo pictures I have seen. It's a camera design that's eminently suitable for wearing fixed on your chest, as necessitated by the spacesuits worn, since it's an SLR and you look at the through-the-lens viewfinder from the top. With a very well-lit scene, thanks to the sun, which allows both a short exposure time as well as a very small aperture for depth of field (as you point out), it's hard to take bad pictures with it, I would say. As long as you manage to stand still for as long as the shutter is open, which isn't very long in bright sunlight even on earth. The only variable that might need adjusting would be the distance, if you were shooting nearby objects. Setting the distance based on a rough estimate is a skill that everyone who knew anything about photography before the advent of autofocus cameras mastered, easily.

(I learned proper photography with a Rollei 35, and that wasn't even an SLR but a viewfinder camera, so focusing was entirely up to guesstimating the distance. Somehow, almost all my pictures came out perfectly focused.)

 

[beachnut]

This is unreal. The "plane" passes into the building with no loss in velocity. We have done frame-by-frame advance and found that it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air. This is physically impossible unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air. It was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns and were filled with 4-8" of concrete. At 208' per side, each floor represented an acre of concrete. We know what happens to plane when then encounter a small bird weighing a few ounces in flight. Imagine encountering an acre of concrete on a steel truss. I guess beachnut is the biggest fraud to show up yet. Notice he offers no arguments at all, only ad hominems and false assertions.

Claiming Flight 175 breaks the laws of physics is nonsense. You spread lies based on zero facts, and you can't say how much 175 should slow down, and you don't have the resolution or frame rate to do the work. You don't realize you are missing the data to do the study. As if you never took physics. Oops, I did, I am an engineer, and you are what? A Veterans Today Journalist who can't do physics.

I am a fraud? lol, you can't do physics, and you don't know it, then you have to make weak attacks on me because you spread lies about 911 and have no evidence; This is your best work BS.

mns and at the other to the external steel support columns and were filled with 4-8" of concrete. At 208' per side, each floor represented an acre of concrete. We kn

You don't realize this is a lie. No concrete in the shell. Did you lie on purpose, or out of ignorance?


The WTC were designed to stop an impact of a 707 with the KE of 187 pounds of TNT. Would you like that in joules, or what? Do you do physics?

Flight 11 had 7 times more energy than the design can stop. Thus the aircraft mass damages the core, 6 core columns. Do the physics, oops you don't do physics.

Flight 175, 11 times more energy than the shell was designed to stop. Oops, damage to 10 core columns, if you were an engineer like me, you could figure this out.

I guess an engineer, and a pilot is called a fraud by you when they clearly know you are spreading false information and lies about 911.

Me,

A fraud and a USAF Command Pilot, an engineer, and I guess you are out of evidence when the fraud card is played. Gee, you even paid for my masters in Engineer, and my flight training, and my Aircraft Accident investigation course, if you paid taxes from 76 to 2002. Thank you very much. You should have taken physics. It is a great course -


Where is your evidence? BTW, move your 911 claims to the 911 forum where fantasy like you have is discussed, and debunked.

“Jim Fetzer shouted at me on his radio show ...”

Is calling me a fraud, a lie, or do you have evidence for that? Is it the same evidence you have for 911? AKA, zero

 

[Africanus]

This is unreal. The "plane" passes into the building with no loss in velocity. We have done frame-by-frame advance and found that it passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air. This is physically impossible unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air.

What I state now is mere speculation, but I think the mass of the building was not concentrated in the area of impact.