Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

[trustbutverify]

Meh. He won't do that. He knows he will get toasted. He is ultimately afraid. Afraid to be exposed.

Appears that horse has left that barn at full gallop.

This is silly. It is the 4th of July weekend. We are doing family things. I was on when my laptop ran out. Since I have recharged it. But the quality of comments here really leaves me wondering whether this is not a complete waste of time.

You misunderstand. It's not you doing the galloping, it's the last thin shreds of your credibility.

 

[JayUtah]

This is silly. It is the 4th of July weekend. We are doing family things.

You chose the time and date of your arrival. To now suddenly claim you're too busy doing other things speaks only to your poor timing.

But put all that aside. You'll find that the regulars here at JREF are reasonably attuned to such things as family obligations, job requirements, and the understandably human desire to parcel out one's free time as one chooses. If you want to spend the rest of this weekend with your family, no one will object. I plan to spend most of the next week and weekend in Oregon, hence I'll miss whatever happens on JREF during that time.

A good measure of one's effectiveness at JREF is not the number of posts or the amount of time spent here, or the regularity of one's appearances. A better measure is how one makes use of his time here, and what one chooses to address and how -- regardless of the absolute volume of writing. If you omit material responses in favor of a spate of derogatory and condescending comments against your critics, for example, you'll get very little quarter from the JREF regulars. Post as often or as seldom as you wish, but make your posts count for something. Then you'll be respected.

But the quality of comments here really leaves me wondering whether this is not a complete waste of time.

This is not an argument. This sounds very much like a lame excuse for not having to pay attention to anything that's written here.

Naturally you can resign the debate, roll the dice, and hope and pray that readers will agree that your departure is because of the "low quality" of responses. But when this thread proposes to discuss the manner in which you handle criticism of your claims -- i.e., chiefly by bluster and evasion -- then it probably isn't a good rhetorical move for you to depart in a puff of bluster and evasion.

Put simply, the only way you can avoid proving your critics here right is to tone down your bluster and start dealing with the substance of the arguments in a calm, dispassionate, and respectful manner.

 

[MileHighMadness]

God help us...the lord of logic and reason has joined the jref forum. Keep in mind, Prof. Jim has a PhD in history, and doesn't know jack about physics or structural engineering.

 

[jfetzer]

I don't know this guy as I've never been on the "education" forum or other sites where it appears others of you have already met him. I'm willing to give him a clean slate on Apollo and address the claims he makes here and here alone.

As for 9/11, is he really a Nope Lamer? It seems so from his posts thus far. I didn't think anyone over the age of 9 actually bought that notion.

Well, you seem more rational than most posting here, ApolloGnomon. Have you studied the evidence? It took me a year-and-a-half to get around to taking a good look at it. So I interviewed 15 guests about it in order to sort things out and make up my own mind.

The argument that put me over the edge was from Joe Keith, who observed that the plane (the image of what is supposed to be "Flight 175") passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length in air--which is a very nice point.

Have you read any of my articles or viewed any of my presentations about it? I would be interested in why you believe it if you haven't studied it, but all four of the 9/11 "plane crash sites" were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways. Here is that list of articles with their links:

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

“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/0...ity-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

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

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

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

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

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

I simply do not understand the reluctance to actually look at my work in order to discern whether I am right or wrong. Is it so crazy that none of the official "9/11 planes" actually crashed on 9/11? It's a rather important issue, since if none of them crashed, no passengers died in crashes that did not take place.

And there also were no "suicide hijackers" that caused them to crash, which means the whole "War on Terror" is based upon a fabricated claim. So if I have something wrong, let me know what it is and how you know, because I am not infallible and would like to benefit from spending time on this forum.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Good for you, trustbutverify. There are many problems with the whole Moon landing scenario. I must have posted as least 15 times by now. See my interview with Jay Weidner on "The Real Deal", radiofetzer.blogspot.com; or the studies of the Moon landing by Winston Wu, which you can find on the internet; or listen to my appearance with Sterling Harwood on the Moon landing hoax, http://kliv.gotdns.com/kliv/paid/2013_05_02_SpirtToSpirt.mp3

Present claims here, please, so we can discuss them here. I'm unfamiliar with you and your body of work so I'm taking you at face value.

 

[jfetzer]

God help us...the lord of logic and reason has joined the jref forum. Keep in mind, Prof. Jim has a PhD in history, and doesn't know jack about physics or structural engineering.

Doesn't ANYONE do any research on ANYTHING discussed here? My Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science. The history of science is dominated by the history of physics. I had an excellent year-long course as an undergrad at Princeton as well, where I majored in philosophy. Princeton at the time was ranked #1 in the world in math, physics and philosophy. But I don't want to bother "MileHighMadness" with facts. See http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer

 

[JayUtah]

There are many problems with the whole Moon landing scenario.

I'm sure you believe that, but you chose to lead with claims of faked photographs. These are not your claims; you have merely endorsed the claims of others whom you optimistically style as "experts" -- claims that were made in most cases as long as 15 years ago and have been debunked several times in the intervening years.

See my interview with Jay Weidner on "The Real Deal"
...the studies of the Moon landing by Winston Wu
...my appearance with Sterling Harwood

Are these your claims or are they the claims of others for whom you have merely served as the media impresario?

In many cases I have debated or attempted to debate the individuals you claim as your sources. If you merely endorse their claims, one legitimately wonders what you consider your role to be in the Moon hoax debate, and how prepared you are personally to defend what you endorse. Is your defense of your Moon landing hoax claims simply to be a repeated deflection of responsibility onto others?

I can debate those people directly if I wish. Is there any reason to debate you?

 

[trustbutverify]

If the landings were faked, why would a crane be necessary to position the rover? Why not just drive the vehicle into position, and leave the correct tracks every time? Why do these fools think a crane was necessary?

Good for you, trustbutverify. There are many problems with the whole Moon landing scenario.

You think there's something in my post supporting your ridiculous conspiracy theory? Wow. It's just the opposite.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm posting to subscribe to this thread, but I'll probably just be reading, not posting in the thread.

I don't want to pile on jfetzer. I'd prefer to see just a few posters walk through his claims with him, not him being bombarded with questions and him replying with a Gish Gallop of links, as we've just seen.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Prof. Jim...I read your stuff, you have no facts or evidence to back up you insane theories. Is this your life...pushing lies and stupidity? Is this how you want to be remember?

 

[jfetzer]

Present claims here, please, so we can discuss them here. I'm unfamiliar with you and your body of work so I'm taking you at face value.

ApolloGnomon, I have around 100 articles on JFK, 9/11 and other complex and controversial issues. What do you want me to do? Reproduce them here? I've given you a list of links to some of them about planes/no planes and video fakery. What is the point of reproducing my archives here? Do you want my views about 9/11, for example, or about JFK?

On 9/11, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was necessary for the military / industrial complex to find a new international boogey man to keep taxpayer funds moving. Israel wanted the US in the Middle East to deconstruct the modern Arab states that were serving as a counter-balance to its domination of the Middle East. CIA/Neo-Cons/Mossad did it.

On the politics of 9/11, see "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots" at http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/peeling-the-911-onion-layers-of-plots-within-plots/, which I co-authored with Preston James.

Or see "James Fetzer: 9/11 Iran Review Interview", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/13/james-h-fetzer-911-iran-review-interview/

On JFK, I have three collections of studies by experts, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). I have chaired or co-chaire five national conferences on the death of JFK. For a nice summary overview (in 64 minutes),

"JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVCv3Yha4xw

I would love to discuss what I and my collaborators have found, which was my initial intention in coming here. But if you actually read any of my articles, watch in any of my videos or listen to any of my interviews, it will be a FIRST HERE so far as I can see. But I appreciate that you are asking.

 

[tsig]

Big claims, no evidence. If you think I am issuing false statements for which I have no proof, then show us: identify what I say and why I say it, then explain what I have wrong and how you know. Otherwise, this is simply meaningless.

We not only have to heat your soup for you you want us to spoon feed you as well.

 

[jfetzer]

You chose the time and date of your arrival. To now suddenly claim you're too busy doing other things speaks only to your poor timing.

But put all that aside. You'll find that the regulars here at JREF are reasonably attuned to such things as family obligations, job requirements, and the understandably human desire to parcel out one's free time as one chooses. If you want to spend the rest of this weekend with your family, no one will object. I plan to spend most of the next week and weekend in Oregon, hence I'll miss whatever happens on JREF during that time.

A good measure of one's effectiveness at JREF is not the number of posts or the amount of time spent here, or the regularity of one's appearances. A better measure is how one makes use of his time here, and what one chooses to address and how -- regardless of the absolute volume of writing. If you omit material responses in favor of a spate of derogatory and condescending comments against your critics, for example, you'll get very little quarter from the JREF regulars. Post as often or as seldom as you wish, but make your posts count for something. Then you'll be respected.



This is not an argument. This sounds very much like a lame excuse for not having to pay attention to anything that's written here.

Naturally you can resign the debate, roll the dice, and hope and pray that readers will agree that your departure is because of the "low quality" of responses. But when this thread proposes to discuss the manner in which you handle criticism of your claims -- i.e., chiefly by bluster and evasion -- then it probably isn't a good rhetorical move for you to depart in a puff of bluster and evasion.

Put simply, the only way you can avoid proving your critics here right is to tone down your bluster and start dealing with the substance of the arguments in a calm, dispassionate, and respectful manner.

This is a nice example of the shabby approach of JayUtah, who has not done anything I have seen so far to deal with any of my arguments or evidence. I tripped over this thread by accident and am not going to abandon my family for a pack of unreasonable attacks, to which I have been replying systematically. I will continue when I have the time, but dealing with this group has not been proving to be a valuable expenditure of time and energy.

 

[jfetzer]

Prof. Jim...I read your stuff, you have no facts or evidence to back up you insane theories. Is this your life...pushing lies and stupidity? Is this how you want to be remember?

I doubt it. But if you have, then it should be easy for you to identify what I have said and why I have said it and explain to everyone here what I have wrong and how you know. Pick JFK, 9/11, whatever. But stop making these meaningless assertions and PROVE YOUR CASE. That should not be too much to ask.

 

[JayUtah]

My Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science. The history of science is dominated by the history of physics.

But how does this study result in the practical knowledge and understanding of how things are built and operated, for example? Expertise in an overarching-yet-esoteric subjects such as philosophy and history does not result in expertise in the various ways science is used to achieve practical solutions.

I can explain to you, for example, the science behind zone focusing and depth of field in modern photography. You wouldn't have learned that in any of your college courses. But if you'd taken a couple simple practical classes in photography, you'd have learned how to do it without needing a PhD in anything.

And even more simply, the focus ring on the Ziess Biogon lens had three detents corresponding to "near," "medium," and "far," where "far" accommodated something like 15 meters to infinity in a single focusing zone. Those astronauts who had previous photography training were still able to fine-focus using the distance graduations on the focus ring, which were quite visible from within the space helmet. (I tested this myself.) But focusing the camera was mostly just a matter of selecting 1-5 meters, 5-15 meters, or 15-infinity. Click, click, click. That's a simple, practical, historical fact, the ignorance of which is not compensated for by any number of PhDs or academic lauds.

And for the epitome of simplicity, most of us still remember the old fixed-focus Kodak Instamatic. No photographic training whatsoever required. It's the ultimate expression of zone focusing, and completely undermines the conspiracy claims made by your "experts" (who patently are no such thing) and the assertions made on the basis of irrelevant academic achievement.

In terms of your Apollo claims, Mr. Fetzer, you simply lack the practical knowledge to substantiate your claims regarding the authenticity of the photographs. Your claims fail because of your lack of knowledge of how the world works in specific cases.

 

[jfetzer]

I'm posting to subscribe to this thread, but I'll probably just be reading, not posting in the thread.

I don't want to pile on jfetzer. I'd prefer to see just a few posters walk through his claims with him, not him being bombarded with questions and him replying with a Gish Gallop of links, as we've just seen.

Great idea! How many times have I suggested, "Just tell us what I say and why I say it, then explain what I have wrong and how you know." NO ONE HERE IS DOING THAT. Apollo is at least asking where I stand, but the rest is simply blather with no substance: "I have read all your stuff . . . " when it's obviously not true: all my stuff is chock full of evidence and argument. Check it out. See my article archive at http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/fetzer/, for example, and pick the subject that interests you. I greatly appreciate your being here. Thanks for posting.

 

[jfetzer]

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.)

You do understand that cosmic rays would have destroyed photographic plates, do you not? Have you ever taken a serious look at the Moon photo archive? There are so many anomalies it will astound you. When I get back on line here, I will give you some links. Search for "Jack White, Apollo Studies", for example, and track down the conspiracy work of Winston Wu.

 

[JayUtah]

This is a nice example of the shabby approach of JayUtah, who has not done anything I have seen so far to deal with any of my arguments or evidence.

I'm confident in the reader's ability to judge which one of us has dealt directly with the claims and evidence.

In response to my request, you laid out a handful of claims regarding Apollo photography. I dealt with each of those claims singularly and in detail, in most cases showing where I had previously written lengthy and documented rebuttals to them which have been available on the web for 15 years now.

You did not respond to any of that nor answer any of the questions I asked.

 

[MileHighMadness]

I doubt it. But if you have, then it should be easy for you to identify what I have said and why I have said it and explain to everyone here what I have wrong and how you know. Pick JFK, 9/11, whatever. But stop making these meaningless assertions and PROVE YOUR CASE. That should not be too much to ask.

Prof. Jim...it's your job TO PROVE YOUR CASE...I don't have to prove anything, logic, reason and science are my guiding light. You make up stuff and call it evidence, you lie to people and call it the truth, and you wonder why no one in the real world takes you seriously.

 

[JayUtah]

You do understand that cosmic rays would have destroyed photographic plates, do you not?

No, you're begging the question that "cosmic rays" would have done any such thing.

Have you ever taken a serious look at the Moon photo archive?

Yes, I have studied it extensively and am considered one of the world's experts on it, having had my study of it referenced and reviewed in a little journal called Science. The question is how much you have studied the Apollo archives. Since you rely heavily on the opinions and claims of others, my guess is "not very much."

There are so many anomalies it will astound you.

There are many claims of anomalies, and I have heard all of them. They amount in nearly all cases to some form of abject ignorance on the part of the claimant. I cover many of them on my web site, which has been available to you for 15 years and prominently featured in web searches on the subject. Your failure to account for those false "anomalies" constitutes a failure on your part to do a proper literature search.

Search for "Jack White, Apollo Studies", for example,

I'm quite familiar with the claims of Jack White. I chose two of his most egregious howlers to address:

http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html
http://www.clavius.org/earthmt.html

Needless to say, Jack White didn't know the first thing about Apollo photograph interpretation. He can't even determine which way the lunar module is facing in any given photo, for example. I followed his antics regularly at the Education Forum. I do not accept Jack White as an expert. He was patently incompetent.

...and track down the conspiracy work of Winston Wu.

Ditto as for Jack White.

As I mentioned, you seem fond of citing the claims of others, many of which I have debated directly. Your involvement in this debate is the only thing you're qualified to discuss here, so I don't accept simple handwaving references to claims made by others unless you can demonstrate what you did to test and verify their claims before endorsing them.