Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

[Obviousman]

I agree. That is why my involvement - despite being the OP - has been minimal.

 

[Frishman]

Captain James Fetzer, PhD CONSIDERS all sides of various issues, and alternative theories in his articles, books, and on his radio show. He often debates with the person on the show. He is open to debating anyone with a reasonably possible theory. He lets them speak and listens to their side. Unlike many groups, Dr. Fetzer does not ban people if he does not believe their views. You will not find many more open-minded scholars. He has taught courses and written books on critical thinking. Considering does not mean supporting.

 

[JayUtah]

Captain James Fetzer, PhD CONSIDERS all sides of an issues...

Nope.

He often debates the person on the show. He is open to debating anyone with a reasonably possible theory. He lets them speak and listens to their side.

Nope. I challenged Fetzer to a debate on his Moon hoax claims and he categorically refused simply on the grounds that I did not have a PhD.

Unlike many groups, Dr. Fetzer does not ban people if he does not believe their views.

No need to ban anyone if you categorically refuse to acknowledge they exist. Fetzer is happy in his walled garden and carefully controlled media bubble.

Any time he's ready I can assemble a panel of professional aerospace engineers and photographic analysts to quiz him on his understanding of Apollo and space travel.

You will not find many more open-minded scholars.

Nonsense. Fetzer writes and speaks as if he believes he's God's gift to scholarship. He approaches every critic with bluff and bluster, accusing them of failing to do their homework. He tears into a few carefully-chosen straw men but always runs away from debates he does not control, or debates with people who have the actual practical knowledge and credibility he so desperately craves. When someone comes along with the appropriate knowledge to show him his errors, he hides behind his PhD and accuses those critics of lacking a proper academic background be worthy of his attention.

He has taught courses and written books on critical thinking.

Fetzer teaches (or taught, since I believe he has retired) the philosophy of science, a dry, esoteric subject with little practical application in the real world. He wrongly believes that teaching a foundation subject gives him detailed expertise in all the practical fields built upon that foundation, when in fact his writings show appalling lack of understanding. He has no experience outside of academia and simply writes books critical of professional investigators and practitioners.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Fetzer teaches (or taught, since I believe he has retired) the philosophy of science, a dry, esoteric subject with little practical application in the real world. He wrongly believes that teaching a foundation subject gives him detailed expertise in all the practical fields built upon that foundation, when in fact his writings show appalling lack of understanding. He has no experience outside of academia and simply writes books critical of professional investigators and practitioners.

I strongly disagree with both your characterization of philosophy of science and with your description of Fetzer's problems.

As I stated here,

I wouldn't be too impressed by his status as a 'retired professor of philosophy'. Here's his CV. He started out with a reasonable research career, but by the 1990s he was publishing in vanity publishing houses like Open Court Publishing. While his early stuff is respectable, none of his recent stuff appears to have significant citations. The evolution of intelligence: are humans the only animals with minds? is listed as cited almost exclusively in papers posted on the Internet, rather than reviewed academic work.

Wikipedia tells us,

Fetzer was employed as an assistant professor from 1970 to 1977 by the University of Kentucky, where he received the first Distinguished Teaching Award from the UK Student Government, then held various positions as a visiting associate or visiting professor at the University of Cincinnati, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of South Florida, and the University of Virginia. In 1987, he was hired as a full professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and was eventually appointed a Distinguished McKnight University Professor in 1996. Fetzer taught at UMD until his retirement in June 2006.

He seems to have been moving around a lot for someone with the titles this claims. I find this strange given the job market during the 70s.

He's one of those guys who knows how to write a lot of stuff and get it out into the market, but no one really cares about his work. He started out well, but wasn't able to continue the trajectory of his career. There may be a reason for this that only those close to him understand. He may not be all there. Would that surprise you?

He is just a low-grade barely successful academic who got hired at a time when anyone with a PhD could get a job. I have said the same thing about other conspiracy intellectuals. But it's true. Dr. Jimmy is just not an impressive philosopher. If Rate Your Professor is to be believed, his students are only marginally interested in his class. At a time when he should be at the peak of his intellectual power, he is publishing vanity books and papers that only get cited on the Internet. I suspect he is not capable of getting past peer-review. He may seem "intelligent" to 19-year-old undergraduates, but he looks weak. Aside from his conspiracy-talk, he's not capable of saying anything anyone would would want to listen to.

This has nothing to do with philosophy of science or anything else. This is a personal problem that Jim Fetzer suffers. It might be the result of some other problems he has. Having talked with conspiracy boys & girls through the marvels of the World Wide Web and seeing the kinds of disturbed minds it attracts, would it surprise anyone if Dr. Jimmy was suffering from some deeper malady?

 

[JayUtah]

I strongly disagree with both your characterization of philosophy of science and with your description of Fetzer's problems.

Perhaps "dry and esoteric" are inappropriate, and I apologize if I've caused offense. However, it remains very far removed from the practical sciences and professions Fetzer dabbles in for his conspiracy theory purposes.

As for Fetzer's problems, I have my own experiences with him directly. I'll keep my own counsel and form my own opinion.

 

[Frishman]

Nope.

That is all you have to say - "Nope"? You provide no evidence for your point, except for a 1 shot case that you are the sole evaluator of. Please provide a link so others can evaluate how the discussion went. Based on your lack of providing evidence, now I don't trust your evaluation. There is no evidence that Dr. Fetzer still considers that the Moon landing was a hoax, even if he once considered it. When did he say he believes he is "God's gift"? That is your evaluation. You seem to be the one making carefully-chosen straw man arguments. What does "hiding behind a PhD" mean? When did you survey his students? Were you a student of his? Where is the teacher evaluation data you make your conclusions on? Or is it just b.s. out of thin air? Philosophy of science, the study of the pursuit of wisdom using the scientific methos is of "little practical application in the real world"? Maybe in your world.

 

[Lenbrazil]

That is all you have to say - "Nope"? You provide no evidence for your point, except for a 1 shot case that you are the sole evaluator of. Please provide a link so others can evaluate how the discussion went. Based on your lack of providing evidence, now I don't trust your evaluation. There is no evidence that Dr. Fetzer still considers that the Moon landing was a hoax, even if he once considered it. When did he say he believes he is "God's gift"? That is your evaluation. You seem to be the one making carefully-chosen straw man arguments. What does "hiding behind a PhD" mean? When did you survey his students? Were you a student of his? Where is the teacher evaluation data you make your conclusions on? Or is it just b.s. out of thin air? Philosophy of science, the study of the pursuit of wisdom using the scientific methos is of "little practical application in the real world"? Maybe in your world.

What an absurd strawman, not surprising coming from a Fetzer fan. See the rest of Jay's posts on this thread. And since your complaining about lack of evidence why don't you post any in support of your claim "Captain James Fetzer, PhD CONSIDERS all sides of an issues {sic}..."? Even many CTs complain he only considers the most lunatic ones.

 

[Lenbrazil]

The OP of the thread was 100% correct, I have noted the same thing as well.

He made a revelatory comment in a thread on the Education Forum about 'Altgens 6' a photo taken very close to the time JFK was shot. A man who looked vaguely like Oswald was photographed in the crowd in front of the Book Depository where he worked. The vast majority of assassination researchers, even ones who believe there was a major plot conceded decades ago it wasn't LHO. LHO himself said he was in the 2nd floor lunch room and co-worker identified himself as the man in the photo. Fetzer dragged up the old red herring insisting that the man was indeed LHO, he criticized those who opposed him for (approximate quote) "siding with the LNTs" ('lone nut theorists').

This struck me as indicative of how his mind works, theories are not to be evaluated on the basis of how logical they are but rather to the extent to which they contradict with orthodoxy. Since space beams is the furthest you can get from the 'OCT' it seems the most likely to him.

 

[Lenbrazil]

As strange as it may seem, Fetzer drew the line at full-scale Holocaust denial, or rather drew the line at instantaneously endorsing the bloviations of one of the head honchos in denier-land, and was hounded off CODOH forum as a result.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/07/codoh-is-strange-world-fetzer-fiasco.html

It's nice to know that cranks can be relied on to alienate even each other....

“The claim has been made that 6,000,000 Jews were cremated, but I believe that is more than all the Jews in Europe at the time.” - James Fetzer, 2012

 

[Frishman]

What an absurd strawman, not surprising coming from a Fetzer fan.

You tend to leap to conclusions, which is not a good quality of a critical thinker. You don't now me, but already you are categorizing me. I disagree 180 degrees from some things Dr. Fetzer has recently written about, such as the Altgens photo, Pentagon fly over, and Massad at Sandy Hook. But he does not leap to conclusions like you do. If you want to comment on Dr. Fetzer's recent views, you have to some work, such as listening to his weekly radio show. http://RadioFetzer.blogspot.com If you go back to prior years, you will hear that he invites those who disagree with him on his show, such as Jeff Hill and Dr. Fetzer has changed is views significantly as new evidence comes is discovered. If you disagree with him, debate him. I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but do agree with his attitude towards open debate. He does not ban people he doesn't agree with, and he allows comments on his articles at www.VeteransToday.com

 

[Brass]

Let it also be known that James Fetzer believes that Daniel Nigro and the FDNY were in on the 9/11 "conspiracy."

 

[Scott Sommers]

Why would anyone stand up for the guy? Frishman, do you think he says anything of any merit?

 

[LSSBB]

You tend to leap to conclusions, which is not a good quality of a critical thinker. You don't now me, but already you are categorizing me. I disagree 180 degrees from some things Dr. Fetzer has recently written about, such as the Altgens photo, Pentagon fly over, and Massad at Sandy Hook. But he does not leap to conclusions like you do. If you want to comment on Dr. Fetzer's recent views, you have to some work, such as listening to his weekly radio show. http://RadioFetzer.blogspot.com If you go back to prior years, you will hear that he invites those who disagree with him on his show, such as Jeff Hill and Dr. Fetzer has changed is views significantly as new evidence comes is discovered. If you disagree with him, debate him. I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but do agree with his attitude towards open debate. He does not ban people he doesn't agree with, and he allows comments on his articles at www.VeteransToday.com

So he carefully comes to the wrong conclusion? How is that critical thinking?

 

[Lenbrazil]

What an absurd strawman, not surprising coming from a Fetzer fan.

You tend to leap to conclusions, which is not a good quality of a critical thinker. You don't now me, but already you are categorizing me. I disagree 180 degrees from some things Dr. Fetzer has recently written about, such as the Altgens photo, Pentagon fly over, and Massad at Sandy Hook. But he does not leap to conclusions like you do. If you want to comment on Dr. Fetzer's recent views, you have to some work, such as listening to his weekly radio show. http://RadioFetzer.blogspot.com If you go back to prior years, you will hear that he invites those who disagree with him on his show, such as Jeff Hill and Dr. Fetzer has changed is views significantly as new evidence comes is discovered. If you disagree with him, debate him. I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but do agree with his attitude towards open debate. He does not ban people he doesn't agree with, and he allows comments on his articles at www.VeteransToday.c*m

Are you saying you aren't "a Fetzer fan", despite disagreeing with him on some points you obviously admire him. I don't like all albums/films of all the musicians/directors I'm a fan of. And your comment to Jay was a strawman. Still waiting for you to cite any examples of Fetzer "CONSIDER[ING] all sides of an issues {sic}". I have been debating him/following his stupidity since 2006 or so and have never seen it. He has even ended friendships with long term collaborators including Jack White, David Lifton and Greg Burnham over disagreements regarding the JFK assassination. You cite him inviting Jeff Hill on his program, but Hill aka 'shure' posted on this thread and seems not to agree with you. What issue(s) did they disagree about when this happened? You also said "he allows comments on his articles at www.VeteransToday.c*m" but he doesn't run the site and allowing comments does not equal considering alternative views.

 

[beachnut]

You tend to leap to conclusions, which is not a good quality of a critical thinker. You don't now me, but already you are categorizing me. I disagree 180 degrees from some things Dr. Fetzer has recently written about, such as the Altgens photo, Pentagon fly over, and Massad at Sandy Hook. But he does not leap to conclusions like you do. If you want to comment on Dr. Fetzer's recent views, you have to some work, such as listening to his weekly radio show. http://RadioFetzer.blogspot.com If you go back to prior years, you will hear that he invites those who disagree with him on his show, such as Jeff Hill and Dr. Fetzer has changed is views significantly as new evidence comes is discovered. If you disagree with him, debate him. I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but do agree with his attitude towards open debate. He does not ban people he doesn't agree with, and he allows comments on his articles at www.VeteransToday.com

Fetzer calls people who disagree with him, clowns. Fetzer is a BS artist. Fetzer is the clown. Fetzer can't figure out 911, JFK and more. It is not open debate, it is BS festival. VeteansToday.com is nonsense, where idiots are allowed to publish nonsense for idiots.

 

[Lenbrazil]

From Wikipedia:

An opinion article on Press TV, an Iranian state media network, attributed the shooting to "Israeli death squads." The author speculated that the attacks were an act of "revenge" for the perceived cooling of Israel–United States relations under President Obama, especially as a response to Obama's decision to nominate former senator Chuck Hagel, a perceived critic of Israel, for the position of United States Secretary of Defense. The story, which relied on the testimony of an American politician associated with Neo-Nazism, was widely criticized in American media as Iranian propaganda. James H. Fetzer, an American conspiracy theorist, agreed with the report, arguing that the attacks bore resemblance to Israeli military operations.

Several other conspiracy theories have suggested Israeli or Jewish involvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories



Oh noes, teh joooos done it!!!!!

This fits with the observation made in this thread that the stupider a CT is the more likely it is to be exposed or endorsed by Fetzer.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

first we have the guy praising Col. Qaddafi, not a Fetzer fan. Oye.

 

[Lenbrazil]

If you want to comment on Dr. Fetzer's recent views, you have to some work, such as listening to his weekly radio show. http://RadioFetzer.blogspot.com If you go back to prior years, you will hear that he invites those who disagree with him on his show, such as Jeff Hill

So he interviewed Hill after he changed his mind about video fakery, and this is your example of him being open to opposing viewpoints? I only to the 1st few minutes but seem more like damage control. Can you cite him interviewing someone who: believes the Z-film is authentic, the Wellstone crash was an accident, flight 77 hit the Pentagon etc?

Dr. Critic Al Thinker made a stupendously stupid comment about 14 - 15 minutes into the interview "unprecedented things don't happen"

 

[aggle-rithm]

Captain James Fetzer, PhD CONSIDERS all sides of various issues,

Why do I keep picturing Captain Crunch?

 

[rambaldi]

He is open to debating anyone with a reasonably possible theory. He lets them speak and listens to their side. Unlike many groups, Dr. Fetzer does not ban people if he does not believe their views. You will not find many more open-minded scholars. He has taught courses and written books on critical thinking. Considering does not mean supporting.

1. Fetzer's definition of reasonable differs from the one used by the rest of the world. In his deluded mind, everyone who disagrees with him, must be some evil disinformation agent, and therefor not reasonable.

2. The only reason Fetzer doesn't ban people is tha he is to lazy to get his own board.

3. Critical thinking by Fetzer, that's like a female Steer.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.de/2012/01/iran-usisraeli-false-flag-attack-may-be.html

Somehow a scenario where the Government would end up with
"Yeah we told everyone that the Vincennes has been scrapped, but somehow it ended up around Iran and was attacked by the evil Iran" seems quite the opposite of "critical thinking"