Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

[trustbutverify]

What in God's name justifies THIS? I am no racist, but I am willing to apply logic to the available evidence and accept the consequences.

You are a complete and utter anti-Semitic racist, just like every other Holocaust "revisionist" I've ever had the displeasure of running into. Your JREF membership prevents me from accurately describing what i really think of your disgusting bigotry.

As I said before, you should be deeply ashamed...but I understand what I'm dealing with here.

 

[beachnut]

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.

All you say on 911 is meaningless claptrap. If your fantasy claims on 911 were true, you would have a Pulitzer if you could team with a newspaper; bad news, your claims have no evidence.

You gish gallop on all your failed claims from 911, moon landing, and jfk. You can take all of your evidence and move to Bigfoot without having to change the nothingness.

Where are you and 911 truth hiding your evidence.

 

[beachnut]

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.

I already told you what was wrong and RADAR proves you wrong. You spread false information on 911. Do you spread false information on purpose, or are you unable to understand physics and flying. You posted lies, and you think posting lies is valid evidence. you are wrong

Nothing you have on 911 is true, and all you can do is make a post like this. Your article on 911 at Veterans Today is BS, nothing is valid.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

RADAR proves your article is nonsense, dumbed down dribble only nuts like the Boston bombers would fall for.

I posted RADAR before, and you ignore posts, as if you have no ability to take evidence and comprehend why it makes your fantasy claims fail.

https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Flight_Path_Study_UA175.pdf
Anyone can get the raw RADAR data from 911, and prove you are wrong, even the NTSB did it. With your lies about the moon landings, it appears you ignore science so you can make up silly BS claims.

RADAR verifies the video evidence, and eye witnesses to Flight 175, and Flight 11. What you have is nonsense, disjointed crap you connect to make lies.

The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies, including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed, an impossible entry into the building (in violation of Newton’s laws), and even passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air—which is impossible, unless this 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its trajectory in flight than air. Some have claimed that this was a “special plane” that could fly faster than a standard Boeing 767, but no real plane could violate Newton’s laws. The structure of the building, moreover, meant that it actually intersected with eight different floors as follows:

LOL, the 767 does not have posted "impossible speed", I have over 4,000 hours in Boeing Jets, and they have no problem exceeding Vmo, and much faster. 175 was below the limiting MACH number, and the airspeed limit at low altitude is to keep the aircraft from stress. You are not an expert on flying, so you made up the "impossible speed" or quote mined it from idiots in 911 truth; which is it, plagiarized, or made it up out of BS?

I am an engineer, and the words, "in violation of Newton’s laws" are the dumbest I have heard. It is a red flag for lies to follow based on ignorance of physics.

The shell of the WTC can't stop a 767 with 1600 to 2093 pounds of TNT in Kinetic Energy. That is a fact, it is physics, which you lie about; 175 did not violate the laws of physics, your claims violate the laws of reason and knowledge.

Pick one of your false claims, and present your evidence. So far you have failed opinions, hearsay, quote mining, fantasy, and other nonsense you think is evidence.

For instance, the impossible speed, a silly like. Did you make it up? Plagiarize pilots for truth? Do you have a valid source? NO
911 truth has a problem with your claims - is that irony or what.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/06/rebuttal-to-james-fetzer.html
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/debate-over-911-truth-kevin-ryan-vs-jim.html

 

[frenat]

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

How common are these cosmic rays? Have any numbers to back up your claims?

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

Have you? Or are you still clinging to the lie that they are all perfectly framed?

There are so many anomalies it will astound you.

Not a single supposed anomaly stands up to scrutiny. Those who think there are anomalies are largely ignorant of photography and perspective.

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

Yes, please point us towards the totally discredited "studies" that were all completely debunked and did nothing more than to show Jack had a talent for badly interpreting photographs, see previous statement about those ignorant of perspective.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Mr Fetzer: this thread is going to become extremely messy and the mods will clean it up. I suggest you pick one part of your reputation you want to defend and post in another thread.

 

[LSSBB]

Mr Fetzer: this thread is going to become extremely messy and the mods will clean it up. I suggest you pick one part of your reputation you want to defend and post in another thread.

JFK: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669
Newton / Sandy Hook: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249587
9/11: take your pick, sub-forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64
Holocaust Denial: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279600
Apollo hoax: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326

We won't have to bother with this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278677

ETA: Aids Denial: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269968

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Well, you seem more rational than most posting here, ApolloGnomon.

Thanks, I've learned from the best. I expect you and I will find our way to communicate if you can keep it civil and play the ball and not the player.

Have you read any of my articles or viewed any of my presentations about it?

I don't know you from Adam's Off Ox. I'm sure you are a quite the frog in your little pond, but this forum is not that forum or whatever. Discussions here will be be more productive if your case is presented cleanly here and defended on a point by point basis.

(This also applies to other posters. Try not to color the conversation with broken crayons from another box.)

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.

So many assertions, so little support. The more topics you put in one post the less any of them will be discussed.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

And anyway, I'm not particularly interested in 9/11, and especially in discussing no planes. Someone PM me if he wants to talk about Apollo and I haven't joined in.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

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

In addition to the excellent reply JayUtah, who clearly knows a lot more about photography than I do, has already posted, I would like to ask:

I am wondering: how do you know these cosmic rays, that allegedly destroy all photographic "plates" (those cameras used roll film you know, plates were a bit passé by the 1960s) are omnipresent on the surface on the Moon, but absent here on Earth? Since according to you, nobody has ever been on the moon to find out about things like that?

 

[trustbutverify]

I don't know you from Adam's Off Ox.

Allow me to introduce you.

Scholarship at the highest possible level.

 

[abaddon]

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.

You cite the incompetent Jack White, who stated in court that he did not know what photogrammetry was and the raving loon Winston Wu as sources?

You have great shiny brass ones, I'll give you that.

 

[funk de fino]

If there is anything worse than people like Jack White et al, it is people who just regurgitate the nonsense they put out and do nothing original.

I'd love to see Fetzer and JayUtah just have a single thread and go through everything point by point with the peanut gallery silent.

I suspect Fetzer would run from that. He needs the peanut gallery to cover for his shortcomings.

 

[Muc]

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.

I am no racist, but I am willing to apply logic to the available evidence and accept the consequences. If you think you can substantiate wild and reckless charges like these, THEN DO IT!

I am getting the impression that most JEFRers do not even understand the concept of an ARGUMENT, which is a conclusion supported by premises, which offer grounds, reasons or evidence in its support. Does no one here care about reason and rationality?

The concept of an argument with you is normally quite simple: you gullibly spread highly speculative claims other people have made up, someone refutes them and you completely ignore it, then you simply continue to spread those claims as if nothing happened. What I hardly ever see you doing, though, is try to actually substantiate the "wild and reckless charges" you have adopted, like those against jews (or "zionists", as you people prefer to say these days).

Just one example is your German Red Cross holocaust numbers claim, mentioned earlier in this thread.

"We get this exaggerated figure of six million jews allegedly having died during the holocaust. Now if you pay attention to the International Committee of the Red Cross and its own records, which are very detailed and specific, the number might be actually ten percent of that, might be 600,000 who died who were gipsies or jews, mentally or physically handicapped people but don't were near 6 million people."

We discussed this in that Yahoo group (well, I discussed it - you kept dodging and changing the topic). Here's what you were told one year ago after I looked at the documents in question [don't click on this link if you mind ending up on a Nazi web site - I'm obviously not talking to you here, Fetzer]. Documents which apparently neither you nor the google-powered, openly nazi-biased amateur Holocaust "researchers" who fed you this story can even read because neither of you understands German.

First impression:

1) Those scans only mention deaths that have been registered with certificates ("beurkundete Sterbefälle") in a registration office ("Standesamt"). The people that were "gassed" in the camps or shot by the Einsatzgruppen were obviously not registered that way before they were killed.

2) Those numbers were not assembled by the Red Cross but by the "Sonderstandesamt Arolsen", a registration office that issues death certificate for missing persons whose death is confirmed to that authority. The number is continually rising.

3) The first (and newer) document from 1984 has an underlined section near the bottom which - translated into English - states in no uncertain terms: "The certified numbers of the [Sonderstandesamt] don't allow cocnclusions regarding the overall number of deaths in the concentration camps." They obviously had already made their experiences with Holocaust deniers using their documents to misrepresent their data at that point.

Whoever uploaded the scans in this context is either a fraud or talking out of his ass, and he clearly either doesn't understand German or doesn't expect his readers to.

Oh, and I forgot: I think your not supposed to read those two scans as if they represented different numbers that are to be added. The newer on is simply an updated version of the older one with added numbers.

You still bring up this German Red Cross claim even though you should know it's false, even though you should know that the numbers on the documents only represent the data of ONE registration office - a registration office which uses this data to offer death certificates when family members or others ask for one for whatever reason. If that's not flat-out lying, it suggests - with all due respect to Rule 10 - the possibility of some faulty wiring in your synapses as far as defending your political world view against anything that might challenge it is concerned. Both of this would be a rather sad display for a man who, at one point, was apparently allowed to teach young people "critical thinking", of all things.

At this point, even in the conspiracy world beyond that strange anti-semite fantasy news site where you publish most of your stuff, you seem to have talked yourself into a corner in which you really need the attention that this thread here provides you with. It's the only purpose it seems to have at this point, as actually trying to discuss with you normally feels like talking to a random text and link generator. If you feel like proving me wrong, how about you start with the above-mentioned Red Cross documents issue. As others have pointed out already, there's a Holocaust denial thread here where you can show that you "don’t offer conclusions that are unsupported by evidence":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279600

True to form, JayUtah does not want to respond to the points I have made here about my work on JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust--so he changes the subject! I would expect nothing less of a mediocrity.

Oh, the irony. It's almost like your just trolling.

 

[Muc]

How can we be certain that this is actually the real Jim Fetzer and not some agitprop plant slipped in here to mislead us?

If it's not him it's a spot-on imitation of his style.

 

[frenat]

The more topics you put in one post the less any of them will be discussed.

I get the impression that he's less interested in discussion in favor of people just reading his multiple self-promoted links and agreeing he is right. How dare they disagree with him! He's got multiple PhDs and can't possibly be wrong! I wonder if he personally gets anything for each page hit from the links he posts?

 

[abaddon]

I get the impression that he's less interested in discussion in favor of people just reading his multiple self-promoted links and agreeing he is right. How dare they disagree with him! He's got multiple PhDs and can't possibly be wrong! I wonder if he personally gets anything for each page hit from the links he posts?

No idea, I didn't click any of them as I know they are worthless out front. If he cannot present his arguments in his own words here, then he has no arguments.

 

[jfetzer]

So your saying that because Fetzer believes crazy conspiracy ideas there should be some question about whether he's an agent for the super secret NWO global government? Makes sense to me. After all, no one really believes in that crap, right. No one really believes in no-planes at 9/11. No sir, it's all a ploy to discredit legitimate conspiracy theorists who, as we know, rational and thoughtful people, always sticking to the facts never and falling for stupidity.

And well-informed. Everyone knows that conspiracy theorists are always well-informed. So when Fetzer appears out of the picture, we all know he's 'disinfo'. Must be. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

Unless, of course, he is a rigorous student of conspiracies who brings together experts on different aspects of a complex case (like JFK and 9/11), collaborates with them to expose falsehoods and reveal truths. He has three books on JFK, which shattered the cover-up by revealing that the X-rays had been altered to conceal a fist-sized blow-out at the back of his head, that the brain for the second supplemental brain exam was not that of JFK and that the home movies of the assassination have been extensively revised to conceal the truth causes of death of the 35th President of the United States.

A nice example of his work is "Reasoning about Assassinations", in which he dissects the "magic bullet" theory and demonstrates--presenting the evidence in the article itself--that JFK was actually hit 5.5" below the collar to the right of the spinal column, a shallow shot that only went in about as far as the 2nd knuckle of your little finger. Which means that it did not pass through his neck and that the wound to his throat and those to John Connally have to be explained on the basis of additional shots and additional shooters. So he proves there was a conspiracy! He presented it at Cambridge and published it in an international, peer-reviewed journal:http://www.assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf

What I don't understand about this "disinformation agent" conjecture is, Why would a disinformation agent spend so much time exposing governmental complicity in the death of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11, the plane crash that took out Sen. Paul Wellstone, and the fraud and fakery at Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing? He has been dedicated to this enterprise since his retirement in 2006 from UMD. He has published 29 books and hundreds of articles. Is the government (CIA, NIA, FBI . . .) paying people to expose their criminal activities, because he has been doing quite a good job of that. Other than this--and that he is a former Marine Corps officer--the case for him as a "disinfo op" is rock solid!

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

... he is a former Marine Corps officer--the case for him as a "disinfo op" is rock solid!

Also;

Lee Harvey Oswald. United States Marine.

Coincidence?

You decide.

 

[DGM]

What I don't understand about this "disinformation agent" conjecture is, Why would a disinformation agent spend so much time exposing governmental complicity in the death of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11, the plane crash that took out Sen. Paul Wellstone, and the fraud and fakery at Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing? He has been dedicated to this enterprise since his retirement in 2006 from UMD. He has published 29 books and hundreds of articles. Is the government (CIA, NIA, FBI . . .) paying people to expose their criminal activities, because he has been doing quite a good job of that. Other than this--and that he is a former Marine Corps officer--the case for him as a "disinfo op" is rock solid!

Promotion. You can't sell something no one hears about.

David Ray Griffin is a good example of this.

 

[jfetzer]

Also;

Lee Harvey Oswald. United States Marine.

Coincidence?

You decide.

So is every former Marine complicit in the assassination or in covering it up? This is very typical of the quality of posts on this thread.if you had studied his work, you would know that Lee was framed using fake photographs, a planted weapon and a host of other fabricated evidence. He wasn't even on the 6th floor but was captured in a famous photograph taken by AP photographer James "Ike" Altgens, which we have discussed extensively.

On the "backyard photographs", see "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" co-authored with Jim Marrs, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/19/framing-the-patsy-the-case-of-lee-harvey-oswald/ He has published at least a dozen articles about Lee's having been captured in the Altgens' photo on Veterans Today. One that summarizes the evidence and also discusses the revision of the Zapruder film is "The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/14/the-jfk-war-the-challenging-case-of-robert-groden/