dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Photoshop in the wrong hands is a terrible thing.
Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies
- Thread starter Obviousman
- Start date
Photoshop in the wrong hands is a terrible thing.
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,541
Two neo-Nazis are now the heroes of the tea-party left?
No surprise.
No surprise.
How could Kevin Barrett have not written a glowing, completely over the top review for a book praising him like that.
Excerpt:
Kevin Barrett said:
It might stroke his ego to be likened to members of the anti-fascist resistance of WWII, but he might have noticed that no one in the US is trying to have him and that other clown executed for speaking their mind, like the nazis did with the members of the White Rose, and that they don't have to spread their crap theories and their anti-semitism in secret.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
I dunno, there are people pointing and laughing at them*. Isn't having to accept that the equivalent, in terms of personal courage needed, to standing up to the evil Nazi regime?
*That is, if anybody in the real world notices them in the first place.
*That is, if anybody in the real world notices them in the first place.
Having discovered this thread about my work, I thought it might be useful to observe that there are very few actual citations of anything I have had to say about these issues, with the exception of one reference to "Anti-anti-Semitism and the Search for Historical Truth" and a few transcriptions (most out of context) from radio shows or other interviews that I have given. So while I welcome discussion of my views, here are some suggests for how they might be better grounded in my actual positions rather than rumors, speculations or guesses about them.
Since I cannot give URLs until I have made 50 posts (as I understand it), let me suggest that an excellent introduction to my recent work on JFK is "The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden", in which I lay out the evidence for the alteration of the Zapruder film and for the image of the alleged assassin having been caught in a famous photograph taken during the assassination. Since these are two of the (if not "the") most contentious issues in JFK research, this would be a good place to start.
On 9/11, how the Twin Towers were destroyed and whether real planes hit the towers are equally disputed within the 9/11 research community. In this case, I recommend "The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference", where the first hour is devoted to the A&E911 documentary, "Explosive Evidence", which I dissect during the second and add evidence supporting my conclusion that all four of the alleged "crash sites" were faked or fabricated, albeit in different ways. That would also be an excellent place to start.
For simplicity, however, since I discuss some key issues about JFK and about 9/11 and toss in the Holocaust for good measure, perhaps the very best introduction would be my presentation during the Academic Freedom Conference held on the campus of the University of Illinois UC on 26 April 2014. That makes my views completely current and most appropriate for discussion and debate. You can find it at "The Academic Freedom Conference: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust". I look forward to exchanges with all of you here, which may be more instructive when they are rooted in my actual views.
Since I cannot give URLs until I have made 50 posts (as I understand it), let me suggest that an excellent introduction to my recent work on JFK is "The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden", in which I lay out the evidence for the alteration of the Zapruder film and for the image of the alleged assassin having been caught in a famous photograph taken during the assassination. Since these are two of the (if not "the") most contentious issues in JFK research, this would be a good place to start.
On 9/11, how the Twin Towers were destroyed and whether real planes hit the towers are equally disputed within the 9/11 research community. In this case, I recommend "The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference", where the first hour is devoted to the A&E911 documentary, "Explosive Evidence", which I dissect during the second and add evidence supporting my conclusion that all four of the alleged "crash sites" were faked or fabricated, albeit in different ways. That would also be an excellent place to start.
For simplicity, however, since I discuss some key issues about JFK and about 9/11 and toss in the Holocaust for good measure, perhaps the very best introduction would be my presentation during the Academic Freedom Conference held on the campus of the University of Illinois UC on 26 April 2014. That makes my views completely current and most appropriate for discussion and debate. You can find it at "The Academic Freedom Conference: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust". I look forward to exchanges with all of you here, which may be more instructive when they are rooted in my actual views.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Nevertheless you have not addressed the citations that were made. If they were said by you, you are responsible for them regardless of what else you may have said elsewhere.
If your intent is simply to shill your books, articles, etc. and demand that we read your entire opus as a condition of debating you, you will probably not last long here amongst your critics. We have seen that manner of bluster before.
Alareth
Philosopher
Welcome to the forum.
You can post hyperlinks after 15 posts. Prior to that just clip off the http://www portion of the link and it will post as plain text.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
At one time it was amusing to watch you tap dance your way around facts. Now, it's just sad.
The planes were real. Your denial of reality will never change that.
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,541
The transcriptions are in context. You are a racist, and a holocaust "revisionist" if not a complete denier. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself, but that would require a conscience.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
How can we be certain that this is actually the real Jim Fetzer and not some agitprop plant slipped in here to mislead us?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Do you still contend that the Apollo missions were faked? If so, please direct us to your most representative work on the subject. I will be starting a thread here to discuss it.
Present your "actual views" on Apollo, in an appropriate thread, and we will see how instructive they are and how amenable you are to having them examined and tested by qualified experts.
As someone who believes that arguments should be supported by evidence I offer these posts by JayUtah and DGM as illustrations of the slovenly quality of thinking (it does not qualify as “reasoning”) all too often encountered on the JREF Forum.
Instead of citing something I have actually said, explaining why I said and then explaining what I have wrong and how he knows, JayUtah reinforces his reputation (such as it is) for being lazy and irresponsible and adopting an attitude of superiority.
There are almost no citations and most of what has been published here is an assortment of half-truths and misunderstandings where it would have been ALMOST EFFORTLESS to discover they were not my views. But that appears to be too much for JayUtah to bother.
Even the post with which this thread begins (in its first sentence) claims that I believe lasers were used to destroy the Twin Towers. But that is trading on rumor and speculation, not my actual views, which have been presented many places, many times.
See, for example, and early study of mine, “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11”, where I explain the differences between the collapse of WTC-7 (which actually DID collapse) and the Twin Towers (which did not), where they, by contrast, were blown apart in every direction and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
But I have published many additional articles and made many more presentations about this since then. See, for example, “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”. Indeed, among my most recent is at the Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, which is why I cited it earlier.
This attribution (about lasers) may have been due to my featuring Judy Wood on my radio programs 15 times, where I believed that her theory (of the use of DEWs) was worthy of discussion and debate. I long since concluded that she was wrong, but her work is interesting and her compilation of evidence about the WTC is most impressive.
So if it takes me paragraphs to explain why the first sentence of this thread included a mistaken attribution, what purpose would be served to go through the other distortions and partial quotes out of context? The answer is, “None!”, but it creates the false impression that this JayUtah guy is serious, when the evidence speaks against it.
What, after all, could be more telling than his further claim that I am here to “shill [my] books” and “demand that we read [my] entire opus as a condition for debating
”? I have not even mentioned any books (so how can I be “shilling them”?).
I have cited exactly one article and two conference presentations in the course of suggesting that it might be a good idea to ground this discussion in my actual work instead of ignoring what I have said, especially when I have said it so often and in so many places.
In fact, I suggest that discussion should focus on exactly ONE of my articles or presentations, “Are their limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust", since it represents the current state of my research in relation to crucial issues and further demonstrates that JayUtah has nothing to contribute here because he is both lazy and irresponsible.
I have cited exactly one article and two conference presentations in the course of suggesting that it might be a good idea to ground this discussion in my actual work instead of ignoring what I have said, especially when I have said it so often and in so many places.
In fact, I suggest that discussion should focus on exactly ONE of my articles or presentations, “Are their limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust", since it represents the current state of my research in relation to crucial issues and further demonstrates that JayUtah has nothing to contribute here because he is both lazy and irresponsible.
Last edited:
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?
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. 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?
For the third time in a row, I am met with ASSERTIONS unsubstantiated by ARGUMENTS. This is quite ridiculous and it appears to me this forum has run so long without rules that getting away with utter rubbish and nonsense has become commonplace and routine.
Don't worry. I am THE REAL JIM FETZER. You can email me for confirmation, if you like, to jfetzer @ d.umn.edu Why would anyone else bother to respond to the unreasoned attacks on me here? I am trying to introduce a note of sanity.
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.
While I have interviewed several guest about the Moon landings, my own most recent discussion (where I was the guest) was with Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D., which you can easily find on the internet.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
How is my thinking flawed? You have no proof to support your belief and you handwave all evidence to the contrary.
That's a good one. Why don't you start here. How was Newtons law violated? You can impress us with numbers.
Last edited:
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
I have to admit it is a very persuasive imitation.
Of course this only goes to show the intense effort devoted to create it. Clearly not the work of some loner. There must be a substantial organization involved.
Of course this only goes to show the intense effort devoted to create it. Clearly not the work of some loner. There must be a substantial organization involved.