Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

[frenat]

On 9/11, I explaln how we know that the Twin Towers were taken out by a sophisticated arrangement of micro or mini nukes, where they were blowing apart in every direction from the top down, being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust and l, unlike WTC-7, left no pile of debris.

nukes with no radiation, no emp, no seismic signature, no blinding flash, etc. Basically no proof of their existence at all. Otherwise known as a fantasy.

the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005.

And how do you know these weren't paperwork errors? Do you have ANY proof that the planes for 93 and 175 flew afterward?

 

[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.

Well there you go Sir Fetzer, a thread just for you to defend your lunar photography baloney. Feel free to hold forth.

 

[DGM]

Army Corps of Engineers estimate about 309,000 tons of structural steel was recovered from the three WTC sites. None of the steel showed any residue from explosives or thermite.

Not to mention the thousands of pictures (and many more that saw them in person) of the piles he says don't exists.

He's not worth a yellow card. Readers can see what's going on................

 

[MileHighMadness]

My grandfather once told me…”We need a few stupid and crazy people in this world. How else would we know what normal is!”

Moderators please note…this post is not directed at anyone on this great forum. MHM

 

[matt.tansy]

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

About 25% of cosmic rays make it to the surface of the Earth. So all photographic film on Earth should be destroyed after 40 days. It obviously isn't destroyed so obviously there is something wrong with your claim.

 

[matt.tansy]

I would like to hear more about these mini- and micro-nukes! How many were there and what was their yields?

If I ever get an answer I'm going to use this quote from The Nuclear Weapons Archive to see how many minutes all the responders should have died:

"The fission of 57 grams of material produces 3x10^23 atoms of fission products (two for each atom of fissionable material). One minute after the explosion this mass is undergoing decays at a rate of 10^21 disintegrations/sec (3x10^10 curies). It is estimated that if these products were spread over 1 km^2, then at a height of 1 m above the ground one hour after the explosion the radiation intensity would be 7500 rads/hr."

The fission of 57 grams will yield 1 kiloton.

 

[Redwood]

Prof. Fetzer: Has your friend Wolfgang Halbig flown the coop with the cash he raised re Sandy Hook? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249587&page=31)

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon
I'll admit I haven't read whatever whatever, so can you sum up for me your difficulty with the engine found at Church and Murray? I've studied the footage and the travel time and distance from the tower is consistent with a specific piece of spiraling ejecta seen in all the footage.

Sure. It was found under a steel scaffolding on an undamaged sidewalk. Any object that massive at its alleged velocity would have shattered the sidewalk. It was of the wrong make to have come from a Boeing 767.

Jack White discovered Fox News footage of three agents wearing FBI vests unloading something heavy from a white van at that intersection. They even left the dolly behind, which can be seen in the photos I present.

My presentation at The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference runs about one hour and covers the problems with A&E911 and Judy Wood in relation to the Twin Towers and presents the proof that none of those planes crashed on 9/11.

So the FBI knowingly placed the engine in an impossible location? Did they do this just to taunt the Truthers, or were they too stupid to realize it was impossible? Is the Conspiracy all-powerful but utterly stupid? Or could it be that you are wrong?

 

[trustbutverify]

If you happened to miss Conspiracy Con 2011 (shame on you!), here are two intellectual giants discussing -among other things- chemtrails (aka..."Death Dumps"). Keep in mind, these guys are investigative heavyweights, so anyone thinking of challenging these conclusions better eat their Wheaties!

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

(1) they are all perfectly framed

Each and every time a hoax promotor claims that "all pictures are perfectly framed" we know that they are lying.

Either their implicit assertion that they have seen all pictures is besides the truth, or they lie about what they have seen.

Considering all the images are available on-line in high-resolution it is a very transparant lie, and the motive for resorting to it is rather unfathomable.
So enlighten us, Mr. Fetzer, why do you lie?

You simply endorse claims made by other non-experts without any indication that you have applied any form of critical thinking toward them, any competent literature search regarding existing refutations, or any attempt on your part to test or replicate them to ascertain whether they are valid. In most cases the claims you endorse were refuted as long as 15 years ago. Simply regurgitating old claims will not do.

Sounds like 99% of all hoax believers.

Frankly I'm disappointed. I was hoping for something new.

 

[beachnut]

Many of us would be aware of Jim Fetzer and the fact he believes in a lot (all?) of conspiracies: JFK, 9-11, Moon Hoax to name just a few. By iteself, that is not particularly strange, but what is quite curious is the particular position he takes within the groups who hold those beliefs. In most cases he takes the most extreme - even bizarre - positions within them. For instance:

9-11. He's a no-planer, supporting the idea of holographic aircraft and laser beams.

...
It's this I want to discuss and hear opinions on: does he actually believe what he says?

That is a lot of nonsense. After 13 years why does Fetzer keep spreading false information based on hearsay, and lies. Not a single thing right on 911.

When I point out evidence, like RADAR which makes the hologram fantasy so silly it hurts my head to think people believe it.
I posted RADAR, he claims I never posted or picked a point he made. No idea that RADAR proves all his no plane junk bogus, so Fetzer has to ignore it was posted, and tap dance.

The mini-nuke proves no science/physics will be used, it becomes a game of repeating fantasy.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Each and every time a hoax promotor claims that "all pictures are perfectly framed" we know that they are lying.

What the hell does "perfectly framed" mean in the first place?

Every single photograph ever taken can be said to be "perfectly framed", since what's in the frame is completely determined by the camera being used at the moment the shutter release button is pressed.

Otherwise, "perfectly framed" can only be used as an aesthetic value judgement about how pretty the resulting picture looks.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I made the point before that this distinction about the weirdness of Jim Fetzer's belief system only holds up on places like the JREF. Outside of here, no one can tell the difference Jim and someone like Dusty or Jamonious. Ordinary people don't count the number of conspiracy theories or have some gauge of the difference between thermite and nukes. They just think it's all stupid. It's like trying to figure out who was the most evil serial killer.

 

[Animal]

What the hell does "perfectly framed" mean in the first place?

Every single photograph ever taken can be said to be "perfectly framed", since what's in the frame is completely determined by the camera being used at the moment the shutter release button is pressed.

Otherwise, "perfectly framed" can only be used as an aesthetic value judgement about how pretty the resulting picture looks.

.....the "perfect framing" usuallycomes at the time of printing......via cropping etc.

Similar are the claims of "they could not have got that perfectly timed shot" ....of course anyone with any knowledge of photography knows that the "perfectly timed shot" is the one that was published....and the other couple hundred go in the file drawer.

 

[JayUtah]

Most conspiracy theorists alleged "perfect framing" in the Apollo photographs to mean that nothing was egregiously cut off.

The viewfinders were removed from the Hasselblad 500/EL bodies, to save weight and to reduce mechanical complexity. (Moving parts are problematic in space due to phenomena such as cold welding.) Also, they're not very useful with the cameras mounted on the space suit RCU (chest control unit). You can't look down effectively in a space helmet, and the viewfinders were the old-fashioned kind where you had to look straight down into the camera body.

But the Biogon lens essentially afforded a 45-degree horizontal field of view. To get the subject framed so it's not cut off, you basically just aim the camera in the general direction of the subject. The left-right alignment is a no-brainer. The up-down alignment takes practice.

Zig Zag Productions handed me (without warning) an Apollo-modified 500/EL and told me to take some pictures. We had them developed at a Hollywood lab, and the first time I saw the transparencies was when I was commenting on them on-camera. I had no practice. The Apollo astronauts were each given an Apollo-modified Hasselblad and told to practice. As I said, I had no problem at all with horizontal framing. With vertical framing I tended to aim low, but I never cut off any of the subjects. They were just a little farther below center than I would have anticipated.

Wow, Neil Armstrong did the same thing. The most famous photograph from Apollo, AS11-40-5903, actually cuts off the top of Buzz Aldrin's PLSS. Michael Light and Eric Jones graciously provided me the scans of the camera originals and I was able to determine that Armstrong tended to point the camera a little lower than he may have intended. In publication we tend to correct -5903 by adding a little black "headroom" over the top of the shot. But the facts remain that the top of Aldrin's PLSS was cut off, and the most famous photograph of lunar exploration is most certainly not "perfectly framed."

In short, Fetzer simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[ComfySlippers]

My grandfather once told me…”We need a few stupid and crazy people in this world. How else would we know what normal is!”



Moderators please note…this post is not directed at anyone on this great forum. MHM

With your permission I would like to steal these words of wisdom.

 

[MileHighMadness]

With your permission I would like to steal these words of wisdom.

No problem...

 

[ComfySlippers]

I fully understand the Mod warning but, without intentionally being a naughty boy, I must pose this question:

This thread was created to discuss Mr Fetzer's obsession with idiotic woo.
After the the thread was created MR Fetzer signed up and is now a subscriber to this forum.
Forum rules dictate that as he is now a member we have to bite our tongues and can not state the obvious.
So it's become a dangerous thread where cards will be issued if we stay on topic?

To reply to Mr Fetzer's post, #278:
Putting the record straight, and opposing your judgement of my knowledge of history, I know a heck of a lot more about pretty much everything you pretend to be an expert on.

I'm prepared to admit that a subject that fascinates me, (Apollo), if I have neither the required amount of knowledge or experience, I'll keep my mouth shut and listen to folks who do.
This is why JayUtah's posts are a source of knowledge based upon facts and real life experiences rather than copying nonsense from the world wide woo.

(same for ApolloGnomom, but I can't spell his name )

Mr Fetzer regurgitates ancient woo, claims it be his own "research", and takes umbrage when people call him out.

With regard that silly "conference" video... (Yes, I used scare quotes. How many times did Uncle Fetzer use the word 'allegedly' in his ramble? I'm allowed)....

Shamelessly promoting your works of fiction, in every single post you ever make, is weird.
Especially when your only talent seems to be that you've learned how to copy and paste other peoples woo.
Including Jack White's nonsense!

I reiterate my previous comment:
The first two parts of that video are embarrassing to watch.
The third is nothing short of vile racism.

#note:
Fetzer is the topic at hand.

ETA2: I award beachnut 1.5 internets also

 

[beachnut]

... 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; ...

FALSE - did you make this, because knowledge of photograph makes this statement silly. Simple research proves the claim is bogus.

What a load of BS.
The camera had three presets, near, medium and far for focusing, simple research busts your claim.

They only have to estimate the distance. With a wide angle lens, relative large depth of field, min f-stop of 5.6, sharp images were possible. Simple knowledge and research bust your faked claim.

http://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/
Knowledge of photography and research prove this to be BOGUS. Where did you get this an anti-intellectual claim from?

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

The viewfinders were removed from the Hasselblad 500/EL bodies, to save weight and to reduce mechanical complexity. (Moving parts are problematic in space due to phenomena such as cold welding.) Also, they're not very useful with the cameras mounted on the space suit RCU (chest control unit). You can't look down effectively in a space helmet, and the viewfinders were the old-fashioned kind where you had to look straight down into the camera body.

I stand corrected. I'd assumed they had the standard configuration, with the viewfinder at the top (it seemed to make sense to me that you could still, somewhat, see what was in frame with a space helmet on and the camera fixed on your chest).

To get the subject framed so it's not cut off, you basically just aim the camera in the general direction of the subject.

So basically the same way a lot of people take pictures these days. The first time I tried to take some pictures with a digital compact camera in bright sunlight, I realized it was impossible to properly see what was on the LCD display (indoors, it's fine), so I had to use the "point in the general direction and hope for the best" method as well. I vowed that if I ever decide to spend money on a new digital camera, it has to be one with a proper viewfinder, something I can hold to my face. IOW, a proper camera.