• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

Obviousman

Muse
Obviousman
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
652
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.

Moon hoax. Supports people like Jack White, Dave McGowan or John Lear and his "living Moon" theories.

He is also currently advancing the prediction that there will be a "false flag" attack on the USS Vincennes, to be used as a pretext for US military action towards on Iran... even though that ship has now been decommissioned, was in mothballs for a number of years and has now been reduced to scrap!

With the position he takes regarding the various conspiracies, it is almost as if he is deliberately setting himself up as a strawman in order to discredit conspiracy theorists. Even when discussing these beliefs, he commits multiple logical errors / logical fallacies despite actually teaching a university-level course in critical thinking.

Some people have suggested that Jim Fetzer is a "disinformation agent".

So: does Jim Fetzer actually believe in the theories he supports or are there other reasons for his supporting the most wacky of "out there" beliefs?

It's this I want to discuss and hear opinions on: does he actually believe what he says?
 
Obviousman said:
Some people have suggested that Jim Fetzer is a "disinformation agent".
Click to expand...

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.
Obviousman said:
He is also currently advancing the prediction that there will be a "false flag" attack on the USS Vincennes, to be used as a pretext for US military action towards on Iran... even though that ship has now been decommissioned, was in mothballs for a number of years and has now been reduced to scrap!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
It's that he seems to continuously take the more extreme view. We all know people who may believe in a conspiracy theory of some type. We may even believe a particular one ourselves. You'll normally find an extreme in only one area, though. You'll find a 9-11 no-planer but they don't believe that the Moon landings were hoaxed... or if they do, they have at least "CT mainstream" ideas.

Jim Fetzer seems to be different, not only for the range of his conspiracy beliefs, but the extreme position within those beliefs.

I find that unusual and want to hear if people think it is simply because he holds some extreme beliefs, or is there another reason for this.
 
Obviousman said:
It's that he seems to continuously take the more extreme view. We all know people who may believe in a conspiracy theory of some type. We may even believe a particular one ourselves. You'll normally find an extreme in only one area, though. You'll find a 9-11 no-planer but they don't believe that the Moon landings were hoaxed... or if they do, they have at least "CT mainstream" ideas.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well, if I understand your argument, you are saying he is not unusual, that many CTs hold "extreme' views in a variety of CTs?
 
If that's what you think, you would be right. Crazy ideas are believed by crazy people. Do you have any reason to believe differently?
 
Obviousman said:
Well, if I understand your argument, you are saying he is not unusual, that many CTs hold "extreme' views in a variety of CTs?
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of the time I think they do.

From what I've seen, a distrust of government rapidly translates to a distrust of anything that remotely resembles 'official sources', which combines with an inability to exercise rational thought and poor education to throw out any kind of understanding of the world they learned from those official sources.

Simply questioning an official stance is seen as discrediting that stance, and contempt for those official sources translates into contempt for anyone who believes those sources. It becomes self-reinforcing.

They also want to be part of what they believe is a mass movement, and the whole "Emperor's new clothes" syndrome has a big part to play in the adoption of a CT mindset. The irony of a mass of delusional fools calling everyone they believe to be delusional fools "sheep", and that their own set of "official sources" may have their own agenda (making money from gullible idiots) escapes them entirely.
 
Last edited:
But Jim Fetzer holds views which "mainstream" CTs seem to shy away from. As pointed out, some think this is to try and discredit CTs, either in a particular belief (e.g. 9-11) or in general.

I can understand the general agreement with many conspiracy theories, but the extremity of the view within each particular conspiracy intrigues me. IMO - and of course I may be the only one who holds this opinion - he seems to pick the most extreme, wacky position within a belief set.
 
Obviousman said:
But Jim Fetzer holds views which "mainstream" CTs seem to shy away from. As pointed out, some think this is to try and discredit CTs, either in a particular belief (e.g. 9-11) or in general.
Click to expand...

What's a mainstream CTer? You mean like the guys who believe President Obama was born in Kenya? That makes them mainstream? How about the ones who think he's a CIA plant and they created his entire life story?

Obviousman said:
I can understand the general agreement with many conspiracy theories, but the extremity of the view within each particular conspiracy intrigues me. IMO - and of course I may be the only one who holds this opinion - he seems to pick the most extreme, wacky position within a belief set.
Click to expand...

You do? Like the geoengineering guys? Or the UN conspiracy? Or the secret one world government? Which ones do you understand? I don't understand any of them.
 
And as if by magic, an example of what I mean has appeared before our eyes. But my friend, it is neither magic nor interesting. It is simply the rule among the nut cases whose belief systems defy logic.

therival58 said:
This link was posted in the 'freeman and England' thread but no one really commented on it.

The premise of the video is that the 13th and 14th amendments, while abolishing slavery, created 'voluntary servitude' which, it claims, we are all now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvD-rOn2Zm0

I think this is where the FOTL concept originated. The video only 10 minutes I would highly recommend anyone interested to check it out.

There is no stupid music or anything distracting from the content. It appears to be a clip from a larger documentary.
Click to expand...
Sceptic-PK said:
Have you ever met a conspiracy theory you don't like?
Click to expand...
 
Scott Sommers said:
What's a mainstream CTer? You mean like the guys who believe President Obama was born in Kenya?
Click to expand...

Let's put it another way, if you sort CTs from "evidenceless" to "just reading it makes anyone dumber", Fetzer will go for the latter.

To use your example:
"Obama was born in Kenya" appeals do Republicans, Teabaggers, Racists etc, it doesn't require millions of dumb or involved scientists etc.

"Obama is really from Krypton" would appeal to Fetzer...
 
rambaldi said:
Let's put it another way, if you sort CTs from "evidenceless" to "just reading it makes anyone dumber", Fetzer will go for the latter.

To use your example:
"Obama was born in Kenya" appeals do Republicans, Teabaggers, Racists etc, it doesn't require millions of dumb or involved scientists etc.

"Obama is really from Krypton" would appeal to Fetzer...
Click to expand...


+1

For example:

Among "mainstream" truthers the idea that the World Trade Center was destroyed by pre-planted explosives is an article of faith. Fetzer, however, supports Judy Wood's claim that the towers were destroyed by directed energy weapons, which is at least an order of magnitude crankier.
 
rambaldi said:
Let's put it another way, if you sort CTs from "evidenceless" to "just reading it makes anyone dumber", Fetzer will go for the latter.

To use your example:
"Obama was born in Kenya" appeals do Republicans, Teabaggers, Racists etc, it doesn't require millions of dumb or involved scientists etc.

"Obama is really from Krypton" would appeal to Fetzer...
Click to expand...

If you're speaking metaphorically, this makes sense. If you're trying to describe what Fezter would really say, this is just your imagination.

Honestly, I have to ask how many other threads on this forum you've read. ever time I read something new, it's how this conspiracy theorist believes everything that's thrown at him or that the best predictor of belief in one conspiracy is belief in another.

I don't know how you have missed this. Do you really believe that Jim Fetzer is a NWO disinfo spy? The idea that someone conspiracy theorists believe any and everything is just standard here. It's just the way it is, and everyone here knows it.
 
Obviousman said:
So: does Jim Fetzer actually believe in the theories he supports or are there other reasons for his supporting the most wacky of "out there" beliefs?

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

Two little words that explain everything:

Head injury.
 
I would have to agree that there is indeed a spectrum of woo, from innocent spin on one end to full-blown delusional fantasy at the other. I think every reader draws his own line on that spectrum where he divides something he considers patently incredible and something he might want to investigate to see where there's a nugget of truth.

And yes, I agree James Fetzer seems to aim for the heavy-woo end of the spectrum. Why he does it is probably something only he knows. I think it's less plausible that he's some sort of secret anti-conspiracy operative, than that he simply knows that in order to make a profit in the conspiracy industry (and let's face it: that's what he's been trying to do for years) you have to stand out from the crowd. Being just a little "woo" means you have to fight for an audience among the second- and third-tier journalists and the barely-mainstream news commentators. Being a lot "woo" means everyone's talking about you because no one else is that [expletive] crazy. And notoriety is the name of the game. If you're not noticed, you don't get appearance fees.

Fetzer, being one of the few fringe theorists with an advanced academic degree, gets to play another card that his competitors lack. His arguments more often than not boil down to, "Well I have a PhD in science, therefore anything I say is likely to be true and unless you have my education you can't even begin to argue with me." I wonder if he knows that doctorates can be withdrawn by their granting institutions for egregious behavior and/or misuse of them.
 
Scott Sommers said:
What's a mainstream CTer? You mean like the guys who believe President Obama was born in Kenya? That makes them mainstream? How about the ones who think he's a CIA plant and they created his entire life story?
Click to expand...


If I may speak for Obviousman, I believe he means mainstream within the context of a particular conspiracy topic. For example, within the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, explosive demolition of WTCs 1, 2, and 7 can be considered mainstream, whereas space beam "dustification" and holographic planes would be examples of the fringe.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
If I may speak for Obviousman, I believe he means mainstream within the context of a particular conspiracy topic. For example, within the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, explosive demolition of WTCs 1, 2, and 7 can be considered mainstream, whereas space beam "dustification" and holographic planes would be examples of the fringe.
Click to expand...

I understand that's what he means, or at least thinks he means. But I believe he is wrong. I doubt there are any CTers who don't believe in multiple CTs. I can produce empirical studies that show this to be the case. It is my personal experience. It is a generally help position on this forum.

I'd say it's up to him to show me these uni-CTers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom