A Dedicated Researcher for Truth or Shyster and Conman?

Uncle Fetzer

James Fetzer’s logic is so twisted and ludicrous that it could go without mention, but for the fact that it has such legs on the Internet. As a PR agent and salesman for “Conspiracy Theory” he has a substantial following of the not-so-bright. It is a testament to the ‘Dumbing Down of America’, that such a charlatan as Fetzer should have such a following – but also that he himself is a ‘Professor Emeritus’ at a prestigious university, and his field is no less than ‘the history and philosophy of science’…and he ‘teaches’ classes in ‘logic’ of all things. This can only take place in a paradigm of Kafkaesque absurdity.

Fetzer was finally caught out in his lunacy on the blog, ‘Truth and Shadows’, where he made the claim that an inert object, a building, would have the quality of ‘vector’__this after bleating about Newtonian Physics for months there. He has no more grasp of Newton than the average six year old. I will not go into his ‘argument’ for the no-planes theory further in this essay, but I will surely do so in the commentary section that will follow after this is posted.


This is a tale told by James Fetzer to buttress his mass-ratio assertions to the plane impacts on the WTC towers. As many of those arguments, he does not argue to mass-ratio, but rather to crash dynamics and comparative materials strength. And he seems not to recognize this himself, as I have queried him on this myself extensively.

Nevertheless the ‘Bird and Plane’ story is another instance of arguing material strengths and crash dynamics. However in this story he defeats his own mass ratio argument he plays to the crash into the towers. This story is actually an allegory to the building hitting a stationary plane; same dynamics: huge mass hitting tiny mass.

First, ‘Comparative Materials Strengths:

What do you suppose the tensile strength of a bird’s skull is? We are talking bone, at most two millimeters thick. The skull of even large birds can be crushed by a strong mans hand. The structural strength of the bones of the rest of the bird is even less than the skull. So in all, the structural strength of the entire bird is very small, birds are very frail in this regard. Now we go back to the airplane strikes bird story: How is it possible that a bird of such frail structure, and a mass thousands of times less than the airplane, is capable of penetrating metal that is stronger than industrial steel?

Mass-Ratio v Crash Physics:

It is possible and has happened hasn’t it? Yes, and it has to do with speed, momentum and kinetics. Just like the impact of the jet into the towers – speed and kinetics and crash physics – not mass ratios; For what would you suppose is the mass ratio of our little bird and a 140 ton airplane? That mass-ratio would be just about 400,000 to 1. And the material strength ratio is literally inconsequential when one is comparing the crash physics of two metal objects to flesh, blood, and bones against metal.
* * * * * * * *

“Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage are the core of a limited hang-out designed to contain the breadth and depth of 9/11 research.”~Jim Fetzer

Imagine that, piss calling the lemonade yellow. Fetzer and the clowns at Veterans Today are the worst moles of the 9/11 movement. I have issues with Ryan’s views on the Pentagon, but as far as this bullshit from Uncle Fetzer … Lol Fuck the pretender and his “no planes” “holograms” “nukes” and “DEW”; the worst disinformation on 9/11 there is!

. . . . . . . .

Important Note: Anything I have to say here about the subject is purely my own personal opinion based upon my own encounters with him, and reading his various tales at the places on the web that he frequents.

~Willy Whitten  –  \\][//


  1. “hybridrogue1 has been identified to me as being one Willy (or “Willie”) Whitten, where one web page identifies him as

    Willy Whitten
    67, Male
    Thomassevile GA
    Tanzania, United Republic Of


    Another lists him as

    Willie Whitten
    Special Effects | Animation Department | Make Up Department

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0926502/“~James Fetzer – November 30, 2014 at 10:47 am
    . . . . . . . .

    United Republic Of Tanzania!!! Hahahahaha!!! WTF?

    • It is obvious that Fetzer is allergic to the slightest hint of dissent or criticism of his assertions. He goes ballistic, attacking like an enraged bull rather than making cogent counter arguments to his critics. These are the tactics of a juvenile delinquent and thug, not a scholar and “professor emeritus”.

      And thugs such as he are often candidates for intelligence agencies.

    • Yea, Uncle Fetzer giving the finger may be Photoshopped, but it catches the essence of his character nicely nevertheless.
      He is one of the most arrogant charlatans on the Internet. So fuck’em if he can’t take a joke.

      • “James Henry Fetzer (born December 6, 1940) is a philosopher of science and conspiracy theorist. Since the late 1970s, Fetzer has worked on assessing and clarifying the forms and foundations of scientific explanation, probability in science, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of cognitive science, especially artificial intelligence and computer science.”

        So…could Fetzer possibly be stupid enough to actually believe the bullshit he propagates?

        No, of course not, he’s a shill, a stooge, a toady and a mole.

  2. Okay let’s begin with something hot off the press, just tonight on Truth & Shadows.


    November 27, 2014 at 1:46 pm
    Mantik has made mincemeat of Fiester’s fakery: Enemy of Truth, by Sherry P. Fiester, reviewed by David W. Mantik, http://www.ctka.net/2013/eot_review.html

    November 27, 2014 at 3:15 pm
    “All four of the closest motorcyclists recalled the limousine stop. An actual stop would surely have caused some instability in their bikes – most likely they had to work to keep their bikes balanced while the limousine paused.”~Mantik

    Citation please.

    November 27, 2014 at 4:48 pm
    Since Costella had already explained this in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I am not citing myself, as anyone who can read can effortlessly determine. How he can continue with these attempts to deceive is beyond me. They had to reshoot each frame in the lab to recreate the ghost panel images, which is why the film as a whole is a fabrication.

    He pretends that he has no idea what I am talking about. It’s been more than 11 years since I published HOAX, long enough for the greatest slacker to get up to speed. It is embarrassing that he is issuing one false statement after another. No one should be taken in. On the events that took place that day that are not included in the Zapruder, Nix or other films, see

    [Video offered here by Fetzer having nothing to do with my question]
    This simply a superb presentation was broadcast on The New JFK Show #27 by Dr. Jim Fetzer and Gary King …

    JFK Horsemen II original – YouTube
    [Another irrelevant video]
    The New JFK Show #32 is dedicated to James Henry Fetzer. This video dispels any remaining doubts about ..

    November 27, 2014 at 5:53 pm
    This is not a citation of the words of the motorcyclists that Mantik claims testified that the limo had come to a complete stop.

    I did not ask for more hyperbole and references to previous works. I have looked into Costella’s “analysis” and I find it far from convincing.

    Now either you have the citations I just requested or you don’t. The impression one gets here is that you don’t.

    I do have the words of these so called 50 or more witnesses who claimed they saw the limo stop. only a few said it actually came to a complete stop, most said it slowed down dramatically, some said it “appeared to have stopped” – this is not definite enough for our purposes here.
    Too many times I have read these issues inflated as certainties when there is in fact a great deal of uncertainty in the testimony. And I have seen too much cherry picking from the “fakery crowd”.

    So stand and deliver here Mr Fetzer, no more runarounds to your conferences and previous film productions.

    November 27, 2014 at 6:06 pm
    Costella explained in HOAX (2003) that the ghost panel images are double-exposures that are impossible to fake. They therefore had to take each frame of the revised film and reshoot it in sequence in the CIA lab at Rochester to create a sequence that did not reveal the fabrication:

    assassination film hoax – A simple introduction


    On November 22, 1963 , U.S. President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed while … The fake film was made by cutting and pasting real photos and film frames …

    How many times do I have to explain the same point? You are not a dolt but a very clever op. I despise you for every false claim you have made on this thread, which are all too abundant. In the videos, “The JFK Horsemen”, I have posted here, you can hear the escort officers speak.

    These are based on interviews done by Fred Newcomb and his assistant with them around 1971. The explain that Officer Hargis parked his bike and ran between the two limos, that Officer Jackson rode his bike up the grassy knoll, which fell over and he proceeded on foot.

    The also explain that five Secret Service agents unloaded from the Queen Mary, surrounding the President’s Lincoln, where one of them grabbed a piece of his skull from a little boy and tossed it into the back seat. Clint Hill was climbing onto the trunk and pushing Jackie down.

    Apart from Clint climbing on the back, none of this appears in the Zapruder, the Nix or other films taken at the time. No honest student of JFK would continue to insist that the Zapruder film is authentic. That you continue to do so in the face of a mount of proof speaks volumes.

    November 27, 2014 at 6:27 pm
    Mr Fetzer your URL above sent me to a page with this message:

    404 – Not Found
    The page you are trying to access does not exist.
    If this error persists, please contact the website webmaster.

    However I found the page you intended by other means. I have studied this page over and again and find it juvenile bullshit.

    Now, one more time, the citations of the four motorcycle police, if you would.

    November 27, 2014 at 6:05 pm
    “Photogrammetry?” What’s That?”~Jack White, before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations

    November 27, 2014 at 6:20 pm
    Jack White was the real deal, which cannot be said of you. When I offer proof from the escort officers that one of them (Hargis) parked his bike and ran between the two limos in pursuit of the shooter on the grassy knoll, that another (Jackson) drove his bike up the grassy knoll but it rolled over and he continued on foot. Meanwhile, five Secret Service agents unloaded from the Queen Mary and surrounded the Lincoln, three on one side, two on the other. One grabbed a piece of JFK’s skull from a young boy and tossed it back into the limo. In response to this new evidence that refutes your position from stem to stern, you cite Jack White during the HSCA hearings? Jack was an expert on photogrammetry, but was not familiar with the word. But he was an honest man and would have shared my contempt for your obscene performance here.

    November 27, 2014 at 6:34 pm
    Every one is familiar with the motorcycle patrolmen running up the grassy knoll. What does this have to do with the assertion that the limo came to a complete stop?

    You say that “Jack was an expert on photogrammetry, but was not familiar with the word.” But Jacks explanation of how he analyzed the backyard photos is not in any way proper photogrammetry technique. This is the reason he was asked if he understood this technique.

    “Meanwhile, five Secret Service agents unloaded from the Queen Mary and surrounded the Lincoln, three on one side, two on the other. One grabbed a piece of JFK’s skull from a young boy and tossed it back into the limo. In response to this new evidence that refutes your position from stem to stern..”~Fetzer

    Now you need to supply more citations for the assertion you just made above,

    November 27, 2014 at 7:57 pm
    I now bring to your attention this information wherein Clint Bradford, Mantik and yourself, Jim Fetzer discuss the mistakes in ‘Assassination Science’ regarding the fact of hearsay being used as direct testimony, July, 1998. So you KNOW already the issues of “Four motocycle officers saying the limo came to a complete stop” is not true. Yet on this very page in 2014 you repeat the same assertions.


    • Now as shown above, I asked a specific question of Fetzer 4 times. He still has not answered. This technique of promoting his videos and his comrades presentations in lieu of actually answering any questions is a well know MO of the “Professor”.

      Next we go further down the page to a second exchange between herr doktor and I. in the next post>>

  3. jfetzer2012
    November 27, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    Only an op would continue to insist that the Zapruder film is authentic. It is not even internally consistent, since you can see the blow-out in frames 374 and 375 that has been painted over in black in frames 314 to 317. And the films are not mutually consistent, since in the Nix, Clint Hill climbs further onto the trunk and Jackie further back that occurs in the Zapruder.

    Here is my most recent interview about this on 50,000watt WCCO in Minneapolis/St. Paul about JFK: https://www.facebook.com/CBSMinnesota/posts/10152951018708825

    In the article, I am very appropriately characterized as “a conspiracy analyst”. See especially http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/11/22/fmr-umd-professor-to-speak-at-jfk-assassination-conference/

    For more proof of the limo stop, which I now think may have lasted as long as 30 seconds, see “The JFK Horsemen” and “The JFK Horsemen, Part 2″ on YouTube. Case closed.

    November 27, 2014 at 2:55 pm
    “Only an op would continue to insist that the Zapruder film is authentic.”~jfetzer2012

    I could respond with: Only an op would continue to insist that the Zapruder film is fake.

    Fetzer claims: ” in the Nix, Clint Hill climbs further onto the trunk and Jackie further back that occurs in the Zapruder.”

    The Nix film has Hill climbing up and pushing Jackie back, and Hill does appear to be on one knee on the trunk at this point – but what we can tell from the Z-film at this point – as from Zapruder’s POV there are bushes obscuring Hill to some degree – but as we can see he is up higher as he pushes Jackie down [Frame 409 – of the new digital enhanced and steadied version] and this matches his height and pose of the Nix film..

    If one watches the film [presented above in this thread] of all three films in synch in the same frame, all of the actions are at the exact same sequence in all three. There is no variance but in the POV of the three films.

    I stand by the analysis I have presented here this year.

    Fetzer must address the issue of the “ghost-images” as being within the same flow throughout the film, which in itself is proof of no splices being made.

    November 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm
    As though we needed any more proof that this guy is a complete fraud, here is an earlier article I published, “Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More proof of JFK film fakery” on VT at
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/03/nix-film-contradicts-zapruder-more-proof-of-jfk-film-fakery/ And his massive ignorance about research on the film could not be more manifest than his remarks about the ghost panels, which John Costella, Ph.D., analyzed and explained in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). To recreate the ghost panels, they had to reshoot each frame at Hawkeyeworks, which is the reason the film as a whole is a fabrication. There is no need for anyone to ever take this guy seriously again. He is pathetically corrupt and inept.

    November 27, 2014 at 4:00 pm
    “As though we needed any more proof that this guy is a complete fraud… And his massive ignorance about research on the film could not be more manifest than his remarks about the ghost panels…There is no need for anyone to ever take this guy seriously again. He is pathetically corrupt and inept.”~Fetzer

    Fetzer is not explaining what I asked him to explain, which is why the ghost-images are within the same flow throughout the film.

    Although there is nothing to be done about his arrogant squalling and insults, I am not going to accept Fetzer continuing to cite himself here in this present argument.
    He cannot pretend he doesn’t know what I am asking. He cannot pretend that the technicians at Hawkeyeworks had any idea of what caused the ghost panels 34 years prior to that revelation coming known by Zavada’s investigation of Zapruder’s camera.

    November 27, 2014 at 4:51 pm
    Since Costella had already explained this in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I am not citing myself, as anyone who can read can effortlessly determine. How he can continue with these attempts to deceive is beyond me. They had to reshoot each frame in the lab to recreate the ghost panel images, which is why the film as a whole is a fabrication.

    He pretends that he has no idea what I am talking about. It’s been more than 11 years since I published HOAX, long enough for the greatest slacker to get up to speed. It is embarrassing that he is issuing one false statement after another. No one should be taken in. On the events that took place that day that are not included in the Zapruder, Nix or other films, see

    The JFK Horsemen part 1 of 2 – YouTube
    Video for The JFK Horsemen, YouTube► 54:59► 54:59

    Sep 29, 2014 – Uploaded by Gary King
    This simply a superb presentation was broadcast on The New JFK Show #27 by Dr. Jim Fetzer and Gary King …

    JFK Horsemen II original – YouTube
    Video for The JFK Horsemen, YouTube► 50:48► 50:48

    Oct 25, 2014 – Uploaded by Gary King
    The New JFK Show #32 is dedicated to James Henry Fetzer. This video dispels any remaining doubts about ..

    November 27, 2014 at 5:39 pm
    Again, I have a very simple question. Do you not understand it Jim?

    The sprocket of the camera allowed light into the camera creating ghost images to bleed into the next frame of each successive frame. If there were any splices the ghost image would not be of the prior frame, it would be of the prior frame that had been cut out.

    Do you grasp this Jim? In the Zapruder film it is a steady flow of each frame showing a ghost image of the frame just prior to it. In no instance is there a frame with a ghost image of a frame several frames before it.

    Furthermore no one at the time of this supposed faking knew what caused these ghost images, they would therefore not realize that they had to then somehow blend a new ghost image in to the new area that shows a ghost image of the image at the beginning of the splice. This makes the entire process much more complex than what you are attempting to present here.

    As I said I am not going to accept being led to long expositions that go over the same material you have presented before. You are here now, can’t you make an argument in the here and now Mr Fetzer?

    November 27, 2014 at 5:51 pm
    John P. Costella, Ph.D., addressed the ghost panel issue in HOAX (2003) and in his Intro to Zapruder film fabrication, both of which have been available to the public for over a decade:

    assassination film hoax – A simple introduction
    On November 22, 1963 , U.S. President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed while … The fake film was made by cutting and pasting real photos and film frames …

    That you are ignorant of the most important contributions to proving the film was faked by the leading expert on the film provides a stunning indictment of your incompetence or duplicity.

    November 27, 2014 at 6:00 pm
    “That you are ignorant of the most important contributions to proving the film was faked by the leading expert on the film provides a stunning indictment of your incompetence or duplicity.”

    The “leading expert on the film”? Costella is a physicist not a forensic photo analyst.

    Lets face it many things have been “available to the public for over a decade”, whether they have merit or not is the question. Whether you have merit or not is another question. I ask specific questions and you habitually avoid a direct and simple answer.

    You have not addressed specific questions here in your “answer” – go back and read the question and answer it.

    November 27, 2014 at 6:12 pm
    I have explained it a half-dozen times. Costella has a Ph.D. in electromagnetism, with areas of specialization in the properties of light and of images of moving objects. That you would make such a argument reveals that you are a fraud to the core. I have cited proof after proof about the ghost panels, which were reshot in a photo lab, since otherwise their discontinuities would have given the hoax away. Citing John’s work in a book I edited is not citing my work but that of the leading expert on the film in the world today. In fact there are two breaks in the ghost panel sequence, which he explains but you ignore. That appears to be your role here: to go down as the last man to deny that the Zapruder film was fabricated. You are truly despicable.

    November 27, 2014 at 6:18 pm
    Mr Fetzer,

    You have not answered the question I have asked. This escalating hyperbole is not going to suffice. Saying, ” You are truly despicable,” is not argument it is simply ad hominem.

    I will give you one more chance to answer my question.

  4. jfetzer2012
    November 27, 2014 at 8:45 pm
    I have answered your question a half-dozen times. You ignore the answer. You are a complete fraud who can’t even cope with the internal inconsistency of the Zapruder film itself. A disgrace.

    November 27, 2014 at 9:10 pm
    You Certainly have not answered the question even once, let alone “a half-dozen times”

    I repeat here one more time:

    The sprocket of the camera allowed light into the camera creating ghost images to bleed into the next frame of each successive frame. If there were any splices the ghost image would not be of the prior frame, it would be of the prior frame that had been cut out.

    Do you grasp this Jim? In the Zapruder film it is a steady flow of each frame showing a ghost image of the frame just prior to it. In no instance is there a frame with a ghost image of a frame several frames before it.

    Furthermore no one at the time of this supposed faking knew what caused these ghost images, they would therefore not realize that they had to then somehow blend a new ghost image in to the new area that shows a ghost image of the image at the beginning of the splice. This makes the entire process much more complex than what you are attempting to present here.

    Can’t you make an argument in the here and now Mr Fetzer?

    November 27, 2014 at 9:19 pm
    Asked and answered. You can’t even cope with the inconsistency between frames 374 and 375 on the one hand and 314 to 317 on the other. It is insulting to have you posting here. I am sure no one else on this thread can reconcile “The JFK Horsemen” with Zapruder film authenticity. I am afraid you are out at sea in a leaky boat and its going down with only you aboard. Farewell.

    November 27, 2014 at 9:39 pm
    “Asked and answered. You can’t even cope with the inconsistency between frames 374 and 375 on the one hand and 314 to 317 on the other”~Fetzer

    Whew… amazing, you want to discuss the issue you claim are inconsistencies between the frames you cite, rather than answer my question, but you claim “Asked and answered.”

    That was no answer.

    I have no idea of what anyone else on this thread can reconcile with or not. What i wonder is if they are prepared to reconcile your non-answers as somehow being sincere answers simply because you claim it is so.

    I wouldn’t paddle to far beyond the dock yourself herr Doktar.

    • Now I have a question for the readership here: Did anyone here read Fetzer answering the question about his and Mantik’s assertion of “4 motorcycle patrolmen claimed that the limo stopped”?

      I would also like to hear opinions as to whether Fetzer addressed the question of the sprocket mechanism creating the ghost-images. And the lack of knowledge these so-called film fakers as to this information which was not known of until Roland Zavada discovered it 34 years after the event. And how they therefore would not know to compensate for what the images mean as far as the critical aspect of the proof of continuity of a film that was not spliced.

  5. All of these insults were hurled at me just in the past couple of hours by James Fetzer:

    “You are a complete fraud who can’t even cope with the internal inconsistency of the Zapruder film itself. A disgrace. That you would make such a argument reveals that you are a fraud to the core. You are truly despicable… a stunning indictment of your incompetence or duplicity.As though we needed any more proof that this guy is a complete fraud. Only an op would continue to insist that the Zapruder film is authentic. For a fraud of his kind to be taking the name of Jack White in vain he should have his mouth washed out with soap. He has no interest in truth but promotes obfuscation. I am having a hard time thinking of someone who is as much of a disgrace to truth as this guy. He is not serious. He is a fraud. This guy wants to stay away from the content issues…my contempt for your obscene performance here. No honest student of JFK would continue to insist that the Zapruder film is authentic. That you continue to do so in the face of a mount of proof speaks volumes. How he can continue with these attempts to deceive is beyond me.”~Fetzer

    • And for the next day’s Fetzer festivities on T&S, another volume of slurs and insult:

      “You are an intolerable and dishonest cad who is doing what he can to obscure the truth about the death of our 35th president. That puts you into a very special category of human trash.
      It is insulting to everyone who cares about the truth of the assassination to have someone like this attempting to poison the water. It is classic disinfo ops to attempt to create uncertainty so everything is believable and nothing is knowable. You are a complete fraud. The practice of one shill citing another as though they were independent sources has become commonplace and H1 was not to be left out. You are a complete fraud who can’t even cope with the internal inconsistency of the Zapruder film itself. A disgrace. That you would make such a argument reveals that you are a fraud to the core. You are truly despicable… a stunning indictment of your incompetence or duplicity. Which means he is again lying through his teeth. I am sick of this man’s endless grotesque distortions. If this guy thinks that he is being responsible by such an obvious absurdity, we should let him return to la-la land, which he has demonstrated again and again is his proper abode. At least you make it easy to see that I was right to take you for an op.You are blowing smoke. H1 again tries to play us for suckers. Moronic drivel. This is a red herring by a discredited op who is desperately trying to undo his concession the film was faked. Only a weasel would change “content issues” to “the content of the issues”~James Fetzer

    • Oh…and have I mentioned his blatant and grotesque hypocrisy??

      James Henry Fetzer — December 10, 2013 at 10:34 pm
      “Craig, I think that anyone who resorts to crude ad hominems and views “Bullshit!” as an argument has no place on a civilized forum. I have not said a word about him until now, but I regard him as a disgrace to “Truth and Shadows”, which is for adults, not children.”~Fetzer



      • Fetzering
        1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.
        2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you’re wrong. therefore you are.
        3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument.

        Etymology: Fetzering began in earnest in the late 1960’s, being implemented by a JFK conspiracy theorist and has since expanded it’s use in the 9/11 debate arena.
        1. Without evidence your claim is simple fetzering.

        2. He should rely on his data instead of fetzering.


  6. Mantik’s Mistakes in Assassination Science

    I made some allegations regarding the citations used in Dr. Mantik’s Assassination Science “Zapruder tampering” chapter in a public forum. Lisa Pease then publicly asked me to qualify my statements. And I did.
    Then, in early July, 1998, I received a reply directly from Dr. Mantik.

    Here’s the dialogue – posted here with the permission of Drs. Mantik and Fetzer…

    Message 1 – My post explaining errors in Dr. Mantik’s work.
    Message 2 – Dr. Mantik’s reply, acknowledging the errors.
    Message 3 – My reply to Dr. Mantik.
    Message 4 – Editor Jim Fetzer’s reply.
    What is Clint’s Purpose?
    Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 09:01:23 -0700
    From: Clint Bradford
    To: james fetzer
    Cc: Dr_Mantik@xxxx.xxx, lpease@netcom.com
    Subject: Re: Mantik’s Mistakes

    As I just wrote Dr. Mantik, I found our dialogue last week
    extremely healthy and civil. And I would like permission to
    post your email message to me on my Web site’s Zapruder
    film sub-page.

    I would like to post all five (so far) messages: my initial
    post in an assassination newsgroup, followed by Dr. Mantik’s
    response, my reply to him, your letter to me, then my reply
    to you.

    No edits (other than formatting and minor spelling corrections).

    My rationale for requesting to post this dialogue is several-
    fold (grin). The most important reason is that these five
    messages show all my site’s Visitors that calm, deliberate,
    serious discussion CAN take place among those desiring the
    “truth” of what occurred 11/22/63. I believe the posts show we
    all acted rationally, although we may hold differing views.

    Certainly a more pleasant exchange than what I see occur on a
    daily basis in a couple public Internet newsgroups!

    Many thanks for your consideration.

    Clint Bradford
    Message One of Four

    The original allegations of errors…

    Subject: Mantik’s Mistakes
    From: Clint Bradford
    Date: 1998/06/23
    Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

    LISA>>…you said “intentionally misrepresents.” That is a very serious
    LISA>> accusation, and I expected you would have some substance
    LISA>> with which to back that up.

    You’re right – no one can delve into Mantik’s mind and find out WHY he
    didn’t check his work more closely. Until he, himself, explains to the
    world whether or not he “intentionally misrepresented” Palamara’s
    work, then neither you nor I can dispute my statement. I will let it
    stand, and see if he can explain his mis-use of Palamara’s work.

    CLINT>>…Mantik cites “Warren Commission testimony” from someone who
    CLINT>> NEVER TESTIFIED to the WC…he mis-quotes others…attributes a
    CLINT>> statement to the wrong source…I have problems accepting any of
    CLINT>> his “thesis” when the basic facts are hard for him to absorb
    CLINT>> and recite.

    LISA>>…please give us the specifics so people can make corrections.
    LISA>> Throwing out blanket statements helps no one…

    I wish you would simply READ Assassination Science, and you would
    discover these problems for yourself.

    1. Mantik quotes Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped.
    Unfortunately, though, Baker’s statement was heresay – he was only
    quoting what was told to him by Chaney. It is wrong to cite both as
    independent witnesses to bolster any argument.

    2. Mantik cites Chaney’s statement as “Warren Commission testimony.”
    Please tell me where, in your copy of the Warren Commission, you find
    Chaney’s testimony. (Try looking at Mantik’s cite of “3H221” for Chaney.)

    If a mere mistake on Mantik’s part, where’s the apology and Errata?

    If Mantik, though, is relying on subordinates for research and then
    claiming authorship without verifying facts, we have a larger problem.

    3. See if you truly believe Mantik’s use of Officer Brown’s WC
    testimony is a fair representation. Don’t use the “had to cut it short
    due to space constraints” argument. Sure, Brown used the word,
    “stopped,” in describing the limo. But what Mantik DOESN’T offer
    us is his “retraction” during that SAME session of testimony:

    Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped…
    After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.

    Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?

    Brown: That, I couldn’t swear to.

    Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?

    Brown: Yes; slowed down.

    But don’t take my word over Mantik’s – look it up yourself.

    4. Mantik gives us the impression that Palamara claimed at least 48
    witnesses stated that the limo “stopped” right before the fatal head

    Please read Palamara’s article for yourself, and expecially his
    opening remarks regarding his research, to see how Mantik
    misrepresented Palamara’s work.

    Anthony Marsh dissected Palamara’s work, and comes up with 14
    witnesses who stated “stopped” and 19 (I believe) who stated
    “slowed down” – just FYI.

    LISA>>…and adds little to your own credibility, raising instead
    LISA>> questions of motive.

    MY motive? You’re not going to label me a “disinformation” agent,
    are you???

    My sole motivation is to let readers realize that just because a
    person has a PhD after their name, or gets published in a work
    entitled, “Assassination SCIENCE,” that the work is not
    necessarily scholarly nor scientific.

    LISA>>Please clarify.

    Check out the four glaring Mantik errors/misinformation above that
    he offers us. Ask yourself why he hasn’t apologized for sloppy
    reporting, mis-statements, and told us he’s fired a couple
    researchers. Then publicly question HIS motives – not mine for
    merely pointing out errors in a published work.

    – Clint Bradford

    The above is (C) Copyright 1998, Clint Bradford. All rights reserved.
    Permission to re-post or distribute must be obtained by the copyright
    holder. If you happen to see this message reproduced in any other
    forum, I’d like to know about it. Please either send email to
    clintbrad4d@earthlink.net or give me a call at 909-681-6210.
    Message Two of Four

    Dr. Mantik responds…

    Subject: Mantik’s Mistakes
    Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 17:18:12 EDT
    From: Dr_Mantik@xxxx.xxx
    To: clintbrad4d@earthlink.net

    A Response to Clint Bradford: REGARDING MANTIK’S MISTAKES
    (Permission obtained to post in writing from Dr. Mantik – CB)
    –by David W. Mantik–

    3 July 1998

    Dear Mr. Bradford:

    First let me apologize if I have met you and do not recall you. Tell me,
    have we met? In any case, would you be good enough to tell me a little about

    For your critique, I here provide an item by item response.

    1. You are correct that Marrion L. Baker was quoting Chaney about the
    limousine stopping (3H266). He also cited several other officers and Roy
    Truly as seeing this same event. This is useful information, but you are
    correct that it is second hand. I agree that my list would have been
    stronger if had I cited an eyewitness. If there is a second edition of
    our book, I would substitute one (of many possible) from Vince Palamara’s
    paper. This is an easy matter to revise.

    2. You are correct that my citation for Chaney (3H221) is in error. I would
    have done better to cite Mr. Lane (2H45) in response to the question of
    whether the President’s limousine had stopped:

    “The statement was made by various witnesses, including Mr. Chaney, a
    motorcycle policeman, Miss Woodward, who was one of the closest witnesses
    to the President at the time that he was shot, and others. I haven’t
    documented beyond that, because…[it]… seemed to be so generally
    conceded by almost everyone, that the automobile came to–almost came to
    a complete halt after the first shot–did not quite stop, but almost

    You go on to ask where my apology and errata are for this error. Your
    question assumes that this had already been pointed out to me (it had not).
    Is there reason to believe that someone had already brought this to my

    Regarding errata, I am sending a copy of this response to our editor, Jim
    Fetzer, for possible inclusion on his Web site.

    You ask whether I relied on subordinates for research and thereafter
    claimed authorship without verifying facts. The answer is that I used no
    subordinates for this work, but in Assassination Science (Acknowledgments,
    p. 341) I credit several colleagues whose contributions to my work were
    crucial (that includes this quote). In addition, I indicated there my
    willingness to take personal responsibility for any errors that went
    undiscovered and I also conceded that they must certainly exist. None of
    this is any real surprise–it is, unfortunately, our common human lot,
    much as we all dislike it.

    3. You point out that Officer Earle Brown offered a “retraction” to my
    citation of his initial statement that the limo had stopped and you
    quote him as subsequently saying that the limo may not actually have
    stopped, but that it had slowed down. I have no objection to this;
    in another edition, I would be quite content to include the remainder
    of his testimony. I would, however, disagree with your describing this
    as a “retraction”–I would find “modification” somewhat more
    appropriate. More importantly, however, my own position has never
    depended on a complete stop; a significant slowing (which was widely
    reported) is quite enough to disagree (disconcertingly) with the
    extant version of the Z film.

    4. Your comments on my summary of Palamara’s article are welcome–and not
    surprising. Perhaps this, too, should be revised in a second edition.
    I am sending a copy of this response to Vince to get his own input on
    how to rephrase this sentence in keeping with the spirit of his article.

    5. I agree with your comments about academic credentials. You are quite
    right to pay more attention to the quality of the argument than the
    so-called prestige of the author. That has always been my very strong
    bias as well. But this cuts two ways: if such a position is honestly
    held, then there must be no more ad hominem attacks on individuals who
    judge the Z film to be altered–merely because they have not worked in
    special effects in Hollywood.

    Instead, we must all resolve to focus on the real issues and not let
    ourselves become distracted by someone’s credentials (Mo Weitzman

    6. Finally, you ask about my motives. My own habit has been to avoid such
    questions because they are usually distractions and, even worse, they
    tend to be divisive. Nonetheless, my answer is simple and not mysterious
    in the least:

    I just want to know what happened. When I first began to explore the
    JFK assassination in 1992, I spent several months in a state of some
    uncertainty about whether a case could really be made for conspiracy. I
    had no initial bias, at least not a conscious one. Just so with the Z
    film: I began with an open mind, but as the evidence for alteration
    accumulated it began to seem overwhelming, as it still does to me.
    Furthermore, I have demonstrated that I am willing to recant when the
    data change–as I once did publicly regarding the authenticity of the
    X-rays. Later evidence, obtained from Kodak physicists, returned me to
    a conclusion of alteration. (Recall also that the head of medical
    physics at Kodak did review my X-ray article as it appears
    in Assassination Science–and proffered no changes. Do you wish to
    offer any critiques of it?) In any case, I trust that we can henceforth
    bypass issues of motive. They are usually dead ends.

    Please feel free to forward any more editorial comments to Jim Fetzer, who
    will pass them to me as needed. Surely there are more items that need to
    be revised in a second edition of our book–just keep looking! As a
    personal note, however, none of the critiques heretofore received (from
    anywhere) have affected my view that the Z film was altered. In fact, I
    have been quite astonished that so few significant counterpoints have been
    raised–the superficial responses from the critical community at large
    have been very disappointing. And John McAdams’ assertion that “This whole
    body of ‘work’ was torn apart soon after it was presented at the 1996
    Lancer conference,” is quite irrelevant (besides being false) since much
    of what appears in my chapter in Assassination Science is new.

    With all best wishes,

    David W. Mantik

    cc: Jim Fetzer, Vince Palamara, Lisa Pease.
    Message Three of Four

    I reply to Dr. Mantik…

    Subject: Re: Mantik’s Mistakes
    Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 17:04:00 -0700
    From: Clint Bradford
    To: Dr_Mantik@xxxx.xxx

    Dr. Mantik,

    Thank you very much for your reply to my message posted in the JFK

    Have you asked that Lisa post your reply to the newsgroups that it
    appeared? Your reply, I feel, should be seen by all those who might have
    read my original post. Or is this for our personal consumption only?

    >>Tell me, have we met?

    Not yet…but I see you will be attending the JFK/Lancer conference
    again this November! I hope to meet you there.

    >>In any case, would you be good enough to tell me a little about

    I am 41 years old, and the JFK assassination has always intrigued me. I
    ran a BBS – Bulletin Board System (precursor to the modern Internet) for
    several years, which focused on my interests: the JFK assassination,
    Amateur (Ham) Radio, and telecommunications legal issues.

    I wish I remembered the EXACT reason I had the occasion to contact Debra
    Conway in October of 1995…it might have had something to do with my
    BBS and/or the acquisition of a textfile to post…but before she would
    let me hang up the phone, I was committed to going to Dallas the next
    month for her JFK/Lancer Conference of 11/95. Before I called her that
    afternoon, there was no way I was even THINKING about going to Dallas
    that year. But there was something in the way she conducted herself …
    something about her conviction…that made me immediately make air
    reservations – and attend the seminars.

    She is responsible for a dramatic change in my life – and I will always
    admire her for it. That was my first trip to Dallas. (I wrote a brief
    article on that trip, still posted at –


    I met and talked with Ian Griggs, Hugh Sidey, Mary Ferrell, Ed Hoffmann,
    Robert Groden, Patsy Paschall, Bobby Hargis, and many others. My first
    walk-though Dealey Plaza was with Debra the evening I arrived – a truly
    sobering – and exciting – experience. As I wrote in 1995, Debra was
    entirely accurate when she advised me of the “first-timer’s phenomenon:”

    “TO FIRST-TIME VISITORS TO DEALEY PLAZA: You have just acquired a new
    perspective of the site – which makes an incredible amount of difference
    when interpreting the data you’ve gathered and read. You will not sleep
    a lot – you will be re-reading.”

    Since the 1995 Conference, I have created a Web site on the JFK
    assassination at


    and offer a couple hundred texts and files relating to the assassination
    to all.

    I missed the 1996 Conference – but attended last November’s sessions. I
    was proud of my informal “alliance” with JFK/Lancer, and took
    photographs of the event for Debra. I even presented two short LBJ audio
    tapes clips for the group, and made transparancies of the five
    handwritten pages of “Fritz Notes” that Tom Samoluk of the ARRB brought
    to the seminar to show to all.

    I purchased a copy of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE at the November JFK/Lancer
    sessions. I didn’t have a chance to get to it while in Dallas, but I
    placed it in my carry-on luggage for the flight home. After viewing
    Groden’s THE ASSASSINATION FILMS several times, and seeing the same
    definite limo slowing right before the final head shot(s), I was
    interested in what proof researchers had for “alteration” of
    the Zapruder film.

    I feel the “best” copies (detailed…clear…next to the original as the
    general public can get) are contained on either Lifton’s “Research Copy”
    videotape, and/or Groden’s THE ASSASSINATION FILMS video. Groden offers
    over a dozen “treatments/versions” of the Zapruder film – from the
    contrasty, virtually worthless Clay Shaw trial-era copy to a copy that
    Groden claims is extremely close to the original film. Yet in each and
    every one of them, I see very consistent movements…

    So when I began reading Jack White’s list of points that “prove”
    tampering, I almost yelled out, “What is he looking at?” Groden may be a
    good photo manipulator, but he’s not good enough to alter a dozen
    renditions on his video.

    So that’s where I’m coming from on this particular issue. I do not
    believe that Groden is a master manipulator of images, and he offers
    over a dozen renditions of the Zapruder film that are all consistent
    with each other. And all these renditions demolish almost all “claims of
    alteration” included in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE.

    >>1. You are correct…Baker was quoting Chaney…it is second hand…
    >>…This is an easy matter to revise.

    >>2. You are correct that my citation for Chaney (3H221) is in error.
    >>…”[it]… seemed to be so generally conceded by almost everyone,
    >>that the automobile came to–almost came to a complete halt after
    >>the first shot–did not quite stop, but almost did.”

    I do not see that as bolstering a claim that the limo “stopped,” though.

    I sincerely believe that we have to dismiss witness’ statements of “the
    limo stopped” – as well as “slowed down” – if they were BEHIND the limo
    during this sequence. Just leave them out of the “number crunching.”
    Here’s why.

    Something dramatic is happening. People sense something’s wrong. The
    Presidential limo is moving directly AWAY from them. At a downward
    angle. And the brake lights come on…

    We cannot hold eyewitnesses’ testimony to be entirely accurrate in that
    situation – the difference of “slowing” and “stopped” in that situation
    just might be beyond the depth perception capabilities of humans.

    Try looking at vehicles moving down that street away from you and see if
    you really believe you can differentiate between, say, 10-11 MPH and 5
    MPH. It’s a tough task. Even if you ARE looking for it with preconceived
    notions. (grin)

    >>You go on to ask where my apology and errata are for this error. Your
    >>question assumes that this had already been pointed out to me (it had
    >>not). Is there reason to believe that someone had already brought this
    >>to my attention?

    Sorry. I saw what I thought were obvious errors in basic reporting. I
    mis-assumed that they had been brought to your attention earlier. I
    believe Dr. Fetzer has read similar critiques from me – and others –
    since the book was published.

    >>Regarding errata, I am sending a copy of this response to our editor,
    >>Jim Fetzer, for possible inclusion on his Web site.

    That would be marvelous.

    >>3. You point out that Officer Earle Brown offered a “retraction” to my
    >>citation of his initial statement that the limo had stopped and you
    >>quote him as subsequently saying that the limo may not actually have
    >>stopped, but that it had slowed down. I have no objection to this; in
    >>another edition, I would be quite content to include the remainder of
    >>his testimony. I would, however, disagree with your describing this as >>a
    “retraction”–I would find “modification” somewhat more appropriate.

    Entirely correct. Semantics – but the bottom line is that a reader of
    your chapter might not have the capability to look up citations
    themselves. They would read your quotation, and believe that that
    witness said, “stopped,” and “stopped” only.

    >>More importantly, however, my own position has never depended on a
    >>complete stop; a significant slowing (which was widely reported) is
    >>quite enough to disagree (disconcertingly) with the extant version of
    >>the Z film.

    This is where we both disagree. I have over a dozen renditions of the
    Zapruder film (mentioned above) that all show the exact “significant
    slowing” of the Presidential limo.

    >>4. Your comments on my summary of Palamara’s article are welcome–and
    >>not surprising. Perhaps this, too, should be revised in a second
    >>edition. I am sending a copy of this response to Vince to get his own
    >>input on how to rephrase this sentence in keeping with the spirit of >>his

    I met Vince briefly last November. I am sure he would welcome an
    invitation to clarify this.

    >>5. I agree with your comments about academic credentials.

    Since I have not met you, please know that this was not intended to
    “slur” you, personally. I simply feel very frustrated seeing a book
    with the word, “science,” in its title – but with chapters including
    mis-quotations, partial quotations, lack of basic research…

    There’s a chapter in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE written by a gentleman who
    swears to this day that Greer killed the President. Roy Schaeffer cannot
    even identify the heritage of HIS copy of the Zapruder film: “It just
    showed up in my mailbox one day…” he told me in a telephone
    conversation. From what he told me, his must be a Clay Shaw trial-era
    copy – which is so contrasty as to be worthless, when compared to what
    we have available today. All that aside, his chapter on the limo’s blink
    rate fails to offer the most basic of facts: how did you arrive at
    the manufacturer’s blink rate? How do you know what it was supposed to
    be? Schaeffer doesn’t offer answers to these questions – he does not
    know the answers.

    >>6. Finally, you ask about my motives…

    Again, I apologize for any personal/professional slur – that was not my
    point. My point was to make readers look at citations themselves, and do
    a little digging themselves. I am not a paranoid person, but I think
    we’d all be better off if we questioned authority a little more often.

    >>…I just want to know what happened…I trust that we can henceforth
    >>bypass issues of motive. They are usually dead ends.


    >>Please feel free to forward any more editorial comments to Jim

    Jim wrote me earlier this year, when I stated that I was befuddled at
    what was published in his book, and that I was intending to publish an
    article refuting several claims in it. If I remember correctly, he
    desired a “first look” at anything I had to publish (a ridiculous
    request – I would write to individual authors involved for
    comments/input, though).

    >>Surely there are more items that need to be revised in a second >>edition
    of our book–just keep looking!

    I do not believe that Dr. Fetzer, yourself, nor I would desire an “Open
    Forum” type of “Errata Page” on Fetzer’s site for all-comers to post
    anything they desire. But I welcome the “avenue” to get items for an
    Errata sheet via Dr. Fetzer. I hope he takes you up on the suggestion,
    and offers regular, substantiated Updates to it.

    >>As a personal note, however, none of the critiques heretofore received
    >>(from anywhere) have affected my view that the Z film was altered…

    And healthy, honest debate should be welcomed. I was surprised as anyone
    when I – as NEW to this topic as I am – was able to find “problems”
    with some authors’ recently published writings.

    Again, I sincerely thank you for your reply. I hope to meet you at the
    JFK/Lancer November in Dallas 1998 conference.

    The above is (C) Copyright 1998, Clint Bradford. All rights reserved.
    Permission to re-post or distribute must be obtained by the copyright
    holder. If you happen to see this message reproduced in any other
    forum, I’d like to know about it. Please either send email to
    clintbrad4d@earthlink.net or give me a call at 909-681-6210.
    Message Four of Four

    Editor Jim Fetzer replies…


    Please know that I do intend to make some corrections in
    response to the points you have raised, but I have not had
    a chance to work them out with David yet…

    Thanks. I will certainly do something to “clean this up” in the
    fourth printing of the book. And if you notice other errors –
    large or small – do let me know. Something of this sort must
    be a collaborative effort.

    It was too late to make the third printing, however, and I
    therefore expect to incorporate this in the fourth printing.

    In a work of [Assassination Science’s] complexity dealing with events
    of this magnitude, there will (almost invariably) be some errata. I have
    no objections to your bringing these things up – in fact, I appreciate it
    greatly – but the vast majority of work that is included in the book is of
    a very high standard and the mistakes appear to be relatively minor.

    Let us work together and advance the cause of justice for our dead

    James H. Fetzer

    • This is a very revealing set of emails in this exchange, as both Fetzer and Mantik admit to the mistakes; and yet just recently on the T&S debate, we find Fetzer again referring to these motorcycle patrolmen as claiming the limo stopped and refers to the ‘Kennedy’s Horsemen’ video, which itself has the audio of the officers stating the limo was moving very slowly but never came to a complete stop!

      Fetzer is obviously disingenuous in temporarily mollifying Bradford in this email exchange. He is again disingenuous to date by again using testimony he knows is fabricated concerning the motorcycle guard testimonies.

      • Now I already presented Fetzer with the information above concerning Mantik, and which Mantik admitted himself were mistakes. the following was Fetzer’s November 28, 2014 at 11:32 am reply:

        >> “But what Mantik reported was true and has been confirmed by the new work of Larry Rivera.”


        The first thing that is blatantly obvious is that Fetzer is not talking about the Mantik erroneous citations, because the officers in Rivera’s film are different officers than those discussed by Mantik and Bradford.

        The second thing is that Fetzer himself was in the email exchange with Mantik and Bradford, and acknowledged the issue and agreed to publish apology and Errata. Instead of doing this, Fetzer now repeats the citations as valid, and confuses who’s citations he is talking about.
        . . . . . . . . . .

        “Mantik cites “Warren Commission testimony” from someone who NEVER TESTIFIED to the WC…he mis-quotes others…attributes a statement to the wrong source…I have problems accepting any of his “thesis” when the basic facts are hard for him to absorb and recite.”~Bradford

        This same criticism is duly charged to Fetzer as well, but with malice of forethought. Fetzer is not merely mistaken he is prevaricating, and hand-waving.

  7. jfetzer2012
    November 28, 2014 at 2:23 am
    Do a search. I discuss and explain the “ghost panel” issue around a dozen times on this page.
    Only a weasel would change “content issues” to “the content of the issues”, where I am talking about what actually happened in Dealey Plaza at the time, while he wants to change the subject. I have laid out the evidence from the top of this article to the bottom of the comments, where Mantik’s observation has been confirmed in spades by the interviews with the escort officers themselves. (See “The JFK Horsemen” and “The JFK Horsemen, Part 2″.) No one who has a modicum of integrity would be attempting to distort and obfuscate what they themselves reported about what happened at the time, including the limo stop, that Hargis parked his bike and ran between the limos, that Jackson rode his bike up the grassy knoll until it fell over and he proceeded on foot and that five Secret Service agents disembarked from the Queen Mary and surrounded the Lincoln–three on one side, two on the other–where one of them grabbed a piece of JFK’s skull from a young man and tossed it into the back seat. Listen to them. These are live interviews. They are speaking for themselves. Does anyone think that all of this took place while the limousines were in motion? I am sick of this man’s endless grotesque distortions.

    November 28, 2014 at 2:34 am
    And of course we see nothing like these events in the extant version of the films, where the Zapruder was altered and then the Nix and others were modified to agree with them, which makes H1’s comparison between them further confirmation that they were all fixed, but where he cannot bring himself to acknowledge that, in the Nix, Clint Hill moves further onto the trunk and Jackie further back than occurs in the Zapruder. Which means he is again lying through his teeth. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/03/nix-film-contradicts-zapruder-more-proof-of-jfk-film-fakery/

    November 28, 2014 at 9:44 am
    “Do a search. I discuss and explain the “ghost panel” issue around a dozen times on this page.”~Fetzer

    Enough of this bullshit Fetzer, I asked you a simple question which you have avoided even an attempt at answering. All you have done is try to send me to your videos and essays to dig through all that crap to see if the question is answered somewhere within.

    I read enough of that last year to know the answer is not there.

    If you had the slightest idea of what you are talking about you could address my question right here and now rather than sending me and the other readers on another wild goose chase.

    Rather than give me an answer you have called me names and insulted my character with encyclopedic slurs. These are the underhanded tactics of a charlatan and conman.

  8. The sprocket mechanism of the Zapruder camera allowed light into the camera creating ghost images to bleed into the next frame of each successive frame. If there were any splices the ghost image would not be of the prior frame, it would be of the prior frame that had been cut out.

    In the Zapruder film it is a steady flow of each frame showing a ghost image of the frame just prior to it. In no instance is there a frame with a ghost image of a frame several frames before it.

    It was 34 years later that these ghost-images were explained to be the result of the mechanism of Zapruder’s particular camera. Therefore no one at the time of this supposed faking knew what caused these ghost images, they would not have realized that they needed to somehow blend a new ghost image in to the new area that shows a ghost image of the image at the beginning of the splice.

    As there are no instances of a ghost image from any but the previous frame in the procession of the film, there cannot have been a splice anywhere in the film.

  9. Just out of curiosity “professor”, do you still contend that an object at rest, in an inert state can have the properties of momentum and vector?
    . . . . . . . .
    The following essay is some indication that I am hardly alone in my assessment of Fetzer and those in his orbit, who’s sun is likely Sunstein. I have posted just a teaser amount of the article below – anyone wanting a tighter grip on the who and what of Fetzer, and the Modus Operandi of an agent provocateur should read the entire document.
    I have a few dissenting views as per the authors opinions on certain particulars, such as the Boston Bombing, and perhaps Sandy Hook, but I have never been entirely happy with the certainty with which many have pronounced their verdicts on these cases. I have criticisms of both the mainstream and the independent researchers on both.

    Another critique of Fetzer below:

  10. Top Ten Reasons: Jim Fetzer and Friends are Sunstein Shills

    The author begins with a discussion of what a shill and agent provocateur is. I pick up this quote from a longer paragraph:

    “There are, however, powerful motives for them to lie: tribal loyalty, bribery, blackmail, bullying, and a misguided belief that they are being patriotic by serving as government assets who counter “conspiracy theorists” by infiltrating truth-seeking circles and acting as if they believe the most outrageous bovine excrement.

    2) A professor who is an “expert” in “critical thinking” – as he’s been telling everyone for decades – should surely comprehend that it’s much easier for perpetrators of false-flag terror to crash a Boeing into a building (especially with Dov Zakheim and Daniel Lewin on the team) rather than have to fake it with phony videos or invisible, inaudible aircraft capable of projecting Fetzer’s postulated “sophisticated hologram[s]” to fool hundreds or thousands of eyewitnesses into imagining they saw a plane or planes crashing into the WTC, and to fool billions who would later see the footage, and planting of assorted physical evidence without anyone seeing or hearing the fakers. This evidence includes a 255-pound piece of wreckage “later identified as a trailing edge flap support structure from a Boeing 767”, with it needing to be wedged between an apartment building and a mosque, to be finally removed twelve years later in 2013 in a two-hour operation using a pulley system, a fuselage fragment on the roof of WTC5, landing gear at the corner of West and Rector Streets and also in an exterior panel knocked free from WTC1, aircraft parts embedded in the back of a car, and an American Airlines plane seat and life vest at the roof level of 130 Liberty Plaza (Deutsche Bank Building). And the fakers would need to create impact holes in the WTC facade matching the silhouette of a Boeing 767 by using cleverly placed shaped charges, guaranteed to detonate at the right instant. The probability of being able to blow out the correct shape is about zero.

    Even if you try to imagine a “parallel world” in which Fetzer is telling the truth and the WTC planes were faked, the problem is that it requires a population that is so dumbed-down and a government that is so competent and technically proficient, that the government would be able to exploit and enslave the citizens as they pleased without having to go to all the trouble of faking planes and staging false-flag terror. Just round them up, give them some pills and put them in labor camps, they get all the water they need (as per the Guantanamo Bay prisoners), rations as long as they perform their work, and tell them it’s perfectly normal and even desirable. The population would need to be so stupid as to fail to see or hear “hologram-projector” planes flying away, or fail to understand that it discredits the official story. And they would have to fail to see or hear government agents smashing aircraft debris into the back of cars or into walls or roofs, before the plane was supposed to have crashed. Or, again, fail to recognize that it is inconsistent with the government’s version of events.
    The no-planes nonsense has been thoroughly debunked many times by people with professional experience in video production, and it is clear that any proponent of no-planes is either a lunatic or a liar.

    A professor who qualified in history and philosophy of science would surely be aware that a “micro-nuke” or “mini-nuke” produces an EMP and radioactive fission products, and that it is not possible to incorporate devices into satellites that can fire “direct energy” beams with a power output in excess of the total power consumption of humankind. He would also be aware that when another professor makes a claim about beam weapons being used to demolish the WTC, yet doesn’t even bother to do energy calculations and is easily refuted by a competent scientist, and was reportedly in a coma for six years, then her ‘theories’ are clearly not to be taken seriously. When Fetzer says that he supports Judy Wood’s ‘research’ but doesn’t necessarily endorse her ‘theories’, Fetzer reveals his deception just as surely as if he’d given her his full backing.

    The best explanation for Fetzer’s behavior is that he is a highly intelligent man who simply cannot believe that the government could be involved in massive conspiracies such as 9/11. So he remains a government loyalist, his confirmation bias, flawed epistemology and world-view leads him to imagine that all so-called “conspiracy theorists” are “goof-balls”, and he believes he’s being patriotic in helping the government counter the conspiracy theorists by promoting nonsensical claims about faked planes and faked deaths, effectively parodying the real patriots and truth-tellers. Since Fetzer thinks that conspiracy theorists are all a bunch of nuts, he isn’t particularly concerned if his claims have not even a shred of credibility. He knows that he’s helping to trash the image of those perceived by the wider audience as conspiracy theorists or “twoofers”, and he thinks he’s doing the right thing.
    Sunstein needs infiltrators who will mimic the silliest type of “conspiracy theorist” imaginable, by selectively accepting information only from the likes of John Lear, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Mike Powers / Hollingsworth and others who are part of the deception. A higher level infiltrator (e.g. Fetzer) will build his crippled epistemology using John Lear, Morgan Reynolds, etc., as its foundation, and will use the argument from authority fallacy against his critics, e.g., “Do you consider yourself as qualified as John Lear to address these issues?” Thus, these infiltrators will act the role of an individual whose epistemology is so “crippled” that they become parodies of genuine truth-tellers.

    In Sunstein’s discussion of whether government should choose to ignore or rebut a “conspiracy theory”, he points out that the disadvantage for the government in rebutting a particular theory is that it may “legitimate” the theory, and a theory may gain rather than lose adherents when it is perceived as sufficiently plausible that the government needs to counter it. Sunstein recommends a strategy of “rebutting many conspiracy theories” because this yields a “synergistic gain” for the government from reducing “the legitimating effect of rebutting any one of them”.
    Jim Fetzer has authored, co-authored, edited or co-edited several books concerned with epistemology and cognition. Moreover, a number of these books were published by Springer, the company founded by Julius Springer, who was a co-religionist of Cass Sunstein.”
    . . . . .
    This is a long and detailed essay delving deeply into this MO, that I have mentioned as well. The whole article should be read for a complete grasp of the MO and those used to illustrate such profiles.


  11. I have said he has no credibility on 911 issues
    Victoria, if you have noticed I have repeatedly said that Jim Fetzer was espousing scientifically unsupportable notions in relation to the events of 911, which could damage the credibility of the 911 truth movement, and that he should be ignored on these issues.

    My answer above was only in response to whether everything he says everywhere should be negated and that was concerning what he has done on the Wellstone case.

    I think anyone promoting nonsensical theories is dangerous to a movement based on a search for scientific truth about a large heinous crime and bringing about public awareness to gain accountability for those responsible for the crimes. Unfortunately, Jim Fetzer has been completely irresponsible in this regard and it doesn’t matter whether his musing about space beams etc. is conscious disinformation or not, he should be shunned, especially after attempts to explain to him that this is erroneous and dangerous conjecture have been rebuffed by him.

    The only way for him to regain any credibility is to publicly admit his haste, explain that he has reconsidered the facts, promise not to go into the nonsensical again, and prove it over time. Even then he shouldn’t be a first stringer as he was earlier in the movement. One can’t make the mistakes he made, if that is all they were, and regain that position.

    I think Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds have been rightly sidelined in the movement due to what at a minimum can be considered irresponsibility, whether or not there was any intent at conscious disinformation.

    I do fully understand that anyone intent on generating disinformation has to slip it in with credible information, with the intended result of creating confusion in the minds of the less informed and thus negating consensus and precluding action. I am just not sure that that is Fetzer’s actual intent but behavior like his, even if not intended as disinformation, can have the same net result and should be treated in exactly the same way as you say.”~Tony Szamboti on Mon, 11/17/2008 – 12:05am



  12. jfetzer2012 — November 29, 2014 at 12:03 pm
    What could be more bizarre than H1 attacking me as an op? I have spent the last 22 years in the pursuit of truth about JFK..”~Fetzer
    . . .
    “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”~Friedrich Nietzsche
    . . .
    22 years in the pursuit of the most perfidious way of harming a cause is quite damaging indeed!

  13. A Brief Overview of the Zapruder Film Alteration Argument
    by Martin Shackelford, 12/98

    “In the early 1990s, researchers whose theories weren’t fitting well with the available evidence began to argue that the evidence that didn’t fit was faked.

    There had already been some questioning of the leaked autopsy photos, as well as documents (and there were some fake documents circulating, as well as some that appeared in two versions in government files – documents are among the easiest things to forge, especially in the computer age).

    Unfortunately, my colleague, Harrison Livingstone, opened the floodgates with a concept he called “the smorgasboard of evidence,” suggesting there were two of everything, and that the Zapruder film had been altered. It seems that two people who had worked with him picked up on the idea: Dr. David Mantik and Prof. James Fetzer.

    Fetzer had tried to promote himself with the medical evidence, but had little success.

    There followed a muddy period about which I know very little. During that time, I and others had explored a few alteration issues, and found most of them unconvincing, though a few seemed worth pursuing.

    By November 1996, Prof. Fetzer was leading the charge of those advocating that the Zapruder film had been altered: He unveiled a seven-part video overview of the assassination; he was promoting Dr. Mantik, a medical researcher, as “the world authority on the Zapruder film; and he had gathered a few others who believed in alteration (Jack White, Roy Schaeffer, David Lifton, etc.) to join them on a totally one-sided double panel arguing their case. Just to make certain that things would go his way, he took complete control, juggled panel members around, and gave long-winded introductions essentially telling the audience what they were expected to believe at the end of the presentations (I wonder if this is how he lectures at the University of Minnesota at Duluth?)

    Again, there seemed a lot of nonsense, but a few points worth pursuing. Livingstone decided to have nothing to do with the extreme alterationists, though he remained on good terms with Dr. Mantik, with whom he had worked on medical evidence issues.

    The Zapruder panels gained the kind of attention Prof. Fetzer had been looking for. There were heated debates in private e-mail lists, then on Internet newsgroups. In 1997, the book Prof. Fetzer edited, Assassination Science, was released, with a long chapter by Dr. Mantik on Zapruder film alteration, as well as a few others on the topic.

    Around the same time, Noel Twyman came out, somewhat less fervently, for alteration in his book, Bloody Treason. This was the peak, and the alterationists rode the wave for a while.

    There had always been those who were skeptical of the bulk of the alterationist claims. As the debate continued, more of the “anomalies” were explained, and the points which had seemed worth pursuing began to fall by the wayside, but the alterationists had a tendency to do three things:

    1) A phenomenon I call “Anomaly of the Week,” which meant that no matter how many alterationist claims were proven wrong, new ones cropped up like weeds, some of them increasingly far-fetched, and quickly discarded in the face of evidence;

    2) A tendency to wait until the controversy over something had died down, and then resurrect it as though it were “new evidence;” and

    3) An increasing tendency to launch personal attacks on unbelievers, accusing them of being “Lone Nutters,” or “disinformation agents,” or “anti-conspiracy” (as though theirs was the only valid conspiracy theory), or “too dumb” to understand the “startling evidence” which had “already proven” alteration true.

    The Assassination Records Review Board looked into the alteration allegations, concluded the film was authentic, and made sure to preserve all available Archive copies. The Zapruder family worked with MPI video to release a high-resolution digital copy for study, in video and DVD formats. Robert Groden had already released a video which included a variety of Zapruder films (a 35mm copy of the damaged original, an intact Secret Service copy, an early bootleg, etc.). Then the ARRB released the 600 page technical reports and documentation by retired Kodak 8mm expert Roland Zavada, which an alterationist described as “devastating” to proponents of alteration.

    The alteration proponents, as even some of them conceded, suffered a blow at the 1998 JFK Lancer conference’s Zapruder film panel, the first time they had to publicly face opponents of their views in a forum. Prof. Fetzer made a scene, and effectively eliminated the question and answer period. Since the conference, a fissure has developed between the “realist” alterationists and the “ideological” alterationists, with some bitterness resulting. Jack White has released a videotape which the “ideological” wing believes to be overwhelming evidence that the film was altered, and which the “realist” wing feels is unconvincing, an embarrassment, and a setback to those who believe there is genuine evidence of alteration, but are having doubts.”~Martin Shackelford, 12/03/98


    • Recently, Dr. Costella has turned his talents to an examination of the technical aspects of the Zapruder film. His examination has concluded that:

      “The film is technically excellent… The field of view matches very closely the expected field of view for Zapruder’s camera; there does not seem to be any anomalous magnification as had been suspected. The motion-blurring of objects has been self-consistent in every frame that I have checked.. The sizes and angles of objects are correctly affected by the distortion of the lens system used (excepting the Stemmons Freeway sign). The objects seen as `ghosts’ in adjacent frames match up perfectly with both the actual geometry of Dealey Plaza.. as well as the scene in the main part of each frame.”~Article above
      . . . . . . .
      This contradicts what Costella provided here: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

  14. Bill Greer’s Impossible Head Turn
    James R. Gordon

    “One of the biggest mistakes made in the creation of the film was the depiction of the driver of the presidential limousine, Secret Service agent William Greer.” — John Costella (TGZFH P. 193)

    So begins John Costella in the section of his article “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication” where he deals with the twin head turns of Bill Greer. It is a short section, comprising of only four pages. There is no analysis of the images concerned and Costella’s main reference is Noel Twyman’s book “Bloody Treason” pages 127-129 and Twyman’s Exhibts C2 + C3.

    In the section of this article, entitled “Replicating the Twyman experiment at home” he says:

    “I decided that it would be simple enough to replicate this experiment for myself – and, indeed, it is not too difficult for most people to perform.” TGZFH P.194

    John Costella’s main contribution to the book is entitled “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication”. Within this article Costella develops a section within which he comments on, and supports, an observation that is contained within Noel Twyman’s book “Bloody Treason”; that twice in the Zapruder film driver Bill Greer turns both back and forward at a speed that is not humanly possible. John Costella might suggest, within his title, that his contribution to TGZFH is that of a scientist, however this “scientist” did not do the most elementary item of research: to check whether infact Twyman was correct in his initial hypothesis regarding these turns. The simple answer is that he (Twyman) is not correct and what is interesting is that the very images of the Zapruder film which Twyman includes in his book demonstrate that he is wrong. If the reader looks at the colour plate on which Twyman has a copy of Z 317 which he (Twyman ) also annotates and comments on how by this frame Bill Greer is facing forward, as well as indicating how impossible it would be for him to do so, it will be seen that at this frame Bill Greer is not facing forward. How Noel Twyman ever concluded from this frame [ which he included in his book ] that his subject ( Bill Greer ) is facing forward at this point is beyond this writer’s comprehension. As pointed out, this elementary item of research [ checking whether the hypothesis was indeed accurate to begin with ] was evidently not carried out by John Costella, however he did continue to describe this error not only as a truth but a further proof that the Zapruder film had been fabricated.

    The basic hypothesis which Twyman expounded and which John Costella appears to completely support, is that between two Zapruder film sequences:

    i. Z 302 – Z 303

    ii. Z 315 – 317

    Bill Greer’s head turns by approximately 120 -140º. There is dispute between researchers as to how great this turn actually is. Approaching a third of John Costella’s comment on these turns is taken up with some complex mathematical calculations that underline just how impossible it would be to the human body to make either of these turns within the time he specifies. It is a pity this scientist did not take an equal, or even greater time, to analyse whether the hypothesis, he is now supporting, stands up to serious scrutiny.

    What follows is a description of the twin turns Bill Greer made just before and just after the fatal head shot. Within the description I will illustrate and comment on the errors that John Costella both made himself and failed to detect within the work of Noel Twyman.”



  15. “[Editor’s Note: Research on the recreation of the home movie of the death of JFK attributed to Abraham Zapruder continues to this day. Here, the leading technical expert on the film provides an introduction to some of the most important indications of fakery. Those who would like to pursue this complex and fascinating subject may want to consult the studies found in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX.]”


    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    “..the leading technical expert on the film”?

    Such spurious hyperbole is the jargon of soap commercials and ad agencies. It is PR lexicon, Sales-Speak; in plain language it is BULLSHIT.

    ‘THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX’ is a hoax itself, produced by the leading charlatan of our time, the infamous James Fetzer and his merry band of dupes and shills.

  16. hybridrogue1 — June 19, 2012 at 10:00 pm
    “…explaining what each of us means by special words and phrases is completely appropriate. It has nothing to do with meanings…”~Fetzer

    Sans qualifiers:

    “..explaining what each of us means…has nothing to do with meanings…” ~Fetzer


    Did the qualifiers I cut from his sentence misframe it? No, I simply combined his assertion and summation. This is perhaps the most blatant doublethink statement yet from the dear doctor.



  17. “keenanroberts seems to think the speed of the aircraft–which was analogous to an empty beer can–impacting with a massive 500,000-ton building–which was like a brick wall–matters, when Newton’s third law dictates that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph hitting a stationary building are the same as a statonary plane being hit by a 500,000-ton building moving at 500 mph. He is ignorant of physics and his arguments show it. Is he unaware of the damage done to a plane by impact with a tiny bird weighing a few ounces? It should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. But none of that happened.

    What this means is that we are not watching a real plane but something that looks like a real plane but performs feats that no real plane can perform. It passes its entire length into this massive building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That is impossible, unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to an aircraft in flight than does air. And Senor El Once seems to discount the fact that the image in the Naudet footage looks NOTHING LIKE a Boeing 767, while many witnesses reported seeing a plane that looked like A BOEING 767 enter the South Tower. Unless we discount all of the witness reports, we have to accept that they saw something that LOOKED LIKE a plane but was not a real plane.”~Fetzer – April 18, 2012 at 10:48 pm


    Jim Fetzer,
    You say this about the Naudet video :

    “Plus it has no strobe lights, casts no shadows, and has a left wing that disappears EVEN BEFORE IT ENTERS THE BUILDING. I’ve explained all of this in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video faker’” and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate…”~Fetzer

    Which is a confession that you don’t know ANYTHING about photography – digital or analog, and know zip about photo analysis. The claim that this object casts no shadows is balderdash on the face of it.

    The main problem with this video is the lack of quality, not the lack of a real plane. ~\\][//

    [Same thread]

    April 19, 2012 at 9:47 pm
    I find it amusing that you hand wave – or fail to acknowledge any of my feedback to you Jim.

    If I were to say “Dear sir” and refer to you as “Dr, Fetzer” and stroke your ego, would that make some difference in this?

    I have more than a little professional experience in special effects cinema. I have looked deeply into this issue of ‘fake planes’ and phony video and still images, and it is my determination that the whole issue is hogwash.

    ~Willy Whitten Special FX Artist (Retired)

  18. Jim Fetzer – April 21, 2012 at 10:00 am
    “No one who reviews the videos I have included at the conclusion of “Planes / No Planes and ‘video fakery’” is going to be taken in by this smooth-talking used car salesman. Check them out. No real plane could enter this building without displaying any effects of collision. There is no deceleration. The plane does not crumple. Its wings and tail do not break off. No bodies, seats or luggage fall to the ground. It does not even explode until it is ALL THE WAY INSIDE THE BUILDING. But that is impossible. It should have exploded upon impact. This cynic believes he can deceive you with his silver tongue. But he is in fact exposing himself has someone who trades in falsehoods and fraud.”
    . . . . .

    The weaknesses of the “9/11 Truth Movement” is that it is vulnerable to distractions, to infiltration, to bogus evidence, and even to nonsensical arguments.

    I have pointed out in a lucid manner that Fetzer’s arguments are nonsensical. I have pointed out here on this forum that he has zero comprehension of photographic analysis – his arguments against Salter’s quotes being a prime example.

    Fetzer also makes spurious arguments against a PhD in physics – a credential that Fetzer dare not claim for himself. He continues to argue that ‘counting the frames’ proves his point, when it is indeed verifiable that on closer examination by actual video experts, verified by the Sandia data as well proves him wrong.

    I am therefore unwilling to continue any more debate on these issues. If Fetzer has other issues he wants to bring into the picture, I will address those. But continuing a back and forth on the aspects we have already been through is futile.

    I will state for the record here, it is my opinion that Jim Fetzer is a 9/11 disinformationist, that he is being dishonest and is attempting to lead the movement into untenable ground. I see this as not only self evident, but also that I have given some prime examples of this behavior. That I am not alone in this assessment is a matter for others to discover – I only speak for myself in these public exchanges.

    This is my bottom line on the issues of what is shown in the visual evidence. If Mr. Fetzer would like to proceed to other issues it is fine, I will address those.~ww – April 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    . . . . .
    keenanroberts – April 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm
    “it is my opinion that Jim Fetzer is a 9/11 disinformationist, that he is being dishonest and is attempting to lead the movement into untenable ground.” (Quoting me)

    I concur, and I would further add that Mr. Fetzer has so sullied the reputation of Indiana University where he received his PHD in the history and philosophy of science, that if I were Indiana University, I would revoke his PHD immediately.

    I consider Jim Fetzer to be just as dishonest and ill-intentioned as Brian Good and has no legitimate claim to being a member of any truth movement. To put it simply, Jim Fetzer is a liar, not a truther.”
    . . . .
    hybridrogue1 – April 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm:

    Jim Fetzer says: April 22, 2012 at 1:23 am

    “Since you are unable to defeat any of my arguments, you resort to more ad hominems.”

    Rather than address the rest of the post which is another redundant bout that has been addressed over and again, just let me say that Fetzer has that grand ability to be insulted by another,s “ad hominems” , while being quite adept at slinging these at others.

    In the very first posts on this threat that he addressed me we find:

    “obviously unqualified–does not understand–massively ignorant–complete incompetence–I recommend him for “Dunce of the Year” award ”

    ~Fetzer in just his first two responses to my comments, which he characterized as “attacks”.

    Whether anyone has defeated your arguments Fetzer is not for you to judge for yourself. As you claim to have taught, ” logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,” you should already realize this. ~ww

  19. hybridrogue1
    April 22, 2012 at 2:07 am

    Jim Fetzer says: – April 21, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    “Well, then it should be easy to show what I have wrong…”

    Sure it is easy to show what you have wrong. The problems comes from your refusals to admit that you are wrong.

    It has been shown to the candid world on countless occasions on a myriad of web sites that you are a charlatan Fetzer. One set upon a mission to deceive will certainly not admit so such deceit.

    And you can not turn this around on me. I have no mission, I have no organization, nor am I a so-called “Leader in the 9/11 Truth Movement”. My sole agenda is thinking for myself and expressing my own opinions based on such thinking. This can in no way exempt me from quoting others at times any more than it exempts anyone else.

    You have proven nothing, and others have proven that too many times to cite.~ww
    . . . . . .

    April 22, 2012 at 8:18 pm
    “You continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of serious thought.”~Jim {quite certain} Fetzer

    I think this is a really great opening as an invitation to read your outline here…really gives one the incentive to deal with and take you seriously.

    So I read your points one through nineteen, and find it rather a jumble spanning a breadth of disputes in a rather shotgun manner. I am hardly impressed with either your manner of presentation nor the logic displayed.

    Your argument for momentum is still misplaced. As I have said, it is not suggested that the plane knocked a tower over, and that would be the only argument that the momentum physics would matter in.

    The mass ratio at the point of impact between the plane and the floors actually hit would be the two mass ratios to account for.
    And these masses are in fact fairly even in tonnage. It is AGAIN, misplaced to apply the mass of the entire building to this point of the argument.

    No one disputes that the mass of the plane was only three one-hundredths of 1 percent of the mass of the building. what is in dispute is that this has relevance to the impact point logistics.

    I flat out reject your application – which is NOT a rejection of any accepted physics but a rejection of your misapplication of those physics.

    Grasp that, deal with it. You have not yet up to this point.~ww
    . . . . . .

    Jim Fetzer – April 22, 2012 at 8:08 pm
    “Since it cannt be a real plane (for reasons I have laboriously explained in excruciating detail), we are confronted with three alternatives: CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a hologram. Since there are witnesses who report seeing what they took to be a plane (but which cannnot be a real plane), where CGIs or video compositing would be inconsistent with seeing images of a plane other than on television, by elimination it cannot be CGIs and it also cannot be video compositing. Those of us who understand the nature of reasoning therefore soundly conclude that it was a hologram.”~Fetzer
    . . . . .

    April 22, 2012 at 9:07 pm
    “Those of us who understand the nature of reasoning therefore soundly conclude that it was a hologram.”~Jim {tho one and only} Fetzer

    Oh the exclusivity of that rare group, “who understand the nature of reasoning”

    What a pile of bald stinking hubris, while asserting the existence of a technology that to this date, ten frigging years later, has not been proven to exist.

    For a hologram to be seen it needs a medium to be projected onto. On stage this is usually a fog provided by a dry ice fog machine. And in these displays it must be dark overall to give the effect of solidity.

    The problems with projecting a hologram in broad daylight sans special medium is a deep problem to overcome.

    To assert as a ‘given’ that such technology exists – that it is certain, is not to “understand the nature of reasoning” – it is to understand the nature of speculation.

    If you are to claim that such holograms indeed exist and that the ones of planes used on 9/11 is the verifiable proof of such, you are then practicing circular reasoning.

    If you have proof that holographic projection systems of this sophistication existed back in 2001, I would be most interested in your sharing this with us.~ww
    . . . . . .

    hybridrogue1 – April 26, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Jim Fetzer says: -April 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm
    “I am NOT “maintaining that the speed shows there was no plane”, ONLY that it shows that, if there was a real plane, it cannot have been a standard Boeing 767.”

    Jim Fetzer says: = April 22, 2012 at 8:08 pm
    “Since it cannt be a real plane (for reasons I have laboriously explained in excruciating detail)”


    I don’t think any commentary is necessary Jim’s own words speak against themselves.~ww
    . . . . . .
    hybridrogue1 – April 22, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    “A plane could no more have effortlessly entered the building than a car, by driving really, really fast, could pass through an enormous tree. I am sorry to say it, but the quality of your arguments is pathetic.”~Fetzer

    I am sorry to say…yes as well, but you again misplace analogies. The bullet through a steel street sign is the more applicable. Even the car hitting the tree as it shatters the car, will still leave a substantial gouge in the trunk of said tree.

    But the same token the tower is not analogous to the tree – the specifics of the tube design structure is well enough understood by {I would think} most all of us here. It is your using the facade as a hardened bunker style front that is the glaring error here. As the bullet through the sign is deformed by impact with the sign but it still passes through it. That the plane would be shattered as it passes through the facade is a given.

    I think the strongest evidence of the WTC case is the visual evidence, which you seem so desperate to discard.

    And it is this desperation to discard the strongest evidence in this case that raises my personal suspicions as per your actual agenda here.~ww

  20. Fetzer has claimed that he has no memory of our debates on the 9/11 issue herein. I have left it for the end of this thread to remind him of such, because there is linkage here between what is an obvious agenda displayed in Fetzer’s MO – the attempt to discard and do away with the most crucial evidence in both the 9/11 case and the JFK case. So to refresh his memory:

    The reminder begins with this comment I made on the following T&S thread:

    ‘I think the strongest evidence of the WTC case is the visual evidence, which you seem so desperate to discard.
    And it is this desperation to discard the strongest evidence in this case that raises my personal suspicions as per your actual agenda here.’~ April 22, 2012 at 9:33 pm
    . . . . . .
    And this is where the actual agenda butts up to the JFK issue and Fetzer attempting once again to discard the strongest evidence – in both cases the visual evidence. He is asserting in the 9/11 case that the videos of the planes impacting the towers are faked, just like he is asserting that the Zapruder film is fake.

    This cannot be framed as mere coincidence that in both cases Fetzer has been at the forefront of an attack on the visual evidence in both of these disparate cases. It is evidence of a single concerted agenda.

    Now this dispute between the two of us is not limited to just these two threads, but spanned through a great many debates on this issues of No-Planes, Video Fakery, Holograms, DEW, and Nukes at WTC, All of the preposterous scenarios applied to the 9/11 case, Fetzer has been at the lead of.

    During these debates he proved his inadequacies in video and image analysis, in applied physics, and in critical thinking and argumentation; which he again proves again on the issue of the Zapruder film.

    It is these first hand experiences with Fetzer that leave no doubt in my mind that he is a charlatan,an infiltrator, and an agent provocateur for the deep state,

    ~Willy Whitten – \\][//

  21. hybridrogue1 – April 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Yadahoody we are back in the saddle again…moley hackerhoons dude…I tell ya uncle Festzer, “the childish name calling” seems to have a place when dealing with such insistent agenteur as your smoojesty – your high ho linguistic loopograms such as ” such and such now demonstrates” and projecting that Ruffadam hasn’t the sense to read your own twirly twatspittle and judge for himself, what your position is, but is going to be unduly influenced by yours most and completely truly makes the dingleberries on your fat ass chime as the hairs stand on end.

    Why yo why yo even fookin try yo to make sensible arguments with such an obvious scripto PR wrangler as you??? No reason at all.
    You dangle spoofs and call it ‘deductive logic’ clogging the channels with your sputtery fluttery fecal fling…unholy bastard thou.

    A New Stage Poem

    by Willy Whitten

  22. Jim Fetzer – April 27, 2012 at 12:43 am
    “When you were called on deliberately misspelling my name, you claimed it wasn’t deliberate and sought to make amends with Craig. Now that you have committed as blatant an offense as any I have ever encountered–by claiming I have been inconsistent by juxtaposing the conclusion that I offer from one set of premises with the conclusion I offer from another–then if you don’t get the boot, then I am going to depart from this forum for having no intellectual standards whatsoever.”
    . . . . . .

    Craig McKee – April 27, 2012 at 1:29 am
    You are giving me an ultimatum. I do not respond to those. If you think this blog has no intellectual standards then I wish you well in finding another that suits you better.”
    . . . . . .

    I am not going to start lobbying for your dismissal from the site Mr. Fetzer, because I do not fear you nor your substandard argumentum. It is obvious that you can’t stand my presence because I have you pinned for what you are. I blow your game. There is this kitchen, there is this heat. When the sweat starts to roll down your jowls, it might be a sign for you to voluntarily check yourself out of the room.~ww – April 26, 2012 at 11:59 pm
    . . . . . .
    Jim Fetzer – April 27, 2012 at 12:27 am
    “Well, if Craig does not give you the boot for your blatantly dishonest and offensive conduct in this instance, you will have the playing field to yourself, since it will mean this forum has no standards.”~Fetzer
    . . . . . .
    hybridrogue1 – April 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    I won’t have the forum to myself Jim. Apparently you fail to notice all the other people here, who must surely be aghast at this final juvenile theater.

    You’re one of those people who have absolutely no respect for your adversaries. You loose out with utterly dismissing them as a person, letting them become an ‘it’ to you. You loose out by failing to learn from them. I learned a lot while arguing with you, so I appreciate the role of adversaries in my life – which should all be lived as a learning experience.

    I am actually quite familiar with physics. I am not so interested in the calculation aspect, but more the theoretical side of it.

    So anyway, putting my mind to these issues beginning the first year of the aftermath, I studied the structural engineering aspect, and the science of controlled demolition, and of course this all branched out into the physics underlying the event.

    So the opportunity to ‘work’ with you on this thread has been a delight,because I was compelled to study, to revisit these concepts, mainly to reassure myself of the correct terms for the concepts I already had a grip on – thus one learns to hone arguments by an honest effort to discover the truth – because truth ALWAYS wins. It wins regardless of anyone recognizing it sometimes simply because it is what is.

    Anyway, I would chastise you in the harshest of language for slapping Craig in the face to punish me – but I am sure that he prefers that I didn’t. So I just put the suggestion to you to envision the last time you were cussed out for being what you know deep inside you really are; all those words and the deepness of their cuts.~ww
    . . . . . .

    Of course Fetzer was bluffing…

    “For some reason, I find no “Reply” button for many of hybridrogue1’s posts, He now thinks that the phrase “no planes” means NO PLANES,”~Fetzer – April 28, 2012 at 9:34 pm
    . . . . . .

    TheFacts – April 30, 2012 at 4:12 pm [this is a pilot from P4T site]
    “Anyone who takes the (mind numbing) time to read through the comments of this section will readily see that Mr Fetzer has nothing to support his claims. Physics and a real understanding of Newtonian Laws have been offered time and time again to Mr Fetzer, he has ignored every single reply in favor of a what would be equivalent to a 9th Grader who has briefly studied Newton’s Laws without any understanding or application.

    There are 4 levels to Learning – Rote, Understanding, Application, and Correlation.

    Mr. Fetzer is stuck in the Rote phase as it pertains to Physics. This is why he constantly repeats his diatribes of a “500,000 Ton Building” while plugging his ears to applied Physics, and is the reason that anyone who has taken a College Course in Physics understands why Fetzer literally has no support from anyone with a PhD in Physics.

    Mr. Fetzer is relegated to blogs such as these (no offense Craig), for the same reason no one with real expertise and credentials wishes to waste too much time arguing with a 14-year-old who has flown Microsoft Flight Simulator and trying to tell their Instructor how to fly the airplane..”
    . . . . . .

    TheFacts – April 30, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    “Hbrid claims to be retired Special Effects Engineer… not to mention the fact he knows Applied Physics (unlike Fetzer) and has an interest in the “Truth Movement”.

    I understand Hybrid’s reasoning and his interest for debating Fetzer on your blog. He obviously has the time.

    Hybrid keeps Fetzer here to expose his logical fallacies… and is doing an excellent job of it. Albeit Hybrid does get bogged down into emotional responses at times, after all, he is Human… but that is also the work of a provocateur and a textbook tactic of Truth Suppression… invoke emotional response when you cannot reply to the data, expertise… Physics.. etc. Fetzer cannot address the data, Physics, or argue the facts of video/audio with an actual expert in the field. So, he attempts to invoke emotional response.

    I’m not saying Fetzer is a provocateur… but if it quacks like a duck….

    I actually feel Fetzer is getting old… losing support by the day.. and getting desperate. Hence why he spends so much time on your blog to perhaps convince.. what… 10 readers?

    Either way, Fetzer will never be called to testify in a new independent investigation. If he were, and you were on the Jury, would you find him credible?”
    . . . . . . .

    keenanroberts – April 30, 2012 at 5:39 pm
    “The pilotsfor911truth thread that “TheFacts” mentioned above is an excellent example of Jim’s consistent use of evasion and disinformation tactics, as well as some intelligent rebuttals to his false scientific claims. One of the best comments contains this great quote from Rob Balsamo after Rob banned Jim Fetzer from his forum for dishonesty and trolling behavior:

    Fetzer does not have Newtons Laws nor any Laws of physics on his side.As calculated, a Standard 767 would be carrying more than enough energy to cause the damaged observed if such an aircraft could achieve the speeds reported. The key factor here is the speed. Energy increases exponentially as velocity increases. Something Jim Fetzer just cannot comprehend.Jim does not understand basic physics, math, nor is he able to retain simple data when given to him repeatedly.The main problem Jim has is that he thinks a modern airliner is more like “an empty coke can”, than an actual airliner weighing over 300,000 lbs. He also thinks the entire weight of a stationary structure is a factor when calculating dynamic collisions. He is wrong. This is why he hasn’t gotten any support for the past 5 or 6 years attempting to push such theories, and instead has attacked nearly every single person who doesn’t subscribe to his theories. There was a mass exodus from Scholars when Jim attempted to pull this crap back in 2006. Does he really think he will gain more support now?I was basically the last one he had left who respected the fact that he wishes to explore any theory he wants. Most forums have banned NPT discussion. I have told him repeatedly over the years that P4T as an organization does not offer theory nor endorse any theory, this includes NPT. It has been on the top of our home page since 2006.Jim is upset now because he is trying as hard as he can to find speakers for his upcoming conference. Hence his rapid fire of articles over the past few weeks. Many of the speakers he invited has declined, including myself. So naturally, Jim has no choice but to now write hit pieces attacking me personally.Jim’s credibility is shot within the “movement”;.And as you can see from the quotes above, Dennis also does not subscribe to NPT. In the interest of historical accuracy, if anyone would like copies of his emails containing those quotes, feel free to email me and I will forward them to you.”. . . . . .
    . . . . . .

    keenanroberts – April 30, 2012 at 6:01 pm
    “The fact that Jim Fetzer would come on this forum and continue repeating ad nauseum his false scientific claims (such as that the entire 500,000 tons of the WTC tower was resisting the plane’s impact, among others), in the face of legitimate counter-arguments posed by myself and other members here that Jim has consistently ignored or dismissed with faulty reasoning and ad hominems, as well as the fact that his false claims have been debunked and thoroughly disproved on so many other forums and debate venues over the years, should be more than enough proof that Jim Fetzer has an agenda far afield of being a legitimate member of a “truth” movement. I think Rob Balsamo’s description of Jim’s agenda was spot on. Jim Fetzer is attempting to disrupt, divide, and discredit the truth movement by inserting false and absurd theories, and trying to associate as many legitimate truth researchers, organization, and advocates with his disinformation as he can, in order to bring down as many of us as he can with his methodical attempted controlled demolition of the 9/11 truth movement’s credibility.

    Jim Fetzer is an enemy of the truth, and enemy of logical reasoning, an enemy of science, an enemy of fair play. Jim Fetzer has taken what he has learned from his “35 years studying and teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning” and turned it against the profession and against all of the implicit purposes that such expertise is ostensibly used for. For whom or which interests he is serving and for how much pay or other compensation is as yet unknown, but there can be no doubt for those of us with open eyes and objective reasoning abilities what Jim Fetzer’s true agenda is all about, which certainly has nothing to do with the stated objectives of the real or legitimate portion of the 9/11 Truth Movement.”

    Again this is all from this T&S thread:

  23. keenanroberts – May 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm
    “Jim, you are incredibly disrespectful to the members of this forum to come on here using the same false scientific arguments that were so thoroughly dissected and debunked on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum just a few weeks ago before you were banned there, and to pretend like nobody has ever made any valid counter-arguments to yours is outrageously dishonest. To see that all of my counter-arguments regarding Kinetic Energy, the irrelevance of the entire building’s mass ratio to the plane when calculating dynamic collisions, etc., that I discussed here (and that you completely ignored/dismissed) on this forum was already debated on the pilots forum even more thoroughly than on this thread really pisses me off. Shame on you Mr. Fetzer for such a profound lack of respect for science, the scientific method, and a slap in the face to those of all of those in your life who taught you what you now claim is “your 35 years of expertise in logic and scientific reasoning”

    As Rob Balsamo put it only a few weeks ago,

    Fetzer does not have Newtons Laws nor any Laws of physics on his side. As calculated, a Standard 767 would be carrying more than enough energy to cause the damaged observed if such an aircraft could achieve the speeds reported. The key factor here is the speed. Energy increases exponentially as velocity increases. Something Jim Fetzer just cannot comprehend. Jim does not understand basic physics, math, nor is he able to retain simple data when given to him repeatedly. The main problem Jim has is that he thinks a modern airliner is more like “an empty coke can”, than an actual airliner weighing over 300,000 lbs. He also thinks the entire weight of a stationary structure is a factor when calculating dynamic collisions. He is wrong. This is why he hasn’t gotten any support for the past 5 or 6 years attempting to push such theories, and instead has attacked nearly every single person who doesn’t subscribe to his theories.

    Then, to fraudulently attempt to use the Pilots for 9/11 Truth name to add credence to your NPT nonsense after Rob Balsamo has warned you that he may have to take action to stop you from trying to discredit the P4T name by false association with NPT shows how despicable of a human being you are and further evidence that you are working at cross purposes to the goals of the Real 9/11 Truth Movement. I will do everything I can to let people know about your dishonest tactics and to shame you out of the truth movement.”

    TheFacts – May 1, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    keenan says –

    “Jim, you are incredibly disrespectful to the members of this forum to come on here using the same false scientific arguments that were so thoroughly dissected and debunked on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum just a few weeks ago….

    To see that all of my counter-arguments regarding Kinetic Energy, the irrelevance of the entire building’s mass ratio to the plane when calculating dynamic collisions, etc., that I discussed here (and that you completely ignored/dismissed) on this forum was already debated on the pilots forum even more thoroughly than on this thread really pisses me off.”

    Well said Keenan.

    Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

    Unfortunately for Fetzer, the laws of Physics will not change to conform to his argument, no matter who he tries to convince.

    This is why Jim has hit nothing but brick walls when attempting his arguments with anyone who has an understanding of Applied Physics. One would think someone allegedly trained in “Scientific Reasoning” would have changed his argument by now. I refer you to Einstein’s definition above.”
    . . . . . .
    May 1, 2012 at 3:48 pm – Let us be frank here Mr. Fetzer.

    You have ducked and bobbed here, evading every rational argument of physics put to you by__1. Not even answering__2. Answering your own reinterpretation of the question rather than the actual question put to you__ 3. Simply exclaiming that the questioner has no understanding of physics, attended by ridicule.

    That is:
    1. refusing to answer
    2. strawman
    3. argument from authority + ad hominem

    This has been going on for weeks. Were this a court of law, you could be charged with contempt of court.

    You like blurb language, how about this one:

    *** FED-UP WITH FETZER ***

    Kinda catchy isn’t it?~ww

  24. So I see Bridges is shooting blanks here just to let me know he’s reading.

    Pretty good trick, I have no idea how to post a blank comment. Maybe he can give me a tutorial?
    Nah, I wouldn’t post it. Only I would know the magic.

  25. Josiah Thompson discusses James Fetzer

    “In a recent email to me, Professor Fetzer wrote:

    >>”A study that appears in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE [states that] the film appears to have been in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Center run by the CIA already Friday night, where an original and three copies were struck and then returned to Dallas in time for a small group of reporters, including Dan Rather, to view the film in a preliminarily-edited version.”

    The study referred to is by Mike Pincher and Roy L. Schaeffer. These writers manufacture out of whole cloth a flight of “at least the original and one copy” from Dallas to Andrews Air Force Base on the night of the 22nd and a return flight of the altered film to Dallas in the early morning hours of November 23rd. They do this without a single fact to support their fancy. They even cite the Max Phillips note (quoted above), but never tell the reader that Phillips also pointed out that “Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the ‘master’ [read ‘original’] film.”

    They – and apparently Professor Fetzer – have simply misinterpreted the so-called “CIA 450 Documents” discovered by Paul Hoch in the early 1980s. These documents recount the preparation of four photo briefing boards for government officials based upon NPIC’s analysis of the film. The question at issue is the timing of the shots. The selection of frames for the briefing boards makes clear that NPIC is looking at the same film we see today.

    Telltale information is found on page six of the documents which refer to the December 6, 1963 issue of LIFE. Hence, the examination was carried out not on November 22nd – but sometime in December 1963. The copy of the film analyzed was the Secret Service copy, whose agents stayed with the film while the briefing boards were prepared. AARB located and interviewed two former employees of NPIC who stated that internegatives were made of only single frames to be mounted on briefing boards and that they never “reproduced the film as a motion picture.

    Professor Fetzer makes his second claim in his own recognizable style. He wrote to me:

    >>”On Table 3.1 of Elizabeth Loftus, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, appears a summary of research with 151 subjects which reports that, when a group of subjects considered what they were observing to be salient or significant, they were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their observations, which reinforces their importance as evidence. Even though you appear to accept the widely-held belief that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, Loftus’ findings provide one more striking indication that opinions that are popular are not always true.

    >>”Indeed, to think that a view must be true because it is widespread is to commit the FALLACY OF POPULAR SENTIMENTS… While you have cited an appropriate expert in Elizabeth Loftus, you have misrepresented her findings concerning eyewitness testimony in relation to the assassination of JFK… Indeed, David [Mantik] offers a calculation that, whenever dozens of witnesses all recall an event…in the same way then they are almost certainly correct. If a single witness has a 2% chance of being wrong, then if all ten witnesses report the same event, the probability they are all wrong is 02 to the 10th power or 10 to the minus 17th, which equals .00000000000000001!”

    There are so many errors in these few lines that it is difficult to know where to begin.

    First of all, these are not Elizabeth Loftus’ findings, but the account of an experiment published in the Harvard Law Review by Marshall, et al. entitled, “Effects of Kind of Question and Atmosphere of Interrogation on Accuracy and Completeness of Testimony.” The focus of the study is not “salience” or “accuracy” or “completeness” – but, rather, methods of interrogation. Elizabeth Loftus cited the study in her book – but these are not “her findings.”

    Had Professor Fetzer taken the trouble to look at the article he cites, he would have recognized that the “salient items” were not picked out by the people tested in the experiment, but by staff members and high school students. Hence, he misspeaks in saying, “…when a group of subjects considered what they were observing to be salient or significant, they were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their observations.”

    It is Professor Fetzer’s practice to ascribe nonsensical views to people and then criticize them for holding them. Likewise here. The Professor ascribes to me the silly idea that “…a view must be true because it is widespread.” Then he exposes me as having committed “the fallacy of popular sentiments” for holding such a silly idea. This isn’t argument. It’s just silliness!

    Then there is Professor Fetzer’s claim that I have “misrepresented” Elizabeth Loftus’ findings with respect to the Kennedy assassination. It is not only I who “accepts the widely-held belief that eyewitness testimony is unreliable,” it is also Elizabeth Loftus. In fact, it is precisely her work which brought about this “widely-held belief.” The cover of Eyewitness Testimony states that the book “…makes the psychological case against the reliability of the eyewitness.”

    This is the book’s single, unifying theme. Eyewitness testimony is both unreliable at its inception and subject to corruption by later acquired information and questioning.

    Since I’d worked with Elizabeth Loftus on two cases (most recently the Oklahoma City bombing case), I asked her what she thought of the use the Harvard Law article had been put to by David Mantik and Professor Fetzer. She wrote back:

    “It is fair to say that salient details are remembered better than peripheral ones. Also, it is easier to mislead people about peripheral details.

    “It is WRONG [her emphasis], however, to say anything like 98% of salient details are accurately remembered. If that was shown in the Marshall case, it is only with those subjects, with that stimulus material, in that study. We virtually never make claims about absolute percentages because the real percentages in any situation depend on so many other factors.”

    So much for my alleged misinterpretation of her views.”~Josiah Thompson


  26. James Fetzer background Brief


    Having graduated from South Pasadena High School, he studied philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962,[7] while his undergraduate thesis, done under Carl G Hempel, won The Dickinson Prize.[1] He then joined the United States Marine Corps, and was second lieutenant in an artillery unit.[7] In the early 1960s he was stationed at Okinawa, Japan.[11][13]

    [**]In 1966, soon after promotion to captain, he resigned to enter graduate school.[7] Having attained a master’s degree from Indiana University, he studied at Columbia University for a year, then returned to Indiana University and in 1970 attained PhD in history of science and philosophy of science.[7][11][13]

    He became an assistant professor at University of Kentucky in 1970, and received the UK Student Government’s first Distinguished Teaching Award in 1973. He left Kentucky in 1977, then taught at University of Virginia, University of Cincinnati, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of South Florida.[7] In 1987, he became full professor at University of Minnesota Duluth, was appointed Distinguished McKnight University Professor in 1996, and remained until retirement in June 2006.[7]

    In the late 1970s, Fetzer received a National Science Foundation fellowship,[14] and contributed a chapter to a book on Hans Reichenbach.[15] In 1990, Fetzer received the Medal of the University of Helsinki.[1] He assisted theorists in computer science,[16][17] and joined debate over proper types of inference in computing.[5] In the late 1990s, Fetzer was called to organize a symposium on philosophy of mind,[18] and authored textbooks on cognitive science and artificial intelligence.[3][4] He is an expert on philosopher Carl G Hempel.[1][19]””

    . . . . . . .{**> It is at this point in Fetzer’s career, that looks suspicious. He is promoted to captain and soon after resigns his commission. Indicative of an offer for advancement under civilian cover? That would be my hypothesis in light of Fetzer’s MO. In intelligence jargon this type of shift is often referred to as “sheep-dipping”. Adding to the puzzle is his academic success despite his activities as a “Conspiracy Theorist”. The only rational explanation for this is that Fetzer is sanctioned to play this role.
    Now this is an analysis taking into account the effect which Fetzer has had in his role of conspiracy theorist, which is to say the least, disruptive to say the most; “monstrous, calumnious, demented bilge”, as one commentator put it.

  27. hybridrogue1
    November 28, 2014 at 2:53 pm
    While your majesty is still here among us herr doktar, I would like you to answer this:

    In the interview with Horne back several years ago, he made big point about the “Hollywood Research Group” and the work they were doing on the hi res copies they got from the JFK Museum.
    Where are their findings?

    November 28, 2014 at 2:57 pm
    “What the hell difference does it make to you? I have been in their studio and seen the film they are working with. The patch at the back of the head is conspicuous. You are a complete fraud.”

    November 28, 2014 at 3:18 pm
    “What the hell difference does it make to you? I have been in their studio and seen the film they are working with. The patch at the back of the head is conspicuous.Youare a complete fraud.”~Fetzer

    The difference in hell that it makes to me is I don’t believe a fucking word you say, you are a complete fraud. I want to know where their report is and why after all these years nothing has progressed on this issue but the spew from your mouth.

  28. I have responded to your fallacious/misleading charges and smears and now invite
    you (James Fetzer) to respond, in writing, for publication of our exchange in the
    Journal of 9/11 Studies – Letters section. This same courtesy I have extended on more
    than one occasion to Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds and others, even those who
    seem to delight in attacks on other 9/1-truth researchers, rather than focusing on those
    who perpetrated or profited from the 9/11 attacks. I do NOT seek to stifle research on
    various hypotheses, but I do object strongly to unsubstantiated/false charges and to ad
    hominem attacks on co-researchers.
    – Steven Jones, June 4, 2007.

    Click to access JonesRepliesToFetzer.pdf


  29. Fetzer’s Unproven Assertions:
    [My commentary after double arrows and bolded]

    (1) Frame 374 shows the blow-out at the back of the head, while earlier frames do not.>> No proof but assertions

    (2) Hollywood experts have been appalled at the crudity with which it was blacked out.>> Who exactly?

    (3) The “blob” shows brains gushing out to the right/front, but that did not in fact occur.>> False, it was the flap not brains

    (4) The blood spray dissipates far to rapidly to be real, one of many of Costella’s points.>> Disproved by Feister CSI

    (5) There are some 60 witnesses to the dramatic slowing or coming to a complete halt. >> Gross exaggeration, boiling down to those too far away to tell or from behind

    (6) Others have seen a more complete film, in which it comes to a complete, abrupt halt. >> No citation-who are these others?

    (7) The also report two shots to the head, one from behind and one from the right/front.>> Disproved by Feister CSI

    (8) He slumps forward in response to the first and Jackie eases him up and looks at him.>> JFK is slumping from shot to the throat, not a shot to the head

    (9) He is hit in the right temple and his brains are blown out to the left/rear with great force.>> There is no wound to the left rear – the trajectory is through the right hemisphere exclusively

    (10) Motorcycle Office Bobby Hargis, riding to the left/rear, initially thinks he has been shot.>> True but not from a left rear wound

    (11) The cranial X-rays were altered to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head.>> There is simply no proof of this

    (12) Comparing them with frame 374, it is evident that the patch was to conceal the wound.>> Patch? I see no patch

    (13) Officer Hargis parks his bike and runs between the limos after a shooter on the knoll.>>Runs between which cars? He could very well have run behind the follow-up car

    (14) Officer Jackson motors up the knoll, his bike falls over and he continues on on foot.>> Shown clearly in photos – does not prove total stop

    (15) Five Secret Service agents dismount and surround the President’s Lincoln limousine.>> No citation – but it turns out to be an 11 year old girl – One little girl asked years later…

    (16) One of them grabs a piece of skull from a little boy and tosses it into the back seat.>> Simply hearsay


  30. Why Jimmy F. Can’t Think

    “The differences between the terms ‘education’ and ‘training’ are sometimes unclear. This is unfortunate because training and education correspond to quite different processes with opposite results, which is immediately clear if one realizes that one can train an animal, but to educate an animal is either impossible or preposterous.” — AcademicValues.pdf


    Fetzer as a modern analog to Snedden

    In fact Snedden was as, described by Labaree (p183) an academic failure:

    He was a self-styled scientists who never did anything that remotely resembled scientific
    study, an educational sociologist who drew on the clichés of the field — social Darwinism
    and social control — without ever making an original contribution. In his written work he
    never used data, and he never cited sources, which made sense, since he rarely drew on
    sources anyway. His books and journal articles took the form of proclamations, scientific
    pronouncements without the science; they all read like speeches, and that was likely the
    source of them.
    He had not become a professor in education because he was a deep thinker like Dewey, but
    exactly the opposite, because he was a shallow thinker: a “producers of utilities” to be used by utilizers. Labaree concludes:

    In this sense he was more a propagandist than a theorist or thinker, someone who borrowed
    ideas without understanding them and then promoted them relentlessly. The ideas sounded
    authoritative and gave the impression that they were building on into arguments, but they
    were largely a collection of numbered lists and bullet points. He was a man who would
    have warmly embraced PowerPoint. In his work, portentousness abounded; it was all about
    riding the wave of the future and avoiding the undertow of the past. He was an educational
    leader whose effectiveness arose from being temperamentally a member of the rank and
    file. He relentlessly promoted vocational education for the socially efficient society of the future by proposing curricula that routinely prepared students for the tasks that
    characterized the jobs of the past railway telegrapher, streetcar motorman). He was so eager to be relevant that he gradually made himself irrelevant even within the administrative progressive movement that he helped lead. (p183)

    Click to access AcademicValues.pdf


  31. “I am reposting a comment which is much further down, where Hybridrogue tries to withdraw his support ~for the faking of the Zapruder film and parts of the Altgens photo of JFK shot in the neck.”~Clare Kuehn — November 28, 2014 at 12:51

    . . . . .
    Having many other issues to resolve here I have left this comment unattended. To be as thorough as possible I will address it briefly here.

    Ms. Kuehn uses the bizarre phrase, “tries to withdraw his support…” As if there is some authority and power that can prevent me from withdrawing my support. This is a ludicrous notion spawned of an authoritarian mindset. I am under no contract to maintain support for notions that I now reject.

    Deconstruction of this one phrase reveals much about Ms Kuehn; that she is mystified by someone, myself, who rejects an authority figure that she seems to accept with the loyalty of a mind-slave.

    I offer my condolences for her loss of individual autonomy,

    • Social norms form the eternal and unquestionable basis of authoritarian behavior; consequently they cannot respond flexibly to changing social norms. In fact they respond highly fearful to what Stenner calls normative threats (2005, p17)

      “I refer to these critical catalysts as “normative threats” or “threat to the normative order”.
      By the “normative order” I simply mean some system of oneness and sameness that
      makes “us” an “us”: some demarcation of people, authorities, institutions, values, and
      norms that for some folks at some point defines who “we” are, and what “we” believe in.
      “Normative threats” are then threats to this oneness and sameness. In diverse and
      complex modern societies, the things that make us one and the same are common
      authority and shared values. The conditions most threatening to oneness and sameness,
      then, are questioned or questionable authorities and values: that is, disrespect for leaders
      or leaders unworthy of respect, and lack of conformity to or consensus in group values,
      norms, and beliefs.” [Original emphasis]

      –“The Authoritarian Dynamic” by Princeton political psychologist Karen Stenner (2005)


  32. “Fetzer’s credibility has been thoroughly impeached on so many occasions, on so many issues, by so many credible sources that I find it astonishing that anyone would take anything he has to say seriously.”
    ~Dietop Hagburn

  33. Jim Fetzer – June 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm
    “Well, it cannot have been anything other than a hologram, since the witnesses reported seeing what they took to be a plane but it was performing feats that no real plane could perform, including an effortless entry into the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws, as I have explained again and again. That Rogue continues to resist a point this obvious tells me he does not have a full deck.

    Since the had previously positioned explosives that were detonated after the plane (per impossible) had completely entered the building without any collision effects (which this guy swallows hook, line and sinker), when it should have exploded on impact, it would not have been difficult to have some thing ready to blow out the opposite side so those like Rogue could make arguments like these.”~Uncle Fester
    .. .. . . ..
    Holograms cannot be projected, PERIOD. Fetzer prooves himself a complete dunce by asserting otherwise.

  34. We receive news of an alternate 9/11 from a bridge to an alternate universe, where there was panic in the news rooms of the alternate nation when the feeds from alternate Manhattan suddenly went black because of a massive EMP attack, which is also the reason there is no video or pictorial evidence of this alternate 9/11 because the circuit boards in all the camera’s and recorders and feeds were fused during this alternate event on an alternate world in an alternate universe far far away…queue “Vaders Theme” as this scrolls down the screen in forced perspective blue text on a star field.

    Script by, Gina Lol la Bridgedahaha and Luke Squawkwalker and introducing O-B1 Canopy
    With special thanks to Spookydooky and Anonymous Pinhead

    [No Returns After First 15 min. viewing time] ~ww


  35. hybridrogue1
    July 6, 2012 at 4:26 am
    So He who complains about the amount of postings on this thread, Señor Beancounter – spends over 500 words to try to cover up this:

    >“First, let us not call it an EMP.”

    Wherein this very thread has Señor desperately arguing for this EMP for all of the thread up to the point where he suddenly realizes he is full of shit, after I pointed out he was full of it, some ‘too many’ postings [for the liking of this beancounter].

    Now he wants to just slide by this and change his tune with a small notice {in tiny print if possible}, and then float another boatload of bananas past customs.

    He continues to call pure and simple ridicule of his ridiculous piles of monkey shit, “ad hominem” even though it has been explained that ridicule of the ridiculous is no mistake in argumentum.

    And above that, it makes him “feel real special.” Why yes he IS special in his self proclaimed ‘useful idiot’ sort of special olympics way; such as writing long tomes of bouncing head blather, some more than a thousand words long, and then bitching about the “number” of posts I make.

    And now Señor Beancounter, who continues to maintain this spurious lunacy that I am a “paid” agent, now completely looses his pistola by this new speculation that I am two people…{jeeeeezusss key-ryest}.

    No no Mr Señor Beancounter Maximum Once Brueke Bridge to Wonderland, you wanted the EMP, you are stuck with the EMP, it is your EMP, you said it was EMP, now you say “ooops” and point at me like I’m the one who farted. You’re sashadik.~ww

  36. T Mark Hightower
    July 6, 2012 at 11:56 am
    Niels Harrit did a calculation which he emailed to me and various others on 7/26/2011. He calculated that conservatively 11,660 metric tons of iron-rich spheres were present in the dust generated from the destruction of one Twin Tower. Depending on the thermite content of the nanothermite used he calculated a range of the from 29,000 to 143,000 metric tons of nanothermite used for each Twin Tower, assuming of course the source of the iron was the thermite reaction.

  37. hybridrogue1
    July 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm
    Yes…the typo was obvious Sashadik…it wouldn’t counter otherwise.

    Only a small quantity of the iron rich spheroids were the red-chip AI nanomilled signature. The rest are simply Fe, the majority of which can be explained by the iron content of the cement.

    The RJ Lee Group -Table 3, is an evaluation of only 35.58% of the total dust content in the sample.

    Concrete in the tower represents 87,000/240,000 ~ 36% of the total above-grade mass.
    The percentage of iron by weight found in WTC bulk concrete based upon a
    measurement performed by Dr. Steve Jones of the MacKinlay sample was found to be ~3.2%. So, the concrete in the towers can contribute up to 36% x .032 =1.2% to the total percentage of iron in the dust.

    The error {anomaly?} is that this RJ Lee Group finding of 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust – conflicts significantly with these other data:

    9/11 Dust Studies:

    USGS >The data clearly shows that only 1.6 +/- 0.7 %-weight of iron is found in the dust.
    %-weight Fe expected from concrete 1.2%

    McGee> average %-weight Fe content 0.8 +/- 0.4%
    %-weight Fe expected from concrete 1.2%

    EPA> average %-weight Fe content 0.8 +/- 0.4%

    Jones> “a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012g/32.1g = 0.04%.” {his samples}

    It is my opinion that Jones’ original estimate of some ten tons of superthermites were packed into the towers.

    As far as the nano-particulate of the Thermobaric blast…???…that is an unknown quality and quantity at this time, but I would reckon the quantity was in the same general amount as the thermetics.

    Do you yet not understand the meaning of “sashadik” Señor Beancounter?~ww

  38. hybridrogue1
    July 6, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    Mr. Hightower,

    Are superthermites an explosive?


    T Mark Hightower
    July 6, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    The highest detonation velocity I was able to find in the technical literature when I searched one year ago for an iron-oxide aluminum nanothermite was 895 m/s for an aerogel produced by the sol gel method. This certainly qualifies as an explosive. If you want to read the paper where this is cited, here it is.

    Click to access 302999.pdf

    Here is also an excellent technical paper on nanothermites that cites the above paper.

  39. hybridrogue1
    July 6, 2012 at 6:31 pm
    Hi Mark, I have read the papers that Fetzer keeps posting the URLs to already.

    Thank you for your current post. You are saying essentially the same thing I have been saying to Jim this whole thread. And I have agreed that the mechanism that shattered the steel and disintegrated the concrete had to be a more powerful explosive than the cited thermitic material.

    I suggest you advise Mr Fetzer to lay off his mantra that superthermites are nonexplosive. I tried to explain that you seemed to be saying they were explosives yourself in the quotations he gave of yours, but he was having none of it.

    I’ll read your papers you just cited.

    Thank you again, Willy Whitten

  40. Señor El Once says on July 15, 2012 at 7:13 pm :

    “The center of mass plays a role in predicting lots of things, but it has little to do with determining when a penetrating object will slow down. Your attempt at a physics explanation is bullshit and reflects your poor understanding.”

    You are the one with “poor understanding” Once, the Sandia tests were done specifically to prove the equations that predict ‘center of mass as center of momentum calculus’. Using high speed camera’s they proved the proposition in toto.

    If you weren’t allergic to Prof. Jenkins, you would understand this is shown clearly.

    Shall we again go through the same BS circle about this again? Your support of Fetzer’s Wonderland-Physics shows your true aptitude Señor.~ww

    • hybridrogue1
      July 15, 2012 at 8:21 pm
      “The initial velocity of the plane just before impact closely matches measurements obtained from multiple video sources, namely 542 MPH. The tail end of the plane moves one plane length, 159 feet 2 inches, during a time interval of 0.2 seconds which yields an average velocity of 541.5 MPH.
      A very small change in velocity of the tail end is not unexpected. Analysis of an F-4 Phantom jet aircraft impacting a massive slab of concrete at Sandia National Laboratories shows no loss of velocity of the tail end during collision within the measured error.”

      If one considers it simply from common sense, it should seem obvious that nothing that takes place on the macro scale ‘takes no time at all’. There is always a sequence of time involved, even something as “instantaneous” as the flash of a bulb on a camera actually takes time…microseconds to be sure, but time nevertheless.

      As Jenkins points out above, “The tail end of the plane moves one plane length, 159 feet 2 inches, during a time interval of 0.2 seconds. Can one even imagine what 0.2 seconds looks like to the human eye? It looks ‘instantaneous’…and this is called an illusion, because 0.2 seconds is measurable with modern instrumentation and slomo videography.

      The center of mass of course changes as the amount of the mass is reduced in a crash. When a crashing object reaches the impact point of the proximate mass, the mass is already 1/2 of the original mass, and the center of mass moves back toward the tail as the rest of the mass is shattered. The momentum however is still in play with all of the shattered material, and this material is going to be effected by the physics of equal force to equal reaction [another Newtonian formula] which now has interplay with the formulas of kinetics and the transfers of momentum energies to heat and pressures; and these are complicated by adding in the heat and pressures of the exploding aircraft fuel.~ww

  41. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/

    More great leaping turds from Fetzer… The same bullshit that has been debunked in six threads previous to this one…

    James H. Fetzer – August 24, 2012 at 7:24 pm
    “Well, I appreciate your sincerity. rogue is beyond disgusting.
    can’t believe that this rogue guy persists with his denial of elementary physics. The hole in the building has features that show it was artificially created, not by some “special plane”. I can’t imagine how he thinks a 160′ plane traveling over 500 mph could come to an abrupt halt within 40′ feet in order to avoid blowing out the other side of a 208′ wide building. Or how he can feign to discount the two parallel tracks of the “plane” as it approaches the tower in Richard Hall’s study of around 27 of the videos, which provides the same data as the one advanced by the NTSB, but where they are both matched by the radar reports of a second plane — which appears to be a real plane — that is 1,400′ to the right (in both the South and the North Tower hits). His blatant sophistry about Newton’s laws and his outright lies about the evidence are completely outrageous. I can’t recall when I have found myself dealing with a more blatant faker and fraud. He appears to me to be an accessory after the fact!”


  42. hybridrogue1
    August 30, 2012 at 12:27 pm
    Jim Fetzer says, August 30, 2012 at 11:51 am:

    >”So kindly explain how planes that were not even in the air could have crashed on 9/11? and how planes that crashed on 9/11 were still in the air four years later? I am sorry, but your dim-witted approach to reasoning is showing. You are not simply a shill but an irrational hack.”
    . . . . . . . . . . .

    You idiot Fetzer, I don’t need to explain “how planes that were not even in the air could have crashed on 9/11″ – as if those planes were to only planes on the whole planet on 9/11.

    You seem to take the people reading this thread to be dimwits, who can’t see beyond your trite attempts at ‘argument’.

    The OBVIOUS answer to your disingenuous ‘question’ is that the planes that hit the towers were OTHER PLANES – duh.

    Fetzer, your very existence on the material plain is an insult to nature and truth. The soles of your shoes whisper filthy lies to the ground beneath your feet everywhere you tread.


  43. hybridrogue1
    September 1, 2012 at 10:32 am
    “I don’t think rogue1 has scored any points here. Even if he wants to play the very childish game of “no planes” means no planes..”~Fetzer

    Yup…there are some classics here…Lol…

    I mean who in their right mind would argue that “no-planes” means “no-planes’???…hahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!

    Fetzer makes a good Mad Hatter.

    And; Tamboboonus, Anyone that thinks that the video of Wolf Blitzer and the “hologram” is proof of a projected hologram is welcome to your guy’s circle jerk.


    • James H. Fetzer – September 9, 2012 at 10:23 am
      “In this context, “puncture” is a weasel word. That amount of TNT would probably have been sufficient to do damage to the facade, but we are not talking about TNT, which wasn’t used for all the obvious reasons. The cut-outs appear to have been created by a series of mini- explosions, as Richard Hall has revealed. You really need to do more homework, rogue1.

      Plus you might as well argue that a hardball would pass through a bat by calculating the mass x velocity of the hardball and ignoring the mass x velocity of the bat. The depths of your intellectual depravity are reflected by your failure to explain the force of the resistance provided by a massive 500,000-ton building to this relatively modest aluminum airplane.

      And why do you ignore the fact that the effects of the 200-ton plane hitting the stationary building at more than 500 mph would be the same as the effects of the 500,000-ton tower moving at more than 500 mph hitting the stationary plane? You seem to believe that none of us notices that you are dealing with one of the vectors while completely ignoring the other.”



  44. hybridrogue1
    September 9, 2012 at 11:29 am
    James H. Fetzer says, September 9, 2012 at 10:23 am:

    > “You seem to believe that none of us notices that you are dealing with one of the vectors while completely ignoring the other.”
    . . . . . . . . . .

    Such mind numbing nonsense Fetzer.

    Only ONE object in this frame has vector, the jet. The tower was inert in this frame.

    A state of Momentum has THREE components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction; *THIS IS VECTOR.

    The towers in Manhattan were at rest. They were inert.
    They had only one component; MASS.

    [See: the complete explanation in my comment at 11:05 today.]

    [Fetzer ignores this time after time so I repeat more fully:}

    September 9, 2012 at 11:05 am
    James H. Fetzer says, September 9, 2012 at 10:23 am:

    > “You seem to believe that none of us notices that you are dealing with one of the vectors while completely ignoring the other.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Again Fetzer displays his utter ignorance of physics.

    He ignores again the ‘FRAME’ that this event actually took place in – and that frame is described in the first two laws of mechanics enumerated by Newton.

    In this FRAME; on planet Earth in Manhattan on 9/11/2001, only ONE object has VECTOR.

    One More Time:


    > First Law: Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.
    This first law has to do with inertia or momentum, depending on the original states of the bodies in question.

    As per the event we speak to, the first body is the building. In the frame, ie planet Earth; this body is at rest, an inert state, which has only one property: Mass.
    . . . . . . .
    > Second Law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.

    In our frame, ONLY the plane has a state of momentum.

    A state of Momentum has three components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction. [*vector] -Velocity is described as mass-times-velocity squared in the energy equation.
    Moment and Point of Impact are both necessary integers in formulating impact physics. At that point and moment the kinetic energy of the mass in movement is transferred into the building AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT – the impact zone.

    > Third Law: It is at this point that we come to the third law; that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And this does certainly depend on the speed of an impact, regardless of what Fetzer claims, as the first two laws clearly state that they are of first and second account before the third proposition can manifest.

    Kinetic energy – Momentum – Inertia – Potential energy.

    KINETICS 9/11:

    The energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared: ( E = 1/2 m v^2)

    The plane has a Mass of 120 tons – traveling at a Velocity of 540 MPH:

    The kinetic energy resulting would be equal to 0.75812 ton TNT

    OR: 3.1720e+9 joules (watt second)
    Get this and get it well:

    A state of Momentum has THREE components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction. THIS IS VECTOR.

    The towers in Manhattan were at rest.

    They were inert.

    They had only one component; MASS.

    The the reversal of the laws is “theoretical”, only applicable in general theory – not applied to a specific event described by a specific frame.
    . . . . . .
    September 12, 2012 at 10:22 am
    Jim Fetzer says, September 12, 2012 at 1:14 am:

    >“Not to make the obvious point, but rogue1 seems to liken a Twin Tower to a stack of coins, say, fifty cent pieces on the bottom, then quarters, the nickels, pennies, and dimes. If you had such a stack and took a sharp instrument, such as a knife, and hit it just right, you might be able to knock a dime out of the stack without any effect on the rest. The flaw is that, in the case of a Twin Tower, these coins are welded together into a single, cohesive whole. It is like the fact that a gigantic tree is rooted to the ground and not a stack of slices, one on top of another. That he has to appeal to such flawed analogies is indicative of his intellectual deficiencies or, alternatively, of his deliberate attempts to mislead those who follow this thread.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    I think that just this simple product from Fetzer is worth taking special note of – as it is in a nutshell, typical of his rhetorical argumentation. It is the ‘strawman fallacy’, so obvious when pointed out.

    He claims that I “seem to,” that it is I, who somehow avers to what it is that Fetzer is going to make up himself. These are not MY analogies that Fetzer is critiquing – it is his flawed reinterpretation of what I have said. It is plainly purposeful misinterpretation.

    I have never described the towers as “stacks of coins” – Fetzer pulled this out of his own pureed gray matter. I have never alluded to a gigantic tree in anyway whatsoever, sliced, diced or extruded from a bulls ass.
    And the only time I have discussed ‘bats and balls’ was to dispute Fetzer’s use of them in a flawed analogy.

    So when the “professor” sums up his little blitheroo, he indicts himself, not me by saying:

    “That he has to appeal to such flawed analogies is indicative of his intellectual deficiencies or, alternatively, of his deliberate attempts to mislead those who follow this thread.”

    And to “make the obvious point” clear: Yes this is true, Fetzer is guilty of what he has just projected upon me.


    • hybridrogue1 – September 11, 2012 at 7:54 am
      James H. Fetzer says, September 10, 2012 at 11:31 pm:

      > “Well, you have acknowledge that you accept NPT (“No Plane Theory”), according to which…”
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      As the ‘second person’ context of this strange post from the “doctor” is hard to parse, I will assume that the “he him who what” that F-droid is speaking TO is myself as far as the quote above. In which case all I can say is:


      After all the countless times I have confronted dr. ditz over this Fetzerian Newspeak term, NPT or ‘No-Planes Theory – to come up with this sentence shows the quickly melting brain of one, J.H.F. PhDingbat. {jeeeeezus dood, lay off the schnapps}…Let us be most clear professor dude….I accept NOTHING of your dingbat propositions.

      > Plane X-1 did hit the North Tower.

      > Plane X-2 did hit the South Tower.

      > Plane X-3 did fly over the Pentagon.

      > Plane X-4 [?] may or may not have been shot down over Shanksville.

      Got it?


  45. ruffadam – September 11, 2012 at 9:41 am
    Objection: Asked and answered.

    Furthermore your honor the following disinformation techniques and logical fallacies are being employed in the many statements above by Fetzer.

    Cireulus in probando – Cireulus in probando is a specialized and very attractive form of
    the petitio principii. It consists of using as evidence a fact which is authenticated by the very conclusion it supports. It is thus arguing in a circle. (I.E. “I didn’t do it, sir. Smith minor will vouch for my honesty.’ ‘Why should I trust Smith minor?’ ‘Oh, I can guarantee his honesty, sir)

    Nauseam, argumentum ad – Simple repetition of a point of view does nothing by way of supplying additional evidence or support. Yet it can erode the critical faculty. There is a completely mistaken supposition that a thing is more likely to be true if it is often heard. The argumentum ad nauseam uses constant repetition, often in the face of massive evidence against a contention, to make it more likely to be accepted.

    Bifurcation – The presentation of only two alternatives where others exist is called the fallacy of bifurcation. Sometimes known as the ‘black and white’ fallacy, it presents an ‘either/or’ situation when in reality there is a range of options.

    Affirming the consequent – To those who confuse hopelessly the order of horses and carts, affirming the consequent is a fallacy which comes naturally. An occupational hazard of those who engage in conditional arguments, this particular fallacy fails to recognize that there is more than one way of killing a cat.(I.E. “When cats are bitten by rabid hedgehogs they die. Here is a dead cat, so obviously there is a rabid hedgehog about”)

    Apriorism – Normally we allow facts to be the test of our principles. When we see what the facts are, we can retain or modify our principles. To start out with principles from the first (a priori) and to use them as the basis for accepting or rejecting facts is to do it the wrong
    way round. It is to commit the fallacy of apriorism.

    Definitional retreat – A definitional retreat takes place when someone changes the meaning of the words in order to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. By changing the meaning, he turns it into a different statement.
    (I.E. ‘He’s never once been abroad/ ‘As a matter of fact, he has been to Boulogne. ‘ ‘You cannot call visiting Boulogne going abroad!’

    Hominem (abusive), argumentum ad – If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer. While an insult itself is not fallacious, it is if made in a way calculated to undermine an opponent’s argument, and to encourage an audience to give it less weight than it merits. When this is done, the famous argumentum ad hominem abusive is committed.

    Poisoning the well – The most attractive feature of poisoning the well is that the opposition is discredited before they have uttered a single word. At its crudest, the fallacy consists in making unpleasant remarks about anyone who might disagree with a chosen position. When some willing victim steps forward to dispute that position, he only shows that the unpleasant remarks apply to him, (I.E. “Everyone except an idiot knows that not enough money is spent on education”.)

    The straw man – The straw man of logic does not scare anyone. No self-respecting crow would even rustle a feather at him; he is too easy to knock down. Precisely. The straw man is made incredibly easy to knock down so that when you are unable to refute your opponent’s argument, you can topple the straw man instead. The straw man is, in short, a misrepresentation of your opponent’s position, created by you for the express purpose of being knocked down.


  46. “There’s a sucker born every minute” – the motto of the conman, is the foundation of Fetzer’s success. But he knows the odds are even better than when the phrase originated in the 1800’s – that in the modern era it is likely, ‘there’s a sucker born every second’. There is never a shortage of gullible naive people who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag, who will leap at the chance to buy what they don’t realize are damaged goods.


  47. What is disinformation? Jim Fetzer explains that “while ‘misinformation’ can be simply defined as false, mistaken, or misleading information, ‘disinformation’ entails the distribution, assertion, or dissemination of false, mistaken, or misleading information in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse.” — http://www.springerlink.com/content/p8l52321mv542pp6/

    Fetzer not only explains what disinformation is, he practices it as a profession. He is a professional disinformant. As is shown on this thread.

  48. hybridrogue1
    April 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm
    Swimming the swampy waters one more time:

    Mr. Fetzer,

    Your argument against the application of Sandia is ridiculous.
    You assert that the Sandia jet hit the barricade {specifically engineered to withstand the impact} and exploded in an instant.
    But it did NOT – It exploded in a specific manner taking TIME. As I have pointed out that time is very short, but it is an amount of measured time in this experiment by Sandia.

    You go on the assert that since the tower impact shows the plane enter {go through the barrier} that the relation to the Sandia test does not apply – Why? ‘Because it didn’t explode on impact.’ Yet it DID explode on impact, the fact that the explosion occurs as the center of gravity enters the tower, simply means that the explosion retains the forward momentum as it passes through the building; rather than being contained by a solid structure such as in Sandia, which prevented the forward momentum, causing a reaction of dispersed energy upwards sideways and most significantly back into the remaining portion of the jet from center ‘g’ to tail.

    Plus you add the circular element of your argument that the jet couldn’t break the facade. Why? Because the Sandia jet stopped at the barrier – as if it makes no difference that the barrier was made specifically to withstand impact.

    Then you exclaim, “no no” and let your pony run through the ‘Mass Differential Routine’__which is also reliant on disregarding the detail of specifics – such as point of impact energy-reaction wherein the vast majority of energies are consumed at specific place, while the remaining energy is dispersed throughout the rest of the mass as omnidirectional energy {therefore not momentum [three necessary components, velocity, mass, vector: specific direction] but forces defined in wave mechanics – Oscillation, vibration, shaking.

    So your ‘mass differential’ argument is shown to be only one of several physics components that you leave unaddressed.

    Then we turn to your assumptions as to the strength of the structure at point of impact. Which is also mitigated by several components which you refuse to add into the equation Such as the sectional Density of an object of round (cross sectional) profile which is defined as the mass of the object divided by the square of its diameter. The heavier the object is in relation to its cross sectional area, the higher its sectional density. The higher the sectional density, the less the amount of frontal surface area (per unit of its mass) that is presented to the target, and the less of the target’s ‘matter’ (relative to the penetrating object’s mass) that will be displaced by the passage of the object through the target. And other such physics as kinetic energy transfers, etc.~ww

    • “Sectional density is the ratio of an object’s mass to its cross-sectional area. It conveys how well an object’s mass is distributed (by its shape) to overcome resistance. For illustration, a needle can penetrate a target medium with less force than a coin of the same mass.
      Sectional density is often used in gun ballistics where sectional density is the ratio of a projectile weight, to its diameter.”

      . . . . . .
      It is sectional density, that is part of my argument about “the exact moment and place of impact” where I go into the shape of the plane, the angle of impact, and how each moment configurations of colliding shapes change. Momentum, is obviously a matter of the “moment”, therefore time is an important element. Speed and time are closely aligned integers in crash physics. A lot happens in a very short time when speed is involved. This is why the Sandia test, done with slow motion film or video is so revealing – slowing time to calibrate each successive moment – to see it clearly and measure it.

  49. Anthony Marsh dissected Palamara’s work, and comes up with 14 witnesses who stated “stopped” and 19 who stated “slowed down”, and yet the Fetzer Cabal repeats the fallacious “close to 60 witnesses to a limousine stop”, to this very day. But worse than this, Fetzer asserts that this stop may have lasted up to five minutes or more. Such exaggeration based on pure unfounded speculation can not be interpreted as simply a mistake; it is obviously a flat out lie.

    I continue to be astonished that anyone who is lucid can find this “professor” credible at all.
    I was never convinced by anything Fetzer himself said. Rather I found Horne to be credible, as his position at the ARRB gave him access to and first hand experience with the materials to the House inquiry into assassinations. It was only later after going back into the issues of the Zapruder film again that I began to see that both Horne and Fetzer were attempting to disparage Zavada, who in fact is the top expert on the Zapruder film and the camera that took it. Reading Zavada’s analysis of the camera and he film convinced me that Horne has questionable motives in his work. This plus the fact that he has hooked up with Fetzer’s PR firm to promote his works seals it for me.

    Of course it was the work Sherry Feister CSI which caused me to step back and reconsider the whole affair. I am forever grateful for her expert forensic analysis making sense of the trajectory and ballistics of the head-shot that killed Kennedy.


  50. This dunce Jeffydiver, who keeps posting irrelevant nonsense on the T&S Zapruder film page, is a perfect example of the lower common denominator that Fetzer appeals to. If one makes an argument against the blatant bullshit Fetzer is trying to sell, this clown thinks it is an argument for the official story.

    It is obvious that Jeffydiver has cognitive difficulties. It is equally obvious that he is the perfect candidate to buy the damaged goods of a conman like Fetzer.

    I asked Mr McKee once before if stupidity was a valid reason to make the editorial decision to to block certain posts, but Craig made no reply. I agree that there should be freedom of speech, but all opinion is not equal. I think at a certain point rationality must be taken into account. The stupid and jejune commentary by those such as Jeffydiver is just as disruptive as the commentary of a shill such as Albury Smith. It is the epitome of cognitive dissonance to have to pussyfoot around those who are cognitively impaired.

    I think at some point the quality of commentary on T&S should be considered beyond simply judging whether a poster has bad intent — but that it should also be considered whether a commentator adds anything valuable to the discussion. Such commentary by dumbfucks such as Jeffydiver might be valuable to the discussion if it were allowed to speak frankly to the deficits in his thinking. But simply allowing him to ramble on with his clearly damaged thinking is as foolish as allowing a full-blown shill to go unanswered.

  51. “Josiah “Tink” Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas and a believer that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot that killed John F. Kennedy, says that the key evidence in the assassination is the photographic record, because “it authenticates itself.”
    You know, because you can see it; that means it has to be real. Just like we know that Sam Neill and Laura Dern have almost been eaten by dinosaurs on several occasions.”~Craig McKee

    McKee’s comment that begins as an introduction is based on the biased point that Thompson is: “a believer that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot that killed John F. Kennedy”

    It in fact makes no difference what Thompson’s conclusion is if his reasoning as per the authenticity of the Zapruder film is sound. I have read that reasoning myself and conclude that it is indeed sound. This however is not to say that the conclusion he draws, that ” Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot that killed John F. Kennedy,” is correct. The issues are distinct.

    The Zapruder film does not prove that Oswald was the assassin, it in fact proves the opposite upon a true forensic examination of the film and the other evidence shown in the case.

  52. In ‘Six Seconds in Dallas’ (January 1967), Thompson argued that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. Thompson claimed in the book that three men fired four shots at Kennedy in Dealey Plaza: the first shot was fired from the Texas School Book Depository and struck Kennedy in the back; the second shot was fired from the Dallas County Records building and struck Governor John Connally; the third and fourth shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository and the “grassy knoll” and almost simultaneously struck Kennedy in the head.

    In 1991, Bob Hoover of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote that Six Seconds in Dallas “remains one of the most plausible explanations for the line of fire in Dealey Plaza.”
    . . . . . . . . .
    So it isn’t so simple as saying Thompson believes that Oswald fired the fatal shot, because Thompson also asserts there was a conspiracy as well. In fact Thompson claimed that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository and the Dallas County Records building, which does not necessarily mean Oswald was the shooter – although that was his conclusion.

    Considering that this book was published only about 3 years after the event, I think these harsh criticisms against Thompson are misguided. It was a very good start as a popular text showing a conspiracy.


  53. Addressing Señor’s post on T&S of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    As far as Señor’s assertions that I agreed to any of the claims of video fakery is simply false.
    As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.

    >>”The first paraphrased was that the experts didn’t know what caused the ghosting until much later. The second paraphrased was that this film couldn’t be faked because of the ghosting. Unfortunately, these, together with the stamp of authentication, expose a chink in our visual effects expert.”~Señor

    Señor misframes this argument grossly. Any one who wishes to can go back through the thread and see that it was Fetzer’s original misframe that Señor now repeats as my words.
    I did not say ” until much later” – I said specifically it was not until 34 years later that anyone knew the cause of the ghost frames. And I have made the argument fully as to why this point disproves tampering with the original Z-film.

    The issue here is that Señor has no more understanding of film, video or special effects than Fetzer.

    >> “Mr. Rogue demonstrated a strong unwillingness to mine (for example) September Clues for other nuggets of truth in this vein and right up his alley of expertise. Once Mr. Rogue had convinced himself that the over-arching concept of “no planes at the WTC” (NPT) was disinformation, he exerted no more effort to find other instances of imagery manipulation”~Señor

    I in fact “mined” the Clues forum extensively and found not a single instance of anything even approaching expertise in their so-called “video analysis”.

    As far as NPT, it connects to video fakery but is not the same issue. My critique of video fakery was substantial and to my (yes expert) opinion, false beyond any reasonable doubt.

    As far as NPT,Señor himself finally came to reject the “theory” – is he now retracting such rejection?
    . . . . .
    And as far as the rest of Señor’s post, it is simply the result of his almost total ignorance of film, video and special effects. Señor is in the same shoes as Fetzer and his minions, they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to the issues of film and special effects’



  54. Anyone who can’t tell that Fetzer is a total fraud is naive.

    For those who don’t like such “broad brush” generalizations, I repeat for your displeasure; Anyone who can’t tell that Fetzer is a total fraud is naive, and none too smart either.

  55. ‘R. I. P. – No Plane Theory, Jim Fetzer evading questions’
    By Onsliceshort

    The claim that modification of the witnessed aircraft which was travelling well over the structural limitations of a standard transport category Boeing 767 is “impossible”

    Rob’s response:


    My response:




    • “During the research I have done on this question, some of the most important reasons to question the use of planes on 9/11 are (1) that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day and, (2) that, according to FAA Registration records I have in hand, the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005, which raises the questions, “How can planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11?” and “How can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?” We have studies (3) by Elias Davidsson demonstrating that the government has never been able to prove that any of the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes and research (4) by A.K. Dewdney and by David Ray Griffin demonstrating that the purported phone calls from those planes were faked. And (5), as Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed, although there are millions of uniquely identifiable components of those four planes, the government has yet to produce even one. My purpose here is not to persuade anyone to believe the 9/11 planes were phantom flights on 9/11, but simply to lay out some of the evidence that supports that conclusion, even though I myself was initially unwilling to take it seriously.”Fetzer -[in artical above]

      Fetzer says that his ” purpose here is not to persuade anyone to believe the 9/11 planes were phantom flights on 9/11, but simply to lay out some of the evidence that supports that conclusion…” BUT then the “professor” proceeds to lay out some of the most obvious scurrilous “evidence”, built of presumption, false assumptions, and analysis that any special effects professional, or any photography expert (film or still) can see is based on ignorance of the mediums.

      He continues on throughout the article to blend this fantasy tale together with reasonably ascertained facts, as if the points of fact actually proceed that which is asserted follows (classic non sequitur argumentation).

      Having absolutely no knowledge of the topic he writes to, he then accepts the spurious positions of others that are blatantly false when addressed by an expert in the field. But some of these examples are blatant even to the pedestrian eye. Such as the “no strobe light” assertion, which is proved false simply by showing a video with the plane in question flashing strobes on the tips of the wings [that video is above in this thread.]

      gash in towr

      As it was not my intention to go over the technical arguments again, they have been addressed ad nauseam. My intent was simply to note Fetzer’s rhetorical technique of blending reality with fantasy in weaving a story that is complete disinformation. The intent is clear in the slickness that is achieved in his text.

      His lumping the WTC site and planes with the separate issues of Shanksville and the Pentagon is highly egregious, and can only be seen as purposely begging the question. A real plane was used in the fly-over magic act at the Pentagon, and a real plane was blown up in the sky over Shanksville. That these sites have staged evidence, have no bearing on WTC, other than minor issues such as the passport that was said to be found in almost pristine condition in the dust of the aftermath.

      When all the real data and evidence is compiled it is proven beyond any doubt that real aircraft hit the WTC Towers on 9/11. That these were certainly not the aircraft cited in the official narrative does not suspend the fact that they were real aircraft.

    • “Proof Plane that Hit was Hologram”
      The mission required something that looked like a real plane but could perform feats that no real plane could perform by entering the building before it would explode, which would have been impossible with a real plane. And that had to be timed to coincide with explosions in the subbasements that, even with the most meticulous planning, would inadvertently take place 14 and 17 seconds before the planes appeared to hit the buildings. It was an audacious plan, brilliant in design, and nearly perfect in execution. But those who were working this out did not realize that they were also creating the image of a plane that would turn out to be traveling faster than a Boeing 767, violating Newton’s laws, and passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its own length it air. As in the case of the Pentagon, they thereby violated laws of aerodynamics and of physics that gave their game away. And those blemishes, subtle as they may have been, have provided the opportunity to expose a fantastic fraud, which has been used to justify wars of aggression and constraints upon civil rights that our nation continues to endure to this day.”~Fetzer [also from Veteran’s article above]

      . . . . . . .
      For Fetzer to come to the conclusion that the plane was a hologram is utter insanity. The idea that these were “feats that no real plane could perform by entering the building before it would explode,” is entirely rubbish as explained in detail throughout this thread. The very idea that they were holograms, can only be based on the complete misunderstanding of vision and what a hologram actually is. One simply cannot project a hologram, it is not within the science of the medium itself. A hologram is an object, its illusion is the fractal dispersion of light created by this object.

      Many have been fooled by the use of the word “hologram” in PR promoting stage shows at amusement parks, fairs, and concerts. The techniques used at these events all revolve around Musion Eyeliner, which is not in fact a hologram technique, but one based on Peppers Ghost, a process developed for stage over a hundred years ago. In the effect the illusion can only be achieved by a specific POV, or ‘eyeline’ thus the term “eyliner” in Musion Eyeliner.

      Holograms cannot be projected.


        “Pepper’s ghost is an illusion technique used in theatre, haunted houses, dark rides, and magic tricks. It uses plate glass, Plexiglas or plastic film and special lighting techniques to make objects seem to appear or disappear, become transparent, or to make one object morph into another. It is named after John Henry Pepper, who popularized the effect.

        For the illusion to work, the viewer must be able to see into the main room, but not into the hidden or “blue room.” The edge of the glass is sometimes hidden by a cleverly designed pattern in the floor.

        The hidden room may be an identical mirror-image of the main room, so that its reflected image matches the main rooms; this approach is useful in making objects seem to appear or disappear. This illusion can also be used to make one object or person reflected in the mirror appear to morph into another behind the glass (or vice versa). This is the principle behind the Girl-to-Gorilla trick found in old carnival sideshows and in the James Bond movie Diamonds Are Forever.[1]

        The hidden room may instead be painted black, with only light-colored objects in it. In this case when light is cast on the room, only the light objects reflect the light and appear as ghostly translucent images superimposed in the visible room.

        In the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland, Walt Disney World, and Disneyland Tokyo, the glass is vertical to the viewer as opposed to the normal angled position, reflecting animated props below and above the viewer that create the appearance of three-dimensional, translucent “ghosts” that appear to dance through the ballroom and interact with props in the physical ballroom. The apparitions appear and disappear when the lights on the animations turn on and off.

        Giambattista della Porta[edit]
        Giambattista della Porta was a 16th-century Neapolitan scientist and scholar who is credited with a number of scientific innovations, including the camera obscura. His 1584 work Magia Naturalis (Natural Magic) includes a description of an illusion, titled “How we may see in a Chamber things that are not” that is the first known description of the Pepper’s Ghost effect.[2]

        Porta’s description, from the 1658 English language translation, is as follows.

        Let there be a chamber wherein no other light comes, unless by the door or window where the spectator looks in. Let the whole window or part of it be of glass, as we used to do to keep out the cold. But let one part be polished, that there may be a Looking-glass on bothe sides, whence the spectator must look in. For the rest do nothing. Let pictures be set over against this window, marble statues and suchlike. For what is without will seem to be within, and what is behind the spectator’s back, he will think to be in the middle of the house, as far from the glass inward, as they stand from it outwardly, and clearly and certainly, that he will think he sees nothing but truth. But lest the skill should be known, let the part be made so where the ornament is, that the spectator may not see it, as above his head, that a pavement may come between above his head. And if an ingenious man do this, it is impossible that he should suppose that he is deceived.[3]

        John Pepper and Henry Dircks[edit]
        The Royal Polytechnic Institute London was a permanent science-related institution, first opened in 1838. With a degree in chemistry, John Henry Pepper joined the institution as a lecturer in 1848. The Polytechnic awarded him the title of Professor. In 1854, he became the director and sole lessee of the Royal Polytechnic.

        In 1862, inventor Henry Dircks developed the Dircksian Phantasmagoria, his version of the long-established phantasmagoria performances. This technique was used to make a ghost appear on-stage. He tried unsuccessfully to sell his idea to theatres. It required that theaters be completely rebuilt to support the effect, which they found too costly to consider. Later in the year, Dircks set up a booth at the Royal Polytechnic, where it was seen by John Pepper.[4]

        Pepper realized that the method could be modified to make it easy to incorporate into existing theatres. Pepper first showed the effect during a scene of Charles Dickens’s The Haunted Man, to great success. Pepper’s implementation of the effect tied his name to it permanently. Though he tried many times to give credit to Dircks, the title “Pepper’s ghost” endured.

        The relationship between Dircks and Pepper was summarised in an 1863 article from Spectator:

        “This admirable ghost is the offspring of two fathers, of a learned member of the Society of Civil Engineers, Henry Dircks, Esq., and of Professor Pepper, of the Polytechnic. To Mr. Dircks belongs the honour of having invented him, or as the disciplines of Hegel would express it, evolved him from out of the depths of his own consciousness; and Professor Pepper has the merit of having improved him considerably, fitting him for the intercourse of mundane society, and even educating him for the stage.”[5]”



  56. keenanroberts – April 29, 2012 at 6:04 am
    “I have to commend hybridrogue and oss for their super human level of patience to continue the endless debating in the face of such persistent dishonesty and game playing and hubris by the Professor of Profundity without becoming so exasperated and infuriated that they blow a gasket. I don’t know how you do it.”

    hybridrogue1 – April 30, 2012 at 12:26 am
    Hi Keenan,

    Thanks. Patience? I have a lot of that. But I have no need for that in this case, I find the “persistent dishonesty and game playing and hubris by the Professor of Profundity” to be a wonderful opportunity for the purposes of demonstration – a “God-send” actually.

    His posts are perfect for deconstruction, they are overflowing with absurd ‘reasoning’ and lack of cognition. He is like a programmed robot applying his ‘principles’ as rote, with no underlying comprehension to the spirit within them, that which gives classic logic calculus life and presence in the real world.

    One might ask how it is that Fetzer has been able to not only survive, but thrive in this corrupt system’s field of “academia”. Consider that he is not only not censored by the establishment but has attained a high chair at a prominent university – while at the same time becoming a prominent leader in the 9/11 truth Movement.

    It might be argued insui that he is tolerated for his “great mind”__but in despotic systems such as ours; great minds are used to further the aims of the system, or they are discredited and destroyed.

    I have written further thoughts on this, but it is not time yet.

  57. hybridrogue1 – April 29, 2012 at 5:35 pm
    Those with a single pair of synapses to click together can comprehend my post you refer to Mr. Fetzer.

    You and I share a secret understanding don’t we Mr. Fetzer?

    Both can tell a practitioner of the craft.

    You knew within two exchanges between us on this thread that I had you ID’d.

    One of us is freelance, the other is a professional. Aye professor?

    Now rather than play with your deck of cards, I have my own to play, and I will explain the next stage in the psyop going down here. And why you are so upset that I am blunting it’s progress with my counter arguments to you.

    In a post from this morning I pointed out this next phase is ‘community organizing’ — we shall join together in a series of ‘agreements’, we shall ‘self police’ those agreements. This of course begins with your first attempt here for shared agreement on your terms. Once set in motion it is simple by the numbers from the communitarian playbook, a continual stroking and massaging.

    Now, few of the other members are likely to have the background in neurolinguistics to understand what is going on here – so you and I will teach them, as you work your “magic’, and I explain the trick behind it. Agreed? Of course you have no choice in the matter unless you can figure out a way to get rid of me here. Let’s see how long it takes for you to try that gambit again.~ww
    . . . . . . .
    April 29, 2012 at 6:34 pm
    “Just to show how trivial he has become, let me define “Fetzer’s NPT”, vs other NPTs. Fetzer’s NPT asserts that none of the planes that the official account maintains crashed on 9/11 actually crashed on 9/11. That should not be too difficult even for this guy to understand.”~Professor F

    And just what makes you think I give a damn about “Fetzer’s NPT”?

    I already told you what I think of ‘branding’ and the juvenile mindset that is derived by this BS public relations regime. The term is ‘Fetzerian Newspeak’, it is a massage through this medium.

    We shall play a game of, ‘Revelation of the Method’. This term is also used in one way to bond the enchanted to what is called “contract” by the high-tech necromancers of the postmodern era.

    But I just use it here as a title for a game. In this game, you will apply the method to the audience on this board. I will then reveal the method. It will be fun and learning experience for all. Including you dear sir.~ww


  58. “Fetzer does not have Newtons Laws nor any Laws of physics on his side.As calculated, a Standard 767 would be carrying more than enough energy to cause the damaged observed if such an aircraft could achieve the speeds reported. The key factor here is the speed. Energy increases exponentially as velocity increases. Something Jim Fetzer just cannot comprehend.

    Jim does not understand basic physics, math, nor is he able to retain simple data when given to him repeatedly.The main problem Jim has is that he thinks a modern airliner is more like “an empty coke can”, than an actual airliner weighing over 300,000 lbs. He also thinks the entire weight of a stationary structure is a factor when calculating dynamic collisions. He is wrong.

    This is why he hasn’t gotten any support for the past 5 or 6 years attempting to push such theories, and instead has attacked nearly every single person who doesn’t subscribe to his theories. There was a mass exodus from Scholars when Jim attempted to pull this crap back in 2006. Does he really think he will gain more support now? I was basically the last one he had left who respected the fact that he wishes to explore any theory he wants. Most forums have banned NPT discussion. I have told him repeatedly over the years that P4T as an organization does not offer theory nor endorse any theory, this includes NPT. It has been on the top of our home page since 2006.

    Jim is upset now because he is trying as hard as he can to find speakers for his upcoming conference. Hence his rapid fire of articles over the past few weeks. Many of the speakers he invited have declined, including myself. So naturally, Jim has no choice but to now write hit pieces attacking me personally.

    Jim’s credibility is shot within the “movement”;.And as you can see from the quotes above, Dennis also does not subscribe to NPT. In the interest of historical accuracy, if anyone would like copies of his emails containing those quotes, feel free to email me and I will forward them to you.”~Rob Balsamo – P49/11T


  59. Professor Humpty Dumpty:

    “When I use a word, “ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “It means just what I choose it to mean- never more or less.”

    “The question is, “ said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” Said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

  60. Señor El Once Submitted on 2014/12/03 at 7:34 pm to, PROFILE OF A STOOGE – ALBURY SMITH
    & Submitted on 2014/12/01 at 4:23 am to, JAMES FETZER PROFESSIONAL CONSPIRACY THEORIST
    He also Submitted on 2014/10/14 at 3:05 pm to, IN CONTEXT: Current Events

    All of these were blank, empty posts.

    These aren’t the only ones Bridges has read however, just the ones he posted a blank on. I know he is likely back on the followers list, so could just be reading his email updates. Either wqy he responded to my commentary here by trying the test out, regardless of how clumsily or spuriously that was. These very blank postings are one of the most troubling issues. In my experience it is impossible to post a blank email. The comment box frame turns from black to red when I push the button to post, and it simply does not post the empty box. And I postulate there is something in this little magic trick that is part of posting out of sequence and rewriting posts he has already posted.

  61. Maxitwerp said that my page on Fetzer is “ugly”. He has no taste! I think it is laid out quite nice. The photograph of Fetzer is certainly an ugly person, but well representative of him. The balance of the title and subtitle is nice. The introduction is brief, to the point and joined by a clever little story called ‘Little Bird Meets Big Plane: A Fetzer Tale’, which is a scathing and informative critique of our dear subject. There is plenty of meat and substance to the following commentary, with opinions of quite a few others added to my own, in fact even Señor is represented making some prescient arguments – which shows he is capable when not seeing to his agenda of attacking me.

    No his criticism of that page is biased, he knows just as well as I do that Professor Humpty Dumpty is either stupid or he’s the cops…and there is the chance that it was theater between Fetzer and he. Nothing is certain in “Mad Magazine, Spy v Spy” flavored Psyops.

  62. “Perhaps no other single item of evidence reveals more about the assassination than the Zapruder film does. It contributes significantly to any historian’s story. Costella, Fetzer, and others work to deny the film its status as genuine evidence so that it cannot contribute to any story of the assassination. We don’t come away from the book knowing more about the assassination, we come away knowing less.”~Joe Durnavich

    Fetzer replies with:
    “Durnavich omits a phrase: “Perhaps no other single item of evidence reveals more about the assassination than the Zapruder film does, if it is authentic!” If not, of course, then no other single item of evidence has a greater capacity to seduce and mislead. If the film is fabricated, taking its authenticity for granted makes it logically impossible to systematically reconstruct what really happened in Dealey Plaza. Appraising its authenticity therefore ought to be a matter of the highest priority for anyone with a serious interest in this crime. No serious student of this case who is dedicated to discovering the truth ought to resist efforts to ascertain the authenticity of the evidence, absent which it becomes impossible to separate the true from the false in the death of JFK.”
    . . . . . .
    “if it is authentic!”~Fetzer
    He then goes into another of his Argumentum Verbosium hypnodances – the Bullshit Hoochiekoo, which has already been deconstructed here.

    Yes indeed it IS authentic!

    • Durnavich is making the point I am making; that Fetzer is attempting to dismiss the Z-film [Best Evidence], and in the very same way that he attempts to debunk the best evidence of WTC 9/11 with his garbage about No-Planes, Video Fakery, and Holograms, as well as his attempt to dismiss the best physical evidence of the nanothermate in the WTC dust, and replace it with his screwball Nukes and DEW bullshit.

      Only an agent provocateur would attempt to dismiss the most vital evidence in these cases. Fetzer is a covert operator, a sheep-dipped mole of the National Security State.

  63. Douglas P. Horne served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) during the 1990s. But Horne served on this staff as a manager and essentially a librarian of the records being reviewed. He is not an expert on cinematography, nor special effects thereof. He is not an expert on film, camera’s or any other form of movie machinery. He is not an investigator, but a record keeper.

    Therefore his opinions on whether the Zapruder film is authentic or not is immaterial as far as his expertise is concerned. He certainly cannot be compared to Rolland Zavada in a favorable light.

    • “Everybody wants some, I want some too!”~Van Halen

      I think what happened with Horne, was as he attended to his duties at ARRB, he found himself with a treasure trove of documents. He also had the opportunity to mix with people in the research community that had made quite a bit of money writing books on the JFK Assassination.

      Upon further reflection the idea above struck him … “I want some too”.

      This is not to say that Horne’s contribution to history is not substantial in presenting the documentation and records he managed and still had access to. The data is indeed of vast importance to the history of the “investigations” into the assassinations. But as my post above outlines, Horne’s expertise does not qualify for assessing the data he provides, and many of his opinions are faulty for this very reason. He has no qualifications whatsoever to challenge the work of a top expert on film and movie making machinery, Rolland Zavada. Nore has he any qualification for opinions regarding special effects cinematography.

      As well he has no real experience as an investigator, forensic or other. As has been pointed out by others, he has misinterpreted much of the evidence for the proposition that the Zapruder film was ever out of the custody of Zapruder himself, beyond the fact of Life magazine acquiring it. These issues are gone into detail by Marsh, Thompson and others.

      Finally, the fact that Horne ended up with Fetzer’s PR firm to promote his books shows a certain lack of judgment on his part. His fallacious portions of opinion are now promoted over the historical significance of those works. Yes “everybody wants some” but what is given up in taking the path that Horne has taken is his own integrity – he sold out for the fame and money that the charlatans of PR have put into his starry eyes.

  64. Imagine my surprise to be notified of these current comments by “the professor”.

    My favorite is his comment as to my being ranked Number 11 of his list of Top Ten 9/11 Cons. Quite a complement considering the company I am thrown in with.
    . . . .
    December 6, 2014 at 5:13 pm
    “No one should apologize for defending NPT, which is well-supported by the evidence, as I show in this presentation from The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference:”

    December 6, 2014 at 5:23 pm
    Here are some reflections on Richard Gage, A&E911 and the failure to move the ball forward:
    “On C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9/11 Truth in a ‘time-warp’”

    December 6, 2014 at 4:58 pm
    We all know your agenda, WW, so it is unsurprising that you continue to attack me. For those who care about 9/11 Truth, as this guy does not, here is my latest presentation about 9/11:

    December 6, 2014 at 5:54 pm
    Had I thought about it at the time, there is a strong case for hybridrogue1 as Number 11:
    “Top Ten 9/11 Cons: ‘Fraud Vitiates Everything’”
    . . . .
    >> “Jones also advocates an inadequate mode of scientific reasoning, which means that the procedures he endorses as “scientific” are not those that properly qualify.”~Fetzer

    A fraud like Fetzer accusing Steven Jones of not being scientific is a real hoot!



    • “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.”
      James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counter intelligence from 1954-1974

  65. Ms Feister gives an excellent presentation in this video – but one is frustrated by the goofball antics of the host continually interrupting her.


  66. Mike Sparks made a few comments on the T&S Z-film discussion. I felt at the time he may be a Fetzer fan, but just recently discovered he has been listed as a coauthor with Fetzer on at least one Veterans Today articles.
    See: http://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/jim-fetzer-dennis-cimino-mike-sparks-vt-8-20-14-top-ten-911-cons-fraud-vitiates-everything/

    He was curiously subdued with his comments on T&S, very unlike Fetzer’s regular raging PR hacks.

  67. Roland Zavada comments on the Zapruder film hoax issue (9/23/03)

    It appears that here again, proponents of Z-film alteration believe
    that the creation of all the required steps to achieve special effects in
    theatrical motion picture are easily and equally applicable to 8mm film
    taken with amateur consumer quality cameras rendered in such a way as
    to replicate an original “in-camera” film without tell-tale image structure
    characteristics. Nothing is farther from the truth and the author’s choice
    of the word “created” may well be significant.
    The reader of this dissertation is cautioned to consider the
    complex characteristics of typical special effects cinematography.
    Simply stated, to achieve special optical effects, it is necessary to
    begin with a “family of film types”. Kodak designed camera original color
    films to work compatibly with laboratory intermediate films and print films
    as spectral dye “sets”. !Professional camera negative films were never
    viewed directly and their transmission spectrum matched the spectral
    sensitivity of intermediate (and print) films and the transmission dye set
    of the intermediate films matched the spectral sensitivity of the final
    print films. The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
    response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
    In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
    daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
    5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
    1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
    spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
    response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination. !The film
    was not designed for printing response so that its dye set matched the
    spectral sensitivity of laboratory intermediate negative or positive films.
    A reversal duplicating film was available, but that was for direct simple
    copies, and not expected to be used as an intermediate. Further the
    film’s daylight sensitivity; contrast and spectral characteristics do not
    render it receptive for use as a “print” medium – hence, one “hell-of-a”
    problem for someone trying to replicate a Kodachrome original (Note: the
    goal now being to create a “Kodachrome original”) by using special
    optical effects!
    The goal to create a “Kodachrome original provides further
    insurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are
    designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way
    that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author
    wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced
    technology and film resources were able: to create a “Kodachrome
    original” that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination
    and evaluation by multiple researchers. The “evidence” offered are scene
    content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise.
    The limited comments above do not even begin to address image
    structure constraints of grain; contrast and modulation transfer function
    losses. However another constraint requires comment and that is the
    requirement in optical effects of maintaining “cancellation” of film
    positioning variables due to: positioning/repositioning the film in the
    camera and optical bench projectors; processing shrinkage; relative
    humidity controls and heat control from projector light sources. Pilot pin
    registration is the typical method used and required for 35mm films.
    Sixteen-millimeter films also use “edge and point guiding” as a possible
    method for very limited effects. Either of the above requires a reference
    perforation(s) or edge and a perforation reference for adequate image
    positioning for the required masks.
    With the Zapruder film you have neither. The reference edge (i.e.
    fixed rail side in the camera) is lost after slitting as the spring-loaded
    guides are adjacent to the images being formed on the double-8 (16mm
    width film raw stock). Add to this the manufacturing (standardized)
    tolerances of: variation of slit width and perforation size and the required
    tight tolerances for optical special effects of scene content or as implied
    “alteration”, cannot be achieved.
    A further complication in the equation derived by the author is that
    the final result is “printed” onto Kodachrome II daylight raw stock with
    the appropriate manufacturing marking and processing laboratory codes.
    Any commercial source of the film would not suffice, as it would contain:
    product code, date and strip number. I am not aware of the film source
    implied by the author – i.e. possibly involving a major film manufacturer in
    the implied conspiracy, or trying to derive an unmarked 8mm width slit
    (extracted) from within wide gage film – now requiring the perpetrators of
    alteration to have slitting and perforating equipment.
    Other researchers have addressed the “time-line” and the fact that
    the “same-day” copies would have also required “matched alteration”.
    I’m exhausted envisioning the logistics of this purported set of “miracles”.
    Further, the author also references “sent out for processing (and
    to a Kodachrome plant, such as Hawkeye works)”!I know of no
    Kodachrome processing available at Hawkeye (an equipment division). At
    Kodak, all processing was done through the unified film processing
    division. Kodachrome II required a complex multiple tank process.
    However, if processed at a Kodak lab other than Dallas, the “X” Lab’s ID
    and date would appear on the film – not Dallas! If the lab code printer
    were turned off, then another image reproduction issue is introduced into
    the equation. I am unsure if the author addresses this constraint or its
    purported solution.

    Second:!“This point is crucial: in the case of the supposed camera
    original, there is not just “some image” in the sprocket hole area (the
    image doesn’t‚ just “bleed over” a little bit); rather, the image goes all
    the way to the left! !To the left margin of the film!
    That this is so can clearly be seen even on the frames of the
    Zapruder film published in Volume 18 of the 26 volumes. But is that
    possible? !Can the Zapruder lens do that? !Can it put an image on the
    film that is full flush left?”~Lifton

    Under the correct circumstances of lens and light – yes the image
    can fill the area between the sprockets. !See my test shots; Study 4,
    figure 4-28 and Study 3, Figure 3-12. The Red Truck was taken in Dallas

    the same day in the same camera as the shots of Carol. Also in my
    report to the Movie Machine Society & SMPTE the upper right test
    targets, I show a test target with the image in the preceding and the
    following frame. To ensure this is available, I am emailing a couple of jpg
    images showing this inter-sprocket image characteristic with full
    penetration to the limit of the camera aperture cutout.

    Note: Anthony Marsh effectively addressed this topic in his web article:

    Third: “Then these pictures – these test shots – went into an appendix in
    the final report, which was delivered within hours of the ARRB going out
    of existence. !A report that was supposed to “explain the anomalies.”~Lifton

    I have no idea why a respected author needs to revert to hearsay
    to support his arguments. The tests referenced above are described on
    page 41 of study 4 – including the reason for the limitation for the full
    inter-sprocket image penetration (we simply didn’t have enough studio light

    Doug’s comments about the inter-sprocket images surprise me.
    He was an extremely busy man near the time of the deadline for our
    report but always a great help. Obviously he did not see my multiple
    camera test results and apparently did not remember my conclusions
    about the inter-sprocket area. He apparently also forgot how the failure
    of the ARRB to exercise expected initiative with the DOJ caused months
    of delays and unnecessary rewriting (in the summer of ’98) of the report
    format that was subsequently acceptable. Doug’s role helped resolve the
    problem so he should have remembered the reasons for the last minute
    “midnight oil”. However in retrospect: SO WHAT – the complete report
    was delivered ON TIME!

    Finally: “Let me now add that there is a small problem with Rollie Zavada
    which Doug experienced repeatedly. !Zavada is committed to the view
    that the Z film must be authentic. !This is not all that clear at first.
    !When I spoke to him in September 1998, he went out of his way to say
    that he had not tested for authenticity. !But that is not the way Rollie
    speaks anymore. !Now he talks as if he has accomplished something that,
    at the time, he was careful to say he had not done – he now behaves as if
    his multi-volume report somehow establishes the film as authentic.”~Lifton

    In the work agreement with Kodak, the ARRB’s request to analyze
    image content of the “Z” film was not accepted and the ARRB expressly
    acknowledged that there would be no “statement of authenticity”
    required because of the “analysis of evidence” nature of the study.
    Let’s put the Kodak report to the ARRB in proper perspective.
    WHAT WE DID WAS: provide a knowledge and factual database.!Thus,
    using our report, the Archives, the DOJ, researchers and students can
    make their own authenticity determination. (i.e. we gave them “Tools” for
    Our Program of Work was structured as studies to address the:
    Medium – vintage of the films
    Method – processing technology and markings
    – printing technology and characteristics
    – camera image capture characteristics
    When combined, there is a high degree of assurance that the film
    identified by the archives as the “Zapruder in-camera-original” —- is!!!

    The Kodak study did not address – in writing – characteristics
    about the technical constraints or expected visual delectability of any
    possible alteration scenarios. The probability of alteration by applying
    laboratory optical effects or simple A-B printing techniques (to remove
    selected frames) after transfer of the original to an intermediate as
    proposed by some researchers was also reviewed. These topics were
    discussed and reviewed with NARA and Doug Horne of the ARRB while at
    NARA. !Further, my careful viewing of multiple scenes and my knowledge
    of optical effects technology convinced me (at that time) that a
    dissertation on the probability of alteration was not needed.

    Note: subsequent to my report being filed with the ARRB I had
    another opportunity to further examine the “In-camera original” with the
    NARA subcommittee on preservation which further confirmed my beliefs.
    When my contract with Kodak expired, I was in a position to
    express my personal views. Simply stated “There is no detectable evidence
    of manipulation or image alteration on the “Zapruder in-camera-original”
    and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto.”

    The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all
    the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium,
    manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image
    characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type,
    perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting
    characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO
    evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge
    effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.
    ~Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03

    Click to access zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf


    • “The goal to create a “Kodachrome original” provides further insurmountable challenges..”~Roland Zavada


  68. Fetzer is expert at Argumentum ad Flatulence: Arguing from the seat of your trousers.
    Also known as “Anal Hurlant”


  69. THE ZAPRUDER FILM An Accurate Representation of The Kennedy Assassination

    “The goal to create a “Kodachrome original” provides further insurmountable challenges..” ~Roland Zavada

    The JFK assassination research community now faces a critical dilemma. That being in that so much effort has been put to disproving the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays. The dilemma the community faces…



  70. Dr. Malcolm Perry, his superior, said after watching the televised interview with Dr. Crenshaw:
    “”I feel sorry for him. I had thought of suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], (sic) my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate… He is a pitiful sight.”

    But if you look at the film clips of Dr. Perry on the day of the assassination,he said that Kennedy had an entrance wound in his neck and an entrance wound in the front at his right temple.

    But also if you read his testimony carefully you see that he said he “just glanced at the headwound by leaning forward while doing the tracheotomy. He also said he never really got a look at the back of the head. The ONLY Parkland doctor who is claiming the occipital protuberance was blasted out is Crenshaw.
    Crenshaw could not possibly have seen such a wound, as Kennedy’s head had bee wrapped in sheets to soak up the blood that continued to leak from the head. He said he got a look at that wound as the team was transfering the body to the casket – at that time the head was entirely wrapped. Therefore Crenshaw is lying.

    There is no doubt that the Parkland staff agreed that both the neck wound and head wound were entrance wounds. What is in dispute is the gaping hole at the rear occipital protuberance. The occipital parietal is a large area defining the area from the top of the head to the rear of the head. The occipital protuberance is the distinct protuberance at the very base of the skull. All of the doctors at Parkland used the term ” occipital parietal” NONE used the specific term “occipital protuberance”.

    The Autopsy x-rays and photographs show the blasting of occipital parietal, the very term the Parkland doctors used to describe what they saw.


  71. Richard Charnin, another charlatan in the Fetzer fold:

    Let’s be clear on this Charnin, as you are now accusing me of being Bradford in your hysterical come-backs on your blog.

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to create travelling mattes with the use of aerial printing. That is not the process. The travelling mattes are created in a completely different way. It is a multistage process in which the final individual elements are drawn together in an optical printer. An 8mm film cannot be firmly registered for optical projection/re-photography. The rephotographing of the combined elements must be perfectly aligned or there will be wild jiggle in the final product.

    This is on top of the problem of lack of proper emulsions for 8 mm film, which are made for professional formats beginning with 35 mm. Without these special emulsion film stocks, the color, and intensity of the original 8 mm film cannot be successfully duplicated.



    • Now as an artist who has made a lifelong study of human anatomy, and as a special effects artist beginning with 8 mm film as a teenager, and eventually becoming a professional effects artist in Hollywood; I consider myself to be quite qualified to speak to both the issues of anatomy and special effects cinematography.

      I find the irrational arguments being made on the issue of the JFK Assassination, especially the Zapruder film to be totally transparent and foolish. But since they are stupid enough to make lame arguments against an expert in crime scene investigation, who’s specialties are ballistics and blood splatter analysis; I suppose it should come as no surprise that they are making arguments of ignorance against me as well.

  72. JFK Mysterious Witness Deaths: London Sunday Times and HSCA Cover-up

    Henry Sienzant says:
    “You wrote: “Ten of the 552 witnesses who testified at the Warren Commission died unnaturally in the three years after the assassination.”

    And: “Warren Commission witnesses- 1964-66…
    36 6611 James Worrell W WITNESS TSBD
    37 6512 William Whaley W WITNESS TSBD
    39 6608 Lee Bowers W WITNESS KNOLL
    42 6601 Earlene Roberts W WITNESS TIPPIT
    45 6401 Warren Reynolds W WITNESS TIPPIT
    46 6507 Harold Russell W WITNESS TIPPIT
    47 6402 Eddie Benavides W WITNESS TIPPIT
    53 6606 Frank Martin W POLICE
    54 6410 Charles Murret W OSWALD
    55 6701 Jack Ruby W MAFIA POLICE LHO
    56 6602 Albert Bogard W WITNESS LHO”

    Your list above is invalid. You didn’t meet the challenge. I asked you to *cite their testimony* to establish they were from the universe of 552 as you initially claimed.
    You claimed there were ten of 552 witnesses who died unnaturally, but your list is bogus. To be on your list, both parts MUST be true — they should be one of the 552 who testified to the Warren Commission AND have died *unnaturally* in the three years after the assassination.

    So let’s look at some of these supposed ten:

    (1) Eddie Benavides was not a Warren Commission witness. Does not meet the criteria you claimed.

    (2) Warren Reynolds is still alive and well and living in Dallas. He didn’t die unnaturally. Does not meet the criteria you claimed.

    (3) Earlene Roberts didn’t die unnaturally. She suffered from diabetes and died of a heart attack. Does not meet the criteria you claimed.

    (4) Harold Russell was not a Warren Commission witness. Not one of the 552. Does not meet the criteria you claimed.

    (5) Ruby died of cancer. Not an unnatural death. Does not meet the criteria you claimed.

    If you dispute the above, cite their *testimony* and the evidence of their *unnatural* death in the three years following the assassination.

    I don’t know the causes of death of the others, except for Bowers (car crash) and Bogard (suicide).

    Can you establish the causes of death of the other three *and cite their testimony*, Richard (or is it Truth is All)?

    Right now we’re at two unnatural deaths out of 552 in the three-year-period. Five others didn’t belong on the list at all (they don’t fit your criteria) and three others are pending your proof of their testimony and their unnatural death.”~Hank
    * * * * * * * * * *
    I would dispute Mr Sienzant on: (5) Ruby died of cancer. Not an unnatural death. Does not meet the criteria you claimed.

    I think that Ruby was injected with cancer by the CIA, as he was claiming when trying to get Warren to take him into protective custody.

    Otherwise Cornin’s criteria for choosing witnesses is clearly skewed.

  73. http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk%20assassination/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1VLRED2TYB89B&cdThread=TxVUSTPFEX3ZD0

    Henry Sienzant says:
    Yep, it’s exactly as I surmised and stated previously.

    You’re getting all your info from conspiracy books and conspiracy sites, and not actually looking into those claims whatsoever.

    Let’s look at your claims in the above post, shall we?


    Please present the evidence Beverly Oliver is the Babushka Lady. Are you aware Beverly Oliver didn’t start telling her *story* until 1970 (over six years after the assassination) and that some significant untruths have been found in her *story*? And that there’s nothing that actually proves her claims?

    But you accept them anyway.


    Hilarious. Not my job. You made the claim about Regis Kennedy was a Dealey Plaza witness. He wasn’t. He was a New Orleans FBI agent, and according to his own testimony, in New Orleans on that day. You need to prove your claims. You don’t get to simply say I need to prove your claims are wrong. That is nonsense.


    Hilarious! When will you learn that quoting conspiracy sites is not evidence of anything? Document the claim. For example, what does the site you cribbed the below quote from claim is their source of the claim? Do they even provide one?


    This claim is nonsense. There is no evidence any films or photos were confiscated that day. The Muchmore film still exists. The Bell film still exists. There is a website where you can view many of the films. In fact, there are so many films and photos of the motorcade Harold Weisberg wrote a whole book about them called PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH.

    This website is presumably a source you trust, making a claim you presumably believe. One that is demonstrably WRONG. Even showing you the films won’t convince you the claim above is wrong, but have a look anyway:



    No evidence of any of that has ever been presented. This is another thing you need to prove.


    Cite the evidence for all these home movies (plural) that were seized. All you have is the *story* told by Beverly Oliver for the first time in 1969 when she first came forward to claim she was a JFK witness. To explain away why she didn’t have all-important film, she *claimed* it was stolen from her.


    Show me the subpoena. Cite the source of this claim (not the knucklehead website you found this on, but the legitimate source. There must be a document in existence that says Kennedy was subpoena’ed, right? There must be an actual subpoena, right? Where is it? Oh, that’s right — it doesn’t exist, just like all the other evidence that would prove a conspiracy! (Also, please note the HSCA itself determined that to interview witnesses 15 years after the fact would not be very fruitful; and for that reason it was best to do a scientific inquiry into the hard evidence). Which is not to admit that Regis Kennedy was a Dealey Plaza witness, it just exposes the lie by you on another level — that according to the HSCA itself, there was little to be gained by calling witnesses to testify to Congress:

    == QUOTE ==
    As it undertook its investigation, the committee was fully aware that the evidence of events that occurred 10 and 15 years in the past would be of varying degrees of quality. The committee recognized that there were three general categories of evidence. First, there was the evidence that would be developed by the scientific projects such as autopsy, ballistics, handwriting, fingerprint, photographic and acoustical analysis. Second, there was documentation that existed in the form of governmental agency files. Third, there was the current recollection of the event by witnesses.

    The committee believed that the evidence of potentially the greatest reliability was generally that of science. Government files were of substantial value in pursuing some areas of the investigation, but were of limited use in others because of the particular issue the committee was pursuing or the nature of the file. Finally, the committee recognized that witness testimony was sharply qualified by problems of human perception and memory, as well as bias or motive to lie.
    == UNQUOTE ==

    The HSCA did not call any Dealey Plaza witnesses other than the Governor and his wife, and motorcycle patrolman H.B. McClain (to attempt to establish his position to validate the testimony of the acoustics experts that claimed to have found evidence of a fourth shot), to the best of my recollection. Mostly they took testimony from various experts, and interested parties like conspiracy nuts like Jack White. Here’s all the testimony before the HSCA:


    Do click on the links above and show me where ANY Dealey Plaza witnesses (except for the three I reference) gave any testimony to the HSCA. Do show me the evidence Regis Kennedy was supposed to testify. You CAN NOT. You WILL NOT.


    Hilarious. We’ve examined your attempts to list these witnesses and your lists are always fudged. People appear on the list who aren’t dead, didn’t testify to the Warren Commission, were added because they had no connection to the case but got killed…, etc. etc.

    Again, let’s start small. Show that Regis Kennedy was subpoenaed to appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and show the date he was supposed to appear, and show the date he died.

    And show he was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

    You can’t, because it never happened. The Beverly Oliver *story*, like the *story* you quote from the conspiracy website, lacks substance and credibility because there’s no evidence supporting the claims made by either Oliver or the website. They are simply scary stories told around a campfire.

    But why let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

    You can believe the stories. I’ll believe the evidence.”~Hank
    Henry Sienzant says:
    For a non-conspiracy viewpoint of Beverly Oliver’s *incredible* claims, see:


    Reply to this post

    Posted on Oct 28, 2014 11:31:55 AM PDT
    Henry Sienzant says:
    Ok, it’s over two months since I asked Richard to document some of his claims, and he still has not.

    But this is supposed to be a thread dedicated to my ‘deconstruction’.

    It’s actually all about Richard’s claims destruction.~Hank
    Reply to this post

    Posted on Nov 29, 2014 7:42:17 AM PST
    Henry Sienzant says:
    Over three months now since Richard was asked to document his claims.

  74. Richard Charnin
    December 14, 2014 at 11:13 am
    0 0 Rate This
    RC: hybridrogue1,

    You just apologized to Jim Fetzer on another blog. You admitted that you were wrong. Good for you. You now agree the Z-film was altered – after reading my links to Doug Horne and Dino Brugioni. And you will eventually come around to seeing that I was right on all the other issues as well. You already implicitly agreed that you were wrong about the Limo FULL stop; it was removed by the Z-film alteration.


    December 14, 2013 at 9:49 pm

    Okay, I have been reading more of the articles that Jim advised we read here. I must now admit that this take on the extent of the manipulation of the “extant Z-film” is likely the truth of the matter.

    Sorry to give anyone ulcers during the exchange here.

    My kudos to you for once Jim. You convinced me on this one.
    I offer my apologies as well.

    I deserve an apology as well. I refer readers to the comments you made on my blog:
    I only apologize for assuming that you were another troll named Bradford.
    I will gladly post your apology on my blog…


    This is the comment you made on “Truth and Shadows” before you apologized to Fetzer. You neglected to mention Horne and Brugioni, both of whom you dismissed as experts which was a big error on your part.
    hybridrogue1 – December 13, 2014 at 6:28 pm

    “Do you really expect me to believe that you know more than the Hollywood film experts who have verified the film was altered?”~Charnin

    Name them.

    This is the second time I ask for you to name these so called Hollywood film experts who have verified the film was altered.~WW
    * * * * * * * * * *
    It has now been over three hours and still Charnin has made no attempt to answer this question.

    I KNOW the answer already, this “Hollywood Group” of Horne’s never followed through with their Report.



    My Reply

    December 14, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    “You just apologized to Jim Fetzer on another blog.”~RC

    You are a year after the fact, thus the word “just”, as in “just now” is misapplied. That apology to Fetzer was given on December 14, 2013 at 9:49 pm – as seen in your current post above.

    It is today exactly one year past the sell date on that apology.

    Upon further reflection and deeper digging, that year has passed with my realizing that I was in grave error to have accepted Jim’s arguments. That deeper digging was into the many “proofs” that Fetzer and his cohorts offered, and going to original sources to check the so called “facts” that build this argument concerning the Z-film.

    If you will follow that blog page, you will see that I retracted my acceptance of Fetzer’s arguments:

    hybridrogue1 – November 18, 2014 at 8:08 pm
    Readers may interpret this as my recanting my grudgingly agreeing with Fetzer last year on this thread on T&S.~\\][//


    Also if you follow the commentary from that point forward, you will find the reasons and data I used to make an argument for my retraction. In that section you will find the arguments that are now put to the page on my blog titled: THE ZAPRUDER FILM: An Accurate Representation of The Kennedy Assassination posted on December 12, 2014 at 6:57 pm.

    This is essentially the same argument I made on Truth & Shadows from November 18 forward. Plus additional information I continue to discover on the topic.

    Now: I have asked you a question twice that remains unanswered. I asked this question of Fetzer several times on the T&S blog as well, and he answered with hostility rather than an answer

    Currently that question remains, and I repeat it here one more time:

    The Hollywood film experts who have verified the film was altered? Name them!

    ~Willy Whitten \\][//

    • hybridrogue1 – December 14, 2014 at 1:25 pm

      One more note Mr. Charnin,

      I am not of nature belligerent, but I can give it back as given.

      I have found James Fetzer to be one of the most belligerent, hostile cretins I have ever dealt with in argumentum on the blogs. I find this so called “Professor Emeritus” to be little more than a brow beating thug, and most disingenuous with his mode of dishonest and spurious argumentation.

      I find that you are showing a tendency to follow in Fetzer’s footsteps here. You did apologize for mistaking me for Bradford, and although that is appreciated, your behavior from that point has remained unduly hostile and rude. You have in sequence, banned me, and then continued to make commentary and ask questions of me.

      You should make up your mind one way or the other. I disagree with you and your findings on the JFK event. Indeed I do, but I do not see having a disagreement as an excuse for rude behavior.
      If you wish to continue a discussion with me, that would be possible sans insult and threats.

      In the meantime I remain open to such discussion, the choice is yours.

    • I make a policy of not disputing mathematicians according to their math itself. But rather to the assumptions made that drive that math. It is in the mistaken presumptions that often lead to wildly erroneous conclusions. I have seen this in the works of Maxwell Bridges, Richard Charni, as well as Costella and Hightower, to name but a few.

      Their arguments become a form of “argument from authority”, specifically an argument from their own authority. When such false assumptions are pointed out to these individuals, it rarely sinks in, as they are so focused on the correctness of their calculations. But to continue to argue their calculations, and not face the actual argument of the assumptions driving such calculations becomes a form of “Straw Man Argument”, that they are seemingly blind to.

    “Dino Brugioni is not new to those who have studied the JFK assassination. Besides writing the book “Eyeball to Eyeball” about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the role photo recognizance played in that affair, Brugioni wrote a book about the CIA’s photo lab and how they uncover fake photos, like the one of Mao swimming is a fake, and the one of Oswald in the backyard with the weapons and commie magazines is real.”~Doug Horne

    “…Dino Brugioni was the Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, and worked directly for the Director of NPIC, Arthur Lundahl, from 1954 until Lundahl retired in 1973. Arthur Lundahl, as Dino Brugioni explained to Peter Janney, was the western world’s foremost photoanalyst during those two decades. And anytime that Mr. Lundahl needed a briefing board prepared, it was Dino Brugioni, working with NPIC’s photo-interpreters and graphics department, who oversaw its preparation, and the preparation of the associated notes that Lundahl would use to brief Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, for example. Dino Brugioni was so closely involved with the briefing boards prepared for President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis that he was able to author an excellent and captivating book about the role of NPIC in that crucial Cold War episode, called Eyeball to Eyeball. Dino Brugioni, therefore, is the ultimate, insider source for what was going on at NPIC during the 1950s and 1960s. He possesses unimpeachable credentials.”~Peter Janney
    . . . . . . . . .
    Arthur Lundahl was the western world’s foremost photoanalyst from 1954 to 1973. Dino Brugion worked for Lundahl – it was Lundahl who was the expert. And first and foremost; both are government agents – spooks.


  76. Reply to Richard Charnin – December 15, 2014 at 10:14 am
    hybridrogue1 – December 15, 2014 at 11:57 am

    Look Charnin,

    Sydney Wilkinson & her husband. That is two verified names. I already know that.

    Your quote:
    “As reported in the author’s book, numerous Hollywood film industry editors, colorists, and restoration experts have viewed the u201C6Ku201D scans of the Zapruder film as part of the couple’s ongoing forensic investigation.”

    Horne says, “numerous Hollywood film industry editors, colorists, and restoration experts…”

    Mr Charnin, don’t you understand that this is vague meaningless information?

    WHO are these numerous Hollywood film industry? Horne said that they were going to make a report. This was in 2010, it is now close to 2015, and there is still no report, no names but the original husband and wife team mentioned; that’s it, nothing more. So continuing to cite that, “there are numerous Hollywood film industry experts”, while in fact you only can cite two people; Sydney Wilkinson & her husband – this leaves your claim of “numerous” as disingenuous hyperbole.

    You keep making argumentum verbosium here to bury the fact that you cannot identify any but two so-called “Hollywood experts”. Anyone experienced in reasoned debate can see right through such spurious hand waving.

    • “And Jim, seven out of seven people now that have viewed the digital scans that she made – she made high definition scans of each frame of the Zapruder film from her dupe negatives, Seven out of seven experts, now, experts in the post-production of pictures, people who know what special effects look like – Seven out of seven people that have viewed it now say that the film – the head wounds are not only altered, but they are badly altered. The alterations were very poorly done – and…”~Horne to Jim Marrs
      February 20, 2010

      Here again we have seven out of seven anonymos – unidentified “experts” who now say “vague blablabla.”


    • Richard Charnin Charlatan

      “It is just a coincidence that many who do not believe Oswald was Doorman also believe that the Altgens6 photo was not altered, the Zapruder film was not altered and the photos of Oswald standing in the backyard were not fakes.” ~Richard Charnin

      No coincidence at all! Except for the last proposition, to do with the backyard photos being fakes. I disagree with all of your points.
      There are no proofs whatsoever that Altgens 6 was tampered with. And there is not the slightest chance that the person in the doorway you identify as Oswald is not actually Lovelady.

      There is every reason to assert that those like you and the others making this ridiculous argument suffer from Prosopagnosia in one degree or another.

      Prosopagnosia is a cognitive disorder of face perception where the ability to recognize faces is impaired, while other aspects of visual processing (e.g., object discrimination) and intellectual functioning (e.g., decision making) remain intact.

      Also, your list of 21 points is a rhetorical mélange falling into the category of “not necessarily so” – there could be multiple reasons for the great majority of your assertions. And it is such disingenuous argumentation that gives away your agenda to drag red herrings across the path of genuine investigation, leading to unnecessary time wasting distractions.

  77. “The implication here is that if the true exit wound on President Kennedy’s head can be obscured in the Zapruder film through use of aerial imaging (i.e., self-matting animation, applied to each frame’s image via an animation stand married to an optical printer) — as revealed by the u201C6Ku201D scans of the 35 mm dupe negative — then the same technique could be used to add a desired exit wound, one consistent with the cover story of a lone shooter firing from behind.”~Horne

    This very paragraph proves that Horne has no grasp of special effects cinematography: “self-matting animation, applied to each frame’s image via an animation stand married to an optical printer.” There is no such thing as “self matting” using an animation stand. An animation stand is what is used to create mattes; an entirely different and lengthily process: One involving several previous processes to separate elements from each and every frame before the mattes can be created.

    Horne quotes Zavada mentioning Raymond Fielding’s book on special effects cinematography – but it is quite obvious that Horne has not read the book himself. I have, I still own my original hard bound volume.

  78. I think it obvious that Charnin is totally ignorant of Deconstruction; that is deconstructing the text and revealing the assumptions behind what is being said.

    “• First, the camera original Zapruder film really was slit in Dallas at the Kodak
    processing plant after the three ‘first day copies’ were developed the evening of the
    assassination, just as the Kodak employees told Rollie Zavada when he interviewed
    them for his authenticity study. On Saturday morning, November 23rd, after the Secret
    Service in Washington, D.C. viewed the first day copy (that had been placed on a
    commercial airplane in Dallas and sent to Washington, D.C. by Max Phillips late on
    Friday evening), they no doubt realized an immediate need for the original film, so that briefing boards could be made from the clearest possible image frames. [No one would send a copy of an 8 mm film to NPIC to make briefing boards from—one would obtain and send the original film.]”Horne

    Horne boldly asserts, “they no doubt realized” and “No one would send a copy of an 8 mm film to NPIC to make briefing boards from—one would obtain and send the original film.” This is supposition delivered in hyperbole! If the only copy available is a direct copy of the original, it would be perfectly acceptable for their purposes to use such a copy–the only copy available.

    As with all of Horne’s assertions, he presents his opinions as fact. His further points, ending with 8 total; are all filled with “must have” and other such qualifiers, that are only obvious when one seriously deconstructs the presumptuous nature of Horne’s assertions.


  79. >>”David Mantik, who possesses an MD, with specialization in oncology, and a PhD in physics, has been called the most qualified person to ever study the case.”–182 In the Eye of History pg. 182

    And just who has called Mantik the most qualified person to ever study the case?

    The answer is, the James Fetzer PR Firm and it’s associates and dupes.
    computer analogy

  80. Harold A. Rydberg, a Medical Art Instructor at Bethesda on November 22, 1963

    Rydberg: I was not involved with anything with the autopsy on President Kennedy that night. We were more in crowd control. An honor guard. Two cars were totally demolished (chuckles) by people standing on them.

    Law: Really?

    Rydberg: Yes. It’s an open base. It’s a hospital. And they locked off the back gate
    but left the front open.

    Law: Is this the one that would be used coming up from Jones Bridge Road?

    Rydberg: Yes. There was only one gate that was locked.

    Law: That was the one in the back?

    Rydberg: Yes.

    Rydberg: As soon as we knew he was coming in then we got word to start lining the honor guard up.

    Law: You were there as part of the honor guard for the navy, just to guard the
    building, correct?

    Rydberg: Crowd control also.

    Law: Did you hear any kind of scuttlebutt that night? Anything about they’re bringing in another ambulance, a decoy ambulance or…

    Rydberg: There was a decoy.

    Law: Was this something that you heard, was general knowledge or…

    Rydberg: Yeah. it was general knowledge that a decoy was put out to keep anybody, mainly photographers, from knowing when the real one came in — it was orbiting a good ten minutes before he even arrived.

    Law: Orbiting. Does that mean on the ground or perhaps…

    Rydberg: They were driving around. In the back. They were never in the front.

    Law: Now is this to your knowledge–I mean through scuttlebutt–—did this ambulance contain the body? Or did the official ambulance contain the body?

    Rydberg: The body was in where Jacqueline was. That one went immediately to the morgue. The back entrance. I’ve never heard anything contrary to that. But I did know about the decoy.

    Click to access In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

    . . . . . . . . . .

  81. Dino A. Brugioni is a former senior official at the CIA‘s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC).
    “He possesses unimpeachable credentials.”~Peter Janney

    Hah! Brugioni possesses damning credentials!! He is CIA for keeryst sake.

    “Brugioni has received numerous citations and commendations, including the CIA Intelligence Medal of Merit, the CIA Career Intelligence Medal. He twice received the Sherman Kent Award, the CIA’s top award for outstanding contributions to intelligence.”~Wiki

    Yes, Brugioni is a spook’s spook.

  82. “In the opinion of virtually all of the dozens of motion picture film professionals who have viewed the Zapruder film u201C6Ku201D scans, the dark patches do not look like natural shadows, and appear quite anomalous. Some of these film industry professionals — in particular, two film restoration experts accustomed to looking at visual effects in hundreds of 1950s and 1960s era films — have declared that the aforementioned frames are proof that the Zapruder film has been altered, and that it was crudely done.” ~Douglas Horne

    Look at this!

    Again Horne speaks to not just seven unnamed sources – now it’s “virtually all of the dozens”.
    “in particular, two film restoration experts…” In particular??? WTF is particular if it is not SPECIFIC?
    WHO? Goddammit!!!

    “Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.”~Mark Twain

  83. There is deafening silence over at Charnin’s blog now. As of 10am today (this blog is on NZ time – 6 hrs ahead)…
    But he hasn’t deleted my posts yet!


  84. Forensic Profiling

    Deconstruction of written text is a part of the technique of the art of “Profiling”. It is a large part of this profiling, but it is accompanied by examination of MO, cultural, epistemological and psychological analysis.
    It is a forensic examination using the main themes of such; already mentioned MO, but there are also, Cui Bono (not in the aspect of WHO benefits, but what the subject of the profile benefits) – and this is also the matter of Motive. In the aspect of deconstruction, the subject’s assumptions are revealed in the subtext. Those assumptions are analysed by the rhetorical and metaphorical uses of the language of the subject .

    As so much is revealed about a subject by such methodology, it is difficult for them to stand up to a debate applied against their specific nature, through a rational examination of their assertions and whether they are grounded in fact, or supposition.

    I have been adept at these skills for some 20 years or more. This is not a mere boast, but a note of caution to those who would try to bluff their way through a debate.

  85. “The report of Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian does not say that the casket he and his men picked up on the evening of November 22, 1963, contained the body of President Kennedy. Asked during a telephone interview for the ARRB “if he remembered the arrival of the President’s casket” he said “no.” (ARRB MD236)”~Lifton

    “The Boyajian report documents the arrival of that casket at 6:35 PM. Boyajian was the NCOIC (non-commissioned officer in charge) of the Marine Security Detail at the autopsy. He wrote his report on November 26, 1963, the day after Kennedy’s funeral. It was typed and submitted on November 26, 1963, just four days after JFK’s assassination (and one day after his funeral). The key statement in this report (which was about the security actions taken to safeguard President Kennedy’s body and his autopsy) which so offends Martin Hay is wherein it states that JFK’s body arrived at the Bethesda morgue at 1835 hours (6:35 PM civilian time), a full 20 minutes before the Andrews AFB motorcade carrying the bronze ceremonial Dallas casket arrived out in front of Bethesda Naval Hospital. So Martin Hay tries to get around this by saying that Boyajian didn’t open the coffin and actually see the body. So what? He was there to provide security”~Ibid

    Lifton says “So what?” that Boyajian didn’t open the coffin and actually see the body… The so of the what is that Boyajian can only attest to the arrival of a coffin, not to the presence of a body in that coffin!

    Lifton wants to choose and pick which testimony he will accept or reject from his witnesses. He accepts Sibert’s comment about “surgery to the head” but disputes Sibert and O’Neill helped carry in the ornate bronze casket with the broken handle and were there when that casket was opened with Kennedy’s body in it. Sibert and O’Neill were with the bronze casket from the airport to Bethesda, and followed on foot as the Navy ambulance drove around to the rear loading dock, where they helped unload that casket.

    Rydberg told William Law that it was common knowledge that there was a decoy ambulance to throw off the crowds and photographers.

  86. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html
    Some general thoughts here:

    Homer A. McMahon and Morgan Bennett Hunter, both are first and foremost employed by CIA, and worked at the Agency’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC).
    Dino A. Brugioni, also CIA, also claims to have participated in an NPIC “briefing board event” the weekend following JFK’s assassination.

    I have a problem with accepting the word of CIA agents for reliable testimony. One one hand it is asserted that the CIA were behind the JFK assassination, and are therefore the perpetrators. On the other hand it is asserted that “certain” CIA agents are “experts in their fields” and are “prestigious”.

    So just how is it that certain researchers pick and choose who are the “good CIA” and who are the “bad CIA”? Obviously it is cherry picking by virtue of whether that testimony backs up the story the researcher is pushing or not.

    I also have a problem with testimony given 20 – 30 years or more post event. Not necessarily because the memory would not be reliable simply because of the length of time, but more importantly; the influence of other information in the intervening years that would add to that memory as tainting.
    . . .
    ” At the time, back in 1963, both McMahon and Brugioni were each led to believe they were working with the “original film,” but clearly, only one of them could have been. Fantastic, you say? Certainly. But all true. The evidence will be clearly laid out before you, below, along with an analysis of what the evidence likely means, and why.”~Horne

    Let’s reassess this conclusion Horne makes; “but clearly, only one of them could have been.”
    As both men are seasoned experts in film, and both accepted that they were working with the original film, the answer to this dilemma could reasonably be that NEITHER had the original film.
    It does not necessarily follow, as Horne asserts, that “only one” had the original extant Z-film.

  87. “We have now accounted for the whereabouts of all three “first day copies” that weekend. However, the primary focus in this paper should remain on the original film. ARRB consultant Roland Zavada’s formal conclusion in his report was this: “After the dupes were found satisfactory, the original film was slit to 8 mm.” [8] There was absolutely no doubt in his mind about this, for he had interviewed the surviving employees from the Kodak Plant in Dallas, and both high level supervisors present that day concurred in this.”~Horne
    “Something” had happened that caused the magazine to seek all rights to the film, including motion picture rights, and outright ownership of both the original film, and all copies.”~Horne

    This is the point at which we are now going to be treated to conjecture from Horne. And it is from this point that we must deconstruct every passage for supposition compared to fact.
    . . . . . .
    Let’s begin first of all with cui bono? Who would have the most to gain from disputing the authenticity of the Zapruder Film?
    The answer is obvious, the perpetrators of the assassination, because the film shows the timing of the shots that hit Kennedy and Connolly, and modern ballistics can prove the trajectory of the shots. Therefore it is in the perpetrator’s self-interests to cast as much doubt as possible on the visual evidence of the assassination.

    • “NPIC EVENT # 1 (Presided over by Dino Brugioni)
      The summary below recapitulates information gleaned from the seven recorded (MP3) Peter Janney-Dino Brugioni interviews in 2009; an eighth recorded (MP3) Peter Janney-Dino Brugioni interview on April 28, 2011”
      “Briefing Boards placed in the National Archives by the CIA in 1993 are not the briefing boards prepared by Dino Brugioni’s team: In 1993, the CIA’s Historical Review Group (HRG), as required by the JFK Records Act, deposited with the National Archives one set of briefing boards identified in 1975 at NPIC – a four panel set (four loose panels, not joined to each other in any way) – mounting frame enlargements of the Zapruder film.”

      “NPIC EVENT # 2 (Presided over by Homer McMahon)

      As stated earlier, as a member of the ARRB staff, I interviewed Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter three times each between June and August of 1997. [18] A written call report was produced following each interview; additionally, the second of three Homer McMahon interviews – on July 14, 1997 – was tape recorded, and that recording may be obtained from the National Archives, along with all of the written interview reports. In May of 2012, I completed a verbatim transcript of the audiotaped interview with Mr. McMahon on July 14, 1997. The summary below recapitulates the totality of the information provided by McMahon and Hunter over the course of all of their interviews in the summer of 1997.

      Time and date: The strong and final consensus of opinion between the two men was that the NPIC event they participated in took place “about two days after” JFK’s assassination, and “before the funeral.” [The funeral was Monday afternoon, November 25th.] They both agreed that their NPIC activity took place before the funeral of the 35th President. McMahon initially recalled the event as taking place 1 or 2 days after the assassination, and Hunter initially recalled it as taking place 2 or 3 days after the assassination; but both men consistently agreed that their NPIC activity definitely occurred prior to President Kennedy’s funeral. The work commenced after dark, and lasted all night long. [Note: The home movie of the assassination brought to NPIC for McMahon and Hunter to work with was not copied as a motion picture; nor did NPIC even have the capability to do so.]”
      The Four Briefing Board Panels at NARA are examined: Both McMahon and Hunter agreed that the prints mounted on the four briefing board panels in the National Archives were indeed the prints they made the night of their “NPIC event.” Neither man had seen the completed briefing boards before, but they both agreed that the 28 prints mounted on the four panels were the prints they had made. McMahon stated that the prints had been trimmed down to a slightly smaller size from what had been printed. McMahon also noted, with dispassionate professional interest, that the prints had deteriorated badly over time, due to the instability of the dyes. When McMahon examined the 28 prints mounted on the four panels, he immediately expressed the opinion that some of the prints they had made were missing from the briefing boards, and had not been used – most likely additional views of the limousine before it went behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and additional views of Clint Hill mounting the vehicle after the head explosion. Neither McMahon nor Hunter had any direct or indirect knowledge of how the four briefing board panels were used. McMahon could only speculate that they may have been used to brief the Warren Commission, but this was not something told to him by Bill Smith; indeed, there was no Warren Commission yet created when Bill Smith visited NPIC. [The Warren Commission was not even created by President Lyndon B. Johnson until Friday, November 29th, 1963.]
      Dino Brugioni made clear to me, when I interviewed him in July of 2011, that the “Hawkeye Plant” (as he called it) was an enormous state-of-the-art private sector laboratory founded and run by Kodak, which performed far more tasks than “just” Corona satellite and U-2 “special order” film services. He said that the Hawkeye Plant was involved in developing new film products and in manufacturing and testing special film products of all kinds, including new motion picture films, and that it definitely had the capability to process motion pictures. He did not see such equipment himself, but was told by Ed Green, a high-ranking Kodak manager at “Hawkeyeworks” with whom he had a relationship of trust, that the “Hawkeye Plant” could, and did, definitely process motion pictures. When repeatedly questioned about this capability by Peter Janney throughout the 2009 interviews, Brugioni said with great reverence, on several occasions, “They could do anything.”
      “They could do anything.”~Brugioni

      This trust placed on CIA agent Brugioni is misplaced in my opinion.
      In the first place the briefing boards he claims to have created are not in evidence, just a typed analysis accompanying the boards created by McMahon and Hunter, who had never seen such a typed page.


      • “Double 8” home movies which have already been slit at the processing facility do not miraculously “reassemble” themselves from two 25-foot strips 8 mm in width, and connected with a splice in the middle, into 16 mm wide unslit double 8 films.”~Horn

        That’s right therefore there was no unslit 16mm film delivered, it’s as simple as that.

  88. >>”No such parietal-temporal-frontal wound was seen at Parkland Hospital in Dallas by any of the treatment staff the day Kennedy was shot and treated there”~Horne

    This is not so; the massive head wound was described as “occipital-parietal” by all of the Parkland doctors. None of them said the wound was at the “occipital protuberance”, as none of them had lifted the head to view that area.
    When indicating the entry wound every one of them pointed to the temple or described the temporal wound as the likely entrance wound.

  89. “It is obvious to me, in view of what happened at the “Dino Brugioni event” at NPIC, that the camera-original Zapruder film was intercepted, either at the Chicago airport as soon as it arrived from Dallas, or as soon as it arrived at the offices of LIFE, by the Secret Service.”~Horne</blockquote
    . . . .
    What is obvious to me is that there was no “Dino Brugioni event” at NPIC. I think that Brugioni is a liar and interjected this event long after the events of 1963. I think only one event happened at NPIC, the McMahon and Hunter event.

    I think it is more likely that agent “Bill Smith” said by Horne himself to be a liar, delivered a film from Dallas that was a copy of the original 16 mm double-8 that Zapruder had made at the Kodak facility. I see this as a much simpler explanation of where the film delivered to McMahon and Hunter.

    • “That is most unlikely for another reason, as well. Enlargements of tiny 8 mm frames for briefing boards would not have been made from a copy film if the original film were available. Furthermore, Dino Brugioni himself would have noticed the soft focus if he had been working with a copy film, instead of an original.”~Horne

      . . .
      Again, I don’t believe Dino Brugioni’s story at all. So what he may or may not have noticed is irrelevant.


    • “Dino Brugioni not only informed John Hicks about the existence of the two-panel briefing board; he showed it to him. Hick’s response was both profane, and violent. Hicks said to Brugioni, when shown the two-panel briefing board made from the unaltered Zapruder film: “Goddammit, what the hell are you doing with that?” Hicks followed with immediate instructions: “Get the Goddamn thing out of here!” A shaken Dino Brugioni, who is still mystified today about the anger expressed by Hicks, wrapped up the two-panel briefing board, sent it over to the office of CIA Director William Colby, and never saw it again.”~Horne

      . . . .
      So now conveniently the physical evidence that Brugioni claims to have had in his possession, that no one else had ever seen, is suddenly taken and sent to Colby and was never seen again!
      A whale of a tale I tell ya!


  90. For those of you with about 6 and a half hours to spare, here is an in depth presentation by Doug Horne, which includes his material on the Zapruder film:


  91. This presentation by Doug Horne is impressive, and I agree with much of it. Horne debases the genuine issues he addresses by including the spurious nonsense on the Z-film. I do have a few details I would argue with but essentially I am in agreement. The one major disagreement I have is, as I have already put much effort into, is the issue of the Zapruder film. Nothing he has said in this presentation has convinced me otherwise.

    Horne speaks of “dozens of film experts” – Again, WHO are they? What are there names?

    The only two so far mentioned are the husband-wife team; Sydney Wilkinson and husband; Tom Whitehead
    His page: IMBD (key grip) (post-production) (best boy electric) (post-production) (gaffer) (completed)

    This is hardly the resume’ of a “Hollywood Film Expert”

  92. To elaborate on Horne’s explanation of the “aerial projection” again, this is not “self matting”!
    If you paint a cell and a projection is made beneath which is re-filmed in the Oxberry, the light will come through the painting unless a “matte” silhouette is backing it up. The final product will be a ‘ghost-like’ image of the painting.

    The reason this works with cartoon animation is because the cell is made and laid over a opaque background and re-shot with an animation camera.

    If the background is panning an elaborate set-up like Disney created for later films with several stacks of glass paintings moving to create the illusion of perspective from that POV is necessary. This is called ‘The Multiplane Camera’ – and is illustrated on pg. 311 of the book ‘Disney Animation: THE ILLUSION OF LIFE’ by Frank Thomas & Ollie Johnson (1981)

    Any clear medium, glass or cell that has lighting from behind must have a matte to keep light from bleeding from the rear.

  93. “Consensus Recollection Prejudice:” I would describe this as recollections tainted by intervening subconscious absorbing of the views of others throughout the years between the event and recall.
    I would propose that this can account for the consensus of many witnesses to the head wound said to have been seen at Parkland. Again, the parietal protuberance area of Kennedy’s head was not seen at Parkland because Kennedy was on his back on the gurney. No one lifted his head or disturbed his position as they were involved in trying to save his life.

    The so-called “McClelland Drawing” is this consensus image. And it is one that simply could not have been seen at Parkland.

    Now my making note of this is not to dispute that what happened at Bethesda. It was not only a botched autopsy, but a criminal destruction of the head wounds by Boswell and Humes. And as this issue seems very clear, the assertion of the body being stolen and mutilated earlier and actually arriving beforehand in a shipping casket becomes moot. I think the Sibert and O’Neill testimony is reliable on this point, Kennedy was removed from the ornate bronze casket that they themselves carried into the morgue.

    I am sure that they saw the smaller occipital-parietal damage and the temporal entry wound when the body was laid on the autopsy table. What I doubt is their ‘consensus memory’ of the wound as depicted in the “McClelland Drawing” that they offer years later.

    The two to three shots to the head theory now being offered by Horne defies the modern ballistic analysis of given by CSI Sherry Fiester. A single shot from a high-powered rifle would have caused the avulsive occipital-parietal wounds on Kennedy’s head with the entry at the temple. A shot from the side from the Grassy Knoll would have blown out the left side of Kennedy’s head, a second shot from behind is not the cause of the fraction of a second nodding forward of the head, as explained in great detail by Fiester.

  94. If one reads the book In the Eye of History – William Matson Law, with interviews of many of the Bethesda witnesses to the autopsy – there is much that doesn’t jibe with Horne’s narrative.
    . . .
    Paul O’Connor
    “O’Connor: We found out through the X-rays Mr. Custer took that the skull was completely fractured. Not only was part of it blown, gone, but the whole rest of the skull was fractured completely.”
    . . .
    Jenkins: No. It was basically—it probably ran from the temporal right above the ear to the sagittal suture and then back, maybe to the occipital—in the occipital area.
    . . . .
    O’Neill went on to say there was no cutting of the body of the president until the X-rays were developed. “Humes pointed out to Sibert and I the many fragments of bullets and skull that was in the skull cavity”
    . . .
    Law: A friend of mine did an interview with Sam Kinney who was a Secret Service agent, I think, and he said he found a piece in the back seat of the limousine.

    Sibert: It was supposed to be from the limousine, they flew that in to the autopsy at Bethesda. It got there before the autopsy was over.

    Law: Kinney said it was like a flowerpot.

    Sibert: I didn’t get that close to it. Humes had it and everything….

    Law: Did they know if it was from the top or the back of the head?

    Sibert: I don’t think he even commented on it at that time.
    Just some preliminary remarks here. This mention of the bone from the limo being like “a flower pot” … what image does that put in your head? A bowl? Or could it mean a ‘shard’ like from a broken flower pot?
    If it is insinuated that this was a ‘bowl’ – then how does this jibe with the “baseball sized wound in the lower occipital region”? Are we to assume that the bullet blew out one large bowl shaped skull bone that exited in one piece like a cookie-cutter?

    Note I am posting this as a worksheet and not a final commentary tonight. ~ww

    • Sibert: Yeah. We put the casket down on the floor. Opened the casket—here it was wrapped in sheets. Then the medical corpsmen took over and put the body up on the autopsy table. Then they were going to take X-rays and photographs and that’s when they cleared everybody out into the next room and that’s when they took all the pictures that we know about. Yeah. And X-rays.” – pg 215 — Wm Law ‘THE EYE OF HISTORY’ [PDF]
      . . .
      This casket Sibert refers to is the Bronze casket with the broken handle that Kennedy’s body was in when it was commandeered by the SS at Parkland. Both Sibert and O’Neill testify to having been with the casket the whole time from the airport to Bethesda.


  95. “No one who has watched Dino Brugioni’s interview in the Shane O’Sullivan piece titled “The Zapruder Film Mystery” has expressed anything but respect for his excellent memory and his integrity…”~Horne

    I would counter with; it is not in fact an “excellent memory” that Brugioni expresses, but his excellent grasp of spycraft and obfuscation. This then would not translate into a glowing estimation of his “integrity”.

    • I will point out here that in the film interview with Horne, Brugioni is asked if he noticed the bleed (ghost imaging) from the sprocket area in the Z-film. He says he didn’t notice anything like that. This proves that all the squattle by Fetzer about them knowing about this 34 years before Zavata discovered the cause of these “ghost-images” bleeding in to the left of the film is simply bullshit. If they weren’t even noticed, how could they be compensated for during this so-called faking of the film?

      Another thing is, in this entire interview Brugioni never says that he and his team altered the Zapruder film. He says that he remembers a more dramatic explosion of JFK’s head. But his is a far cry from him describing manufacturing another film. All of that is created out of whole-cloth by Horne and the Fetzer PR team.

      This is the tell. These ‘ghost images’ follow in sequence as a bleed image of the frame just before the frame of the clear images in the main framed area. ANY splices in the film would have shown a ghost image from a frame further back and would be a dead giveaway of such a splice. There is nothing like this seen in the film. As several others have pointed out this is firm evidence that the extant Zapruter film is authentic.

      • Now I have changed my opinion after watching Horne’s interview with Brugioni. It’s not Brugioni that is lying, it is Horne who is full of shit and making this story up out of a series of speculations that have no basis in technical expertise. No wonder that Horne hooked up with Fetzer’s PR firm! He’s as big a conman as Fetzer himself. Brugioni was simply used by this shark.

        What would be Horne’s motivation? Notoriety leading to better book sales.

  96. The Zapruder film is now at the National Archives and Records Administration (since 1975).
    In December 1999, the Zapruder family donated the film’s copyright to The Sixth Floor Museum, in the Texas School Book Depository building at Dealey Plaza, along with one of the first-generation copies made on November 22, 1963, and other copies of the film and frame enlargements once held by Life magazine, which had been since returned.

    “The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.”
    ~Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03

  97. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FRUSno167.html
    Here is that quote, central to the discussion again:
    2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

    167. Memorandum From the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff (Taylor) and the Secretary of Defense (McNamara)
    to the President

    Document 167.
    This is the complete “Report of McNamara-Taylor Mission to South Vietnam”. It was fundamental to National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263, approved by JFK on October 5, 1963. Kennedy approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3), below. NSAM #263 was the the culmination of many months of seeking a solution to the yawning quagmire of Vietnam that Kennedy had concluded must not be solved militarily by committing U.S. combat troops.

    Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Vietnam Country Series, Memos and Miscellaneous. Top Secret. Also printed in United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967, Book 12, pp. 554-573.


  98. Yes indeed, James Fetzer: Professional Conspiracy Theorist … grin, a tireless and relentless self-promoter. His ‘popularity’ is a testament to the dumbing down of the Amerikan mind. That a charlatan such as Fetzer has gained such notoriety is a tragic tell of the lack of critical thinking skills of the public in the postmodern era. Fetzer is one of the most successful Sunsteinian shills on the market today.

  99. The psychological operation that began with the coup that killed Kennedy has been going on since that time, all of the myths introduced as “history” have taken their toll on the brainwashed Amerikan mind.
    There have been many “booster-shots”, engineered events to keep the public trauma on the proper edge; ongoing strategies of tension.
    9/11 was and continues to be the same manner of psychological operation, developing and transforming constantly as a counter to the steady awakening of a significant portion of the population. With the advent of the Internet, there is a penumbra of techniques of obfuscation being put into play. One of the most dangerous and effective are moles, those who pretend to be exposing the State as the perpetrator of 9/11, while in fact being State agents, bringing preposterous “theories” to the table, blended with enough real evidence to cause one to trust their initial tale, as it is gradually spiked with nonsense that “appears” to follow, but which is in fact a divergence into the weeds, a red herring.
    The Fetzer PR firm has the precise MO of such operations; the Profile fits within the template perfectly.

  100. The Revelation of the Method

    “Why have certain secrets been revealed?”Jonathan [JFKfacts org]

    “The Revelation of the Method”

    This is a rather elaborate legalistic/psychological strategy in which all involve in a situation are linked “contractually” by having been informed, or at least having the knowledge available; ignorance being no excuse under the law.
    The result for those who do grasp the nature of the real situation is psychological trauma and a sense of helplessness and futility.

    There is also a divide and conquer element involved as the larger proportion of a society is essentially indifferent to issues beyond their own personal and familial welfare. I shouldn’t need to explain this to those researchers who have seen the clues left, and cannot get through to their own friends and family what is so obvious to themselves.

    If one looks into this term ‘revelation of the method’, one will be confronted with various levels of analysis. As in most topics some will be rational, some less so, and some literally ‘cartoon version’. Thus a note on the word “occult”, an emotionally laden term with a lot of mythological baggage. In fact ‘occult’ simply means hidden, or unseen.
    Also see: http://www.whale.to/b/revelation_method_q.html

  101. The official narrative of what happened on 9/11 was the most absurd conspiracy theory about those events. That is until Fetzer and his diverse crew of disinformants came along with their, no-planes nonsense, the video fakery bullshit, the nukes and DEW garbage. As is said, “there’s a sucker born every minute”!

  102. The false logic of Argumentum Authoritum has long been explained in courses on critical thinking.
    Expertise is revealed by the particular arguments an “expert” makes, not the degrees, diplomas, and honorifics bestowed on an “expert”.

  103. To believe in the public myths created by the Public Relations Regime, is as dangerous as believing any organized religion or other crisis cult. The crisis cult of the national security state is the largest and best funded that the planet has ever known.

  104. CIA Document 1035-960
    The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

    The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

    1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.


  105. CIA Document #1035-960
    Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

    RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

    1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission’s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

    2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.

    Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

    3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

    a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

    b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

    4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

    a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

    b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission’s records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

    c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy’s brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

    d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

    e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator. He was a “loner,” mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

    f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

    g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the “ten mysterious deaths” line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

    5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
    . . . . . .


    Information Warfare
    “The term Information Warfare (IW) is primarily a United States Military concept involving the use and management of information and communication technology in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance(s) that one’s own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare is closely linked to psychological warfare.

    The United States Military focus tends to favor technology, and hence tends to extend into the realms of Electronic Warfare, Cyber Warfare, Information Assurance and Computer Network Operations / Attack / Defense.

    Most of the rest of the world use the much broader term of “Information Operations” which, although making use of technology, focuses on the more human-related aspects of information use, including (amongst many others) social network analysis, decision analysis and the human aspects of Command and Control.”–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare

  107. +James Fetzer says, ” Willy would have you believe that, if you drive a car really, really fast, it will pass through an enormous tree, virtually unscathed. This is a nice example of his perversity in distorting facts to mislead the public..”

    I didn’t make up this stupid analogy of a car crashing into a tree, this is Fetzer making up a strawman argument, having nothing to do with anything I have ever claimed. So yes it is indeed a nice example of Fetzer’s perversity in distorting facts to mislead the public.


  108. “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.”
    ―James Jesus Angleton
    ‘Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA’
    — By Edward Jay Epstein
    Epstein’s books Legend (1978) and Deception (1989) drew on interviews with retired CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton
    Read more at http://izquotes.com/quote/207099

    • All wars since 1900 have been totally fakes ‘Phony Wars for Phony Peace and the Ministry of Fear’ by Eustace Mullins

      “WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
      War Is A Racket By Major General Smedley Butler
      . . . . .
      Those hypnotized by the mainstream view may accord Smedley Butler some respect and accept his analysis of why wars are fought. It is likely the same type of mainstream mind would simply brush off Mullins as a “Crazy Conspiracy Nut”. However, as Butler is correct in his assertion that war is a racket for the benefit of the elite, it stands to reason that such an elite would see to their interests proactively, and foster wars for their benefit, which is exactly what Mullins proves in his detailed analysis of the Global Banking Cabal.


      • There is no “devil”, it is an excuse for the dark-side of human beings. The “devil” is not a liar, the concept of “devil” itself is the lie.

  109. “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” –William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by David McGowan, “Derailing Democracy” (2000)

    These words attributed to Colby certainly encapsulate what he said at the Church Committee Hearings. McGowan didn’t cite his source for this ‘quote’, so there is controversy. It seems a trivial point to me, as the words are the essence of Colby’s testimony regardless. What is the point of the argument? It seems clear that the point of making a big deal over this is to distract from the fact that it is true; the Central Intelligence Agency does own everyone of any significance in the major media. Anyone who buys into the bullshit that CIA has mended its ways is hopelessly naive.

  110. I do not find Douglas Horne credible.
    First and foremost, because he has shown himself to be totally ignorant of film, film chemistry, special effects, and movie making machinery.
    Secondly and more disturbing is his association with James Fetzer, one of the most infamous charlatans in the field of “professional conspiracy theory”. Fetzer has been a PR man for scurrilous bullshit for many years.

  111. There is a vast epistemological divide, such a deep abyss that those on one side of it live in one mental construct, and those on the other side have an entirely different one.

    The false epistemology is held by those who have been irrevocably enchanted by the Public Relations Regime and it’s massive high-tech machinery capable of instilling a powerful illusion; the delusion of mass psychological manipulation. This powerful construct can be likened metaphorically to “Necromancy”, a spell invoked by the powerful technical mechanisms of electronic media combined with multigenerational, birth to grave systemic psychological manipulation of a captive audience.
    . . . . .
    “There but for the grace of the angels go I…”

    How is it that some percentage of this captive audience remains to various extents immune to the complete effects of this necromancy? This is an existential question, the answers of which are as deep and varied as individual personality itself.

    • It is not a matter of “intuition” nor “guessing” as to what the proper historical perspective is in the context of the globalist agenda. The reality of the Public Relations Regime, is prima facie in it’s self-exposed definition and its obvious effect on the population. This coupled with the historical quest for such an all pervasive propaganda tool as psychological manipulation by electromagnetic means, is exposure in toto of an agenda of totalitarian control several centuries in the making.

  112. (Response to an email from Veri}:
    I do get sick and tired of certain things though, aggravated at folks who should be able to see certain obvious things.

    As you know I have been posting on that JFKfacts site. I have had to explain countless times the issue having to do with Kodachrome II daylight film. It is not too technical to grasp that daylight film shot under artificial light will not react properly as per color, contrast, brightness, hue, etc. It is simple, you shoot daylight film under artificial light and you get an artificial look to the film – it’s obvious.

    This simply precludes any other argument for alteration of the Zapruder film. All other issues are moot once this is grasped. And yet, these people I am discussing it with keep going, “but, but, what about the way Connally moves in these frames?” “What about the driver’s impossible head turn?” and “blablabla”… so you explain these things even though the issues are moot, and can have no bearing because the Z-film is proven to be the in-camera original!!!

    It makes me want to pull my hair out!!
    These are generally very smart people on that blog! But they cannot seem to keep that ground that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt under their feet.

    “Why did all the people in the limo lurch forward except Jackie and John?” It is simple, First of all John was wearing a stiff back-brace and the lurch forward made him fall further to the left as he was already leaning that way, it is obvious in the film. But Jackie had turned around and was braced as she was attempting to reach out to the trunk of the car. These things are obvious – IF you don’t have a bias that the Z-film “MUST HAVE BEEN ALTERED”.


  113. “Doug, it is my belief that the aggregate of your arguments do more to support authentication than they do to establish a realistic sequence of issues and events that would allow the purported alteration.”
    ~Rolland Zavata;
    Response to Douglas Horne – INSIDE THE ASSASSINATION RECORD REVIEW BOARD, Volume IV Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery (p1185 – p1377)

    Click to access RJZ-DH-032010.pdf


    • Rolland Zavada & Raymond Fielding v Jim Fetzer & Douglas Horne?

      Are you serious?

      Zavada and Fielding together represent the premier experts on cinematography, film, movie making machinery and special effects. Their combined knowledge and expertise in the field is equaled by none.

      While Fetzer and Horne are utterly ignorant of film photography in general, and especially so as special effects are concerned. Their positions are ludicrous and preposterous. I think this Alterationist hypothesis is a charade, a Kafkaesque burlesque – theater of the absurd.

      I don’t think Douglas Horne is stupid enough to buy this bullshit he is selling. He like Fetzer are rank charlatans.

  114. Hey Fetzer, how does your boy Healy feel about being characterized as “technically naive” by the dean of special effects cinematography, Raymond Fielding?

  115. The final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission’s own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco – and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report – is reported to have said, “The American people don’t read.”

    Now Douglas Horne is taking this quote to heart; that “The American people don’t read.”

    Horne is counting on it to pull off a hoax as sinister and elaborate as the Warren Commission report. Horne is counting on the general ignorance of special effects cinematography of his audience. He can likely rest assured that most people will not take the effort to read and understand the rebuttals to his nonsense by Rolland Zavada and Raymond Fielding, that utterly demolish his jejune assertions.

    And what will be the final effect of Horne’s elaborate hoax? It will be to extinguish the single most crucial visual evidence of the assassination of President Kennedy. That is quite a coup in favor of the killers.

    • As the Zapruder film is authentic, all of the points that are in apparent disagreement with the film are erroneous and irrelevant. There have to be misinterpretations. I have found many of these points are misinterpreted, or the product of disingenuous argumentation.

      Horne has so much invested in this now, that it is practically impossible for him to back down. Therefore he will simply dig himself deeper into the hole. This will besmirch the rest of his arguments, some of which deserve to be upheld. This is a rather tragic case of an author shooting himself in his own foot.

  116. forensic
    1. of, relating to, or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime.
    “forensic evidence” of or relating to courts of law.
    plural noun: forensics
    1. scientific tests or techniques used in connection with the detection of crime.

    Forensic science is the scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past which is then used in a court of law. The word forensic comes from the Latin forēnsis, meaning “of or before the forum.”
    1. Relating to, used in, or appropriate for courts of law or for public discussion or argumentation.
    2. Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.

  117. The excuse for no forensic photography of the JFK autopsy being made public was that ‘it would be in bad taste’ – “Discretion” is the larger part of deception. Treating adults like children.
    There’s no business like bullshit.

    In my opinion the Alterationists group is a psychological operation. This operation has all the resources of the state behind it. Fetzer is the key in this whole thing, and Horne is involved intimately with the whole thing. He has a background in Navy Intelligence.

    My suspicion is that this 35mm slide bought by Wilkerson was actually matted by this intelligence group themselves. I think they are going to be successful in duping the majority of the JFK research community through this sophisticated subterfuge.

    When this ‘Coup in Camelot’ is finally released they will have effectively eliminated the most vital visual evidence in the JFK case. A coup de grâce indeed.

    • What makes me so suspicious about this is, that all of the crap put out about visual effects by Fetzer and Horne’s so-called experts; Costella, White, Healy, et al, is so technically ignorant.
      That there is this sudden “break through” in a case that is replete with utter nonsense so far, is impossible to accept at face value.
      I have the strong feeling that all the hype surrounding this “proof” from a single frame is not conclusive. And if it is compelling technically, I think it is a product of fraud on the part of the Fetzer-Horne group.

      I think this whole project could simply be an attempt to make money on the DVD, and it is going to be another load of bullshit as far as Z-film is concerned.

  119. Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) by Douglas Horne:
    A Nearly-Entirely-Positive Review
    This is a Review of Volume IV, which includes
    Part II: Fraud in the Evidence—A Pattern of Deception (continued)
    Chapter 13: What Really Happened at the Bethesda Morgue?
    (and in Dealey Plaza)
    Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery.
    David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. = February 26, 2010

    Click to access HorneReview.pdf

    Douglas Horne graduated from the Ohio State University in 1974 with a B.A. in History, and served as a junior officer in the U.S. Navy for 10 years, followed by 10 more years with the Navy as a Civil Servant in an anti-sub marine warfare program.

    Horne worked on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in Washington, DC for the final 3 years of the Review Board’s 4-year lifespan, from August 1995 through September 1998. He was hired as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records Team, and was later promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records (i.e., the Head of the Military Records Team).

    • Is there something definitive in Horne’s background I can point to as proof of his being involve in Intelligence, other than a career in the US Navy? No, the proofs I point to are in the foreground, in the here and now; his obvious abilities at interrogation, his ability to lead a subjects emotions through subtle cues and suggestions. This is very sophisticated Neurolinguistic manipulation. The very same type of emotional manipulation that Obama proves himself a master at.

      So Horne, like Obama has his uninitiated audience over a barrel. The barrel of deep statism.
      . . . . . .
      “(1) The Boyajian Report dated 11/26/63, which records the arrival of JFK’s body at the Bethesda morgue 20 minutes prior to the Andrews AFB motorcade..”Horne

      This claim is hyperbole and utterly false. What Horne is speaking to is Boyajian’s report of receipt of a manifest for a shipping casket. One that Boyajian did not inspect personally, nor have any knowledge if it had any contents.
      To claim this was “the arrival of JFK’s body at the Bethesda morgue..” is patently dishonest.

  120. This clown Photon on JFKfacts, with his naive arrogant ignorance is astonishingly bizarre! But when he and Vanessa Loony get going in circles it becomes theater of the absurd. A yo-yo of stupidity.
    All I can say is WTF?

    • Hi Lilaleo, I went to Loman’s site and read some of Fetzers horseshit there. I made an attempt to post a comment but it seems that I am still banned there. Creighton seems to be bashing Fetzer well enough in his own way, wo WTF?


    Bill Clarke
    April 15, 2015 at 3:01 pm
    Willy Whitten
    April 15, 2015 at 8:32 am

    No matter what evidence is produced to support the known fact that John Kennedy was determined to pull the military out of Indochina, there is a contingent of alleged “experts” on ‘military history’ who have some scurrilous argument to apply against it.

    bc. That would be because what little evidence you have is this “Jack told me” crap. NSAM 263 and the White House tapes are hardly a “scurrilous” argument.

    We are NOT speaking to the narrow topic of “military history” here, we are speaking to the larger topic of history in general.

    bc. Nice diversionary attempt here Willy. What we ARE speaking to is you making a false statement about what NSAM 263 says. If you are going to reference NSAM 263 you should do so accurately. You don’t get to reference it and then plug in your own disinformation. Not and remain credible.

    Half truths are no less lies, and the full picture is not simply in the military record, although it has clues that if properly interpreted in light of the civilian history of this matter will show the Whole Truth.

    Last time I looked NSAM 263 was NOT a military record. Did you miss that?

    Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    April 15, 2015 at 4:50 pm
    “Last time I looked NSAM 263 was NOT a military record. Did you miss that?”
    ~Bill Clarke

    Oh dear, excuse me Bill, what was I thinking? You are absolutely right!
    NSAM 263 has nothing whatsoever to do with military history! It was a memo about catering services for banquets at the White House.

    I am going to point out one more time, with the graces of our moderators, that your characterizing those who disagree with your interpretation of NSAM 263 as “dishonest” is as insulting as any other form of ad hominem.
    It is scurrilous and a slur. I am sure that all who disagree with your interpretations would agree to that.

    Your argumentation such as the last comment about NSAM not being a “military record”, is a form of parsing language in a disingenuous manner. You seem to pretend here that “National Security” ie; “NS” in “NSAM”; in this instance referring to military affairs as “NOT a military record”, when in fact it would plainly be part of the military history of the Vietnam War.

    I think you are going to great lengths to win your argument, stretching it to the breaking point, with what I can only call insincere rhetoric.


    Bill Clarke
    April 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
    Willy Whitten
    April 15, 2015 at 9:26 am

    He was coordinating a coup d’etat, which was his specialty.

    “Some evidence please.”~Bill Clarke

    Are you seriously asserting that Landsdale was not a master at perpetrating coup d’etat?


    If so, his biography is clear enough on the matter.

    Or are you suggesting that it is not Landsdale in the photos from Dealey Plaza?
    If so, the pictures speak for themselves.

    Perhaps. But you have no evidence that he was there coordinating the coup d’etat.

    Can you handle this one for me? bc. I have heard Prouty make the claim but I have never heard Krulak make the claim. You have a reference for that?
    So here we have it. My comment in reply to Clarke’s last comment on April 15, 2015 at 4:50 pm, is still not published an hour and a half later – but Bill gets another shot at me.

    “Can you handle this one for me? bc. I have heard Prouty make the claim but I have never heard Krulak make the claim. You have a reference for that?”~Bill Clarke

    Yes, Prouty who was very close to Krulak quoted what Krulak had answered back, that he agreed it was Lansdale in Dealey Plaza. But as Bill says about anyone who he disagrees with, he says that Prouty is a liar. Just like Bill called me a liar. Bill Clarke’s arguments are founded on scurrilous rhetoric and ad hominem. That is how he settles any dispute made to him. And if JFKfacts won’t allow me to out Bill Clarke as a punk and a fraud on their site – by God I will do it here!

    Bill Clarke, You can kiss my ass.

  122. I may end up doing a whole page on THE MOON LANDING HOAX, but for now I will just put this here.
    It is my view that the idea that the landings were hoaxed is bullshit, and I have written on this before, but I might need to compile it all in one article eventually. It’s just not high on my list of important issues…

    Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, still alive and living in Iowa City, has dismissed these ideas. In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and just received a harmless dose. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the risk. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it. None have developed cancer or anything else related to radiation.

    An x-ray given by a dentist or in hospital is a much higher dose than in space as the source is close up.

    >James H. Fetzer – retired American philosophy professor and conspiracy theorist. On May 2, 2013, Dr. Fetzer was interviewed by Dr. Sterling Harwood. Fetzer defended his conspiracist views that all six lunar landings were hoaxes.[25] Fetzer never met a “conspiracy” he didn’t like, or didn’t think he could make money from.

    >Jack D. White (1927–2012) – was an American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos and the Zapruder film related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[53][54][55][56]

  123. James Hufferd: Ego Hurt Old Twat

    old faggot

    James Hufferd attempts to provoke me on every T&S thread he attends, which are only few and far between actually. But every time this spermbank has shown up he spews showers of septic jiss my way. And this is brought on by a bruised ego, having had his ass kicked by yours truly every time he comes on challenging me over some contrived bullshit.This is similar to the problem that Max Bridges suffered from.

    Hufferd often limps in on his disingenuous crutches, as I have kicked in his proverbial kneecaps on numerous occasions in arguments here. His ego demands vengeance, but his paltry vapid attempts to attain it leave him only more pathetic and wounded.
    His claims that I am “bulling” the witness is spurious twaddle. All I have done is to demand a straight answer from someone who has evaded the question time and again using rhetorical spinning bullshit.

    Also Huffered uses the same excuse to get his torch lit as Bridges used to use, coming to the defense of a blatant shill. The shill in this instant is one, Jens Schmidt. So this chronicle begins with a comment on Schmidt:

    Jens is obviously playing a disingenuous game on T&S. Is hiding his true motivations and has attempted to corrupt two issues that are clearly resolved on the 9/11 issue; first it was his flaky attempt to assert that free-fall has not been established in the demise of WTC7. Then this second issue with the Pentagon using his preposterous argumentum verbosity to try to squirm out of answering a clear and simple question as per the downing of the light poles at the Pentagon.

    [I always took Hufferd for a dissembling little prick, and he proved that today in spades on T&S]:

    October 8, 2015 at 11:41 am
    Jens Schmidt,

    Let’s be upfront with the forum here, alright? Are you of the opinion that an aircraft wing actually hit those light poles? Not that the physics may be possible, because they certainly are, but because you think an airplane was actually in the position to strike them.

    Jens Schmidt
    October 8, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    I replied to a discussion of he physics of a hypothetical wing-hits-pole scenario. Adam Ruff wrote:

    “So how can the car and its engine be cut in half and thrown over 100 feet while the light poles simply fell over gently and came to rest only a few feet from the base. I contend that the physics DO NOT add up to impact with the light poles and on that grounds alone we can seperately prove the poles were staged” and “One of the poles fell backward for God’s sake how in the hell could that happen after being hit by a wing at 540 mph?”

    I merely alerted you to a plausible reason WITHIN that hypothesis why the poles wouldn’t fall far from their base (and if you do the baseball-bat-hits-rod experiment a few times, you will probably find that there will be cases when the rod falls backward). You didn’t ask Adam Ruff if he actually believes that an aircraft wing actually hit those light poles, did you?

    There are good arguments and there are bad arguments, and there are okay arguments with some flaws and holes in them. I prefer good arguments, and claim the right to point to flaws in not-so-good arguments.”

    October 8, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Argumentum verbosium is for children.

    I ask you directly now: Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?

    Jens Schmidt
    October 8, 2015 at 12:44 pm
    “Argumentum verbosium is for children.”
    I looked up “Argumentum verbosium” on Wiki because I had not seen that phrase before. Wiki redirects to “Proof by intimidation”. Which reminds me of one of the uses of “Moving the goalposts”:
    “In workplace bullying, shifting the goalposts is a conventional tactic in the process of humiliation.”
    That’s for adults, but it ain’t nice.

    I protest the moving of both lightpoles and goalposts ;)”

    October 8, 2015 at 12:53 pm
    Jens Schmidt,

    I do not doubt that you are ignorant of the classical rules of formal argumentation. However, you should be aware that it is totally transparent that you continue to dodge a direct question put to you by continuing to babble off in another direction.

    I will give you that question again: Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?

    Jens Schmidt
    October 8, 2015 at 1:00 pm
    “I do not doubt that you are ignorant of the classical rules of formal argumentation.”
    How rude. And how wrong.

    “However, you should be aware that it is totally transparent that you continue to dodge a direct question put to you”
    You might as well ask me directly if I accept Jesus as my personal saviour, that would be precisely as relevant to the debate I am in.

    “by continuing to babble off in another direction.”
    No, Sir, it is YOU who is trying to push the debate off in another direction.
    The direction it was going was a hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall?”. It wasn’t I who started going in that direction, so don’t blame ME for going there!

    October 8, 2015 at 1:07 pm
    “You might as well ask me directly if I accept Jesus as my personal saviour, that would be precisely as relevant to the debate I am in.”~Jens Schmidt

    This is another transparent avoidance of answering a direct question put to you. Continuing to duck and dodge this question is not going to go well for you. This is the third time you have avoided the question.

    Are you going to answer this or not?
    Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?

    Jens Schmidt
    October 8, 2015 at 1:25 pm
    “Are you going to answer this or not? Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?”

    No, obviously I am not going to answer the question as it is plainly irrelevant in context. I’ll answer it as soon as it is relevant to a topic I am debating.”

    October 8, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    The topic we are addressing is the Pentagon event, THAT is the context of the question being put to you. You have waffled here for the last time.
    You plainly refuse to answer a simple and direct question on the flimsiest and most disingenuous grounds.

    You are playing the role of an “Artful Dodger” and you are playing it quite badly.
    I think this much is apparent to the readers of this thread.
    You have struck out.

    hybridrogue1 October 8, 2015 at 8:06 pm Edit
    This argument on T&S with Jens Schmidt has gone on to absurd proportions; now the infamous James Hufferd has butted in with his scurrilous bullshit in attempt to pull Schmidt’s ass out of the fire:

    James Hufferd
    October 8, 2015 at 3:13 pm
    “Why don’t you accept his statement – No, Sir, it is YOU who is trying to push the debate off in another direction. The direction it was a hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall?” It wasn’t I who started going in that direction, so don’t blame ME for going there. Why insist on diverting away into that, Willy? That’s what he’s asking you. Why try to get him to self-incriminate, or pull some such trap? Your hostility is baffling.”

    October 8, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    “Why don’t you accept his statement – No, Sir, it is YOU who is trying to push the debate off in another direction. The direction it was a hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall?””~Hufferd

    Because the matter goes beyond the hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall” And falls into the context of the ACTUAL EVENT at the Pentagon.
    We are no longer confronting this scurrilous “hypothetical” — we are discussing the actual event. My question is framed as per the actual event, and Schmidt is evading that question, which still remains:

    Schmidt: Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?

    Until Schmidt answers this simple question he is evading and disassembling — And YOU Hufferd are have joined in on the disassembling. You are purposely provoking me and by doing so distracting from the clear and obvious fact the Schmidt is evading the question.

    Now; It is perfectly obvious why Jens Schmidt refuses to answer this question. Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11. This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentagon due to its trajectory. That being a flight course coming from the west, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, then over the Navy Annex and continuing to fly to the north side of the Citgo station and on towards the Pentagon.

    This trajectory in incompatible with the directional damage to the Pentagon, and it is impossible that the plane could have hit the light poles on such a vector.
    That would be Schmidt’s dilemma were he/she to suggest it is possible for the Pentagon plane to have downed the light poles.

    Schmidt can easily resolve this question by admitting that it would be impossible for that plane to have hit those light poles. The ball remains in his/her court.

    October 8, 2015 at 5:21 pm
    So Hufferd, Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?

    James Hufferd
    October 8, 2015 at 5:24 pm
    “Anything’s possible. Likely? No.”

    October 8, 2015 at 5:28 pm
    “Anything’s possible.”~Hufferd

    Not so, not in this instance. It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.

    James Hufferd
    October 8, 2015 at 5:49 pm
    “Could be. But most of us aren’t concentrated Pentagon researchers and it’s one point out of hundreds in the whole 9/11 scenario. I find other, unrelated Pentagon evidence paramount and convincing than no airliner stuck the building.”

    October 8, 2015 at 6:55 pm
    That is the same position that Candler and Cole hold Hufferd.

    Thank you for finally admitting it.

    There is no “Could be” about it. It is impossible for the Pentagon aircraft to have stuck the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is what this whole article and thread has been about. So as far as I’m concerned you are firmly in the same ranks as the Chandler-Cole contingent, and you have just confirmed that in this little disingenuous spat you yourself insisted on maintaining.
    Insight on the stooge:
    Given Name JENS. GENDER: Masculine. USAGE: Danish, Swedish


    • Frankly I do not have any big problems with James Hufferd’s views on 9/11. What I have is a huge problem with his persistent taunting and provoking me on T&S. It never fails if he shows up there, it is inevitable he will start nipping at me. It will usually begin subtly, as this example shows:

      I said:
      October 6, 2015 at 3:24 pm
      They should have taken the advice to “send it through the shredder”!

      James Hufferd replies:
      October 6, 2015 at 4:24 pm
      “Or the spreader!”

      . . . . . . . .
      This comment by Hufferd makes no sense. But it is not meant to. It is his signal to me that he is gearing up to find a reason to start fucking with me. Which came soon enough when he arrogantly butted in on my argument with the shill, Jens Schmidt. It was full guns blazing from that moment on.

      Why? What possible motivation could Hufferd have? Pure arrogance. He considers himself a “9/11 Truth LEADER“. An authority to be reckoned with by the rabble of the average 9/11 researcher. He feels it is his position to rebuke any who are “insubordinate” to his rank, to his “natural authority” as a 9/11 Leader.
      Hufferd is a huffed up huffing & puffing arrogant fool. He is a twat and a nannyboy. So fuck him.

      • hybridrogue1 — October 9, 2015 at 1:40 pm
        So-called “cynicism” is just a practical point of view that recognizes “hope” as mere wishful thinking.

        James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 1:43 pm
        So-called “cynicism” is just a practical point of view that recognizes “hope” as mere wishful thinking. “So, then, are faith and charity out, too?”Hufferd
        Hufferd poses a question proposing a non sequitur as a supposition. Hufferd is posing as an “intellectual”. and yet cannot think beyond the jejune level of a 5th grader.


      • 5 Infractions:
        1. > James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 9:06 am
        “How is it obvious?”
        . . . . . .
        2.> James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 1:43 pm
        So-called “cynicism” is just a practical point of view that recognizes “hope” as mere wishful thinking. “So, then, are faith and charity out, too?”
        . . . . . .
        3.> James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 8:14 pm
        “I thought you agreed with Craig’s request to be done with your taunting. You apparently have the memory span of a gnat.”
        . . . . . .
        4.> James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 8:29 pm
        “Tin-horn corn-pone Torquemada!”
        . . . . . .
        5.> James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    • NOW. The next time Hufferd starts getting that tickling itch in his asshole to start taunting and provoking me on T&S, perhaps he will recall this humiliating public illumination of his blazing stupidity in doing so.

      He might also consider how easy it would be for him to offer a public apology on T&S, with a vow to never to provoke me in such a manner again. And I will consider how easy it would be to make these comments disappear from this page… it would be as easy as the flick of a switch.

  124. Morgan Reynolds 9/11 Mole & Charlatan

    Fox TV selects Bush II administration veteran Morgan Reynolds as representative of the 9/11 truth movement despite (or because of) his promotion of “no planes anywhere” nonsense.

    The media generally ignored the 9/11 “truth” movement until a few months before the 2004 election, when the movement began to get traction. Now they love to focus on the “truth” movement — as long as they can promote the “no planes” claims, stress “Fake Video” “DEW” “Nukes at WTC” and “Hologram” theories as the key to the conspiracy theories and promote the most absurd nonsense as representative of the best evidence from the skeptics. The media do not dare mention the Complete 9/11 Timeline (since it’s a compilation of over 1,000 mainstream media articles that prove that the attacks were not a surprise) or CIT”s proof that an aircraft did not strike the Pentagon happened, or that nanothermates in the WTC dust has been proven will be totally ignored by mainstream media.

    Any claim of complicity that avoids the NORAD and National Reconnaissance Office war games is not looking at the best evidence.

    Any effort to defend the official story that ignores the 9/11 war games and deliberate obstruction of efforts before 9/11 to prevent the attacks is a narrow effort to avoid best evidence of complicity.


    • BANNED FROM TRUTH & SHADOWS — January 2, 2016

      January 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm
      Well as you see Craig, well enough will not be left alone. I understand that Ken Doc and his oinkers are dishonest shills, And I know you have never condoned some of the nutty concepts that they have accused you of. BUT you have given solace even yet this very day to someone who does promote screwball junk science and absurd theories.

      This “no-planes” at the WTC has been shot down as absolute nonsense by all with any grasp of Newtonian physics. “Projected Holograms” are simply impossible in principle. And the other issues in dispute are equally unscientific twaddle.

      And now as we see with the latest post here (January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm), we are no longer confined to the issues on Ken Doc and his nonsense, but are treated to an onslaught of absolute bullshit about the the towers not being hit by real aircraft. So we end up with junk science again:
      The “No-planes at WTC”, attended by the same crap pseudoscience that has come from this charlatan for years now.

      If you won’t at least make it clear that you don’t agree with this nonsense, how can you complain when someone accuses you of promoting it. You don’t have to censor the party spouting this bullshit, but you can make your position on the matter clear; that you allow all points of view here, but do not necessarily condone those points of view.


    • “I am interested in the answers to those questions also. I think it’s pointless to talk about in-fighting unless you break it down more than that. Does it mean don’t say anything that might prompt an argument? Don’t criticize anyone because they’ll react and then we have a fight?”~Craig McKee

      Of course Craig cannot see his own hypocrisy in saying that! Astonishing!

    • “You know, I was prepared for an onslaught of hostility from the subjects of this post and their supporters. But it turns out that most of the opposition has come from other supposedly “friendly” sources.”~McKee

      Hmmm..You might think he would catch a clue there!

      And if you happen to read these words here Craig, what to you expect after silencing me on T&S?

  125. James Henry Fetzer
    January 2, 2016 at 4:51 pm
    Craig, You should not give him ANY of these snide and disgraceful ad hominem comments. *If you want to foster respect, you have to ENFORCE IT. He ought to be banned for life; but for now, I would recommend that you simply delete his remark, which was clearly intended to distract attention from the abundant and compelling proof I have advanced that what Mike Collins and Ken Doc are peddling is not only false but provably false and, indeed, in relation to the Pentagon and the “hits” on the Twin Towers, not even scientifically possible. This guy has a designated role to attack and distract anything I post here lest others follow up and discover truths that he and others, such as Collins and Doc, would prefer that the public never know.

    *Fetzer is of course speaking to Craig about me there.

    “What I will not put up with any more is someone posting a comment publicly demanding that I discipline another commenter or ban them or delete a particular comment. No more.”~Craig McKee

    You will find I never demanded that Fetzer be banned, not even disciplined. All I wanted was the right to confront Fetzer for being the arrogant lying son-of-a-bitch that he is.

  126. “Using ground-air communications, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also established that Flight 11 was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was detected over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had officially hit the South Tower are proof of video fakery and support “no planes” theory, which is the conjunction of the four claims:”~Jim Fetzer

    This is the kind of bullshit that Ken Doc can turn around and say with honesty the Craig supports, whether Craig has said these things or not – because Craig allows this nonsense to be spewed on his blog without comment, or allowing Fetzer to be confronted.

    It is naive that Craig should be in anyway surprised that some rhetorical spinmeister like Ken Doc can point to such Fetzerian bullshit posted on T&S and give Craig credit for the statements. If Craig isn’t going to criticize Fetzer for his nonsense, then he is responsible for allowing it on his site. ESPECIALLY when Craig won’t allow others to criticize Fetzer for his bullshit.

    • hybridrogue1
      January 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm
      Well as you see Craig, well enough will not be left alone. I understand that Ken Doc and his oinkers are dishonest shills, And I know you have never condoned some of the nutty concepts that they have accused you of. BUT you have given solace even yet this very day to someone who does promote screwball junk science and absurd theories.

      This “no-planes” at the WTC has been shot down as absolute nonsense by all with any grasp of Newtonian physics. “Projected Holograms” are simply impossible in principle. And the other issues in dispute are equally unscientific twaddle.

      And now as we see with the latest post here (January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm), we are no longer confined to the issues on Ken Doc and his nonsense, but are treated to an onslaught of absolute bullshit about the the towers not being hit by real aircraft. So we end up with junk science again:
      The “No-planes at WTC”, attended by the same crap pseudoscience that has come from this charlatan for years now.

      If you won’t at least make it clear that you don’t agree with this nonsense, how can you complain when someone accuses you of promoting it. You don’t have to censor the party spouting this bullshit, but you can make your position on the matter clear; that you allow all points of view here, but do not necessarily condone those points of view.

      Craig McKee
      January 2, 2016 at 6:21 pm
      “I am composing a response to your comment. Please stop commenting until I have posted it!”
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

      And so it has been all night long and Craig never posted a response addressing my points; instead he put all of my commentary into moderation and went off on me with this:

      Craig McKee
      January 2, 2016 at 7:22 pm



  127. Craig still won’t put a lid on this motherfucker Uncle Fetzer!

    He has essentially banned me, and now will do nothing about this charlatan Fetzer, regardless of how off topic, or tending toward the issues that Ken Doc was hoisting upon Craig.

    By giving Fetzer a platform to spout these bogus theories, Craig is playing right into the hands of Ken Doc. Ken Doc has every right to assume that Craig agrees with this nonsense, seeing he has gone out of his way to protect Fetzer the promoter of these ideas.

    As an outsider what conclusion would you come to?

    Craig STILL has not stood up and denounced “No-planes at WTC”, “Video Fakery”, “Nukes at WTC”, “Projected Holograms”.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    James Henry Fetzer
    January 3, 2016 at 10:26 am
    “Not so fast, Ruffadam. When you insinuate that comments of mine are false or misleading, you are implying that I may fall to the same category as Ken Doc or Mike Collins. You have to be specific. I deny that anything I have written in any of my posts here qualifies either as false or as misleading. On the contrary, unless you can substantiate these claims, your own comment here would seem to fall into that category. Tell me precisely what have I said that qualifies as either? I cannot be responsible for your ignorance of the evidence that substantiates mini or micro nukes, but that most certainly does not make my defense of their having been used false or misleading.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    As far as I’m concerned, Craig has lost his bearings and sense of judgement. I sure as hell am not going to apologize to him for anything I said to him or Fetzer.

    At this point if McKee wants to ban me then fuck him, I don’t give a shit.
    I have had enough of his tepid wishy-washy bullshit.


  128. Kim McLaughlin
    January 3, 2016 at 12:42 pm
    “Craig, I am sorry that you think me defending Ken is ridiculous. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on that. I have never seen, heard, etc, Ken lump you personally into supporting Space Beams, etc, so honestly I am not sure what all of that is about? I have never seen you support Space Beam and Holograms. My understand of your disagreements on the truth page have always been the Pentagon and Mike Collins. I will let Ken speak for himself on what he thinks… So again, you are saying my only choice is to change Ken and other admins minds or walk away from the truth movement. You write “So if anyone had done the right thing then, this post would never have happened.” Craig, you have no idea what I have or have not done… Instead of walking away, I chose to block certain people. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if you would have also blocked Mike. You say “Do you remember me passing along a note to you telling all the admins that Mike was routinely posting lies about what I believe?” Yes, I remember that, if you would have blocked him none of that would be an issue. You write “I don’t give a shit about Ken or Mike or Joe or Cal or anyone who spews ignorance,” If that’s true Craig, why do you keep writing about it? I used to be a huge supporter of your articles. Sorry, I don’t support this, and I stand behind everything I have said about it.. If your articles go back to focusing on things that help this movement, I will support those. You keep this fight alive though, and by doing so, in my opinion, you are damaging your credibility…”

    I agree with Kim here, whom I have never encountered, or know at all. But she makes all the sense in the world in her commentary there. Craig has really lost his bearings, he has gone ballistic over trifling matters and spent an inordinate amount of effort and words pumping it up into a giant blimp of utter bullshit.

    I emailed Craig what is essentially my resignation from Truth & Shadows just a few minutes ago. Craig and his remaining crew can go their own way. I have had enough of this namby-pamby horseshit.
    I want nothing more to do with a site that gives credence to Jim Fetzer, one of the most obvious shysters in the so-called “Truth Movement”.


  129. Craig McKee
    January 3, 2016 at 1:42 pm
    “Thank you so much for that support, Michael. I could use it about now.

    It’s interesting to me that the most obnoxious and ignorant comments to me since I posted this – both public and private – are from people I thought were fair and reasonable. These aren’t the people I thought would be this way.”

    Hahahaha!! Yea, that’s it “obnoxious and ignorant “. Sure Craig, everybody else has changed, and turned against you out of the clear blue sky. You have flipped out and are in denial now, and to you it’s everybody else’s fault. It’s your hubris McKee, simple and obvious ego borne arrogance.

  130. You can “rest your case” on your own blog now McKee. You don’t have posting privileges here anymore.

  131. Kim McLaughlin
    January 3, 2016 at 2:26 pm
    Let me tell you in my own words why I have decided to stay on as an admin . I decided to stay because myself and several other admins are grown up enough to agree to disagree on several issues.. Does it sometimes drive me crazy, burn me out, etc? Yes, absolutely 100%! Sometimes I get so mad that I let my finger sit over the “leave group” button.. The other night, when Adam sent me your article, and I got to read it all again.. It brought up all my disdain for certain people and their actions. Congratulations Craig, your article accomplished what you wanted it to. I mean, after reading it, I was so angry I seriously contemplated leaving… Then I woke up and realized, certain people just aren’t worth it. The “Truth” in whatever way I can be apart of it, means more to me then the opinion of some smart mouth kid. You apparently don’t want to, or can’t let his opinion go. You can justify it by saying you are “defending the truth” and you may convince some. I say BS Craig! Clearly you’re mission is to divide people on that page and within the movement. YOU keep the most ridiculous fights going. I support Ken and the other admins decision of not letting certain information on the truth page. And from sources close to you, it’s my understanding that you really don’t want certain “theories” associated with yourself either but, because you dislike censorship so much you allow it. If that’s true, that is your choice… What you can’t seem to accept is that Ken and other admins refuse to allow it, period.. To bad for you Ken chooses to run his page differently than you would or agree with.. All of this because of that? Really? Cry me a river, this is so beyond hypocritical it’s almost funny!!. Instead of being the bigger man you pretend to be, you continuously rehash this crap! How does copying and pasting his ridiculous comments and giving them more attention, help you? Or the Truth Movement for that matter? Explain to me how you rehashing this over and over is helping? Are you really that thin skinned of a writer?



  132. James Henry Fetzer
    January 3, 2016 at 3:08 pm
    Kim, I don’t know you from Adam, but I find your attacks on Craig for objecting to a mountain of false claims being deliberately disseminated from a site that you defend to be indefensible. Why in the world–when Craig has so meticulously documented the false allegations against him–would you want to defend that practice? I reaffirm my invitation to Mike Collins and Ken Doc to come on my show and debate 9/11 (planes/no planes, the Pentagon and anything else), what happened at Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, even the Holocaust and the Moon hoax. I have published and done shows on all of them and more. For the video program archive, see https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3 For the audio, go to radiofetzer.blogspot.com. Take me on, if you like; but Craig McKee does not deserve this.

    Kim McLaughlin
    January 3, 2016 at 3:16 pm
    Mr. Fetzer, as an admin on the Truth Page I really only have one thing to say to you. Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here!
    . . . . .
    Hahaha!! This is hilarious! Now Craig’s new “celebrity” pal, Fetzer rides to his defense like a knight in shining armor. This is like something out of Kafka!

  133. “Kim, I really don’t want to fight with you because you seem to be in the middle of some kind of emotion meltdown that is clouding your reason. But you’re saying some very ridiculous and untrue things.”McKee
    . . . . .

    There we have it, full blown projection from Craig McKee, who in fact is the one in the middle of some kind of emotion meltdown that is clouding his reason!
    Craig’s major flaw has always been his illiteracy in science. That is why he countenanced Maxifuck for years. Now he has Fetzer as his new “Celebrity Champion” … it’s like a scene out of ENDGAME by Samuel Beckett.

    Good Gawd y’all..!!!


  134. “Jim Fetzer’s detailing of the no planes evidence on this post is probably one – not because I disagree with his view, but because it was off topic.”~Craig McKee

    Well, there we have it; ‘not because he disagrees with the no planes evidence’…

    • I am letting this one stay visible and published Craig. Because you have finally made it crystal clear. No you have NOT made it that clear before anywhere that I have read it.
      I apologize for not ‘remembering’ if I should have. But as far as “knowing full well what you meant” when I wrote that — not so Craig, simply not so.

      As far as Fetzer, I refuse to keep my mouth shut when he spouts his bullshit. it doesn’t matter who’s yard we are playing in at the time. That’s just the way I am. We have different sensibilities on what we can put up with. It is time I go my way since you don’t understand that.

      Fare thee well Craig…


    • I just have one more question Craig. Is there some reason you won’t make this clarification more publicly by restating it on the current thread there? Is the fact that Fetzer is there supporting you keep you from saying anything that might bring on his displeasure?

  135. This is one of the things allowed to be posted on the thread, even after all that has come down. No one will dare answer or confront this known disinfo agent. I would have, if still allowed to comment there. But confronting Fetzer is verboten on T&S for whatever mysterious reason.

    Anyone who does not grasp that Fetzer is a mole and a disinfo agent needs to review the beginning of this page – and pay close attention:

    James Henry Fetzer
    January 3, 2016 at 6:10 pm
    “And what, precisely, is supposed to qualify me as a “know disinfo agent in this movement”? Because I offer scientific explanations for events that are otherwise inexplicable, but which they apparent do not understand or want to obfuscate? and that makes ME “a disinfo op”?”
    . . . . . . .

  136. In a way, I find it ironic that I ended up being banned from Truth & Shadows during this recent fiasco on the Ken Doc thread. I don’t blame Craig for his frustrations there, but I do think he over reacted and was heavy handed with me precisely because I have been such a constant supporter, and “should have” supported Craig in his hour of troubles.

    But I cannot, will not, never ever stand silent in the face of Uncle Fetzer’s scurrilous bullshit. It is a matter of principle to me. Fetzer is a charlatan needing to be exposed and outed anytime and anywhere he surfaces.

  137. I can’t believe you say: “But confronting Fetzer is verboten on T&S for whatever mysterious reason.” You know that is not the case. I simply asked you not to call names in unspecific comments about him because it achieves nothing except starting a fight. Is that too much to ask?

    You have posted thousands and thousands of comments at Truth and Shadows over the years, and I have given you great leeway. I let you and Fetzer argue for more than 500 comments on one post alone. I would not do that again. There are a lot of things that I wouldn’t do again. But every decision I made was sincere even if sometimes off the mark.

    Anyway, if you want to keep saying false things and sounding like a more articulate version of Mike Collins, then go right ahead. In fact, I know a Facebook forum you might enjoy… Sorry, couldn’t resist. On the bright side, you can call Fetzer all the names you want now – full time!

    • ” can’t believe you say: “But confronting Fetzer is verboten on T&S for whatever mysterious reason.” You know that is not the case. I simply asked you not to call names in unspecific comments about him because ~Craig McKee

      Let me be perfectly clear here; I was talking about the current situation on the thread about Ken Doc. I do not see why you don’t get this. Context is important in understanding the situation; I have never denied that I was allowed to confront Fetzer previously.

      Secondly on the issue of “calling names”; I have never called Fetzer any name that does not describe exactly what he is, a mole, a charlatan, and an agent of cognitive dissonance. After all this time it is simply incredible that you do not see this Craig! Fetzer is far more dangerous than some small time clown like Ken Doc. Fetzer has duped hundreds of thousands of people with his nonsense. It is clearly nonsense. You yourself admit it is nonsense. So…what? Do you actually believe that Fetzer is merely MISTAKEN???
      Seriously? That is simply naïve.

      So Craig, is calling you naïve an empty slur? Do you really think I say that in meanness simply to insult you? After all of these years Craig? That is an incredible position to take.

      Addressing the second part of this sentence; let me remind you of something you said on the very thread we are discussing:

      “Does it mean don’t say anything that might prompt an argument? Don’t criticize anyone because they’ll react and then we have a fight?”~Craig McKee
      In combination now: “it achieves nothing except starting a fight. Is that too much to ask?”

      Yes by God it IS!

      I have addressed your middle paragraph already in my remarks above. I will not address your third and final paragraph, as you yourself must know it you only said it to be hurtful. I have not said any “false things”. I admit I have taunted you, trying to get you to see that Fetzer is playing you for a fool. I have tried to get you to explicitly denounce the crazy “theories” he is spewing – denounce IN REAL TIME, while it counted, during the current debate there – no matter how many times you have said that you “disagree” with various things I felt you needed to be FIRM and outspoken beyond “the call of duty” so that even the most dense reader could not mistake what you think.

      Finally, I must repeat again; I do not have a problem with anything you believe about 9/11 Craig. My whole problem is the way you handle Jim Fetzer with kid gloves. I simply don’t get it. I haven’t been able to understand this for a long time – I still do not understand it.

      So again I ask: Do you actually believe that Fetzer is merely MISTAKEN?

      This is the thought I want to leave you with here Mr McKee. Because this is something that you are going to have to figure out sooner or later:

      Is Fetzer a genuine seeker of Truth, and he is simply mistaken in his views?


      • Here is an exchange on the Ken Doc page that illustrates what I am talking about:
        . . . . . . . . .
        Kim McLaughlin
        January 3, 2016 at 3:16 pm
        Mr. Fetzer, as an admin on the Truth Page I really only have one thing to say to you. Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here!

        James Henry Fetzer
        January 3, 2016 at 3:20 pm
        That’s the kind of reply I would expect from a troll or a shill: an ad hominem with nothing to back it up. You cannot show that I have anything wrong, so you don’t even make the effort. I think we can see why you belong with Ken Doc and Mike Collins. Something about “birds of a feather”.

        Craig McKee
        January 3, 2016 at 3:35 pm1
        I am going to leave this comment up because Jim has already responded to it in a fair way. But it is a bullshit comment that adds nothing of value.
        . . . . . . . . . .

        REALLY Craig? You claim Jim responded in a fair way? He called Kim a “troll” and a “shill” and claimed she was using “ad hominem” — that is “fair” in your view? You know how utterly incredible I find such things.
        You get pissed at me for defending Kim McLaughlin from Fetzer’s defaming bullshit, and take it to mean that I am insulting you!

        This is how mixed up it becomes when you do not recognize an agent of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ in action. You are duped by Fetzer and lash out at both Ms McLaughlin, and me for defending her! That is the very Divide and Conquer technique of cognitive infiltration that Fetzer is a master at- AND YOU FALL FOR IT!

        And I know that you take these remarks as further “attacks” on you!!!

        Craig, it is bloody nonsense! Both Adam Ruff and myself have attempted to warn you about Fetzer. Why oh why can you not get it? It just breaks my heart to watch this.

  138. Craig,

    I have changed my mind. You can comment here if you wish. I am not going to simply act out of spite. Just remember I will answer anything you say frankly, and will hold nothing back.

  139. After reviewing the row on Truth & Shadows about Ken Doc, I come back to my first impression and thoughts on the story.
    Frankly Ken Doc isn’t worth the ink it would take to print out Craig’s article. He is a nothing, a nobody when it comes to the totality of things 9/11.

    What did Craig accomplish with this article besides some temporary ego gratification? What were the costs of this article? For one thing Craig promoted the name of someone I certainly never heard of, Ken Doc… who? My first thought was and remains, who the fuck is Ken Doc and why should I care? Well now we know who Ken Doc is don’t we?…some punk on a Facebook forum spouting bullshit about Mr McKee, and who knows or cares what else.

    So now EVERYBODY that reads Truth and Shadows knows the name of Ken Doc.

    A Hollywood agent once remarked “Publicity is what counts, it doesn’t matter whether it is good publicity or bad publicity”; publicity makes for notoriety or celebrity, and little divides the two forms of being famous.

    So now because of Craig’s clever PR he has inadvertently made Ken Doc a person of substance. A substance he did not have prior to Craig’s article on T&S.

    Are there other consequences? Perhaps ones that will last far beyond the temporary gratification Craig feels today? I can name one that I think will haunt Craig for a long time to come: His coddling of Jim Fetzer during the first day and a half of commentary. Fetzer is like a South American Poison Dart Frog. You handle it, you die. Whether Craig agrees with anything Fetzer says or not, Craig now carries the stench of Fetzer attached to his name and the blog Truth and Shadows, that has hosted this vile pretender and lying agent of cognitive infiltration.

    Craig has also lost a true friend in tossing me. He may never come to realize it. I was attempting to get Craig to see beyond the moment, to think of what seeds he may be sowing that might come back to haunt him. My efforts may have been clumsy, but I held and hold no contempt for Mr McKee. Was I mad at him for sending me to the cooler? Yes enraged, and I am still sore from that. But those bruises with fade and are already. I fear the wounds Craig has suffered will fester with time and become a heavier burden than now.

    As there seems nothing further I can do about the situation as it has panned out, I will try to move on and put it behind me. I wish Craig the best of luck! I hope he and Truth & Shadows flourish in the coming new year.

    Peace, Willy Whitten

    • This is the original Facebook page attacking Mr Mckee:

      It is indeed squattle and rhetorical bullshit, to frame Craig in such a manner. But I will tell you what: I would never have laid eyes on this junk by KenDoc had it not been promoted on T&S.
      The purported numbers for the Facebook are impressive, but I think deceptive, in that most readers are likely part time facebook dumbfucks who join facebook as a “party-place” — these are NOT serious people for the most part.

      However this “conclusion” of KenDoc is indeed utter tripe:

      “Either Craig McKee is not a very good researcher or he is a plant in this movement trying to divide and conquer it. Does Craig McKee want to be the next James Fetzer of disinfo? Because all Craig does is attack real information and promotes false theories. Last point, make sure you believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon, otherwise, Craig’s next blog might be about you! Craig McKee is a Troll and he runs a conspiracy site known as Truth and Shadows.”~KenDoc

      The truth of the matter is that Craig runs an open forum addressing many points of view, he doesn’t necessarily condone the point of view of the theories or personalities he profiles on his blog. he allows and extraordinary span of freedom of speech, and is one of the most fair of any moderators I have ever Encountered. I fully support Mr McKee in his efforts to provide the movement with timely reviews of various points of view that are swirling out there in the digital domain.

      The recent conflict between Craig and I have not changed my overall favorable view of Craig McKee or his website Truth & Shadows. Our disagreements are complex and subtle, and as noted earlier are mainly to do with Jim Fetzer, who is one of the most dangerous agents of disruption on the Internet today, with far more influence than any small time punk like Ken Doc will ever have.

      Still I do not advise the banning of Fetzer from the site. I only advise very public distancing from him by Craig anytime Fetzer ends up commenting on Truth & Shadows.

      Ken Doc is a flash in the pan. Jim Fetzer is an ever present danger to truth on the Internet.
      See: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/

    • James Henry Fetzer
      January 4, 2016 at 4:21 pm
      “This is bad–a form of “political correctness” applied to 9/11 research. If we don’t call out the rats among us, we will never be free of them. They will continue to pollute and obfuscate the truths we have established.”~Says the King Rat Fetzer!

      Fetzer’s sheep dip wore off long ago, the only people he is fooling are the dumbfucks that don’t know science or engineering.

      “Il est encore plus facile de juger de l’esprit d’un homme par ses questions que par ses réponses.”~Voltaire

      • Paul Zarembka — January 5, 2016 at 8:42 pm

        “Jim Fetzer claims that no 9-11 planes took off from their respective airports and he then claims that Rebekah Roth’s novel is designed to resurrect (from what/who?) that those planes did take off. When I have heard his recent commentary on Roth, he has always used the occasion to push his assertion, almost word for word. However, his claim fails to be even on thin ice.

        Fetzer asserts that AA 11 and AA 77 were not even scheduled to take off on 9-11-2001. This claim is based on nothing more than that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data did not initially include those two flights (until November 2003). Omission of government data is not proof. I did prove that the planes were there at the airports before takeoff (“The Hidden History of 9-11”, p. 53, last paragraph in box). And we have plenty of obituaries/biographies for persons on those flights, e.g., http://pentagonmemorial.org/explore/biographies (which is not to say where the flights ended up). I have never read a single report of any family member or close friend denying these persons’ deaths.

        Fetzer’s claim about UA 175 and UA 93 is undermined within his own argumentation. He claims that http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Inquiry.aspx shows that both of these planes’ registrations were not canceled until much later (9/28/2005 for both, corresponding to tail numbers N612UA and N591UA). These late deregistrations correlate positively, however, to his use of Pilots for 9/11 Truth: UA 175 was over Pennsylvania 20 minutes after the claim to collide into the WTC south tower. UA 93 was over Urbana/Champagne, IL some 500 miles west of the claim to its crash in Shanksville, PA. In other words, these flights were in the air.


        Incidental Note: Some have looked at the Social Security Death Index and found unlisted many names of persons on the four flights. They should understand that the list is not, however, a full list of persons who have died (I personally know some who died but are unlisted). It is rather those who died and had received SS benefits which thereby ended, or who had survivors entitled to benefits. Many of such persons on the four flights are so listed.”~Paul Zarembka

  140. “Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable; in general, nobody feels that war is criminal or that accepting it is criminal attitude. In fact, we have been brainwashed…War and the large military establishments are the greatest sources of violence in the world. Whether their purpose is defensive or offensive, these vast powerful organizations exist solely to kill human beings… We should all be horrified… but we are too confused.”~Dalai Lama

    (It is easier to judge the mind of a man by his questions rather than his answers)

  141. “So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.”~Craig McKee

    Let me see if I can decipher exactly what the subtext in this text means here.

    As the prequel has reference to Hybridrogue1, I shall have to assume that this is meant to describe me:

    “I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.”

    Now Craig has complained of “low blows” here several times. Nothing I have said so far comes anywhere near this insinuation McKee has just made. So I am left with Craig’s opinion that I don’t care about truth. or think it matters. Quite a remarkable assertion. Or as I would characterize it, a slur.

    Here is a guy running a forum that allows the most infamous charlatan and disinfo shill on the web today to post freely on his web; and he says that I am the one who doesn’t care about truth!

    Anyone who allows James Fetzer free reign to spew his lies and bullshit, has no just place to claim another has is unconcerned about the truth. Craig has been hypocritical in a few of his comments there and here, but this one is a stand out in spurious nonsense.

    “Mild mannered” Craig McKee is a supreme chump and a self righteous asshole.

    • “I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.”

      Just tell me that wasn’t aimed at me Craig, and I will dump the comment above this one.
      Veri thinks it wasn’t aimed at me… is he right? I’ll apologize if you clear this up.


      • I don’t think it was, either, Willy. If anything, I am reading Craig’s last paragraph as a somewhat disguised expression of remorse about the fact that you are gone.

        Either way, if I may say so, both of you really need to cut the crap. If for nothing else, just not to give the douches over at the Fartbook the satisfaction of knowing they have managed to do some damage to Craig, you, and more importantly, to T&S. If you don’t, then the divisive tactics employed by these numbskulls come out victorious.

        You already know well my ultra cynical view of the truth-scmruth movement and its internal dynamics… But, even then, I can’t begin to tell you how crappy this childish feud of the two of you makes me feel. I suspect (and hope) that there others at T&S who share my pain and utter disbelief.

      • I am done with this. I have nothing more to add, and perhaps some more to subtract.
        Thanks for good advice from several of my friends.

        Both Craig and I have said some hurtful things to one another in the last couple of days.
        Some of it was in public some of it private in emails. I apologize to Craig for everyone of those hurtful comments here and now.
        Whether Craig reciprocates or not an issue for me: My apology stands one way or the other, as I truly am sorry.
        I also apologize to everyone else concerned who have helped me get a proper perspective on this issue.
        May peace prevail at some point.


  142. James Henry Fetzer
    January 5, 2016 at 12:31 am
    “You are right, David. I do not suffer fools gladly. And cowards display cowardice, just as they do.”

    That’s right David, Fetzer doesn’t suffer fools gladly – but he takes advantage of them gladly. The only people who buy into his bullshit are fools and idiots. without such fools and morons Fetzer wouldn’t have a following at all. Fetzer is the simpleton’s charlatan, and the moron’s champion.

    • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
      Fetzer, your very existence on the material plain is an insult to nature and truth. The soles of your shoes whisper filthy lies to the ground beneath your feet everywhere you tread.

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      On the planet Earth an object at rest, that is stationary geographically is INERT.
      It has but one quality: Mass

      Vector is a quality of momentum. An object at rest has zero momentum. This is the most elementary of Newtonian physics, and yet Fetzer doesn’t understand this.

      Is he really this stupid?

      Or is he counting on his audience to be stupid? After being rebuffed on these issues for years by so many people, I assert that Fetzer is NOT this stupid, that he is in fact a shyster conman out to dupe the gullible.

      “I don’t think rogue1 has scored any points here. Even if he wants to play the very childish game of “no planes” means no planes..”~Fetzer — September 1, 2012 at 10:32 am
      And why do you ignore the fact that the effects of the 200-ton plane hitting the stationary building at more than 500 mph would be the same as the effects of the 500,000-ton tower moving at more than 500 mph hitting the stationary plane? You seem to believe that none of us notices that you are dealing with one of the vectors while completely ignoring the other.

      > “You seem to believe that none of us notices that you are dealing with one of the vectors while completely ignoring the other.”~James H. Fetzer — September 9, 2012 at 10:23 am
      . . . . . .


    • I hear you, Willy. I really do. But, I do not feel this much emotion and this much disdain for the man is a good mix for a successful strategy. In fact, it is the kind of shit these predatory characters feed on.

      Our Professor Cockatoo is a pro… In all senses of the word. You can spit at him and he’d say it’s raining and put a raincoat on… So, it is indeed painful for me to imagine him havin’ a good ol’ laugh watching you and Craig go at each other because of him.

      On the flip side, Craig is a good man. In all senses of the word. And he makes the mistake good men make, which is to assume that people operate under a mutually shared umbrella of ethics, common sense, character, etc., and his imagination might sometimes fail him to understand how dark and twisted some minds are, and that, when stakes are high, these minds cut each other’s throats without even blinking.

      He made an honest attempt to expose these douches, but calling them liars is not very different then telling a clown his nose is red. These people do this for a living… They put on their costumes and just go to work. And, they are all in… Won’t back off just because they are exposed, or caught lying, or lost an argument.

      I really do not mean to be patronizing towards you or craig, and by no means believe that i am smarter or wiser than either one of you. I just feel that, at least for the moment, I have a clearer, more level headed view of what went down between you two. Just trying help.

      (by he way, I asked publicly if anyone knew what the fartbook admin characters do for a living, but no answer so far)

      • Hi David,

        I notice you have a comment in waiting. If you mentioned HR1 or any variation thereof, that would be the cause of holding up the comment.

        I grok all that you say. As I have already said, I do not hold Craig in contempt at all, I do find him to be gullible in the extreme, but that is not contemptible, it is tragic.

        I do have exceedingly great contempt for Uncle Fetzer. This is true, it is intellectual, but that does not discount a passionate aspect to my contempt. I apologize for neither, as passion drives action, and my action is of the pen…(or the analog, keyboard of the postmodern era). I feel it is my duty to help unmask this King Rat, James Fetzer.

        As you know I am hardly the only one who feels such contempt for this impostor and crank. I have cited several others in the longer commentary above in this thread.

        Now I have the added motive to out this vile charlatan, as he was the core instigator of the breakup between Craig and I. Whether Craig can ever be convinced of what a monster Fetzer is…I simply do not know. That is obviously out of my hands now.

      • “If you mentioned HR1 or any variation thereof, that would be the cause of holding up the comment.”

        Really? That is ridiculous if true… I had not used your name in vain… But quoted Craig’s last sentence there which did contain the H word :-}]

        Needless to say, my comment-in-witing was a gentle attempt to usher in a conciliatory process between you two. Although, I have to admit, there is a bit of selfishness on my part in my efforts towards this goal:

        I became aware of T&S through you, and without you there, it will certainly turn into a lonelier place. And, if Craig lets this clash between you go on to really become permanent, I will start thinking he is not who and what i thought he was after all, and will probably stop frequenting the blog eventually. That would be very BLEH!

        “Now I have the added motive to out this vile charlatan”

        Now, that, I will stand fully behind, sir!

        Because, even though i know that each well-poisoner (like the fartbook douches) acts at a certain capacity within their abilities, I always feel the real damage is done at a much higher level, by people who have academic titles in front of their names. So, I do share your contempt. It is just that, in this instance, the expression of that contempt caught Craig in an extremely vulnerable state, I believe when he had mentally prepared himself for a war of words with the ken doc clan, but he had not anticipated the possibility of the thread moving in the Fetzer-centric direction and take away from the purpose of his efforts. At least not so soon, on the first day after publishing his write up. He might not feel as strongly as you do about the guy, but i can’t imagine him not thinking Fetzer is at best more-holes-than-cheese, and at worst a pure opera and/or a charlatan.

        I am not really worried about you and craig not ever making up. The agitated waters might need to calm down a little more before sailing into the sunset 🙂

      • Yo David,

        I appreciate your moral support. I wish I could share your optimism about reconciliation with Mr McKee.
        I’m afraid I find it unlikely that Craig will submit to such petitions as yours and Adam Ruff’s. Pride can run deep.

        It is funny that the nutballs are coming out now that I have been blackballed from T&S, there will likely be more as time goes on. That screwball Sherif Shaalan, is one of the first of many. This fliptart actually believes that the Earth is flat. He sent me several videos on this nonsense and asked me to “critique” them.
        Lol… I thought Galileo had taken care of that in the Middle Ages! Unbelievable junk…
        I would expect “TamberineMan”, and others to pipe up soon. Hufferd should be blowing some anal hurlant there soon, congratulating Craig on “finally seeing the light” about that “vicious monster HR1” — Oh yea, I have made enemies of a lot of goofballs in my time.

        Maybe Craig will reinstate Maxifucker’s posting privileges out of spite! Add these guys, Fetzer and Maxipad, and you will have a Crackpot Jamboree at T&S … a flood of Yahoos! Jonathan Swift would be proud.

        2016 is already stacking up to be a VERY STRANGE YEAR. It looks like it will divide the men from the boys, and the gullible from the wise…and ne’er the twain shall meet..

  143. “Admittedly, I was sometimes confused by how strongly he defended some of his positions, perhaps most confusing to me was his relatively recent defense of the government agency NASA which, as a Flat Earther who knows the whole agency is a giant money-siphoning hoax, I attempted to challenge directly at his blog – only to be un-welcomed and blocked. While not directly 9/11 related, I’m hoping Mr. McKee will someday write on his investigation into that subject.”~Sherif Shaalan — January 5, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Hahahaha!! This is hilarious! Shaalan is an admitted “Flat Earther” — And he is complaining about my not allowing his stupid bullshit on my blog. The chump has his mind in the Dark Ages and his head up his ass.
    What a joke this Sherif jackass is.


    • David,

      Whether Sharif backtracks on the Flat Earth thing or admits it; he is seriously a “Flat Earther” … the videos he recommended were serious Flat Earth presentations.

      “Flat Earth Society Has Evidence!” – YouTube

      Many more…these assholes are SERIOUS!!

      Flat Earth Society, interview with Daniel Shenton, President of the – YouTube

      I refuse to post the actual videos here.

      • Notice that Sharif avoided answering the question, with some rhetorical squattle.

        Now on our very first encounter on T&S, Sharif was lobbying for me to be banned within two exchanges.
        I took it as an agenda for his being there in the first place. It has panned out that way over the course of time since then.

        The Lunatics are now taking over the asylum! T&S is in for some very weird times in 2016.

  144. Craig McKee
    January 5, 2016 at 4:09 pm
    “My only word on this subject is that I am very disturbed by the linking of it with the Apollo Moon missions. I have been seeing this a lot lately, and while I do not accuse you, Sherif, of being insincere, I suspect the sudden re-emergence of the flat Earth thing in general is a psyop designed to deflect people from the continuing exposure of the bogus Moon landings. Four months ago I did not even know people believed the Earth was flat. Now I’m hearing about it everywhere. I’m not a big believer in coincidences.”
    * * * * * * * * * * *
    Actually it is just a short leap from the science challenged mind that buys the “Moon Hoax”, to the moronic belief in a Flat Earth. No coincidence at all. It is a matter of knowledge of science or being illiterate of it and falling for such bullshit as both the Flat Earth model and the Moon Hoax garbage, See:

    None of the arguments for a hoax stand up to scrutiny. The idea is as mad as believing the Earth is flat.

  145. One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft.
    Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

    “There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

    There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
    I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with.

    Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets
    looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

    The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.
    You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

    We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
    ( Labor’s Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)

  146. Craig McKee — January 5, 2016 at 4:21 pm
    “I am composing a response to you and to veritytwo about what happened with Hybridrogue1, I’ll paste it at the bottom to it can more easily be seen.”
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    This should be interesting…


    • Craig McKee — January 5, 2016 at 8:55 pm
      “Based on what I’ve seen on hybridrogue’s blog today, the chances of this split being reversed are much more remote than they were even yesterday. I will post more after the hockey game I’m watching is over.”
      * * * * * * * *
      Gee Craig…was it something I said??? Lol

      Maybe I should let you moderate my blog as well.

      You don’t like my views on certain things, such as the Moon Hoax bullshit for example.

      Are you going to pretend you have the chops scientifically to make a good argument against the Apollo Missions? Seriously? You don’t know enough physics to make a reasoned argument against a pretender like Jim Fetzer, that’s why you fell for the hokey bullshit of Max Bridges for YEARS.

      Yea, I agree with everybody else: You are a fair and just guy…until your ego gets bruised.
      I’ve apologized for hurting your feelings with some of the things I have said. That is the last one you get.

      If you ever want me to come back to T&S again, it’s up to you to apologize to me. What makes you think I am so desperate to be reinstated on Truth & Shadows anyway? I am NOT, if you are going to play hard ball; “My blog verses Your Blog” bullshit games, you can take Your blog and shove it.

      That should settle it “Permanent-like” aye?
      The year isn’t even 5 days old!


      • You can take Your blog and shove it. That should settle it “Permanent-like” aye?

        And you can quote me on that McKee.

      • James Henry Fetzer — January 5, 2016 at 10:37 pm
        “Craig, You are such a good and decent man who has only the truth at heart that this has become a litmus test for integrity among students of 9/11: Those who attack you have shown that they are not dedicated to truth and do not deserve our respect. We know who you are–and through their attacks we are discovering who they are. This is a painful but instructive exercise.”
        * * * * * *
        Here is the alliance as it is stacking up…a good and decent man who is being played by the King Rat, James Fetzer. And Craig is so naïve he still doesn’t get it.
        What a shame for Craig personally and for Truth & Shadows.

        You’ve made your bed Craig, now sleep in it.

        Why would David Hazan say such a thing?
        Are you fucking serious Craig? Wake the fuck up!!!!!!


      • 13th Floor Elevators – You’re Gonna Miss Me (Original Mono Mix)

        This song has the appropriate abrasive style and attitude that I mean it to convey.

      • I am satisfied to be ex-T&S. It feels good to be out here on the perimeter on my own.

    • “Smoke ’em all out, Craig!”~sockpuppet2012 — January 5, 2016 at 11:23 pm

      Yea Sockpuppet! And who will be left standing on T&S when the smoke clears?

      All of the fawning sycophants to Craig McKee__that’s who.

      Welcome to Wishy-Washy Land you suck-up little punk.

  147. Craig McKee — January 5, 2016 at 11:54 pm
    “Well, that’s a fresh perspective I wasn’t expecting!
    I didn’t count on Kim jumping the shark, but she has made her choice, and she’ll have to live with that. Now she says I defend Jim Fetzer “constantly,” which completes her conversion to the Ken Doc/Mike Collins school of truth telling.
    Despite how painful and stressful all of this has been, if I had to do it again, I would.”
    * * * * * * * * * *
    How is allowing Fetzer a platform on T&S not “defending Jim Fetzer”? You host him you own him.
    He is yours.


  148. Craig McKee — January 2, 2016 at 6:21 pm
    “I am composing a response to your comment. Please stop commenting until I have posted it!”
    * * * * * * * *
    So that was on the 2nd of January. And last night Craig was going to compose his thoughts on the “breakup between us” – after watching a hockey game…(now there’s some serious business to have to take care of) and now it is:

    “David, I have just read the latest on HR’s blog, and I don’t have the energy to deal with this tonight. I will say this, however. It is hybridrogue who is deciding that this split cannot be fixed. He is behaving like a bully with a gleeful mean streak, like Mike Collins with a better vocabulary.”~Craig McKee –January 6, 2016 at 12:00 am

    It appears Craig is waiting for some sort of subneural reasoning to bubble up from his gut, to give him some idea of what to say about everything.

    The whole excuse given for initially putting me on moderation, was that Craig couldn’t think while I was bugging him by putting up posts after he told me to stop; even though he told both me and Fetzer to stop, and Fetzer didn’t stop either but that’s okay because…because….because??? Because Fetzer’s the wonderful wizard of Ahhs???

    So now, as usual I get the blame for this whole mess because I am writing commentary on my own blog, and Craig isn’t writing the commentary he has been promising for four days now.

    Sure! That makes sense! (don’t it?)

    And I am admonished by friends to stand back, and give Craig time to cool off, to let the pressure cooker frying his mind shut off, before his knapsack explodes killing 300 bystanders and flipping tables at the restaurant spilling corn-syrup-food-colored-fake-blood all over T&S.

    Yes gleeful GLEEFUL words of wonder spill forth here “merrily merrily merrily” this must be a dream! Or could it be some new form of Canadian Stand-up Comedy?

    Well whatever it is, it is most entertaining, and I can’t wait to read the next chapter that will likely never come.

    Yes! YES!! It is ALL my fault! Because I am THE MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE, and I have you all in my thrall, and there is not a move you can make or a thought you can think without my will power guiding them! Remember that next time you try to flip a booger with your pinky and it ends up stuck on your reading glasses.

    Give me a Lol…has anybody seen the Lol? I thought I saw a herd of them stampeding the gates of T&S last night…maybe it was just hotdog flavored water squirting from chocolate starfish.

    Good morning world! Behold the brand new day.

    • “Well I tried to tell you from time to time but you wouldn’t listen, wouldn’t pay me no mind, so I’m I’m Moving On…”


      • They say that “Time heals all wounds”…
        But perhaps it is that, ‘Time wounds all heels’…?


    • But hey! How would YOU deal with some backwater asshole who hardly anyone in the world has ever heard of, like Ken Doc? Well Hell’s Bells!!! The answer surely must be to blow up a dirigible the size of the Good-Year Blimp, with Ken Doc’s name and address flashing in neon lights and float it above your valley. figuring the whole time that surely no one is going to remember the name of Ken Doc now! Not after this!

      Surely ‘KenDoc the Unknown’ has no scud missiles to launch into your valley – you are safe from all reprisals because hey, why would Ken want to shoot down his biggest PR stunt made by his enemies?

      Go figure…

  149. “I am not sure, but I think Jim Fetzer wants to keep all options open for as long as he can. IWhen he says “no planes”, is he saying more than that those commercial planes did not strike the WTC? It may be that is why he sometimes sounds like he is all over the lot. I may be wrong, but that is how I have come to interpret what he is saying when he says “no planes.”~anastasia — January 6, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    No Anastasia, when Fetzer says “no planes” he means no planes – that nothing physical hit the towers. He is claiming that what is seen in the videos are either faked CGI planes or projected holograms. There is absolutely NO DOUBT about what Fetzer means.

    I doubt that you will ever read this reply unless someone alerts you to come over to HR1 to read it.
    Isn’t it swell that I have been banned from T&S? I think so too!
    It is the readership that is missing out, not me.


  150. David Hazan,
    Why don’t you let that ass-kissing-punk Sockpuppet know that I posted that 13 Floor Elevator video here?

    • James Henry Fetzer
      January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm
      For those who care about truth as it relates to 9/11 as opposed to attacking Truthers, here is an outline of the proof that no real planes hit the North or the South Towers. This should make it all the easier for those who believe they were real planes to identify where we agree and disagree. I begin with some reflections on the construction of the Twin Towers and why the official account cannot be sustained.

      Notice that the windows were deliberately designed small to avoid overheating the buildings and placing too much stress on the air conditioning system. The alleged plane in the North Tower was intersecting seven (7) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external steel support columns at the other filled with 4-8″ of concrete. In the case of the South Tower, it was eight (8).

      At 208′ on a side, each floor represented an acre of concrete. So Flight 11 would have been encountering seven acres of concrete on steel trusses, but Flight 175 eight. We know what happens when a commercial carrier hits a tiny bird weighing only a few ounces in flight. Imagine what would happen if one of the were to encounter a single acre of concrete on a steel truss?

      Any real plane of any kind would have crumpled against the building, with its wings, tail, bodies and seats falling to the ground. But we have photos of the areas beneath and there is no airplane debris. You could have relined in a lounge chair sipping Pina Coladas and have been perfectly safe. The laws of physics and of engineering have a contribution to make to 9/11.

      There were multiple reasons they had to fake it to make sure everything would go as planned:

      (1) It’s very difficult to hit a 208′ wide target at over 400 mph. Some twenty pilots tried it where only one managed to do it one time.

      (2) They needed to have the planes explode after they had entered the buildings to provide a pseudo-explanation for their “collapse”.

      (3) They had to coordinate them temporally with massive explosions in the subbasements, designed to drain the sprinkler systems of water.

      (4) The original plan was to use drones until they discovered that it was physically impossible to get them into the buildings before they exploded.

      (5) Indeed, the friction of their collisions with those massive buildings would have generated so much heat that they would have exploded externally.

      (6) Even using images of planes under their control, they missed the mark by 14 and 17 seconds, with the subbasement explosions going off too early.

      (7) The idea was to claim that jet fuel had fallen through the stairways and caused those explosions. It was crude but the public is very gullible.

      (8) They had previously positioned jet fuel/napalm prepared to be set off when the images of the planes had entered all the way into the buildings.

      (9) They had mini-incendiary charges in elaborate arrangements to create the cookie-cutter cut outs on the sides of the buildings (set by the Gelatin Group).

      It was a clever use of the post hoc-ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy, which took in the vast majority of the people. They even planted an outmoded engine at Church & Murray, which would not have been necessary had real planes been used. And a landing gear was found years later, still attached to a piece of rope that had been used to help lower it into place. How dumb are we supposed to be?

      But the public hasn’t caught on. The laws of physics and of engineering cannot be violated and cannot be changed. The official account of the planes in New York is no more physically possible that the official account of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, as an aeronautical engineer has explained in the fourth of the articles I linked above. It’s time for the 9/11 Truth community to acknowledge that science matters to our research.

      James Henry Fetzer
      January 2, 2016 at 10:39 pm
      Sheila, You begin to appreciate why 9/11 Blogger did not want any discussion of “no planes”, where even easily verifiable facts about the design of the buildings defeats the official account. Consider the genius of making points of vulnerability “off limits” for discussion: 1) no planes; 2) criticism of Israel; and 3) CIT. There is a mountain of proof of Israeli complicity, such as the web site, “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world” (though it was done with the complicity of the CIA and the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense). And toss in CIT, which uncovered a host of witnesses to a plane approaching the Pentagon north of the Citgo station, when the “official account” required that it approach south of the Citgo station. (That plane, by the way, flew over the Pentagon at the same time explosive charges were set of inside it.) What more elegant and effective technique than to declare those subjects “too controversial” and therefore “off limits”. How much more proof could we require that the 9/11 Truth movement has been compromised?

      January 2, 2016 at 11:02 pm
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      This is astonishing Craig! You let this asshole banter on with these patently unscientific remarks here. And don’t seem to grasp that allowing this bullshit here, you are doing the very thing you complain that the subjects of this thread accuse you of.
      WTF has happened to your judgement?


      “How much more proof could we require that the 9/11 Truth movement has been compromised?”~James Henry Fetzer — January 2, 2016

      The answer is clear! With this obvious charlatan and pretender Fetzer, spreading this bullshit about no planes at the WTC, on what was at one time the premier 9/11 blog on the web – the Truth movement has indeed been compromised to the core. And now Craig McKee is unwittingly allowing that compromising voice of bullshit insanity a place on the pages of Truth & Shadows with no one to confront the lying son-of-a-bitch Uncle Fetzer.

    • Alright, after thinking about it since I read McKee’s statement on our “split”; I decided that I have to make one point:
      I did in fact apologize directly to Mr McKee by email:

      Adam Ruff Jan 3 (3 days ago)
      Craig and Willy, I am greatly dismayed by the recent falling out between you …

      Willy Whitten Jan 3 (3 days ago)
      Thanks Adam, As I have already told you I am not opposed to reconciliation wi…

      Craig McKee Jan 3 (3 days ago)
      Adam, This split is permanent. I can never trust him or respect him again. An…

      Willy Whitten Jan 3 (3 days ago)
      So be it!

      Willy Whitten Jan 4 (2 days ago)
      Boo … hahahaha!!! https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetze

      Craig McKee Jan 4 (2 days ago)
      I hope you enjoyed your last email.

      Finally saw your caption on Hufferd’s photo: The Old Faggot Himself.

      You are fucking disgusting.

      Willy Whitten Jan 4 (2 days ago)
      Not only are you a hypocrite Craig, but you have no sense of humor. Do gay jokes bother you in a special way Craig?

      Willy Whitten
      Jan 4 (2 days ago)
      to Craig
      I am sorry Craig, I apologize for those last comments and many of the other things I have said. I am dropping this issue,
      Here and on my blog.
      Good luck with T&S in the coming year.

      Willy Whitten
      5:43 PM (34 minutes ago)

      to Craig
      I guess you conveniently “forgot”; the email above from two days ago , aye Mr McKee?

      * * * * * * * * *
      After getting no reply for the rest of the day. I simply said to myself; 'fuck it'.
      I know that Adam Ruff is aware of this as well. But I will call no witnesses, as I consider this a closed case.
      I apologize to Mr Ruff to reverting to publishing out private emails here. I feel it is a necessity in this case.


      • “Does their pride keep them from apologizing? And do they make any effort to avoid inflaming things beyond a certain point, knowing that this will make reconciliation more difficult?”~Craig McKee

        Very interesting questions there…aye?
        Very cleverly written passage there by McKee. He insinuates that I never apologized; but doesn’t come out and say it.
        Craig knows I did apologize, but gives the appearance that I didn’t.
        Now I can recognize rhetorical trickery when I read it. It is disingenuous, without being an outright lie. It is “political language”.
        And it is dishonest.


      • Sheila — January 6, 2016 at 9:13 pm
        “I’m glad he’s gone and I commend you Craig for writing about this split with admirable restraint. After being so unfairly and viciously attacked, it would be only human to want to sling a little mud yourself. You don’t, and my esteem for you has only increased.”
        * * * * * * * *
        Ah, sweet little Sheila you know her when you see her, full of bile and a gorgon’s nastiness. And full of shit as well, buying into and propagating the same bullshit that Fetzer spews – crows of a feather are they.
        I knew the bitch would vomit some gelatinous spittle at me at some point.

        Other’s will pipe up soon I am sure. This thread will continue to be a study in cultist social behavior. Soon, There will be no one left on T&S but Craig’s fawning sycophants. Of course that will make him feel more vindicated.
        A vicious cycle of pathos.


      • Adam Syed — January 6, 2016 at 2:59 pm
        “Yes, a person’s true colors are indeed manifest after a split and how it’s handled.”
        * * * * * * *
        And they each line up to kneel at Craig’s feet and express fawning fealty. Too typical, but they do not recognize it consciously.


      • And now I note that Anastasia made a comment that went unpiublished – and then Craig made a comment that goes unpublished. And I know that Anastasia saw my message about Fetzer’s “no-planes” bullshit here, and she probably acknowledged that and using my gravitar in her reply it got stuck in moderation. So Craig is telling her why it won’t be published,
        Simple deductive reason tells me this,
        Later Craig deleted Anastasia’s comment – but has left his message to her.


      • “Yes, I miss HR already. How will we ever survive without him?”~Craig McKee – January 6, 2016 at 2:17 pm
        * * * * * * * * * * *
        That is simple to answer. With a new oath of fealty by the sycophants that expect to stay on T&S with this new shuffling of the deck. One must denounce HR1 in some way, at least distance oneself if one hopes to stay on good graces with McKee.

        Who will be the next in line to kneel and pledge? I have my candidates in mind…

  151. About Hybrid Rogue

    I write.

    I write for fun.

    I write in dire seriousness.

    I write cutting satire.

    I write about serious things.

    I write whatever catches my fancy.

    I write for my own entertainment here.

    I write for others who enjoy my style.

    Style and form are everything–substance and meaning will rise in their wake.

    Please don’t let me be misunderstood. Please misunderstand me, it makes my day. Dialectics prevail.

    “Like is not.” All language is metaphor. Something I learned from Julian Jaynes. Something known by the Taoist sages.

    I run through the gambit of emotions everyday, just like all humans. I am fallible, as are all humans.
    I have an ego, like all humans. I am more clever than most humans. Some humans are more clever than I. Such is life.

    I take life very seriously. I take life with a grain of salt. I bleed when I am cut. I cut back when I am bleeding.

    I am what I am, like Popeye the Sailor Man…Lol

    So to those of you out there whom I have insulted. Thank you very much!
    It is YOUR own emotion that brings your own pain from another’s words.

    The world is a madhouse. Sit and cry, or join the party. The choice is yours.

  152. “The farce of intellectual authority, repute, credentials, etc. is of no authority over an individual of noesis. It is unreasonable, invasive, and insufferable to cajole, indoctrinate, and/or coerce others into intellectually subjugating to a deceptively originated collectivist ecosystem of farcical authority sought by a groups that impose what they feel should be “authoritative” doctrine of those who should be considered to be of authority, repute, or credentialing, as their intellectual collectivist workforce trainings are within collectivist frameworks (https://goo.gl/SKEIrh).

    The individual must choose what to believe without despots maneuvering to intellectually en-serf them. Unpublished individuals’ opinions DO count; Kirsh is advocating they don’t count unless one is interwoven within the doctrinal agenda that is inherent within these reputable outlets. Kirsh is advocating for a persistent ecosystem of intellectual intimidation that puts down people who haven’t integrated themselves into hegemonic tonality intending to authenticate farcical authority and repute that can only been “earned” by professtitutes via groups/schools of thought controlled by unelected collectivist structures (UCS). Assuming authority within a predatory collectivist ecosystem does not sire authority, repute, or credentialing for its outlets – it makes those who uphold it to impose it pretentious despots.

    The hegemonic criteria of what is authority, repute, and credentialing is developed by very few to meet the strategic goal of the UCS that operate & benefit from organizing & controlling a parallel serfdom/workforce structure that the UCS manipulates in using capitalism, Marxism, socialism, communism, democracy, etc. where necessary to extract control from a majority of individuals to empower the UCS cabal. The UCS enacts economic, academic, government, military (police and military), and medical policies within the operative structure as if the UCS is “of the people.”

    It is the individual who decides the value of what he finds cogent or true, not despotic collectivists whose adjutants are obvious here.”~theNewDanger

    • “The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.”~Allan Bloom,
      “The Closing of the American Mind”


  153. “Because it is always groundhog day in the conspiracy world”

    I like that David! very clever, and very true in a certain aspect.

  154. David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
    January 6, 2016 at 11:21 pm
    We dance round in a ring and suppose,
    But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.

    (R. Frost)

    Craig McKee
    January 6, 2016 at 11:42 pm
    Who am I to break tradition?

    David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
    January 7, 2016 at 10:46 am
    Craig McKee of Truth and Shadows
    * * * * * * * *
    An interesting exchange there David, I don’t think Craig sees a way out of tradition. He’s not really that deep a thinker philosophically. Remember he comes from a very mainstream position. It took him years to finally figure out that 9/11 was a PSYOP. He’s been playing catch-up since that time. He’s still quite young and has a lot to learn about the world and himself.


    • Remember, I do not find Craig McKee to be a conscious villain. I think he is simply naïve , gullible and confused at this point in his life.
      Some people finally really ‘Get It’, some people don’t.


    • Craig McKee – January 7, 2016 at 11:36 am
      “That’s what they call me when they’re being nice.”
      * * * * * * * *
      Ya know? McKee is really wearing out this “Victim” card. He’s played it to the hilt and should just drop it.
      It isn’t cute anymore.
      It makes him look foolish. Of course he will just take this as another “attack”…jeeeeeeeez.


      • Yes, our exchanges with Craig seem to have dwindled to one liners and snappy repartee now… which I find pointless and do not wish to continue. I feel I have seen enough true colors for a while… My attempts to hold a mirror so that people can see their own seem to have failed.

  155. Hi Willy,

    Let me get something off my chest… And I hope you know that I say this with considerable affection… You really behaved like a spoiled brat! And you certainly lost sight of the pig picture in your hot-headed state of mind… So, there… I said it, and now we can move on…

    At the same time, I also want to thank you (kinda, sorta) for inadvertently creating a situation where people were indeed forced to show their true colors, as Craig pointed out. Some display flashy and blindingly explosive colors (I want name names), while others are all black and white… Some are limited to just the team colors of their respective associations… There were a couple of turncoat colors, and slime greens there as well in the mix…. But the color that saddens me most is that predominant, bland, passionless, insight-less, and gutless neutral grey, both when it is one’s authentic color, as well as when it is just a heavy coat of paint that covers their real true colors.

    And all this while they all argue about, who’s the real peacock… Good grief!!!! Good f’n grief!

    • Thanks David,

      You know you can always be frank and straight forward with me. I understand your perspective very well.
      I am certainly willing to stir the pot when I feel it needs a mix up, I have never denied this nor do I feel particularly bad about this attribute.

      Spoiled? That is a bit more complex. Perhaps. I have had a rather blessed life, I was born with many talents, but that would be to say I was “spoiled” by the graces of nature. It made certain aspects of life easy, but it made it difficult in other ways. Having a Muse, and being dedicated to her come hell or high water is a natural recipe for conflict with authority.

      Being a handsome man has its treats, it also can stoke jealousy. There are two sides to every blessing. “The Agony and the Ecstasy” is the way that Michelangelo put it.

      Let me repeat something my most recent adversary said; “if I had it to do over again,” I still would. Neither Craig nor I knew the consequences of our actions at the beginning of the joust. We played it by our best instincts. It is what it is now.

      And I remain convinced that Craig started a tempest in a thimble by choosing off Ken Doc and blowing the little punk’s notoriety to the size of some massive danger to truth. The guy is a pipsqueak in the scheme of things, someone few of us ever heard of before this melodrama. And Craig making such a big deal out of Ken Doc while ignoring the real ghoulish beast within his gates, is utterly incredible in my opinion. Just because Fetzer stood up for Craig does not make him any less dangerous, but indeed even more so by his calculated ingratiating himself for his own PR purposes. And just because Ken Doc attacked Craig personally doesn’t make Ken Doc a major danger to truth. Again we are talking about cheesy Facebook nonsense here.

      Craig’s naïveté is utterly sublime – subliminal and total. And tragic.

      And THAT my friend, is the “Big Picture”. And I never lost sight of it. So we disagree on that very central point. But this doesn’t make us adversaries does it? No it makes us insightful from separate perspectives.
      I especially appreciate your perspective, and it’s distinct angle, because it helps me articulate mine that much better than just howling into the wind.

      Thank you ever so much!

      • “But this doesn’t make us adversaries does it?”

        Thanks Willy…

        Would love to discuss the big picture with you sometime soon, but, I’m at work, and really strapped for time… Just wanted to quickly reply to the question above:

        Absofuckinlutely not!!!!

        I don’t keep adversaries anyway… I am too mellow to fight, and too noncommittal to have extended feuds… Unless someone really, really, really pisses me off… Then I turn into a madman… There is no telling what I’d do.. Sometimes I even go ballistic and stop being respectful and empathetic… for a day or two ;-))

      • Well David, for myself, I have only “kept” two adversaries for longer than a couple weeks. That would be Jim Fetzer and Maxitwat Bridges. In my view, both dangerous moles burrowed into the so-called Truth Movement. And I say ‘so-called’ because it is not a single organism, but a diverse and modular organism morphing through time.

        We both know that the Sunsteinian cognitive infiltration units are out there by the legions now. I think that Fetzer is one of the originals, and Legge as well. Maxitwat is small time and doesn’t even have a voice in the proceedings anymore, that’s why I have little to say about him anymore, accept as a reference point.

  156. ruffadam — January 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Sheila I am NOT glad that Willy is gone and I think it is a shame and a loss for T+S. I think both Willy and Craig made mistakes to create this split and I told them both that and I told them both what I thought those mistakes were. I do not blame either person for the break up but I blame both Willy and Craig for not allowing for a cooling off period and sincere apologies all around. I am still friends with both Craig and Willy and will continue to talk to both. I will continue to participate here and I will also participate on Willy’s blog. That is my full disclosure about this.

    Sheila I have to say that I object to your glee that Willy is gone and I object to your promotion of hologram planes of all things. I almost swallowed my tongue when I saw that post. My God that theory has ZERO merit and has been debunked ten times over. Worse you said it right when the issue between Craig and Willy was blowing up because Fetzer was attempting to derail this thread with his mini nuke crappola. Your timing could not have been worse. Anyway I am not going to say more here about this except that I will miss Willy here.

    None of this should lead anyone to believe however that I blame Craig more than Willy for the split because I don’t. I have written to both Craig and Willy and made it clear what I think for what it matters. It is finished now and that is that.


    Thank you Adam! What a nice surprise to see a kind word for me on T&S for a change.

  157. Craig McKee — January 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm
    I would say that when these kinds of conflicts occur there is usually blame to go around. But I must object to one thing you said. That is that I deserve some blame for not allowing a cooling off period. I do not accept this blame. I was not the attacker in this, I was the person being attacked relentlessly amid other attacks.”
    * * * * * * * *


    When Adam first contacted the both of us (Jan. 2) I said I was not opposed to attempting reconciliation with you Craig. Your very first answer back in that three-way was, absolute and final: “Adam, This split is permanent. I can never trust him or respect him again.”

    Also, I did offer an olive branch and an apology; and I quote myself here from Jan. 4:

    “I am sorry Craig, I apologize for those last comments and many of the other things I have said. I am dropping this issue,
    Here and on my blog.
    Good luck with T&S in the coming year.”

    * * * * * * *

    All three of us, Adam, Craig, and myself have got one thing right at last. IT’S ALL OVER NOW.
    Kaput, finished. You make a thin gruel of “dignity” Craig. I will have nothing further to do with you.


    • Craig McKee — January 7, 2016 at 3:55 pm
      “For Ken, getting the truth out to people doesn’t matter as much as punishing anyone who has criticized him.”
      * * * * * * * * *
      The boundless hypocrisy of McKee continues to astound me.


      • What?
        We can admire Carlin and Lenny Bruce only because they were famous?
        One has to be ‘renowned’ to make cutting satire and use “bad language”?

        If you think so; FUCK YOU!

  158. So I wonder what lies ahead for Uncle Fetzer and Aunt McKee?

    Will they get a permanent “thing” going?

    Only the future will tell, but some marriages are made in Hell.

  159. Ridhuan Abu Bakar, That is exactly right Mr Baker. There are more rational explanations for the visual evidence, that actually take account of scientific facts as articulated by Professor Jenkins. Such as the percentages of Fe in the WTC dust if all of that steel would have disassociated as asserted by Wood. Proofs that Wood’s analogy of the King Dome controlled demolition to the Towers demolitions were not applicable. Visual proof that cars burned in other events can display the exact same results as the cars pointed to as somehow indicative of some strange force, other than a chemical fuel combustion fire. Proofs that the burnt cars parked along a roadway on the route to Fresh Kills were towed there from parking lots and streets under the WTC Towers.
    In fact, proofs against every single assertion Wood makes concerning her exotic fantasy weapon.
    There are several more essays on Journal 9// T, that address the seismic data, that prove Wood doesn’t have a clue as to what she is talking about on that topic. Plus one of her foundation premises that all the steel from the towers would have hit the ground as one event in a single moment–OBVIOUSLY nonsense for an event taking 11 to 14 seconds to take place – not just a single moment. That point right there shows such a deep flaw in Wood’s capabilities in elementary reasoning.
    Serious cognitive defects on display there.
    So it is not just a simple ‘insult’ to suggest that Judy isn’t quite right in the head.

    • I have to agree with your assessment of Woods reasoning capabilities concerning the seismic data. She draws a completely unfounded conclusion out of that which grossly misunderstands the seismic evidence. Obviously the towers did not hit the ground as a single unit. Woods logic and reasoning on this point is so bad that it is a wonder to me that she has any traction with anyone.

      • Judy Woowoo has a cult following of ‘true believers’ who are scientifically illiterate. They believe in things that they don’t understand. This defines a superstitious mind.
        People like that have been in some large proportion of societies since before the human race left the savanna for Manhattan.
        Elites have counted on these morons for centuries to keep themselves in power.
        These dumbfucks put the dip in the “dipty diptidip” and oil the machinery of state with their sweat, blood, and tears.

      • “The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
        ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
        ~Lewis Carroll


  160. “Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.”
    . . .

    I would ask my readers to consider the implications and portent of these words by Edward Bernays; from his 1928 volume simply titled: PROPAGANDA.

    * * * *
    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
    p. 37

    In almost every act of our lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons […] who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.”
    p. 37–38

    If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.
    p. 71
    . . . .

  161. Sociopath and Duping Delight

    “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them”~maya angelou

    Sociopaths and Narcissists enjoy the art of duping, or the art of conning or whatever verb you want to inject. Everyday that you forgive the sociopaths behavior, believe the litany of lies, and give habitual second chances is only enabling the sociopath to continue this destructive behavior towards you {and children if you have them}.

    The sociopaths use a mixture of words and sentences all scramble together to create the duper delight salad….

  162. Hi Willy…

    i have sent you numerous emails over the past 3-4 months (not so many, and not so important ones) and never received any replies. The no reply part is perfectly fine, I don’t mean to sound like I am demanding replies. But I do want to make sure that you are actually receiving them. Because I do remember instances where emails threads would get jumbled and some would go missing when we used to exchange rapid fire emails. So just checking… (my most recent one is from yesterday)

    Please feel free to trash this comment once you’ve seen it. I just didn’t know where else i could ask you this question. Oh… and once again, I am really not asking for explanation… a yes or no answer plenty good)


    • I just got another long rambler from Maxitwat…Lol … how frustrated he must be, writing these long bullshit tomes to my blog, knowing full well they will never be published here, read seriously by myself, nor answered.

      Deep pathos there for the poor forgotten creature.

      I used to warn him that he would end up baking poopoo pies in the ovens of Hell if he kept fucking with me.


      • Ha!!!! And all this time, I am thinking maybe willy no likey dhazan no more…. At some point I even got paranoid that you found something I had said about you during the Jens Schmidt debacle… Now i feel like an idiot, because I found your emails in my junk folder. I have no idea how it got classified as such… I never even thought to check in there… My apologies… And thank you.

      • Good! You found my emails!!

        Now what the fuck did you say about me during the Jens Schmidt debacle????

        Just kidding…

  163. Today’s commentary on Truth and Shadows is a good example of why I was becoming so bored with the forum there. Tepid blablabla…especially the popsucket’s commentary. Mediocre snotdribble.
    “Aw shucks and oh gee..”~McKee (paraphrased)

    • Sheila
      January 8, 2016 at 10:05 pm
      And I thought that only conversations with my (redacted) could be that toxic and insane.

      Craig McKee
      January 8, 2016 at 10:32 pm
      What do you mean by redacted? People will think I did that.


      Hahaha!! Now what the fuck is going on there???
      Things are certainly going down the toilet on T&S.
      Communication is stumbling around like a chicken with its head cut off.

      Is Sheila having conversations with her “vagina”? Her “bleep”? And WHAT will people think!
      It is a woowoo train to confusion there now…

      . . . . . .

      The transdoofus mystery tour continues thus on T&S
      They are talking in code that neither of the other understands!:

      Sheila — January 9, 2016 at 10:09 am
      “Not naming the relationship to protect the guilty.”

      • It is the tenacity of the autodidact that brings the bile to the throat of the indoctrinated mind.

    the quality or fact of being able to grip something firmly; grip.
    “the sheer tenacity of the limpet”
    synonyms: persistence, determination, perseverance, doggedness, strength of purpose, tirelessness, indefatigability, resolution, resoluteness, resolve, firmness, patience, purposefulness, staunchness, steadfastness, staying power, endurance, stamina, stubbornness, intransigence, obstinacy, obduracy, pertinacity
    “she practices her gymnastics routine with the tenacity of a bulldog”
    the quality or fact of being very determined; determination.
    “you have to admire the tenacity of these two guys”
    the quality or fact of continuing to exist; persistence.
    “the tenacity of certain myths within the historical record”

  165. anastasia
    January 10, 2016 at 12:18 am
    “Oh, Hybridrogue, Oh, Hybridrogue, I’ve got good news for you. I give up on Rebekah Roth.”

    . . . . . . .
    Lol, At last Anastasia!
    You are a smart gal, I am sure you can find some topic to entertain and feed your curious mind. Sorry I can’t respond there to you. ‘Something funny happened on the way to the forum.’

    I hope you see this response here some day.

  166. Ad Hominem Fallacies
    Chapter Ten (Justifiable Ad Hominem)
    Philosophy 404
    Summer 1999

    At times during a discourse episode where arguments are being advanced, a participant will adduce considerations about the person advancing the argument (e.g., their character, habits, appearance, etc.). This argumentative move is known as the ad hominem. This move is dangerous because it often introduces considerations that are irrelevant to the argument advanced by the speaker, and so is at best misleading and at worst disruptive. However, as with many of the argument forms we considered in Chapter 10, this one can be used to positive effect as well. Here is a classification of ad hominem moves:

    Ad Hominem Attack: if in response to a contribution made by speaker A to an argument, speaker B questions A’s character, motives, or right to speak, then B makes an ad hominem attack. (Note that the attack is not directed at the argument A advances, but only surrounding conditions.) These can be justified or unjustified; whether these are justified or not depends on whether they are relevant to the argument advanced.

    If you question a person’s motives and it turns out that they are in fact driven to speak by questionable motives, your attack is justified.

    If they are driven by other, more selfless motives, then your attack is not justified. If you attack their right to speak and they have none, you are justified; if they do have the right, your attack is unjustified.

    Ad Hominem Argument: if B calls into question A’s person as a way of attacking the argument that A is advancing, then B makes an ad hominem argument. These can also be justified or unjustified.

    If B’s argument raises questions about the soundness of A’s arguments, then the ad hominem argument is justified. For example, if A is noted for stretching the truth and B points this out, that would be relevant given that we would wish to evaluate A’s claims for truth.

    If B advances an ad hominem argument that does not give us any reason to question the truth of A’s claims or the soundness of A’s argument, the B’s argument will be unjustified and will be what we call an ad hominem fallacy. Many ad hominem arguments are fallacious, primarily because the argument advanced does not usually depend for its legitimacy on the person advancing it.

    I post this as there is some confusion as to whether ‘Ad Hominem’ can ever be deemed JUSTIFIED.
    Reason itself shows that it can be justified.


  167. Craig McKee — January 10, 2016 at 12:45 pm
    Right. I had this exchange with her because she was the one who said she understood how toxic Collins is and how she had tried to convince Ken Doc of this. Now she has forgotten all of that and she is supporting lies. I had to challenge that. Anyway, that’s the beauty of the Internet: column inches are infinite here!
    * * * * * *
    Yes indeed, infinite column inches here!

    So let us look at McKee’s current claims as per Kim’s commentary, that I have already addressed here myself; McKee does not distinguish between Kim’s recognition of Ken Doc’s errors and lies, and her further commentary showing that McKee’s article was simply a continuation of Ken Doc’s manner of dividing the “truth community” — in a dialectical manner.

    I stand on my position that Kim’s commentary was both reasonable and justified. I stand by my analysis that Craig has been in a state of hysteria during the entire commentary on that thread, and now has a vested interest in not backing down or altering his views.

    • “Yes, overcoming disinformation is one of the greatest challenges we face, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease – or perceived disease. We’ll never be able to eradicate all the ideas we don’t like, especially if those ideas are being promulgated by fake truthers, because they’ll never get tired and go away. If we turn our attention away from our best evidence and instead spend all our time trying to crush bad ideas and attack those who may or may not sincerely believe them, we risk bringing more attention to those ideas than they really deserve. And the idea that if we don’t obliterate everything we think is disinfo then “we’ll look stupid to the world” is overstated, in my opinion.”
      ~Craig McKee — October 2, 2014
      [paragraph 6, main article]
      (Bolding mine~ww)

  168. Between the Signal and the Noise The Best Evidence Hoax and David Lifton’s War Against the Critics of the Warren Commission
    by Roger Feinman

    “Of course, having written a best selling book (Best Evidence is now with its fourth publisher and
    has had about 30 printings), and being the producer of a best selling video, I suppose I am a public
    figure, and criticism comes with the territory …”
    ~David Lifton — in a letter to Jacqueline Liebergott, President of Emerson College, 8 December 1992

    “We cannot speak of falsehood until there is this awareness of the existence of a reality within oneself and external to oneself.”~Marcel Eck, Lies & Truth

    On April 3, 1993, I appeared in a panel debate on the medical evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination at the Midwest Symposium on Assassination Politics in Chicago. Speaking for the critics of the official medical findings were Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, Wallace Milam, David Lifton, and I. An opposing panel defending the government’s case consisted of Dr. George Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. John K. Lattimer, Dr. Michael West, and Dr. Marc Micozzi.

    This direct confrontation between critics and defenders afforded me a rare opportunity to make two points that have been nagging at me for quite some time: First, after nearly 30 years, we still do not have a full and honest official account of what occurred on the night of November 22, 1963, at the autopsy of Kennedy’s remains at Bethesda Naval Hospital, or of how the autopsy pathologists reached their ultimate findings.

    Second, without fact, theories just don’t work.

    I am neither a well–known critic nor a professional public speaker (perhaps an odd apology coming from a trial attorney, but I find it rather nerve–wracking to prepare for and then face larger audiences), nor do I have any burning desire for celebrity in connection with this case. I tried to persuade all of my co–panelists on the critics’ side beforehand to avoid discussion of theories, to attack the government’s case on the narrowest and least vulnerable grounds, and to stick to the evidence. In all but one case, my persuasion was either unnecessary or successful. The exception was David Lifton, the author of Best Evidence.

    Mr. Lifton, who spoke before I did at his insistence, reviewed the tape–recorded interview he did with Dr. JamesJ. Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, in 1966. He apparently wanted to demonstrate that Dr. Humes conceded the possibility that President Kennedy’s body was altered before it was delivered to Bethesda for autopsy. No one in the audience with whom I later conferred believed the tape anywhere near conclusive of this question; some believed that the very suggestion (which was novel and unpublished in 1966) startled Dr.Humes, but that Mr. Lifton was reading way too much into Humes’ remarks, especially his omission to flatly deny the alteration theory.

    Mr. Lifton also propounded a series of rhetorical questions concerned with his theory that the bullet wound in President Kennedy’s back was artificially inflicted after the assassination.
    Mr. Lifton did not directly address the two articles that had recently been published by , featuring interviews
    with the autopsy pathologists. It was my understanding that this was the purpose of the debate. I believe that Mr. Lifton’s use of this occasion amounted to little more than self–promotion.
    “Besides our divergent substantive approaches to the Kennedy assassination, it is the main thesis of this book that Mr. Lifton’s Best Evidence is a literary deceit in multiple dimensions.”~Roger Feinman
    Perry, however, had denied holding any theory of the wounds, either at the time of the assassination or at the time he testified. (6H 12, 15) Neither did he advance any theory during the press conference.
    The transcript of that press conference gives the game away. It reveals that both Drs. Perry and Clark repeatedly and emphatically declined to speculate on the trajectory of the shots or their course through the President’s body. They confined themselves to what they had observed and done. They spoke of a head wound and a neck wound, without saying whether the wounds were made by one, two or more bullets.
    Dr. Perry described the neck wound as an entrance wound. His opinion was definite. It left no room for doubt. He had arrived at that judgment independent of the factors that Arlen Specter would later ask him to assume, and before the best evidence, President Kennedy’s body, had been transported behind military lines. Dr. Perry had an opinion on November 22. On the basis of the hypothesis later given to him by Specter, Perry decided that his was not “the correct opinion.” Unlike testimony, however, the Perry transcript could not be shaded through the use of hypothetical questions. Unlike the Zapruder film with its unmistakable depiction of the violent backward thrust of Kennedy’s body, it could not be ignored. Unlike scientific tests, it could not be misinterpreted. Therefore, the Perry transcript had to be buried.

    Read more in this PDF:


      Sonia Sotomayor’s Collaboration in a Judicial Deceit and Cover-Up While a Federal District Judge and a Member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Raises Troubling Questions
      By Roger Bruce Feinman, J.D.


  169. The auto-da-fé of Truth & Shadows

    By Craig McKee

    I really want to see this film. But first it has to get made.

    Investigative journalist Massimo Mazzucco, producer/director of the five-hour 9/11 documentary September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, is now applying his considerable talents to another of the great deceptions of our time. In a new film called American Moon he will examine all the evidence that the Apollo missions were frauds.

    “If you realize what it means, that they were able to pull this hoax on the whole world in the 1960s, then you understand many more things they could be capable of, including 9/11,” Mazzucco said in an interview from his home in Italy.


    The same old song and dance, but this time coming from Mazzucco, who has garnered a certain amount of clout in the “Truth Movement”.
    This is full on BULLSHIT. I am cancelling my subscription to the Truth Movement. This is the final straw for me.

    . . . .
    James Henry Fetzer
    January 30, 2016 at 8:00 pm
    “American Moon” should shed a great deal of light on one of the greatest hoaxes of history. For those who are unfamiliar with the evidence, consider AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015), which also addresses the death and replacement of Paul McCartney, the first death of Saddam Hussein, the second death of Osama bin Laden, and the Holocaust. Nothing is as we have been told. Check out moonrockbooks.com, where the more intellectually curious can also consider NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015) and, most recently, AND NOBODY DIED IN BOSTON, EITHER (2016). Our government has been playing us for saps.”
    * * * * * * * * *
    Hahahaha!! So now all the fruiteloops and nutballs come out full on at T&S!

    Good job McKee you have finally succeeded in turning Truth & Shadows into a laughingstock site for goofballs and lunatics.
    . . . . .
    Lol….I love it! every crackpot who dared not post on T&S while I was there to counter their bullshit are swarming like locus, and it is only the beginning! Here we have ‘Dwil’ one of Fetzer’s “No-planes” crackpot mindbots:

    January 31, 2016 at 9:52 am
    “Jimbo- Non-events like the Apollo missions are, in large part, meant to test the Western-cultured populace’s threshold for its reliance on authority; how easily will the populace cede personal authority to people who have only their own interests in mind…”

    Now I get to watch the total meltdown of the credibility of Truth & Shadows__a rather bittersweet vengeance. But a satisfaction nevertheless. You’re such a dumbfuck Craig McKee!
    . . . . .
    Anyone who has read the material I posted on my Moon Hoax page, knows that everyone of these points posted by Fetzer is absolute bullshit. Each one has been addressed and discarded as disinformation.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    James Henry Fetzer
    January 31, 2016 at 3:43 pm
    “Jimbo, I think this is one of those cases where those who have done little or no research tend to doubt those who reject the “official account”, basically because of their ignorance. You appear to be an example–not in relation to 9/11, Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, but in relation to the moon landing. Yet we have a mountain of proof that we did not land men on the moon. Consider

    * we did not have the propulsion power necessary to escape Earth’s gravitational field

    * we did not have the computing power to calculate the trajectories for going or coming

    * we could not overcome then or now the problem posed by the van Allan radiation belts

    * we did not have the capacity to broadcast transmissions back to Earth from the moon

    * cameras were mounted outside the space suits, but are perfectly focused and framed

    * the backgrounds are as well focused as the foregrounds (via front-screen projection)

    * there are moon rover photos with no tracks in front or behind them (lowered by crane)

    * shadows are cast by multiple sources of light (but there should have been only the Sun)

    There are many more, where the astronauts behavior has been especially revealing. And once having claimed they could not see the stars, they were stuck with it. Moon has no atmosphere, so they would have been seen a points of light rather than diffused; but there would have been billions of them–it would have been the greatest visual display experienced by the eyes of man.

    But we didn’t go. And the most powerful proof–the moon rocks–were gathered when Wernher von Braun led an expedition to the Antarctic to gather moon rocks that had been dislodged from the surface of the Moon and caught in Earth’s gravitational field. So they were real moon rocks but they did not reach Earth by the mode of transportation claimed. Just do a bit more research.”
    . . . . .
    “Has the “pro-Moon side” offered anything new to prove the Moon landings took place?”~Craig McKee

    The “pro-Moon side” doesn’t need “anything new to prove the Moon landings took place,” — the scientific facts have been available from the time of the landings. It is only the bullshit from the “Moon-Hoax” side is incapable of grasping the science and reasoning on this topic.

    Craig McKee is a science challenged fool, who should never address topics wherein understanding the physical sciences is a necessity.


  170. The Decline and Fall of Jim Fetzer — Parts 1 & 2

    By James DiEugenio



    Why the fuck Fetzer posted this comment on T&S today is mysterious; I didn’t even see Adam Ruff’s comment Uncle Fester thinks he is responding to. I’m thinking old Fester is getting dementia, which will be double the fun/trouble; as he was already as crazy as a shithouse rat:

    James Henry Fetzer on T&S — April 17, 2016 at 10:53 am

    “Adam Ruff has lost his way, speaking out about issues where his ignorance is palpable. What in the world does he know about the Zapruder film or JFK? I have three 500-page books including the best research from the best students of the assassination, where we have proven (there and elsewhere) that the film was massively edited and revised to conceal the true causes of the death of JFK from the public. One is entitled, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

    Not only does he know nothing about JFK, but he is at least equally ignorant about 9/11 and the proof that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a nuclear event. It is embarrassing that he makes these ponderous assertions with NOTHING TO BACK HIM UP. Like many others here, he seems to trade on rumor and speculation. He does not cite my work but delivers smears for which there is no evidence. That also occurs even in the JFK community. Check this, for example:

    “Jim Fetzer responds to Jim DiEugenio’s attack on his research”

    Now if Adam thinks I have something wrong, then let him identify what I claim and why I claim it (to insure he actually understands my position), then explain what he thinks I have wrong and how he knows. None of those attacking me here make the least effort to do that. They go off half -cocked based upon their own massive ignorance, rumor and speculation. I issue the demand: if you think I have something wrong, prove it! Otherwise, you are displaying your own ignorance.”
    “In addition to being ejected from Spartacus Educational, he was also ejected from Deep Politics Forum and let go from Veterans Today.”~DiEugenio (2)
    Deep Politics Forum bans Fetzer:
    DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale

    “Need more? The last anthology Fetzer edited is called, And I Suppose we didn’t go to the Moon either? His co-editor was someone named Mike Palacek. The book centers of three topics: 1) The USA never went to the moon; 2) Beatle Paul McCartney died decades ago, and was substituted; 3) The Holocaust was a myth. If you can believe it—and you sure as heck can by now—in the section of the book on the last topic, Fetzer allows infamous Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson to contribute an essay. Who’s next Jim? How about David Irving? Faurisson actually wrote an essay saying that The Diary of Anne Frank was a forgery. In fact, an article Fetzer wrote about the Sandy Hook tragedy was entitled “Did Mossad death squads slaughter American children at Sandy Hook?” So, in this piece, written relatively soon after the tragedy, Fetzer seemed to think people actually perished. But not for long.”~DiEugenio (2)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s