Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Jim Fetzer / Kevin Barrett

Faking photos and films re: JFK & 9/11


  1. Eliminating the impossible.
    HOW can a holographically projected image appeare darker than its surroundings? That seems impossible to me. How do you make a dark plane appeare against the backdrop of a bright sky by shining lights? Please adress this problem it defies all common sense.

    1. I dont know if I am getting my point across, there is no such thing as dark light, there are no darkbulbs. Darkness is the abscense of light, much like cold is the abscense of heat, I honestly dont get why people dont inderstand that. Here is a 14 sec video to explain what I mean is impossible to the best of my knowledge.
      Am I going crazy or is there something I am missing out on in the Hologram theory?

  2. The holograph theory is used by the no-planers, who are certainly correct, to explain all of the "credible" eye-witnesses who say they saw planes hitting the buildings. Personally I do not believe the holograph theory or the "credible" eye-witnesses.

    When I was in high school, growing up in Toronto, The Rolling Stones played by surprize in a bar called the El Mocambo. The place is gone now, but held maybe a few hundred people. Yet, there are hundreds of thousands of "credible" wintessed to this show. Myself, I like Jim am a Beatles fan, I was not there that night, but if I had been and had paid to see whatever band was pre-empted, I would have asked for my money back and then walked out.

    1. My guess is that the towers were scheduled for demolition and that pentagon decided to play a psyop at the same time. I dont think there was anything in those towers that they had been stripped bare, asbestose included, to allow for them to be safely demolished. No people in the buildings above impact zone at least. I guess you could weaken a plane or/and blow it up as it enters the prepared fasade. Its possible. For a hologram to project a dark plane on a bright sky is a lot less likely. For that we need magical technology bendings space time and such science fiction concepts.

    2. Everybody wants to be part of the grand spectacle. Exaggeration blends into elaboration and ends up as confabulation and fabrication: Years ago a primary 911 scholar called "stilldiggin" laboriously waded through the various "witness accounts". Confirms the usual common lawyers basic that "eyewitness" testimony is generally the least reliable, most inconsistent and most easily discredited under cross-examonation.

    3. Those two holes the holograms bashed into the side of the WTCs sure convinced me these light aberrations were authentic holograms.

  3. This whole Altgens alteration thing is just absurd, and all of your "anomalies" can be explained by a real photo expert due to a 2 dimensional layering effect, of which you have none in your little group. Jack White didn't find any proof of alteration and I see Jim Marrs is not part of your group and he will generally hop on board with some of the most out there conspiracies around. The timeline doesn't support yourt theory either. And I'll venture to say Roy Schaffer is full of crap, and one of those type of people who is a one upper, throwing stories out there that can't be substantiated. Like when you wanted to interview "Dave Ball" he mysteriously dies in an abandoned building. Any news stories substantiate that claim?
    1. The James Altgens photograph captured the motorcade a moment after the second shot passed through Kennedy and Connally. (12:30)2. Altgens stayed in Dealey Plaza about fifteen minutes after the motorcade sped past and snapped a few additional photographs. (12:40)3. With his camera around his neck and his film tightly kept inside his camera the entire time Altgens then traveled on foot to the AP offices a couple of blocks from Dealey Plaza (12:45)4. With the camera in his possession the entire time Altgens turned the film over to the AP development lab right there in the AP wire service building where it was IMMEDIATELY removed from the camera in the darkroom, placed in the necessary chemicals, the negative produced a print, which was dried and ready for distribution about fifteen minutes later. (1:00)5. Newspapers around the world received the photograph at their respective AP wire photo machines beginning at 1:06 p.m. only thirty-six MINUTES after the assassination took place. The original Altgens' photograph contains a time stamp of 1:06 CST (the moment it passed through the wire service machine and was sent electronically across the globe.)

    1. JFK was a smaller version of 9/11 - and why wouldn't it be? TV and fakery and media collusion was just beginning and untested other than movie house propaganda.

      9/11 was once more complete media fakery. It's logical that JFK was too ... and unlikely that JFK or Oswald even died - similar to the 3000 vicsims in 9/11.

      I appreciate Jim's unintentionally convincing me that JFK was another total psyop. All the anomolies in the evidence proves to me that they were intentionally placed to keep researchers spinning FOREVER.

      These psyops are intricately planned operations that only a well oiled machine could pull off. They are more than a few anomalies. They are about moving a population to a way of thinking without force and without them even realizing what happened.

      The sooner people stop parsing doctored media the sooner they will see what's happening.

    2. Is it possible that even JFK was "complete" media fakery?

      OK, so all we have are some blurry pictures and a doctored or fabricated Zapruder film. A red herring?

      An official narrative and several interlocking unofficial narratives.

      It has kept the investigators busy for 50 years...and the guilty have walked away Scot free.

    3. I think they were experts in clandestine and real world operations...not video and photo fakery...this was fourty years before 9/11. We have more technolgy in our cell phones than they had to get us to the moon 40 years would have been cut and paste at best...and there is just no evidence of that in the Altgens....NONE!

  4. Regarding the Lee Oswald backyard photo with the Manlica Carcana and the communist newspapers, The Militant (of the Socialist Workers' Party, SWP) is clearly displayed, but I think it is either the only one or the other is The Daily Worker. In my nearly half-century as a Marxist leftist, I've never heard of a left-wing organ with the name "The Worker": the name doesn't make sense to me. How absurd that Oswald would have been brandishing an anti-Stalinist/Trotskyist organ (The Militant) along with a pro-Stalinist/Maoist one (The Daily Worker)! Preposterous! I haven't been able to make out a masthead with "The Worker" or "The Daily Worker" in any version of the photos I've seen, and The Militant has always been filled with headlines having the word "Worker" or "Workers". I seem to recall that there was an SWP propaganda group, made up mostly of merchant seaman, in New Orleans at about that time.

  5. Ab, I respect your expressing your opinions honestly, and all the hard work you've performed this past year, in setting up and maintaining your own 9/11 blog and podcasts, is admirable. But by your own admission your are a real newbie when it comes to conspiracy research. And you still have an enormous amout of things to learn and issues to ponder.

    The genuine, honest experts on the JFK case, and Dr. Fetzer is one of the very, very best, have put in multiple decades of arduous searching, sifting, contrasting and weighing figuratively TONS of conflicting evidence and testimony. And if the solution to this half-century of mystery and questioning were as simple as "Kennedy faked his own death; it was all just an illusion." Jim would have been "at the head of the parade" (an allusion to the late, great conspiracy savant Sherman Skolnick) proclaiming just such a discovery to the world.

    Yes, I know it's troubling to you (and to me, too) that Jim still hasn't recognized just how massive the video fakery in the 9/11 psyop really was. He continues to believe that those inconsistent CGI animations of the top-down exploding towers are genuine depictions of the actual demolition, even though Simon Shack has made a very strong case for the destruction starting instead from the bottom up, but being concealed (from any genuine eyewitnesses) by massive clouds of manufactured smoke. And Jim also doesn't seem to grasp the real significance of Hoi Polloi's astounding discovery that a large portion of the victim identities are computer-generated fakes.

    But Dr. Fetzer, as a distinguished philosopher of science, does proclaim loudly the prime importance of keeping an open mind to alternate and challenging theories -- and to new (to him, anyway) evidence. That's why he has repeatedly requested Simon to be a guest on the Fetzer program (despite all the ad hominem abuse he has received on Simon's forum) and Simon has flat-out refused every invitation.

    I know Simon's your hero. He's one of mine too. But so is Jim Fetzer. And Simon apparently doesn't trust him, so he won't accept Jim's invitation. So what's Simon afraid of? That Jim will stage an "attack interview" like that disgusting nitwit Santilli did to Jim a few weeks ago? Highly unlikely. Dr. Fetzer is both a scholar and a gentleman -- but I do wish he'd take the time, on his own, to actually watch September Clues and to read the Vicsim Report WITH AN OPEN MIND, regardless of Simon's refusals and the childish insults from some of his followers.

    (If you're reading this, Jim, please do so forthwith. And if you're reading this, Simon, please reconsider your turn-down of Jim's invitation.)

    A polite, serious discussion between the two of you, despite whatever disagreements may remain at its conclusion, would be of enormous value to all of us who continue to seek deeper understanding of the covert world that imperils our shared future.

  6. The problem with searching for the absolute truth when it comes to events like 911 is the fact that even if you did come to an opinion which was in fact the absolutely correct one, and the complete truth, you would not know you had the truth. Therefore, we cannot know the truth, even if we do have the true opinion.

  7. Well, Stooy, I would maintain that Heisenberg's famous principle works better in quantum mechanics than in historiography -- and that an excess of post-modernist cynicism (although a dash provides needed seasoning) inevitably blinds its adherents in a "great cloud of unknowing".

    OTOH, we are pretty confident by now that the Battleship Maine explosion was a convenient accident, the Lusitania WAS carrying munitions, the goaded-by-blockade Pearl Harbor attack was no surprise to FDR's anglophile/judaic interventionists, and that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a clever military fabrication. In other words... many casus bellis are NOT what the public initially believes them to be.

    Just remember what William Cullen Bryant famously said about "truth crushed to earth".

  8. I agree Andy Tyme, that we can be quite certain of generalities. Of course we know that Oswald did not act alone and kill JFK, and of course we know 911 was not as the "offical" theory suggests.

    But we cannot be certain of all of the details, and even if we stumbled upon the correct set of presumptions, we would not know that we had done so.

    I believe that too much time is spent debating the details and not enough is spent laying out the basic cases for the general public.

    All of the truth cannot be determined, but all of the lies can certainly be exposed.

  9. And once again I listen to Jim Fetzer with Kevin Barrett this time, hoping for either to present any evidence for Mini-Micro Nukes and once again all they do is everything but... Challenge to Jim, Don and Kevin, make a show and only talk about Mini-Micro Nukes for the entire show, addressing where the evidence show heat/light/noise/Speed/contamination? Can you do that so I can think about what you’re proposing how the buildings turned to dust buildings not being turned to dust, upside down cars, people being levitated, all those people caught in a cool dust cloud not being burned? John

  10. I'll go one further: let's have a debate on whether nukes exist at all. Since we know we are being lied to, why take anything those that rule over us as fact? The evidence of Hiroshima is that of firebombing.

    To.think that a nuke (if it existed) could be carried around in a suitcase is simple sorcery. What's next? Merlin walking around with a magic wand disappearing buildings?

  11. Fetzer and Barrett rely a lot on info from Gordon Duff. So how credible is Duff's info then? Does anyone at Veteran's Today agree with the complete Media Fakery angle?

  12. I haven't looked very deeply into Mr. Duff's bona fides, but I do recall that back when the various power factions (beholden to Israel) first started their clever campaign to destabilize the governments of a whole string of Israel's enemies, Duff was posturing as a strong supporter of the genuineness of "the Arab Spring". At the time, one of the very best and brightest conspiracy-oriented talk-show hosts of yesteryear, the great Tom Valentine, was still writing a column for VT, so I asked Tom "what gives?". He answered that he too was disturbed and couldn't figure out Duff's motivation.

    1. Right. I enjoy listening to Gordon Duff. He admits working for The Military Industrial Complex in various capacities. Security work is not a sin. But he often comes close to giving us the whole "truth" then cuts himself "oh I've said too much already". Why does he do it? What is his motivation?

  13. to andy tyne

    please go through this most excellent thread.

    when all the pieces are put together and understood in the right context, the conclusions are inescapable.

    jfk, oswald and mary pinchott mayer were all willing participants in a grander scheme and their deaths were staged/faked events.

    otherwise, like 9/11, we would be forced to believe that hundreds/thousands knowingly participated in a plot to murder and cover-up, as opposed to a plot to hoax/scam and advance agendas.

    there are really two realities. our fabricated one and the real world that these players (club members) with their insider knowledge are privy to.
    so who knows what real motivations laying behind their decisions.

    ab is spot on. but where he tends to reduce all to the cotidian and ordinary, i am tending to believe that the real truths of our existence and reality are very much more profound and out of this world.

  14. Well-meaning young people (and I know the group is growing daily...) who have extrapolated from the very credible SeptemberClues discovery of massive 9/11 fakery to the point that they now believe the war-enabling JFK murder ritual was a "crime that never happened" cannot possibly be anything other than wet-behind-the-ears NEWBIES to the dark, complex, multi-layered, rival-faction filled, and occult-symbolism drenched field of serious, scholarly conspiracy sleuthing that has began its modern incarnation nearly fifty years ago.

    Soon these post-post-post-modern "mystics" will be proclaiming that the Russian Revolution, WWI and WWII never happened either. It was all Hollywood special effects, huh? (wink wink) Well most of the movies about those events do look pretty hokey, don't they?

    Is this the Constance Cumby-warned, New Age encroachment/usurpation of the grand Hindu zeitgeist? (It's all Maya, just Maya, just Maya...)

  15. As usual, Andy is perfectly intuitive in these matters. Andy, I would read your blog or books if you have them... Do let me know as I feel your sense of "truth" is calibrated just right.

  16. I think it is time that Kevin and Jim Fetzer both deal with the Duff issue as a serious epistemological question affecting the truth movement, if not their own institutional credibility as journalists in the same house.

    Anyone who regularly tunes in to Fetzer or Barrett knows that both radio personalities reference Duff with a naive lack of skepticism. I would understand if Duff was the hand that feeds them, but Duff routinely states that VT is run on the donated effort of its contributors.

    While Duff is charismatic and even arrogant at times, his body of work is largely a giant string of logical fallacies, even if true. Most prominent among his well-worn fallacies is the perennial appeal to special knowledge, something I assumed the savvy truth consumer has grown tired of in the wake of Ben Fulford and other would- be insiders.

    Perhaps many believe the truth movement needs a little more entertainment, sugar to swallow the medicine of cognitive dissonance. Right?

    But as many here know, Duff has been brazenly off on many critical subjects, which makes his infallible status among colleagues all the more confusing.

    Duff was historically way off on Libya, and sanctioned the grotesque murder of its heroic leader; he was similarly off on Syria -- until very recently.

    And readers know much Duff plays into the right/left paradigm, often demonizing and generalizing the perceived conservative enemy into ridiculous evil straw men. Thus Duff was predictably wrong on Obama's birth certificate (ridiculing his readers who rightly verified the White House released long form document as a forgery).

    And he trumpets UFO story lines, accused Israel of Sandy Hook without any evidence (despite his claim to merely report Mike Harris' claims).

    We're it not for Duff consistently reporting on the villainy of Israeli , a chord which will always resonate with VT readers, he would have been dismissed as a charlatan long ago.

    At best, Duff is an arrogant poseur, basking in a glow of self-generated prestige, which he channels into his media ventures such that he is lionized as a white hat intel cowboy on the side of the patriot little man. At worst he is guilty of the very cognitive infiltration we are always warned about, whether he is witting or not.

    He has yet to address publicly the issue of his admitted 40 percent disinformation statistic.

    The downside of this issue being unaddressed is that now Kevin and Jim are bring targeted as potential disinformation purveyors since they consistently coast along with little effective activism beyond a cosmic and perpetual debate if the issue, that itself seems to entrench the status quo. Kevin apparently has never questioned whether the crime that birthed his radio career even happened, that is, did 3000 people even die, or was it actually a hoax, as we discover is the case with almost every other NWO a toon.

    Fetzer, in his own frustrating way, doesn't see how his hologram thesis is the least likely interpretation for the given evidence. At issue is on both cases is the reliance on supposed witness testimony that could very well be contrived disinformation.
    Why do the stoic die-hard planets believe a 767 hit the Pentagon? Be sues they are buying someone's story without skepticism. And this mistake happens in different manifestations in other areas of the para-political sphere.

    Thus we see why all three truth activists seem unable to accept the paradigm that posits no chills died at Sandy Hook, and thus the youngest and most savvy truthers are doubting -- for the first time maybe -- the founding fathers of the truth movement.

  17. Solfeggio, I share your concerns about VT's commanding general, and when I first heard him interviewed by Dr. Fetzer, I was even more suspicious of him, as a likely misleader, than I am now. Gradually, I'm coming to the realization that Duff is far from the "sharpest knife in the conspiracy-research drawer" and really needs to say a lot less and listen a lot more -- to those who REALLY know their stuff.

    So, I'm willing to cut him some slack for his too-frequent, and error-prone, conclusion-jumping. But that's mainly because I have yet to discern a beneficial pattern (to the demonic purveyors of military adventurism/austerity/oppression/surveillance) therein.

    Should one emerge (and I don't mean his admirably patriotic, anti-Zionist/anti-warmonger bias) it should bear the utmost strict scrutiny.