Friday, June 14, 2013

Sofia Smallstorm, Jenny Lake

Sandy Hook
Posted by at

17 comments:

  1. UnknownJune 24, 2013 at 3:25 PM

    Jim it's great you realise no one died at Sandy Hoax. How long until you extend your logically trained professor mind to realizing 9/11 was the same hoax? Keep having Sofia on and I'm sure you'll come to the same logical conclusion on JFK as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChrisJune 24, 2013 at 8:02 PM

      Of course, Kennedy wasn't killed. You people are so simple minded. You get stuck in one frame of analysis. You: "Because no one died at Sandy Hook, logically no one has died ever anywhere on Earth. That's logic."

      Delete
  2. larryJune 24, 2013 at 11:08 PM

    am i losing my mind or was this 2 hours of nothing? most of this {besides the foia stuff, which was given a very shoddy overview} was covered over 4-5 months ago. jim, please check out my videos at odinrok channel on youtube. i go in depth about the role of ken feinberg (which i would expect you would find interest in jim); the role of the newtown clerks office; the deep connections between players in the fire dept, the clerks office, the selectmen, the newtown bee and the capitol; the long history of bomb threats and intimidation before and after the event; the lack of lawsuits (Vances son is in charge of who can sue the state!); the deep history of corruption in fairfield county(see my newtown dead wives club video); the role of bahai. the real issues are who pronounced the kids dead after minutes of supposedly being shot? why were emts not allowed in the building? why are there no lawsuits from parents whose children were not taken to hospital? instead of dithering over all these little anomalies (we all know its a scam already!) and inconsequential new age blather, how about the fact that the head clerk is bill halsteads fiancee? i have always had the utmost respect for you jim, but to fawn over these people and say that their research is cutting edge is so far from reality. im glad they are doing research and i know im coming off like sour grapes but i think you are one of the only forums for this and this is purely me just wanting this quality information out there. im not the only one, kate slate, royan rosche, qk ultra, ghenghy, all youtubers who know this stuff inside and out. it just frustrated me to hear 2 hours wasted when i was really looking forward to this. on the other hand i thought the woman from oklahoma was great. we can dwell on esoteric symbolism and meaningful colors after the truly investigative work is done. i have the utmost respect for you jim, as ive been studying jfk for 30 years. i would be honored if you wanted to ask me some questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim FetzerJune 25, 2013 at 8:15 PM

      Larry,

      Sure. Let's talk. Send me an email to jfetzer@d.umn.edu with your contact information, including a phone number to call.

      Thanks.

      Jim

      Delete
    2. larryJuly 1, 2013 at 6:07 PM

      wow thanks jim! i will do that!

      Delete
  3. larryJune 24, 2013 at 11:10 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqhbOCV-rdw

    ReplyDelete
  4. Atlanta BillJune 25, 2013 at 3:39 AM

    Minute 77:10 of the interview. The quote from Bertrand Russell. Here, Lord Russell was giving his endorsement of the Theory of Bureaucratic Collectivism, which is associated with the work of James Burnham and for which his and his many co-thinkers cited the work of A.A. Berle and G.C. Means -- in particular the so-called "Berle-Means Theory" as in their seminal work The Modern Corporation and Private Property -- supporting the notion that there was an emergent "managerial class" which was taking control of industrial society. The Berle-Means Theory has since been discredited generally by economists and social theorists. In his book The Managerial Revolution, Burnham took sole credit for Theory of Bureaucratic Collectivism without the knowledge (apparently) that a leading Italian socialist, Bruno Rizzi, had already propagated the theory in his 1939 work La Bureaucratisation du Monde ("The Bureaucratization of the World"). George Orwell (Erich Blair) used Burnham's theory as the basis for his "Theory of Oligarchical Collectivism, which is the theoretical basis for the dystopian society featured in his book 1984 (written in 1948). A fairly decent short history and description of The Theory of Bureaucratic Collectivism is given in this Wikipedia(c) article.

    I have to agree with Larry that the interview could have covered more of the extensive research that's been done on Sandy Hook. However, I thought Smallstorm and Lake brought out some angles that were well worth pondering -- especially the Masonic involvement and the broader question of how the virtual reality is being put into place. I've been looking at the Great Seal for years, and it never really dawned on me what the significance was that the only stone with an eye is the capstone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. larryJune 25, 2013 at 4:08 AM

    I actually shouldn't have lumped in lake, I wish she had chipped in more. She seems to be trying to say what I am getting at above.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJune 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM

    I take it the "What blood?" comment from Lt. Vance was Kelly from Tulsa's bombshell that was teased a couple months back? Sadly, without a recording of the conversation it is just hearsay....not a bombshell. If she is going to play with the big dogs, she really should invest the $50 or $100 bucks on a digital recorder. Without that, she could end up in the land of Scotty Walker and Kevin Purfield. ..YouTubers arrested for calling and asking questions. While interesting, it falls into the category of "I saw Wayne Carver in Las Vegas and he told me it was all a hoax" as dynamic as it is, without audio or video proof, it means nothing ultimately. Yeah Jim, I would expand your interview horizons a bit and get some different researchers on, when you have the same ones on close together, a lot of things are rehashed and nothing really new. Like Larry said, I can think of at least 20 prominent youtubers and bloggers I'd like to hear interviewed and that could use the exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stooy44June 27, 2013 at 7:51 AM

    I heard an interview on CBC, Canada's national news agency, with parents said to be from Winnipeg who lost a daughter in the shooting at Sandy Hook. So, are these people actors?Liars? CSIS (Canada's version of the CIA) agents?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andy TymeJune 29, 2013 at 11:20 PM

      Perhaps... because there are still far too few crystal-clear solutions to the bizarre assortment of Sandy Hook mysteries. So many aspects of the official (after much in-process revision) legend appear either highly contradictory or flat-out impossible, and the state and federal authorities who "took command" of the event behaved in such highly suspicious ways -- before, during, and afterwards, that it surely seems there MUST be some drills and imposters at the heart of this "massacre". Yet until such time as the web's best independent researchers have thoroughly probed the backstories of ALL the alleged parents, victims, and close relatives -- looking for (and failing to find) solid proof of their identities/existence going back many years, we are still awash in an unsatisfactory (and certainly not probative) sea of mere speculation, rumour, and assorted "facts" that don't fit.

      Delete
  8. Phil JayhanJune 30, 2013 at 8:44 AM

    This interview was an absolute joke and an assault on the human mind. Sandy Hook was an absolute hoax. The idea that they tried to go "masonic" and "illuminati" in blame for this hoax tells all of us what these people are and why they are here. To obfuscate the truth.

    This interview was an insult to logical thinking and legitimate research. It was a joke.

    Sofia Smallstorm should be ashamed of herself. And Jim Fetzer gave up shame long ago.

    Cheers-
    Phil Jayhan
    Admin of LetsRoll Forums
    http://letsrollforums.com/sandy-hook-school-mass-f135.html


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. larryJuly 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

      i think jim casts a wide net and i appreciate that, he lets the listener decide and stays neutral unless attacked. if you listen to the santilli interview jim gives the guy the benefit of the doubt over and over until it becomes obvious it is an attack

      Delete
  9. larryJuly 1, 2013 at 6:06 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gmhOF2c9zw

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stooy44July 2, 2013 at 5:42 AM

    Once again Mr. Fetzer argued that the reason behind Sandy Hook was to promote gun control. This is completely illogical. The result of Sandy Hook and all other such events is to radically increase gun sales, and the people behind these events know it. Clearly this is at least a part of the reasoning behind these events. Yes, Obama and others always pay lip service to the gun control issue when these things happen, but this far from proves that these staged events are for the purpose of gun control.

    Mr. Fetzer prides himself on logic, but in this case he is at best completely illogical, and if we consider a worst case he is acting very much like a disinformation agent.

    Sandy Hook and other such staged events, if indeed they are staged, which does appear quite possible, are being staged to increase the sales of guns, since this is the effect they have. Do people like Mr. Fetzer actually believe that these events are backfiring on their intended purpose? Does Mr. Fetzer actually believe that the powers behind these staged events are this stupid?

    ReplyDelete
  11. UnknownAugust 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM

    Women have ridiculously lower volume of their voices compared to the host. How he cannot hear that, and why not show more polite attitude towards guest(s) - a very frequent occurance on many shows - to give them same volume of voice in the broadcast, as the host?!

    ReplyDelete
  12. UnknownAugust 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

    the levels are always bad on the show. He doesn't discriminate - heck - most of the time he's miles away from his own mic.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)