Friday, November 30, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Webmaster, you have the server link to the mp3 twice. Should be http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-Winston%20Wu%20re%20Apollo%20JFK%20and%209%2011.mp3
ReplyDeleteFaulty logic, Jim and Winston. The current impossibility of proving ABSOLUTELY that God does or does not exist means only that it might be proven in the future, so that any conclusion must be PROVISIONAL. This cannot be an argument for concluding that we should not doubt that God exists and act accordingly. The question of certainty comes into play. Strict Empiricists claim that certainty is only absolute, whereas other schools of philosophy admit to provisional, or practical, certainty. Provisional certainty tells me that I should not fear being pounced upon by a purple polka-dot lion on stepping outside my door: there is no ABSOLUTE certainty that such a creature might not one day be there but that there are other things I should fear far more. The traditional figure of God is way down on my own list, as it was with Epicurus of Samos, who nevertheless did not deny the existence of the gods. I myself would never want to say that the religious beliefs of people of good will cannot have validity apart from this question of divine existence, and in fact I generally find the company of such people preferable to that of Atheists, since I often find my Atheist friends to be hyper-skeptical, or even cynical and closed-minded.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that atheists in general can be hyper-skeptical to the point of irrational (cynical) as can be those who promote science without remembering what it's for: truth and answers, and that some great work has been done, for instance, on PSI effects, using science and forcing those who are truly scientific to wonder more about physics (not to get "supernatural").
DeleteOn the other hand, I think that proving "God's existence" is not the real way we should ask at all about the thing called God by so many -- for it is really a name for the totality we feel or think about, even in the natural world, and for some the catch-all phrase for the unknowable but sometimes felt mysteries of the world is the word or existence called God.
Jim, if oswald was in the doorway moments before the shooting, what are we to make of the testimony, that you yourself have so often repeated, that oswald was spotted descending the stairs at various intervals before the 'assassination' only to end up by the coke machine on the 5th(?) floor just after the 'assassination', where he was calm and unflustered when confronted by a cop?
ReplyDeleteSurely , as you openly and often implore us to explore all possibilities, you have investigated cultos much supported assertions that not only was jfks death faked, but oswalds and mary pinchots were also.
http://letsrollforums.com/jfk-murder-staged-event-t23127.html?s=6c327f3b95df672473d990f27b5672df&s=56e577be76f3c6c3089cebb64e420429&
You take the fakery so far but no further Jim.
Why not all the way?
That way the truth lies.
Pshea: respectful of your sources and the hypotheses they've formed about these things: the source you mentioned is not sufficient in reasoning. I am open to reading anybody's work and have looked here, too. The reason Jim "doesn't take the fakery further" is that there is no reason to; it is not "the fakery" but SOME fakery. It was very specific, to cover the tracks of the killings. There was bone (Harper fragment) in the grass, officer Hargis was hit so hard he thought he himself had been hit but it was bloody matter, the car was washed out of blood and brains with witnesses and a photo to that effect, etc. The people who are looking at frames here or there are trying, of course, to make sense of things, but -- for example re. Oswald's shooting: Crenshaw treated him and commented on why the man wasn't bleeding profusely: he had internal bloating from the blood. The analysis of the heavily changed frames is flawed, too, from the Z film.
DeleteRegarding Oswald: he was seen in and around the lunchroom; his going up one floor and back down are not far from the lunchroom. Seems he was munching and stepped outside briefly.
Another fascinating interview. Your radio shows are now among my most listened to on the internet. Lots of great discussion and much to think about.
ReplyDeleteSome comments in regards to topics discussed on this particular show:
The Zapruder film is a forgery. Too many things seen by witnesses are not in the film. The limo stop; the back of the head blowing out from a frontal shot; all the limo occuoants lurching forward as the car speeds away, etc. I first heard this theory put forward in one of Harrison Livingstone's books (High Treason 2) and your book with Costella, White, Healy, et al, really nails it in my opinion.
I am a member of Winston's ScepCop forum, and really appreciate the excellent rebuttals to the "pseudo skeptic" gang of clowns found there. He is quite correct in his appraisal of these guys. They are not true skeptics at all. I wonder where these people get their funding from. I read somewhere that James Randi gets 90,000 dollars or more a year from some foundation. Both he and Shermer are whores in my opinion.
To conclude my little rant, I would like to relate a few interesting things that have happened to me very recently of a paranormal nature:
My mother, who got me interested in things of a conspiratorial nature due to her obsession with the Kennedy assassination, died on Oct 31 of this year at the age of 83. We knew the end was near for several months after she became bedridden during the late summer. Her heart was getting weaker. Several days before she passed away, she was readmitted to the hospital, and my sister came to my house the morning after to notify me. I told her I would get to the hospital in a few hours, and laid back down to get two more hours of needed sleep. Not long after, probably less than an hour, I was startled out of my sleep by the sound of the window blind right next to my bed being pulled all the way up. To verify this was what I heard, I got up, walked over to the window and pulled the blind up again. It was exactly the same sound and I know for an absolute fact that the blind was down when I laid back down. I have lived in the house for over a year, and this window blind has never come up of it's own volition. I truly believe that someone close to my mother, who has already crossed over, was telling me to get to her bedside and not waste time.
The evening she passed away, she opened her eyes one final time after being asleep for several days, while myself and two sisters stood by her bedside. We thought she had stopped breathing and had given up the ghost. As we stood there, the nurse came in and asked if anything was wrong, as someone pushed the nurse call button on the little TV/telephone control pad lying adjacent to my mother on the bed. All three of us are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that no one pushed that button. My sister closest to the control pad, which was lying about a foot above my mother's head on the right side of the bed was nowhere near it. She passed about four hours later after we had left.
Given her interest in the JFK case, she woulkd have loved your program, and in fact was much impressed by the final 3 episodes of Nigel Turner's MWKK documentary you and Mantik appeared on back in 2003. I still have the DVD of that she gave my as a Christmas present, and have given several copies to some supervisors at my job who were also deeply impressed.
Keep up the great work and will look forward to hearing more future shows.
Brian, agreed.
Delete1.
The work on the Zapruder nails it; the sources mentioned by Pshea, at Letsrollforum, have a right to wonder what is in those frames but they don't take into account all the other work, not only on the film but about the body and so on. They would prefer to look for possible anomalies (it's worth browsing anyone's ideas, even when they seem nutty to hear of, or wrong, to see where they get their ideas). They would also prefer then to use only their anomalies and explain away all the other evidence.
We are doing the same, but more carefully. We say: there are anomalies in the x-rays, for instance, and so other things must be doctor lies, etc. But we have inconsistent and truth-telling witness statements and so on to go from. These people don't. They found what they think might be anomalies -- a good thing we all do -- but are uncareful after that.
2.
In support of your comments about afterlife/ other dimensions of energy:
I commented above, about how skeptics hide behind cynicism and there's good science about this, not "mere anecdote"; plus, about the anecdotes themselves ... When we note that anecdotes (witnesses: audial, visual, physical) are often dismissed as a blanket, inaccurate assessment, and we can't consider ourselves scientific if we treat anecdotes so dismissively.
Best book on the science of PSI is Koestler's open-minded and honest book "The Roots of Coincidence".
Atlantabill, I agree with Mr. Fetzer that the existence of God can niether be proved or disproved. In fact, strictly speaking we cannot get out of solipsism. You do not know for sure that anything else exists but you as a consciousness. Maybe you are all alone, and nothing else at all exists. Certainly it is possible that you are just a dream, and that your dream is all reality. Knowledge is limited to what you currently experience, belief and faith are required for the rest.
ReplyDeleteWinston, thanks. Nice interview and great info on your Website.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interview Jim, and thanks to you all for listening. I've just updated my Conspiracy Trilogy Report with images and expanded it further. I think it's pretty comprehensive now. You can check it out at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm
Any suggestions for improvement on it are welcome.
Thanks,
Winston
I think it's FAB. I sent you an e-mail about including Dr. Mantik's absolute and INTERNAL forensic argument about the bony structure (neck column): it interfered with the bullet, just as Specter tried in the hearings to claim might not be the case. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/02/the-jfk-war-an-insiders-guide-to-assassination-research-ii/
ReplyDeleteHas anyone been able to verify this statement which appears on debunking skeptics site?
ReplyDelete"NASA also shot itself in the foot when it said that it cannot return to the moon without first figuring out how to get humans through the Van Allen Radiation Belt safely first."
I can not find anything to back up this claim.