Monday, January 27, 2014

Jim Fetzer vs. Keith Johnson

The first Sandy Hook debate         Final (corrected) poll:


  1. You wiped the floor with him Jim. :)

    1. This guy wiped the floor with himself. I'll never eat Fruit Loops again!

    2. Very funny.

      Well, he was very upset at the suggestion it was all fake and he DID do some great research: that real events sometimes use companies which also do fake events (for water, badges, etc.); and that the blood clean-up record would be with the company, not the police (maybe); and that the gun might have been carryable; and that the supposed Adam Lanza character was NOT ultimately reported wearing combat gear (though he missed that "Adam" was reported doing so at first).

      These fine points are important if we talk of Sandy Hook, to make sure we always are correct; yes, he misses most of the evidence and the big picture.

  2. As a 20 year expert in Photoshop, I can without any doubt determine that every image of a supposed victim of this tragedy is an absolute hoax. Some of the amateurish photoshop work I've ever seen. I'm embarrassed at the quality standards of our black government. They are as much a joke as the institution that this current administration represent.

    1. They do a bad job on everything, the 911 false evidence, the shoddy work that is supposed to be man on the moon, and all the rest.

      The reason is clear.

      They want us to figure it out, they want us to recognize the disgraceful corruption of the government (which they control).

      They they will offer themselves as a good replacement and tell us that all our problems will be solved when they do.

      Create the problem and offer the people the solution.

      Those of you who want 911 Truth exposed will certainly get your wish. They you will call for the replacement of the institutions that could have done such a thing. And again, you will get your wish.

      They want us to figure out everything, then conclude that the system is totally corrupt and must be replaced. They will then put themselves forward, by force no doubt, as the replacement.

      Expect a military coup, to replace all of the corruption. You will be told that a new system of democracy will be put in place as fast as possible. But it will never be, of course. That type of system, it will be argued, is too vulnerable to corruption.

      Is this not obvious? Is it not clear that all of what is happening is done for the purpose of discrediting the CIA, the FBI, the very office of the President of the USA?

      The people controlling these institutions will then move in and take over, as if they are new and different and benevolently motivated.

    2. Excellent point. I have often wondered why they do such a shoddy job in these false flags, Jim and I mused about it when I was on the show but we didn't think of this explanation which, prima facie, looks very plausible.

    3. I also think that the sloppy jobs are in part designed to test just how stupid the general public is, and just how much they can expect to be able to get away with in future operations.

      Another possibility is that some of the technicians deliberately do a bad job due to a guilty conscience, hoping that their work will be detected so as to expose the frauds.

    4. More good points, I think the former being the more plausible.

      The faked 9-11 footage is laughably bad, there really is no technical reason I can think of for the many glaring errors.

    5. Indeed, in fact the Beatles did a much more professional job faking the death of one of their own members!! :)

    6. Stooy44: No, they were shocked and horrified to LOSE a member, or would never have replaced him. Let's get a grip. Your seeing the replacement but not "hearing" it is flawed, though the formal points of proof of the latter have not been done (paid for: 15-25 K, if not done pro bono). There is no good or supportable reason for the Beatles to leave Paul somewhere to play songs while someone else goes into public. You're delving into the kind of OBF/Shack/pshea mistakes.

      These all-fake events such as Sandy Hook are new and rarer, because they take utter lackadaisical attitudes toward the public, and a real motivation of something like "good things" such as gun control, to have participants wanting to help.

      Ian, I hope you are not saying, about the "technical errors" in the 9/11 footage, that they were all planted; of course there were mistakes made in the ad hoc attempt to reconcile the controlled views with the events shown through those views and others.

      Anyway, this is a Sandy Hook thread. I am not meaning to divert onto 9/11 or the Beatles with you guys; just to reply to your comments.

    7. Clare, my comments were an attempt at humour.

      But, yes there is a good supportable reason why the Beatles would do it. It was a publicity stunt.

      Just like the maniacs who did 911 and the Sandy Hook hoax, the Beatles were seeing just how much they could get away with. They were testing the stupidity of the general public. Maybe you had to be alive at the time to understand all of this. Those guys almost took over the planet. They were bigger than Michael Jackson, Nelson Mandela, Pope John-Paul II... they were bigger than Jesus Christ. They got so arrogant and so smart-assed that it was unbelievable.

      It is easy to see that this all could have been a hoax. Maybe it was not, agreed, but to suggest that it could not have been is quite ridiculous.

      Clare, as I have said before, you need to forget everything you find online, and go back to old archives. Most of what is to be found online has been created since the advent of the internet so as to distort Truth. Some of it may be credible, but none of it can be believed with any degree of certainty.

      Just like Sandy Hook, 911 and on and on...

    8. No, Stooy44. I can tell the difference in the voices, but there are subtle similarities, too, just as with the faces.

      Also: such a thing is just not done as a publicity stunt by a bunch of friendly genius rockers who are honest persons deep down. And they were. They were grieving.

      You are dipping into large-scale plots for international geopoliticking and Sandy Hook is a rare case among those of a little drill event used for a plug for a big political game in the long run. Try to get people to kill to stop guns -- it's harder, at least among average killers, and this got everyone feeling good (lots of people don't "like guns" and gun rights in some big way).

      Paul died. Simple. And totally makes sense then why they went into a tizzy. The publicity thing was hardly good for them; they were embarrassed and privately grieving, but could not completely not tell. That's all.

    9. Anyway, Sandy Hook ... onward and upward. I drop the issue with you now, Stooy44. Get a grip about Paul and how to listen for differences just in case the reasonable reason is the real one -- for being "big" does not undo basic personality in these 3.

  3. And this guy is a moron.. What movement.. What a dick.

  4. This guy is a total waste of time.

  5. I love listening to you destroy these sycophants jim. You are a freaking hero. I love being a member of this "movement" you represent.

  6. I'm sorry but this clown should have called in sick as well.

  7. is almost as if 'someone' wants the world to wake up to this and other similar type frauds, isn't it?

    just about to listen to the show now, but it could only ever go one way, couldn't it?

    1. Yes. It would seem that our tax dollars could buy better a better tyrany

  8. Please Dr. Fetzer!! Debate Deanne Spingola on this subject!! At least invite her to one. My guess, it will not happen.

    Folks, you need to go

    Listen to her so-called research into Sandy Hook. When I challenged her research in the comment section. She deleted that comment section completely.

    She has done two shows since her Piper interview on Sandy Hook.


    1. I was wondering why there were no comments in her lame excuse for a show. Now you've explained it! Honestly, I could not get through the first solo Sandy Hook show because she was obviously doing a complicated but clumsy dance around the issue. I used to listen to her show for the holohoax information, but this newest Spingola Crapola (plus her really annoying voice) have convinced me not to listen any more. I will of course tune in if Jim debates her.

    2. I agree with everything you mentioned. She repeats her guest so frequently it becomes the same old same old.

  9. I just listened to the Piper massacre. What most people don't realize about Mark Glenn and Piper, unless Muslims are the suspects, they pretty much tow the government line..

  10. I have to agree with Blueyedevil-- Mike Piper, Mark Glenn, and the rest of the TUT crowd almost always go along with the official govt/media narrative on these shootings. They definitely supported the official narrative on the Batman/Aurora, SIkh Temple, Norway/Brevik, and Gabby Giffords/Judge Roll shootings. Their usual take is to go along with the story, but suggest that it was the Zionist media and video games that drove them to it. It was after they accepted the Batman/Aurora and Sikh Temple narratives that I stopped listening to them. The only incident I'm uncertain about is the Boston Bombing. They might have questioned that incident because Muslims were the suspects.

  11. Without medias involvement in these operations, they wouldn't have been able to pull off even one of these. All the news networks are cooperating in these operations, and the news networks must be totally controlled by some gang. The same gang also can control the election process, so they will always get their controllable puppet in the White House, etc.

  12. Listening to Keith Johnson was about as edifying as listening to a chicken scratching a chalkboard.

  13. Please. How do you open "reply" boxes?

    1. Click on the reply button, then go all the way to the bottom of the screen and type your reply in the white box and publish it as usual.

    2. When I press reply to a thread, the white box appears right below the thread for me.

    3. HOWEVER, sometimes the "javascript: 0" message comes and reply won't work. In that case, I wait a day or two. There are glitches on Blogger, I think.

  14. Instead of debating the facts of Sandy Hook, couldn't it be shown that the government has not proven its case in the alleged murder of school children and others at Sandy Hook Elementary School by a person known as "Adam Lanza" ala Elias Davidsson case for disbelieving the 9/11
    official story because we have not been shown any evidence to support this story? Has it been proven that Lanza was a real person?

    1. No, Joan, it has not been proven that Lanza was a real person;

      however, there are some possible indications he was -- somewhere, maybe in a mind control program or whatever;

      his death was reported LOCALLY (in another state), which is definitely off-script AND NATURAL, if he died elsewhere, for they are reported locally first, not federally first, from a funeral home or a coroner.

      And the date was wrong: Dec 13.
      So if a local report went out in another state and on the wrong date, it may well be that he was real and bumped off, but in some spook program or something, and not "normal".

      Some people questioned if the SSDI and and reports of the death were of the same fellow, whose birthdate was given and whose name was Adam P Lanza ... maybe a different guy. But then a) the newspaper article about his birth (seems genuine and local, but of course could be planted) was located, and b) the date of that death was changed to the 14th, so obviously it was intended to be the same fake fellow or was the same real guy.

      I don't know if they've changed the state of the report of death, however. I don't think so! If it was real, this would make sense; the report would have been generated locally and need to stay there, but the date could be fudged more easily.

      It's odd to think they'd mess up in killing him elsewhere with a report locally, but maybe -- if if if it was real, by these arguments -- the perps wanted him dead, saw to it, left him as dead, and yes, forgot the report would be locally marked before they got it fixed up.

      Nancy was gifted the Lanza home in Feb (8) 2011, and if she was real (she seems to be), she might have been killed -- even if not at that home.

      These are subtle points; it is hard to know where the reality actually comes into this hoax event, if at all. But ... it is possible the hoax event covered up other crimes at the same time.

      The passenger names for 9/11 may include such real convenient killings under cover of a bunch of fakes under cover of an overall lie of real planes and passengers.

      Some agents, for instance, may well be now dead, not mere borrowed identities. Others may have been spared. Who knows, but that others were real but offed or sent to protection, if any?


      Or am I being too nuanced (not for you, Joan, but for some who think I'm an agent)? Sheesh. (Just had to say that!)

  15. "Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names,
    deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them
    in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people.

    "In this Report, the author shows that
    there is no credible evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes. For this
    reason, it is impossible to support the official account on 9/11. As the US government has failed to
    prove its accusations against the 19 alleged hijackers, the official account on 9/11 must be regarded
    as a lie.

    By Elias Davidsson

    Just as with 9/11, the US government has failed to prove its accusations against "Adam Lanza," therefore, the official account of Sandy Hook must be regarded as a lie.

  16. Notice how all of these events have the same MO. The "shooter" kills himself or is killed, thereby saving the state the trouble of a trial and what discovery might reveal.

    We are at the point in which the media can tell us anything--any lie--and there would be no recourse but to accept it as fact. Merely reporting something makes it true.

    Earlier in this process, those accused of terrorism, such as the underwear bomber, were given a trial but it happened too often these cases were difficult to win because the jurors saw that the FBI was entrapping these individuals. Remember the case in Miami of those Haitian men accused of planning to bomb the Sears tower, the Liberty Seven? It took three trials to convict those men who had been set up by the FBI.

    The Oswald effect, as I call it, is when the perp is caught immediately following an event such as happened to Timothy McVeigh.

    It would be interesting to discuss the 1993 WTC bombing which was orchestrated by the FBI using an operative and blamed on Muslims--another case of entrappment. Ralph Schoenman has done a lot of research on this case as well as the flawed Moussaoui case.

    1. I feel so badly for the duped and bad guy Moussaoui, with the 50-K volt stun belt. That should NEVER BE ALLOWED in court; it is like having the person brought in with a gun to their head.

  17. Jim was great, but he did not exactly rebut the most important stuff: that the 22 and the Bushmaster were sort of equivalent and that he had enough pockets, time, shots to kill all children, and that photos would not be provided, and why the kids would not be removed.

    It would seem important to address the carrying ammo issue again.

    It would also seem important, to me, to address the fact that so many children would not be likely to be "so obviously dead"; usually there are people moaning, losing blood, etc. from multiple wounds and they only expire later. This is typical (unlike in the movies).

    1. Funny choice of what is important Clare.

      I think 99% of people who own a gun know the difference between a .22LR and a .223 (5.56 NATO). I'm English, never owned a gun and I know the difference.

      The carrying ammo issue is simple, a 110 pound kid with Aspergers does not carry 40 pounds of ammo plus a couple of weapons for any distance. Add in the likelihood of him being able to make 11 or 12 magazine changes despite having the poor motor skills of an Asperger's sufferer. The more you think about it, the more unlikley it becomes.

      I disagree on your last point, multiple .223 hits to children is likely to mean they are obviously dead. Carver said there were multiple hits to each victim from the .223 rifle, that would mean a lot of obvious trauma.

    2. I know; but it was raised as a counterpoint and any counterpoint from a debate must be counter-countered.

    3. Not really, depends on the validity of the counterpoint, some points/counterpoints can just be dismissed.

      The thing is, .22LR out of a Bushmaster type rifle would be deadly to children and adults at the sort of ranges you would find in a situation like a school shooting, and would have been a lot less weight to carry, a lot less recoil and noise to deal with and actually have been a far more practical choice for Adam Lanza.

      However, they had to say it was a .223 as that is a military calibre (it's the exact same thing as 5.56 NATO) and it is military calibre rifles they wish to confiscate. .223 is the smallest military rifle calibre, if they had said Lanza had used a .30-06 or 7.62 NATO or 7.62x39 (AK, SKS) then it would have been a pretty obvious lie, those more hefty calibres are not suitable for accurate automatic fire from a rifle, the weapons are bigger and heavier and the ammo is bigger and heavier, so you would have Adam Lanza carrying more like 60 or 70 pounds.

      Jim can corroborate what I'm saying, in the days when he was instructing in the Marine Corps they were using the M14 which is a 7.62 NATO calibre weapon, they replaced it with the smaller and lighter M16 that fired 5.56 NATO, one big reason being the M14 was too uncontrollable in full auto due to the 7.62 calibre.

      In short, they said Lanza used an AR15 type weapon in a military calibre because that is what they want to confiscate. Lanza would have found a .22 LR weapon like a Ruger 10-22 more suitable and just as deadly, but they don't feel the need to ban such weapons, it's military grade stuff they want to ban, hence they had him armed with an AR15.

      If you doubt a .22LR is lethal watch this video:

    4. Ian, if you are saying Adam could carry it all and leave all children "obviously dead" (heads blown off, that kind of thing), and the gun was appropriate, Jim disagrees. I don't see your point.

    5. Clare, I was explaining why it was reported Lanza used an AR15 in .223 calibre - because that's the type of gun and calibre they want to ban.

      As for heads blown off, you've watched too many horror movies.

    6. No, I meant the "surely dead" idea; most cases still get people out of a scene, to treat them. -- As to the ban and type of gun: the point I was making was that the interlocutor with Jim was saying that the gun was eminently carryable, the ammo carryable, the gun type perfectly suited to the effects claimed. If those are true, then Jim was wrong.

    7. I'm not sure I'm fully following your points Clare, but the way I see it, all small calibre weapons firing jacketed ammunition cause trauma that, externally, is not dramatic or particularly obvious, the entrance wounds are very small, not much larger than the round itself because the velocity of the round from a rifle with a 16" barrel is high enough that the round, over the sort distances we are talking about, would not yaw - it would enter the body at the same attitude it left the barrel - perfectly nose-on. Once inside the body, it may yaw and 'tumble' and create a fairly large wound channel, but .223 rounds are not known for this, the greater likelihood is they would pass straight through the small body of a child, leaving an exit wound only 3 or 4 times larger than the entrance wound, meaning the wounds would be hidden by clothing and the major indicator of having been hit would be the blood. In sort, I wouldn't expect there to be much gore, just a lot of blood.

      As for the weapons load being carryable, let's look at how much weight we are talking about. A Bushmaster XM15 in .223 with 16" barrel is 7 pounds. A 30 rnd magazine, fully loaded is 15oz (the police showed 30rnd polymer magazines in Lanza's house).

      154 shell casings were reportedly recovered from the school and Lanza was reported to have three magazines on him when found dead, which contained 10, 12 and 13 rnds respectively. That means he entered the school with no less than 6 magazines of 30rnds each.

      Therefore, just the rifle and 6 magazines would have weighed almost 13lbs.

      Lanza was also reported to have been carrying a Glock 20 handgun in 10mm calibre and a Sig-Sauer P239 handgun in 9mm calibre.

      The Sig-Sauer is approx 26oz, plus another few ounces for the ammo clip, let's say 32oz fully loaded.

      The Glock 20 is 40oz fully loaded.

      So, with just the rifle, the 6 magazines and the two handguns, Lanza would have a load of almost 18lbs.

      Maybe he had some extra clips for the handguns, so add another couple of pounds.

      20-21lbs doesn't sound like a lot, but he was a 110lb kid with Asperger's, so it is quite a considerable load.

      It's not the load he was carrying that really points to something not being right, however. It's the feat of shooting 26 people, 20 children and 6 adults in 11 minutes while firing 154 rounds. That just doesn't sound like a very easy task for even a fit and healthy adult, let alone a skinny kid with Aspergers. However, I'm not qualified to comment on marksmanship and tactical shooting situations so I'll leave that to others to expound further on.

    8. My personal opinion is that the information given out regarding what guns were used was written according to what guns they want to ban and confiscate. The AR15/M4 is a military grade weapon, one of the best assault rifles on the market, in .223 calibre, it is basically the same weapon that is in the hands of the US military today, the main difference between the M4 military version and the civilian variants is the lack of a fully auto mode on the civilians. However, in practical use, that is not much of a hinderance at all, you can shoot almost as fast in semi-auto an more accurately.

      The Glock 20 is a very powerful handgun, similar models are widely used by the military (The British Army use the Glock 17) and law enforcement (including the FBI). The 10mm auto calibre that Lanza reportedly had is a very powerful cartridge, equivalent to the infamous .357 magnum, it is a more powerful version of the .40 S&W that is in very widespread use by law enforcement (you may recall that the DHS ordered a huge quantity of .40 hollow point ammunition last year).

      The Sig-Sauer P239 is a typical easily concealed 9mm pistol with a 10-rnd magazine.

      So, you have a military grade rifle firing the same ammunition as the US military and NATO use, a very powerful pistol that is very similar to what the military and law enforcement use but in a slightly more potent form and a powerful pistol that represents the most commonly owned type of semi-auto handgun.

      Think about it that way and it seems clear what the rationale for Lanza's weapons inventory was - to place tighter controls on military grade weapons that are available to the public.

    9. Yes, the rationale; but the claim of PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY is what Jim was making claim to.

    10. Clare, you must remember, we cannot be absolutely certain about such a thing as whether Lanza could carry all the weapons and ammo, or whether he could have carried out he feats of marksmanship. We can't deal in absolutes, only in degrees of certitude. Jim, with his military background doubted that Lanza was capable of such feats, but I am pretty sure he didn't make the error of stating it was impossible, he's too well schooled to make that error, instead I am sure he said it was not a credible scenario.

    11. Yes, while he might have struggled with the weapons, the magazines, the vest and all that, he could not have fired that many shots with that efficiency in that time span. Impossible.

    12. 154 out of 180 rounds fired in under 11 minutes with 6 mag changes. 26 kills, multiple hits per kill.

      Jim, you used to rate Marines on marksmanship, so you know about these things; therefore if you say it's impossible, I can thing of no reason whatsoever to disagree.

    13. That's what I was getting at.

      It was the efficiency; for he didn't even shoot all the children in 11 min's. He was in the school for that long, right? I forget.

  18. Also, we have to take his points about the port-a-potties and stuff, into account. However, people walking in circles into the firehall and no attempt to bring ambulances up the hill in case of lives to be saved, would be important still for the conspiracy position.

  19. It would be important to mention the people circling in the firehall is looped but the clip shows a real circle, not intended to mean they are circling for a long time;

    and to mention the HOUSES IN THE REGION were numerously "gifted" for zero dollars on Christmas in 2009, with the Lanza home also gifted for zero dollars that summer (June or July, if I remember).

    1. Yes, I wish Jim had responded to that silly claim, but it was obvious to anyone who had seen the video that they weren't trying to suggest that people were circling and circling and circling the firehouse. The repeat edit was to illustrate the circle itself.

  20. Was the total lack of tears in this Sandy Hook Hoax addressed in this show? Didn't hear that myself.

    1. It was in a general way: that the father's interview is strikingly odd.

    2. No, that the father's interview is strikingly odd, does not touch that there were absolutely no tears to be seen anywhere.

    3. Right, but Jim was thinking of that and not saying it. -- Of course, there were photos of people who were "upset" massively, from the day (the drill).

      Also, he could have mentioned the 35+ homes gifted for $0 in 2009: many in the town could have been in on it, and others confused by the reports even while at the drill.

    4. By assigning proper/improper 'emotional response' folk are getting into a pretty shaky area.

      Better for everybody involved (at a couple of levels) to stick to what can be proved or disproved by the physical evidence.

      Its just too easy for the other side to start wallowing in emotion. As shown by the two debates.

      And that's simply not an area where this discussion is going to be advanced one iota. Its counterproductive, imo

    5. Very good point Chris. We must keep emotion out of the debate and instead deal in the rational and factual.

      I feel it is important to reiterate a point made by Jim and Sofia Smallstorm that one of the reasons why they chose a school and small children as the site and victims of a false flag is that it is bound to stir emotions in people. Almost everyone feels emotions about the deaths of innocent children therefore they try to exploit that as part of the psychology of their false flag ops.

    6. The truth may very well be hidden behind a veil of (non existing) tears. But is typically to hard even for mainstream holocaust deniers when I bring up this "no one died and no one got hurt 911".

      But we know this is not a new trick. Here is the Kuwaiti ambassadors daughter again - an excellent demonstration of no tears:

      Chris, you can say what you want, but it is not possible to believe in this victims part of this Sandy Hook Hoax after watching the totally not credible interviews with the reported victims parents from Des 16. 17, 18 2012. No tears of course.

      No credible parents=no credible victims.

    7. And that's the beauty of this trap. These buggers placed this one right where brave/sane folk fear to tread.

      Its diabolic and damn well planned.

      The apparent sloppiness of it gives just the right bait for people with our interests to just fall all over it. And then have them fall all over us and marginalize us even further.

      Gun seizures and mental health policies be damned. I think it entirely possible this sucker was set to give a 'black eye' to the tenacious researchers who wont let go of them and their plans.

      Whether or not people died, most Americans never even think about it a year later. Duck Dynasty/Super Bowl, yes. Sandy Hook, no.

      So who was the target audience?

      I submit it was us. We really have the proverbial tiger by the tail with this one.

      Didnt anyone else notice both of those guys tried to ambush Dr Fetzer? Sounded like both Piper and Johnson were trying to get him sued.

      Very instructive as to how the opposition is thinking

    8. Without the victims part of the 911 story, there wouldn't be any basis for the war on terror, etc. So really important for the 911 operation management to protect this part of the story. Their agents basically have almost total control on the opposition.

      And like in the Sandy Hook Hoax, no tears to be seen in the 911 media operation either. We have about one million reported victim family members, but no tear anywhere.

    9. Yes, true. We don't know what is going on exactly for 9/11 victims, since there is live footage of the towers with people in them, and some persons were on the scene and killed at the bottom, and so on. But how many is anyone's guess. Probably there was a small number of deaths and payouts to those people (settlements) were mixed with the fake people's fake families, who were in it for money.

    10. Where is that live footage of the towers with people in them, Clare? Still no tears anywhere.

    11. In the gash; though radical doubters say it's CGI. Highly unlikely that no-one was there, but possible. Some of the jumpers awkward and shocked to be flung out -- very likely some are real, and the rest were covered up by views pre-planned; and testimony of others who were assisting rescue expressing shock in how many there were. So it is possible there were losses.

      There were some genuinely outraged families, but they were mixed with those who were liars -- almost certainly.

      My point is that we cannot know how many died, if any. Possibly none, possibly 1,000 or so, if DNA and these other items were valid. But not 3,000.

      The photo faking of victims (e.g., 8 bodies with the same head, etc.) and all the rest of the sure faking (names, places of residence, SSDI low numbers of people listed from the towers) suggest that many, many were fake.

      I tend to think at least half or so.

      Photo and other forms of victim faking would not be bothered with as some red herring for researchers, almost certainly,

      nor would it be done to boost numbers by only a few, say 100 or so.

      I have no idea how many died, if any. I simply point people in the direction of "many did not".

    12. Thanks Clare, however, you are answering question that haven't been asked. The question was:

      Where is that live footage of the towers with people in them?

  21. I didn't hear any of the child witnesses interviewed who said anything about hearing screams. Maybe I missed that. I remember a couple of children claiming to have heard banging noises, like maybe the janitor knocked something over... seems to me that there would have been a lot of screaming to be heard.

    1. Me, too. This is something Jim could have challenged him with.

    2. Well, hindsight is 20/20 and the debate was all over the place, plus Keith was borderline hysterical and that makes it hard to have a rational discussion.

  22. On behalf of D.K. Wilson:

    Who the hell is Keith Johnson? Checking the links provided at American Free Press, his last blog posts are June 6, 2013. Johnson addressed everything BUT substantial evidence brought forth by Jim. Johnson's comment, "I thought we were going to talk about new stuff," tells me all I need to know about this guy... the shrill cries of a troll.

    1. Having listened to both the debate with Keith Johnson and the debate with Mike Piper, I can only conclude that both Johnson and Piper are low grade intellects with very little in the way of critical thinking or debating skills. Both of them should be deeply embarrassed by the performances they gave.

    2. Oh he is so upset by all the Sandy Hook stuff, he was thinking he was handling the material.

      In a way, he was, as best he could. He challenged that the place had to be a drill from direct photo evidence of signing in, etc.

      He challenged that the gun and ammo were impossible.

      And he effectively challenged that the changes to the radio systems would have to be for Sandy Hook drill. (They would be convenient, though, of course.)
      He handled the question of video footage by accepting that this high-end school really did, as the report claimed, have only a real-time, non-recording video camera.

      The use of some army-code versions of letters over radio.

      The blood matter as records perhaps only kept by the company, presented as if police would be ignorant of who did the cleanup -- which is a debatable but not finite matter.

      These are major things, to a doubter's mind.

      What he did not handle are:

      a) the many children who in such number match victims, singing at the Super Bowl
      b) the houses gifted in the area in 2009 (not even raised by Jim) as bizarre on its face and allowing for much preplanning and knowing
      c) the Newtown Bee report which could not be mere misreporting, since it gave a lengthy discussion supposedly with the principal, and no apology explanation, none of which would be reporting error
      d) the footage of the wrong school (St Rose of Lima) as if it were Sandy Hook, because a drill was going on there -- confirmed even by Vance, that a live drill was going on "nearby" (a different thing than the training session for FEMA some miles away on the same topic)
      e) almost no-one knowing Adam or his family
      f) shooting ranges not knowing the Lanzas and the arms in her house (supposedly) being registered, yet these are illegal guns for CT
      g) the front door with glass blown in AFTER the events
      h) the changed story of Sally Cox
      i) the greenscreen interviews with victim families, and happy faces (of debatable significance, formally speaking, but in fact so constant as to be unnatural)
      j) the loop of video of the people circling the firehall was still people circling (even though the clip was of them circling once, and repeated on the Youtube video with intense music, as he mentioned, for effect)

      And some other things.

    3. You're far too critical Clare, they couldn't possibly cover everything within the scope of a 2 hour debate, especially when one side isn't au fait with the details of the case and spends most of it's allotted time making spurious points and ad hominem attacks. Jim did extremely well to cover the points he did in the time he had.

    4. Ian,

      Could I take the liberty of correcting English spelling?
      "....most of it's allotted time..."
      should, of course, be "....most of its allotted time..."
      Do not confuse "it's" with "its";
      " it's" is an abbreviation of "it is"
      whereas "its" is the possessive pronoun of "it".

      Compare the two in this simple sentence:

      " It's true (that)* the dog ate the bone (that)* its owner gave it."

      I hope this helps, Ian. It's a very common mistake.

      **(...) These "thats" may be omitted in speech and in writing.

      Thank you very much.

    5. Ian,

      I agree they debated a lot of things, but these are points which need to be pulled out, to be highlighted, corrected, or whatever (depending on the point), so that the people who wish to debunk the position are clearly countered directly, not given a lot of things which cannot be proved.

      Jim's interlocutor did a fairly good job disproving the formal case for the drill as a nearly clear event from the name badges, etc., alone. We can counter with the nearby St Rose of Lima imagery and Lt Vance comment, the unmoving trucks and blocked road, which are abnormal procedures for any death or rescue operation. Usually roads are blocked off so that trucks (like fire trucks, or ambulance vans) can MOVE, not blocked FROM the trucks, with no movement.

      And for the people in the town: that they have to have known in large part can be shown by 35+ gifted homes in 2009 as a plausible method to get sympathetic persons into the region (agents/ "patriotically safety-anti-gun advocates").

    6. Missing the point again Clare, this was never meant to be an exhaustive discussion of all the aspects of Sandy Hook. What it really was was Jim defending himself against some AFP trolls and the two main goals were to establish that Sandy Hook was a hoax and that the Piper faction was uninformed about the event, hence their indefensible standpoint.

      Jim achieved both those goals, which is the best that could be expected within the scope of these debates. It's not right to expect him to have covered all points relating to Sandy Hook, there just wasn't time and that wasn't the purpose of the debate anyways.

  23. 911truthnc: I do not have a comment section on my web site You must be mistaken when you say that I deleted your two comments.

  24. Johnson would have lost even if Jim never showed up. Hey Keith, next time you show up to gunfight with a butter knife - go home, grow a penis, and save your reputation from complete destruction.
    AFP....I'm done with you!

  25. Where's the verifiable evidence that anyone died at Sandy Hook?

    1. Yeah, good question! Where is it? Should ask the same question re 911.

  26. Dr. Fetzer,
    Please enlighten me about Clare's credentials. It seems she considers herself an authority here at *your* blog. Why should anyone recognize her authority? I find it most curious when she makes statements such as:

    "Right, but Jim was thinking of that and not saying it."
    "Oh he is so upset by all the Sandy Hook stuff, he was thinking he was handling the material."
    "Shack, OBF are well intentioned but feel we are disrupting the big truth, as much as you feel they are."
    "Piper would feel people are going too far with their Sandy Hook claims..."

    And so on and so forth. There are many such examples of Clare claiming to know what other people think, feel, intend, understand. It is quite remarkable. On what basis does Clare claim to be an authority on other people's innermost mental processes?

    And then she also said this:

    "I am being a peacemaker FOR POSITIONS, not just being nice."

    That is exactly what one trained in Hegelian Dialectics might say, no? Synthesize the positions? Also, she may be trained in the Alinsky Method/Delphi Technique?

    I would like to know, since Clare has so much time to devote to "managing" your comment threads, what is her relationship to Tavistock? What is her profession? With all due respect, why do you allow your comment threads to be taken over by obvious trolls and operatives?

    1. Well, my friend, she could PREFACE everything she says with, "In my opinion", but that would be boring and we all know that is implied. So don't worry about it. If you think she is wrong, say so and explain why. Thanks.

    2. A. Peasant:-

      An excellent point. Clare Kuehn feels she is gifted with the ability, nay, the power to read minds and tell how other people feel and think. Why Clare Kuehn has, on this very blog, declared that she can not only read people's minds but that she is also blessed with the remarkable ability cum power to read the minds of people in photographs.Yes. Show Clare Kuehn an old photo of your long dead uncle Frederick and she will be able to tell you exactly how he was feeling AND what he was thinking for 2 hours before and after the photo was being taken!! There you have it!!
      This is uncanny, is it not? No. It's not uncanny. This is "science à la Clare Kuehn". In short, Clare Kuehn is a raving fucking head case and anything she writes or says should be regarded with the greatest suspicion and caution.

      Clare Kuehn is a FRAUD.

    3. I do not agree with your comments on Clare. Please get a grip. :)

      She is a typical Torontonian, that's all. :)

      The only difference between her and I is the fact that I moved to Quebec. Viva la difference!!!!!

    4. I am totally convinced that Clare Kuehn is a psyop, a troll, an agent
      provocateur whose sole purpose is to disrupt, dislocate and destroy the highly esteemed Professor Fetzer's blog.
      I cannot understand why Professor Fetzer does not see this.
      Clare Kuehn is a sleeper - a cuckoo in the nest.
      We must all hope and pray that
      Professor Fetzer sees
      the dangers posed by this Kuehn virus before it is too late.

      Let us pray.........

    5. Vive le Québec!!

      Vive le Québec L.I.B.R.E. !!!!

    6. " If you think she is wrong, say so and explain why. Thanks."

      Well, I have observed many people here try to debate with Clare and her replies run along the lines of "No, XXX." Followed by more of Clare's opinions. It appears to be a Waste of Time. Not sure why you don't see it.

      I personally couldn't care less about Clare's opinions. I listen to your podcasts and lately have come into the comment threads, and I am struck by her overbearing presence here on so many topics.

      If I were to imagine how a Tavistock Social Engineer would behave, I would say Clare fits the bill perfectly. Of course, that is just my opinion. I have no proof that Clare is a Tavistock Social Engineer, but when I look at her picture and see her relaxed mouth, I am pretty damn sure that she is. And I am sure you would agree, that is about as scientifically proven as anything Clare thinks.

      Have a happy day.

    7. That comment by Charles de Gaule made quite an impact upon all of Canada. The issue of Quebec sovereignty remains to this day. It has a long and interesting history. The current government of the province of Quebec is separatist. There have been two referendums (referenda?) asking the question of Quebeckers is they want to leave Canada. the second one was very close with the actual French people voting to leave, but the non-French tipping the balance in favour of those who wished to stay. A remarkable incident took place in the early 1970s when a group called the FLQ (Federation Liberty Quebec) kidnapped a Quebec politician and a British diplomat. Our Prime Minister, Pierre Eliott Trudeau declared martial law in Quebec throughout the crisis, which included, sadly, the murder of the Quebec politician who had been kidnapped.

    8. To "A. Peasant":

      overbearing I might be, as sometimes Jim Fetzer is,

      but using the "relaxed mouth" of me as proof I am a social engineer is to mock a real proof of replacement of Paul, among several formal ones.

      What a formal proof does is show that ALL OTHER IMPRESSIONS YOU HAVE are SLIGHTLY OFF, and have to be revised.

      Mocking that is to be unreasonable. Overbearing or not in daring to say that, it simply is a fact. You are being unreasonable.

      Now learn the actual proofs of Paul's death (replacement at least, to make the most limited case about it). One is his ear cartilage on the outside: radically different angle shapes.

      Another is the reason for the teeth difference: a small palate gives the kind of distortion Paul had in his teeth positions, and no orthodontics can fix that, and there were none done (no big bloody surgeries for the palate, or even braces).

    9. To Y El Sol Mi Canta: read what I wrote to "A. Peasant" just above.

      To Stooy44:
      Hi. Yes, I am just a Torontonian here; enjoy "Le Quebec". But it is freer without separating and getting itself enmeshed with US dominance directly, as long as it keeps its social democratic reality and pushes for the rest of Canada to have it -- as it did in the Orange Wave. On the other hand, the NDP are flawed, too, and we have to hold their feet to the fire on many things. Best wishes.

    10. Do you believe, Clare, that Jack Layton was assassinated? I do.

    11. Excuse me, Clare. You are confusing me with someone who cares what you think.

      "Now learn the actual proofs of Paul's death ..."

      I am not your monkey. I don't waste my time researching things I don't care about.

      Have a happy day.

    12. Kuehn's favorite ploy when cornered by Ian Greenhalgh is to spout her mantra: " But you have to understand...". Understand what? Her nutty pontifications on jawlines, bent teeth "and "dodgy" earlobes?
      What I don't understand is why you Americans didn't take out those Canadians when you had the chance. They've sat on your northern borders for over 200 years doing what? Eating fucking waffles, that's what! Waffles in the morning, evening and the middle of the fucking night. They don't even know what a fucking pancake looks like. They LOVE waffles with maple syrup SO much they even have a flag with a fucking maple leaf on it. You call that a fucking flag? Why the fuck you Americans haven't nuked the bastards before now beats me. I mean, what's the matter with a few "accidental" nuclear explosions north of the Niagara Falls if it vaporizes a few million Canucks?
      Bu no. You didn't do it and now they're coming south telling you how to run your blog and running it for you. It's time you Americans moved north as far as the Bering Strait. Then it's Russia (zapping the Chinese after you've hit the Russians). Global thinking is what's needed here, Professor Fetzer.

    13. I read it, Clare.

      You were f***ing hilarious - as always.

    14. Y El Sol Mi Canta.

      The Americans did try to take Canada when they had the chance, but we beat them.

      It is called the War of 1812.

      Britain had its hands full with Napoleon at the time, and so President James Madison declared war on England and invaded Canada.

      Part of the fascinating history of this war saw Zebulon Pike, along with Dearborne invade and then burn to the ground the city of York, now called Toronto.

      In response the British invaded Washington and burned it to the ground. Brave Madison rode a horse out to the front with a couple of pistols at his sided, then retreated back to Washington, and then across the Potomic to watch his White House go up in flames.

      Later, when the Russians kicked Napoleon's ass, Madison panicked and started seeking peace.

      Once Wellington finally finished off the French, Madison messed his pants with worry.

      Luckily for the Americans the British were war weary and decided to agree to a peace that left absolutely no territory changing hands.

      The American historians like to declare the War of 1812 to have been a draw. Bullshit!!

      The Americans invaded us with the intention of annexing our land into theirs while Britain had its hands full with Napoleon. They failed.

      Canada beat the USA in the only war the two nations have fought against one another.

    15. Y El Sol Mi Canta, how do you know that nukes are not just some fiction then? What is the best evidence you can provide for that nukes are not fiction? Can you explain why there wasn't any discernible Ground Zero in Hiroshima? You don't have to respond - I know you cant anyway.

    16. Y El Sol Mi Canta:

      SOME THINGS DO HAVE TO BE UNDERSTOOD, in order to represent a position properly.

      The problem is not the lobes; it is the whole outer ear, the whole shape.

      The problem is not the teeth: it is the palate which would make such problems and render even orthodontics (which were not done in any noticeable way) impossible to correct the problem.

      And the problem with the mouth is that at rest, people's mouths, if of different lengths relative to their eyes, cannot be changed by surgery.

      Learn to think through the actual specifics of a case you don't yet follow emotionally; or you are a prejudiced and ignorant jury member on that, and would not be allowed to be part of a trial, and so are dismissable here, too, on that case, anyway.

    17. To A. Peasant:

      When I said, "Now learn about it," I meant, of course, that if you wish to proclaim any facility with it, you need to know the facts inside the position first. I did not mean you have to become aware of the case, of course.

      Yes, I have no personal doubt about Layton's probable assassination. HOWEVER, he was already sick, and did not take great care of himself.

    18. Yes, Jack was already sick, and rather than rest he campaigned hard and won a fantastic victory.

      But then his demise was astonishingly rapid. My suspicion is that they did to him what they did to Jack Ruby, and others. Have a paid off doctor inject him with the very fast acting cancer that ends lives quickly.

      Jack was a rare politician. He was someone people loved and trusted. He was intelligent, kind, soft, compassionate and very human.

      The problem was, he could not be bought off. And when it became clear that his tenure as Leader of the Opposition would have led to him becoming the next Prime Minister, there was only one thing left to do.

      This is of course just theory and conjecture. But one thing is certain in my mind. It was a very sad day for our country when this great man was taken from us, regardless of how it happened.

    19. Ill Hiroshitama aka El Buggo:

      How do I know you're not a figment of your own deluded imagination?

      You don't have to respond but I know you can and will because you're a delusional, demented and asinine creep with access to a computer and the internet and with way too much free time on your hands.

    20. Y, you changed the subject there. I know...

      How do you know that nukes are not just some fiction?

    21. Stooy44: Are we sure Jack died as we are told? Are we sure he died? Is it possible he's an actor or controlled as part of the political dialectic? Canada (Toronto) appears to be a leader in PsyOp/hoaxes. Ford provides drama while the police budget passes with increases unscrutinized.

    22. Stooy44: While I haven't looked into the FLQ crisis, it has all the makings of an elaborate hoax psyOp as well.

    23. Layton appeared at a news conference not long before he died, he looked like a skeleton. I do not believe it was a hoax.

      Pierre Laporte was found dead in the trunk of a car. The FLQ crisis was real.

  27. The alleged parent who is acting as if he is crying, but not showing the necessary physiological reactions such as a stuffed nose and so forth, thereby proving that it is an act, is a clear demonstration that this Sandy Hook event is a complete hoax.

    As noted, it is a new step in the actions of the maniacs running the show. Boston, 911 and others did happen, the only question is, who did it? But this one did not even happen.

    Again, they get away with more and more, and keep pushing the envelope as to how much they can get away with.

    1. True. Except that Boston did not "happen" either; it was a fake event in broad daylight; people died for the secret, however.

  28. Clare, I confess I have not studied Boston. Were there no bombs? Were films of explosions faked? Was it a fraud of the magnitude of Sandy Hook?

    1. There were smoke bombs and Craft International contract killers/troublemakers there to do the main event; there were people with what has to be fake blood (a man with both legs gone turns out to be a veteran whose real and long recovery was way before this short, and lucrative "recovery" -- he made $2 mil, I think it was, naming the Tsarnaevs formally) and injuries and fake claims of 3 dead. But several people have died for the lie.

      About the fake event and bloodless legless guy.

      About the other deaths, i.e., the coverup and the poor Tsarnaevs, among the dead, I'll leave you to the research. Seems both brothers are dead and there's a double in the courtroom, "a la" Saddam. If you look at the leaked photo of the younger brother, who is supposed to still be alive, you can see his head is patched up, he has no breathing tube, looks dead, and has an EARPLUG in his ear.

      A friend of that brother said he was shocked at how the man in the courtroom was not like his friend -- and he sounds like it's not just from mannerisms under drugging.

      The other brother was horribly mistreated and killed. And there were several witnesses, "suspects", and an FBI agent who were killed. That agent must have been trying to do his job even after learning of stuff which showed the fraud, I suppose.

    2. Clare, thanks for this analysis.

      But I will state that I am of the opinion that "research" is impossible on the internet, and especially on Youtube.

      The only generation more lied to, propagandized and brainwashed than the television generation is the internet generation.

      Yes, through both mediums some truth can be found. But it is so mixed with garbage that it is almost impossible to determine what is true and what is not.

      Therefore, to have strong beliefs on most of these questions seems nonsensical to me.
      Unless the evidence is overwhelming, I prefer to reserve judgement and give consent to very little.

      Did Paul die? Maybe, maybe not.

      Was Sandy Hook a hoax? Certainly. The lack of evidence that it happened combined with the clear evidence that it did not is convincing.

      Boston? Your explanation may well be the truth, the most likely possibility. But NOTHING on Youtube can be trusted to prove this one way or the other.

      So, being trained, like Mr. Fetzer, in logic (and in my case more in metaphysics), I am a skeptic. I believe very little, and I disbelieve very little.

      But there is one thing I am certain of and believe with all of my being, and it is this.

      All you need is love.

    3. Not if love comes too late for the full effect to occur in the other person, where they are lifted up but hurting and resentful and thus incomplete even with love, unable to completely live even after getting it. But originally, yes, all you need is love.

      Now, as to the rest:

      If you are skeptical, it means you are quizzing things, questioning things. But if so, then any medium for learning is valid and valuable if it can and does convey material at all which you need.

      The Internet is perfectly fine in that way, i.e., provides material and we can analyze each item.

      Same with print media, or hearing direct testimony from a friend who was at an event, and so on. There are always those who wish to trust nothing at all, to the point of not knowing how to reasonably judge the context and content of information. And there are tricks (faking/ changing things) out there, too, often detectable.

      But suggesting that the Internet is the cause of our woes and "Nothing" on Youtube can tell us anything is ludicrous.

      Footage can be from news sources and POINTED OUT on Youtube; photos can be presented which show people or they can be faked, but there are differences in that.

      You seem not to understand the logic of proof from visuals or any source, by extension. It is like people who said to David Lifton that the grassy knoll photos of blobs of smoke, in combination with the testimony of smells and sounds of gunfire, could not be used to prove anything.

    4. Clare, you need to be careful.

      I did not say that nothing on Youtube can "tell" us anything, I said that nothing on Youtube can be trusted to "prove" anything.

      Very different!

      Please get a grip. :)

  29. Stooy44

    Tu parles français?
    T'es Québecois? Hein??

    1. I speak French badly, and live in Gatineau, Quebec, just across the river from Ottawa, our national capitol.

    2. Good for you, mon vieux!!

      God bless Canada!!

      Tout va bien au Canada.

    3. Stooy44, how do you manage? When I was in Gatineau, many people really spoke almost no English at all.

    4. I speak enough French to get by, and most people on the Quebec side do speak passable or better English. It is quite common when we speak to use the other person's language. So I will speak French while they speak English.

      Also, the two languages are very much blended. It is called Franglish. If they do not know the English word they use the French word with an English accent, and if I do not know the French word I will use the English word with a French accent. It is amazing how often the words are the same anyway, just pronounced differently.

  30. What about this Mayor of Toronto?
    Drunk as a skunk and
    effing and blinding in
    Jamaican patois:

    " Wah di bloodclaat dew yuh?
    Wah di rassclot yuh chat bout?"

    ( What the f***'s the matter with you? What the f*** are you talking about?")

    It kinda renews your faith in Canada and Canadians.

  31. I love the mayor of Toronto. The guy is human, that's all. If I still lived there he would have my vote.

    I would be interested in hearing Clare's opinion on the man.

    There are lots of great Canadians whom like Rob Ford who are not hockey players.

    Neil Young for example, Four Dead in O-Hi-O.

    Justin Bieber is another. :)

    1. Ford: Idiot, fanatic, self-deluded, aided by others.

  32. I don't think he's done himself any harm politically in the long term. In fact I think he's probably done himself a lot of good
    politically. Like you say; he's only human. I think the Jamaican patois swearing was a nice touch.
    Fair play to you, Bob!!

  33. Citing Columbine when trying to prove Sandy Hook was not a hoax is a complete act of retardation. I have mirrored a video and renamed it "Kate Slate...Meet the Columbine Hoax". Ed Chiarini proved it's a hoax, too.
    To quote Hillary, "What difference does it make?" if Ed says some things that seem outrageous. He's dead on regarding Columbine. Watch the video and you'll be convinced that Columbine was the template for all these pathetic attempts to propagandize us into giving up our last defense against tyranny.

    1. Chiarini is an incompetent.

      As to Columbine: it was no hoax, except in the sense that the public was hoodwinked by a false flag, but there were many deaths, and the reports were solidly normal, but showed other shooters involved, in that sense as with JFK's death.

    2. "Chiarini is an incompetent"

      You would say that, woudn't you Clare? Chiarini incompetent? You're right. Unlike you, he is totally useless at reading people's minds from grubby old photographs of themselves or even from new phtographs. Can you believe it?!!

      Chiarini?? A total incompetent.

    3. Chiarini IS AN INCOMPETENT.

      His analysis of faces is not only incorrect (by impression), but also provably false in many instances where such proofs exist.

      What you do not seem to realize YESMC, is that sometimes a very SPECIFIC PROOF overturns your impressions -- whether of sameness or difference, depending on the circumstances.

      Chiarini CLAIMS such proof-points, but they are measurably wrong (in many instances, i.e., where measurements can be made well).

      Other than that, his impressions are just so off base that it is hard not to notice that fact -- BUT that is not a formal proof, so I will add, "in my opinion" for those ones where the formal proof would be lacking.

      As to "reading people's minds" ...

      Think a little before you accuse me of trying to do that.

      All the statements I make about people here, in their general tendencies, if I comment on those, are pretty obvious to someone who can handle the arguments put forward. For instance, I cannot prove that Shack is an agent or not, or OBF, but I CAN SAY FOR SURE that some of their work is excellent and that, for a while, Jim and Ian were under-mentioning that fact, and getting caught up, with my friend Don Fox, in simplifying their position, even as THEY simplify their own position,

      whereas their true position (meaning, the work's merit) is somewhere between mostly meaningless and mostly great.

      This is not mind-reading. But it does mean keeping the people's work separate and how they get angry.

  34. OK, I clicked the box and typed this at the bottom. I haven't signed on yet.

  35. Thanks for the help. I've tried it every which way, but nothing works. Once, by some miracle, the reply box opened when I clicked on it. Thrilling!

    Reading the latest posts, I'm wondering if there are any Americans posting here. Maybe that explains some of the odd opinions expressed here.

    You "foreigners" are not subjected to the same local media influences as we are. Also, our schooling has been different, especially history and social studies. I see now how you are just looking through the windows at us without understanding many things.

    For example, everything here is done to condition the masses into accepting the ruling class agenda. We are always in search of enemies, and ever since the fall of the USSR, our leaders have been desperate to find a new enemy. Since they can't use Communism as an alibi, they've invented "terrorism" and Muslims as the new enemy.

    Most Americans are following the script and are accepting the security state. We are not questioning what's going on because we are preoccupied with economic problems such as lack of an honest healthcare system and joblessness. Our bought and paid for controlled media, "the fourth estate,"has failed to hold our leaders responsible for their greed and incompetency.

    That's why it's imperative that we do our own research into these obvious frauds being perpetrated on the American public.

    1. Sometimes the reply boxes don't work. It's a glitch.

      Yes, you are really eating up the mass media stuff, but that's to be expected: it's supposed to be news, and lots of well meaning people working there would never think how their own work could be subjected to propaganda.

      It is the same everywhere, actually, but you guys get a constant diet of it. If they stepped it up in other places, and when they do on certain issues, most people elsewhere also buy the ideas. I live in Canada, fyi.

  36. This comment has been removed by the author.



    On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut. Before driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother Nancy at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived, he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

    The school's security protocol had recently been upgraded, requiring visitors to be individually admitted after visual and identification review by video monitor. Doors to the school were locked at 9:30 am each day, after morning arrivals.[18]

    Some time before 9:30 a.m. EST on Friday December 14, 2012, Lanza shot and killed his mother Nancy Lanza, aged 52, at their Newtown home with a .22-caliber Savage MK II-F rifle...... Lanza then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    Shortly after 9:30 am, using his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, Lanza shot his way through a glass panel next to the locked front entrance doors of the school.


    The Newtown police and Connecticut State Police mobilized local police dog and police tactical units, a bomb squad, and a state police helicopter. Police locked down the school and began evacuating the survivors room by room, escorting groups of students and adults away from the school. They swept the school for additional shooters at least four times.

    At approximately 10:00 am, Danbury Hospital scrambled extra medical personnel in expectation of having to treat numerous victims. Three wounded patients were evacuated to the hospital, where two children were later declared dead. The other was an unidentified adult.

    The New York City medical examiner dispatched a portable morgue to assist the authorities. The victims' bodies were removed from the school and formally identified during the night after the shooting. A state trooper was assigned to each victim's family to protect their privacy and provide them with information.



    a.) almost no-one knowing Adam or his family
    b.) shooting ranges not knowing the Lanzas and the arms in her house (supposedly) being registered, yet these are illegal guns for CT
    c.) the front door with glass blown in AFTER the events
    d.) "The victims' bodies were removed from the school and formally identified during the night after the shooting"

    1. And the 35+ homes given -- including the Lanza residence -- in 2009, all but the Lanzas' (so-named house) on Christmas, with theirs in the summer. The set-up method was done beforehand, i.e., we have a means for co-opted people to move in, even if the Lanzas themselves didn't exist or something. (One person claimed he did find phone records in their names, but not in Adam's.)

  38. Kuehn really does have her legs under the table in this blog. She has now become the resident "mouth" in Professor Fetzer's blog. Kuehn has become ubiquitous on all threads.
    Big Sister has finally arrived.
    How long before she sweet talks Professor Fetzer into giving her the "whole farm"?
    How long before Kuehn starts banning and blocking other blog users?

    Not long, now.....I fear.

    You read it here first, folks.

  39. Dr. Fetzer was wrong about Judy Wood, and he is wrong about Clare. But by the time he figures that out, only the trolls will be left here and Clare will be imperiously whacking her ruler over their knuckles while they beg for more.... Oh Please Ms. Clare! Please Be Fair!

    Other than that, he has a great show.

  40. I know Clare is extremely irritating and annoying, but I'm sure she isn't an agent. Please don't let her drive you away, a good discussion needs participants!

    1. Ian,

      I respect your opinion but I think Kuehn is really a very dangerous individual. She has wormed her way into this blog over a period of several years.
      She started with her PID hooey then moved onto the JFK assassination - of which she actually says very little. My view is that the feigned interest in the JFK assassination was merely a lever - a ploy to ingratiate herself with Professor Fetzer and to prove her credentials as it were. Then she was into 9/11 with a vengeance and posing as some kind of self-appointed expert. I believe her PID theory is bogus. I also believe her interest in PID is bogus and is a cover. Her interest in 9/11 is also bogus and a cover. A cover for what? - You may ask.
      Her true purpose is to discredit research into the JFK assassination - the one thing she says little or next to nothing about. PID is nothing but a tool for Kuehn. Her main purpose is to undermine and discredit Professor Fetzer and his JFK assassination research and JFK assassination
      in general. To discredit by association of her PID bullshit
      with The JFK assassination.... and 9/11.

      The sooner Professor Fetzer realizes what Kuehn is actually
      up to and the sooner the Professor boots Kuehn out of this blog, then the better for Professor Fetzer and his blog.

      Kuehn has psyop, troll and agent provocateur written all over her - IMHO.


    2. Ian, you seem to be a sweet guy. What is most important in these situations is to notice the interactions between the people posting. Who comes to whose defense... who disappears when attacked and reappears after the thread has moved on... who shows up to helpfully change the subject when the heat comes on... who sends people off on errands to find non-existent proofs of idiotic ideas...? That tactic alone -- the demands to go Do This and Find That -- are very common here.

      If you take some of these longer threads and look at them from 50,000 feet, you can begin to see how certain people are working together to steer the discussion.

      I have been around the block a few times, and I tell you, it's the same old same old.

    3. Ian, I did analyze one of these threads for my own edification and would be happy to share the results with you.

    4. Interesting thoughts guys, I would be interested to hear further analysis. I've been interested in what gets labelled 'conspiracy theories' for many years (I don't like the term, I prefer to think of it as 'the search for the hidden truth'. However, it is only recently I've chosen to partake in discussions and try to contribute. There's two reasons for this, the prime one being my physical health deteriorated severely, leaving me almost housebound, I was determined not to let my mental health also deteriorate so I wanted to keep my brain as active as possible, and I read a lot, researched a lot. The second reason is that I have been painfully aware of how a large proportion of the supposed 'truthseekers' have hidden agendas. Call them disinfo agents, gatekeepers, shills, whatever you wish, they come in many forms. I've always, from the moment I first became aware of him in the 90, thought Alex Jones was an agent.

      However, after listening to a lot of Jim Fetzer's shows and reading a lot of his work, I felt I had found one guy who was on the level.

      It would make perfect sense that they would want to derail Jim by getting people close to him who could do damage. We have seen what happens when they try to attack Jim directly, as with this Mike Piper and AFP debacle, Jim is capable of fending off those sorts of attacks and thoroughly defeating them, Judy Wood was successfully beaten.

      If Jim has a weakness, it is most likely his willingness to give an ear to anyone who might have something useful to say, he gave OBF airtime and that worm turned, he gave Judy Wood a lot of benefit of the doubt. This is not a criticism of Jim, he is, in fact, following proper academic method in being open to ideas and different voices, but when dealing with these people who are following nefarious agendas, you have to have a different mindset to when you are dealing with fellow academics.

      Clare does harm discussions by dominating them and shouting down people who disagree. She does defend the work of people like Simon Shack far to much and she does push her own theories too hard without being open to counterpoints.

      However, does this mean she is doing these things to deliberately disrupt and discredit Jim's show and it's comments threads?

      I honestly don't know, I hadn't considered it until now, but you guy have given me some food for thought.

      I'll just keep doing my own thing, researching and trying to fit together pieces of the puzzle, when I find bits that fit together, I'll try to explain them to others. I remain highly conscious of being a very small cog and not being able to do much to change this world, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't do what little I can.

    5. Ian, I annoy you, do I?

      And A. Peasant, you feel like your knuckles are rapped?

      If you were being fairer to what I am saying, you might notice that actually I am very kind most of the time, but when nonsense gets spouted (i.e., people are discussing as if beyond-doubt-proofs of things are "mere opinion"), of course I point out the flaw.

      So does Jim. And he is far ruder sometimes.

      I also present nuance. Bothers you guys? You prefer mere back-and-forth opining, eh?


      Anyway, I am glad you both are here; why not, hm? And this idea I am "steering" as an agent is ludicrous. Goodness, have you no sense of people, A. Peasant? No agent would be doing what I'm doing: keeping you on track if you don't get something, or giving you nuance about positions people might like to dismiss (such as the CluesForum and LetsRollForums work, or Sandy Hook arguments, below), because they would not want you to know or think about how some things are PARTLY right, so that you include them in your discussion AT ALL.

      Best wishes, in spite of how you two are talking about me.

      :) Might as well.

    6. A. Peasant:

      You want the JFK assassination?

      My first show with Jim was about his work on the Zapruder film.

      I post in many places about the key arguments to help newbies with the JFK assassination.

      I am "friends" with Judyth Vary Baker on Facebook.

      I contributed to the 2nd article on Oswald in the Doorway in the Altgens, which Jim and Cinque wrote the bulk of. (I summarized the work of another researcher, a key one, and also spoke about perception and the overall doctoring of the shirt's arm. My paragraphs are the last 3 before the very last one.) The article is on Veterans Today.

      Don't give me bull about my not doing JFK.
      But we all know so much about JFK's death, here, that I respond to what is here, in these current shows AND presented, hard-ball as well as softball, the case for PID, which you still do not understand the finer points of.

      Anyway, JFK is certainly important. No doubt.

    7. By the way, A. Peasant (since I didn't notice your comments about my "starting with PID"), you obviously didn't search my name for the shows I've done.

      I started with JFK and 9/11. I have contributed heavily on both, here and elsewhere. But when I also learned about PID I did a show in 2012, and one just now, along with, on the way, other shows about things Jim needed me to.

      Please stop your agent namecalling. I've been around the block on this stuff, too, and one thing which is silly is to misunderstand positions and over-call people agents.

      If I am an agent I'd like the money, please. :)

    8. I think I' undersand you now Clare, you'rehopelessly arrogant, cnceited and sure of your own ability to understand thingsthat other''s can't.

      That's why you feel you need to 'keep things on track' and why you feel you need to constantly tell people they are wrong and you are right.

      Arrogance is why you insist you bring 'nuance' that others lack. It's not nuance to support the work of Cluesforum, it's stupidity. Their work is hopelessly flawed, almost completely bereft of value and has no place at all among serious, scientific research.

      But you can see 'nuance' we can't... how stupid and primitive we must all be.

      You're too arrogant to realise what damage you're doing Clare, if you weren't so arrogant and full of yourself, you might shut up for a moment an think about why you attract so much derision and scorn, why people hate you, why they think you're an agent.

      It's pretty obvious that what matters to you is your own ego and promoting yourself and your wonderful intellect with it's nuance fairness and whatever else you claim to have.

      Well listen up Clare, your ego and your opinions are of very little importance in the grand scheme of tings, and until you learn to put yourself, your massive ego and your big mouth second in importance to the search for truth, then you'll only be a negative force that disrupts every discussion and annoys every person who comes here.

      If you want to be a force for good then you'll have to tame that ego of yours and learn how to treat other people properly instead of the holier-than-thou, preachy and deeply offensive way you carry on.

    9. " If I am an agent, I'd like the money..."

      Many, as you well know, work for no financial recompense.

    10. Clare, I did not ask you about JFK, nor did I make any statements about PID.

      "You want the JFK assassination?"

      Not from you.

      "Don't give me bull about my not doing JFK."

      Where have I done that Clare?

      "By the way, A. Peasant (since I didn't notice your comments about my "starting with PID"), you obviously didn't search my name for the shows I've done."

      I did not notice my comments about your "starting with PID" either, because I never wrote any.

      Nor do I "feel" like you rapped my knuckles. Don't flatter yourself.

      What I did ask, and the question has gone unanswered, is what are your credentials and connection to Tavistock?

      "And this idea I am "steering" as an agent is ludicrous. Goodness, have you no sense of people, A. Peasant? "

      Actually yes. I have a special knack for identifying narcissists and sociopaths.

      "No agent would be doing what I'm doing: keeping you on track if you don't get something, or giving you nuance about positions people might like to dismiss (such as the CluesForum and LetsRollForums work, or Sandy Hook arguments, below), because they would not want you to know or think about how some things are PARTLY right, so that you include them in your discussion AT ALL."

      Sounds exactly like gatekeeping to me, which is what agents do.

      Otherwise, you claim to have all sorts of unique insights and superior understandings which require you to "keep us on track." That is an appeal to authority. Or, more properly, a Fallacious Appeal to Authority.

      It's a pet peeve of mine when people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about act like the boss.

      So either you have some inside knowledge and/or training about these events that you should disclose, or you are a citizen researcher like everyone else and therefore in no particular position of authority.

  41. I had to stop listening after about 40 minutes, sorry. I can't listen to these "debates" where Jim comes prepared and the opponent comes with nothing.

    As soon as I hear the naysayer throw out the "you people" line, I have to tune out...because I know they are not serious or actually trying to refute anything. They simply go on, with NO data or evidence, thinking, "I MUST be right, because this guy can't be, so anything I say will be right even if I'm making it up."

    1. He actually did some good research, raised some good points for his side.

      His "you people" is anger. Let it be. They all feel that way, as many people here felt about the excesses of Sept Clues, LetsRollForums, etc., for though "those people" were much maligned for overdoing some conclusions, they did a lot of good work too; Jim is seeming like "one of those weird people" to many who don't understand Sandy Hook (but remember, they actually have value, Sept Clues and LetsRollForums, on many things).

      Yet for total-hoax, Sandy Hook is likely to be one, as Jim is stating ... Almost or total hoax -- or whatever word one wishes, a la Smallstorm, to use for this fake event.

      There is some suggestion, however, that possibly Nancy and Adam were killed, but it's subtle, as Jim and I are discussing. It is always possible, though, that this operation was used for some deep-cover coverups.

    2. Still defending Sept Clues and promoting their work....

      And now you're doing the same with Piper and his cronies...

      We don't need you to explain these people to us, we can form our own opinions.

      Defending them is doing more harm than good, unless you have more information than the rest of us aren't privy to then you simply don't have a sound basis to build a defence on.

      You should stick to your PID theory, at least with that, you can't cause much damage.

      Don't defend Piper, that would be the wrong thing to do, don't try to explain his actions, that would also be wrong. Not least because, right now, we don't know what his motivations and agenda are and for you to try to explain away his behaviour is only obfuscating things.

      In short, leave it alone until we can find out for sure what Piper's really about, this is important stuff we are dealing with and you going off on one of your know it all long-winded expositions of the gospel according to Clare is doing nothing but harm.

  42. "Naysayer...?

    Clare Kuehn's favorite get out when her PID pap is challenged:

    "But you have to UNDERSTAND...!!!"


    I assume you stopped listening to Clare Kuehn a long time ago....? LOL

    1. I have responded to YESMC many times on this:

      The "you have to UNDERSTAND" means there are self-evident, as in, verifiable, measurable items in the queue for your delectation intellectually, if you so choose to appreciate them at all.

      And if you do, you will find your overall impressions were a little bit off everywhere. In other words: that there are, like fingerprints or DNA, things which can be ISOLATED which make the case, whether your perceptions appreciate the overall look (or sound) at all.

      And so, it is a matter of UNDERSTANDING, not of my opinion at that point. Or you can choose to La-tee-dah along, YESMC, pretending it is a meaningless item for your mind.

      As to Stooy44:

      Actually, he appreciates the fact that Paul is different (appreciates, as in, understands it); he simply draws the distinction rather ad hoc for his musical general ear, that Paul did not die but was or is somewhere sending us music and recordings only.

    2. Must we also ".....learn the actual proofs of Paul's death.."?

      Surely you mean "proof"? As yet you have supplied not a shred of evidence that could remotely be called "proof" of your ridiculous claims regarding Paul McCartney. Also proof is self-evident and is not "learned". Go find a publisher and put your PID nonsense in book form. Let those who want to read about your Paul-Is-Dead nonsense buy your book. Either publish your book or leave Jim Fetzer's blog and take your PID horseshit with you.

      I hope you have understood and learned.

  43. I'd like to know how Clare manages to get all the cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. done and still spend all that time blogging.

  44. I think you should give the lady a break. It does you no favours to appear to harangue the poor woman for expressing her opinions wether you agree or not (and I often don't). Clare has consistently raised interesting points in the face of much harsh resistance that would see most people run for the hills, myself included. Please gentlemen, let's do better. If nothing else Dr Fetzer and this board deserve it.

    1. Tiny_Danza:

      You have become soft in the head and indulgent. The future of Jim Fetzer's blog is in the balance here. Let us have no more of your wishy washy bleeding heart sentimentality.

      Either shape up or ship out.

    2. Nah, I was just raised well. There is nothing wishy washy about wanting to raise the tone above bullish and occasionally misogynistic personal attacks. Surely we're here to share ideas and info not create false consensus through shouting down others. The behaviour of some of you has been at times reminiscent of the bitchy courtiers in the court of Elizabeth I. Clare has Professor Fetzers ear and that seems to bother you more than it should. I think you should try to rise above it, or else take your own advice because I for one am sick of watching threads dissolve into Keuhn bashing.

    3. Tiny_Danza:

      I admire your forthrightness and sense of personal.....ah....can't think of the word.......fair play....Sorry that's two words. But anyhow, thanks for your input. Please remember that this is nothing personal. It's business - forum business. Having said that, don't lecture me about the court of Elizabeth I. I was there. Right?
      I was Her Majesty's chief court jester. Talk about laughs? You wouldn't believe the things we got up to with those early whoopee cushions........One day......Shakespeare arrived to read his latest play to Her Majesty.....On second thoughts, let's not go there. Suffice to say that Shakespeare ended up with two broken legs. That old Elizabeth laughed her head off. What a girl she was! Anyway, thanks again for your input.

      Appreciate it.

    4. Thanks. I Didn't mean to sound quite so pompous.

    5. Tiny_Danza, I agree completely with you. Clare is quite brilliant and her critics should spend more time studying her analyses and less engaging in pettifoggery attacking her.

    6. She took my last comfort away from me.

      40+ years of research has taught me everything is a lie. But still, I could go home at the end of a hard day (s night) spark up a phatty and listen to The Beatles (I mean Threetles) and the world would seem a little better.

      Now I cant even do that

      Damn you Clare!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      lol, j/king....kinda

  45. Clare,
    I should have gone here in the first place. Fetzer and researchers have done a thorough job on Sandy Hook. Case closed.

    Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax | Veterans Today

    1. Proof of death has been suppressed
    2. Emergency protocols were not followed
    3. Drill protocols were followed instead
    4. There was foreknowledge of the event
    5. There were contradictory reports about the weapons
    6. Adam Lanza cannot have done the shooting
    7. Key participants displayed inappropriate behavior
    8. Photos at scene and of victims look staged or fake
    9. The crime scene was completely destroyed
    10. Deceased children sang at the Super Bowl

    1. I know all that, Joan, but thanks.

      But: there are some refinements to these and some of them Jim and I are discussing as to how to put them in his next interview, since the drill protocols issue and key participants' behaviour and photos looking staged in general are things which, like the music after 1966 for Sir Paul McCartney, do not have formal proofs (as they are stated here, anyway), and so the other people (naysayers) can and do pick holes in these:

      for example, that there was inappropriate behaviour (there was), they can and do say (as with perceptions overall of sameness or difference in music) that "sometimes" people do this or that ... but in fact the details of the behaviour DO show difference in their behaviour, but only if one is very careful to note specific moments.

      They are not the strongest things to have in the overall argument. I am not saying he's going to change those things, necessarily, but there are some key proofs of the pre-planning and of the faking of victims which we are discussing.


    2. Oops! Was cut off. Was writing:

      Thank you, though, for posting the 10 points in one place, for the general readership!

  46. There is no conceivable way that Sandy Hook was anything but a drill, published as a real event. That's it. That's all there is. It was well planned...well, the drill anyway.
    The media manipulation was typical, and full of holes.
    Hence, why we have the top 10 points.

    1. Well said, there really isn't much more to it - a drill that had been in the planning for years, given large scale media coverage that was less than perfect, allowing us to see right through the official version of events.

  47. fakery is the name of their game. has been since the titanic and beyond.
    clare and jim want to get us down the pathways the perps encourage us down.
    jfk's death was faked/staged.
    paul McCartney was replaced and continued to work on behind the scenes.
    (elvis, jim Morrison, kurt kubain, whitney hueston, amy whinehouse, Michael Jackson etc. all staged/faked their deaths)
    9/11 was staged with fake video and few if any real victims.
    sandyhook and boston are the (fakery) clinchers.

    our education is almost complete. the Johnson and piper disastrous performances are a deliberate ploy to bring attention to the fakery via the contrast, and to take it to the fore for prime consideration.

    1. What a load of rubbish.

      JFK's death was not faked, any sane person knows that.

      There is no place for your cluesforum lunacy here.

    2. All of those things could be true by themselves, if individual evidence proved it.

      The problem, as I've finally discovered, with you CluelessForum individuals, is that your idea of Proof is that, "If one thing is fake, they're all fake, and evidence be damned".

    3. Precisely correct. As I have argued many times, the cluesforum work is terribly flawed to the point of being farcical because it is based on looking at some low quality reproductions of pictures and they ignore almost all other evidence, which is such a violation of the proper scientific method as to render their work absolutely invalid.

  48. have you researched culto's conclusive work regarding the jfk fassassination PM? jim or clare just will not comment upon it, yet he proves his case over and again.
    in all my looking into things, I have never damned any evidence but have come exactly to where I am now because of damning evidence.

    and ian, you are some plum.

    1. Trust me, I've seen more than one person's "conclusive" evidence, all "proving" completely different outcomes and realities. The above is nothing special.

  49. Proves his case over and over again? All he proves is that he's a nutjob.

    You seriously expect a serious, scientific researcher like Dr. Fetzer to waste his time with idiocy of that nature?

    You obviously have no ability whatsoever to discern the difference between evidence and laughable BS.

  50. ian, are you keith Johnson of Michael piper? you certainly seem to employ the same shitty type argument as those that they have scuttered out in the recent debates.

    and I was wrong about you being a plum.
    you are two plums.

  51. but have you been through culto's specific research PM? yes or no?

  52. I've looked at it, it uses the same invalid, unscientific methods as Simon Shack - looking at pictures then dreaming up outlandish theories without bothering to consult any other sources of evidence; therefore it's nothing more than the ramblings of an incompetent and doesn't deserve even cursory recognition among serious, scientific researchers.

  53. not addressing you ian.
    you are a bunch of plums.

    1. pshea:

      You and your fucking plums.

      Would you do us all a favor and go fuck yourself?

      Up a plum tree - if possible.

    2. I'll just quote Dennis Cimino as he said it bluntly:

      "Pshea, don't come into the comment section and put out this shit without substantial evidence that supports these assertions. "

  54. y el sol mi canta;

    sour grapes?

  55. still blowin' raspberries I see, sol.

    ian be a partridge in a pear tree.

  56. that may be sol, but i'm sure your core is sweet.

    1. Somebody in here has certainly given you the pips. That's for sure. You been messing with the old tart Granny Smith again? Isn't it time a man of your age stopped flashing that Cox pippin of yours? I appeal to you to cut it out.

  57. Well, I finally listened to this show.

    The debate started well and then degenerated into a shouting match where both sides showed little restraint and respect.

    On pretty much all of the issues Keith addressed his arguments were by far the most convincing. And I do think that Jim should drop most of these from his overall case.

    But as noted in the debate by Jim, Keith simply refused to even discuss some of Jim's contentions. The reason is clear.

    So Jim did a better job of demonstrating his side of the question, and therefore won the debate easily.

  58. i don't adam and eve it! your bite really is worse than your bark sol!
    maybe we can eventually flesh this whole thing out but one thing for sure here is that one certainly needs to be thick skinned to endure a pie-ing to the face as saucy as the one you just dished out!
    one up to the pink lady.

    1. I can only say that your comments have been exceedingly fruitful. I feel now is the time for you to branch out and create your own prog blog.........
      I do feel any efforts you make in that area will bear fruit. Occasionally you will feel that all your endeavours are fruitless.....
      Do not despair but stick with it

      "Úll thing comes to those who weigh it" they say(?).

      Thank you again. Remember the poem:

      There's an orange
      In my doorhinge
      Was that the rhyme?
      Sorry, I haven't a watch on.



    This is so bizarre. I don't see what there is to debate. The facts in the case are right there in Wikipedia. There were some 650 pictures released of the "crime scene," and not one showed any people. Why would you debate someone who is not even familiar with the facts in the case as Keith said from the outset?

  60. crazy right joan? there are only a very few ways that sandy hook the production makes sense and one is that we are being educated in the ways of media fakery and encouraged to question at a base level all that government is and stands for.
    we don't yet know how powerful we really are but after all this implodes we will, and we will never give up that power again.

    that is politest manner in which I have ever been told to fuck off from here, sol. I love it!

    I can't match your poem but I can leave you with a gem of advice that has served me well throughout my own days and ways;

    'never nudge your granny while she's shaving'.

    says it all really.

    keep the sunny side in sol, and just watch those wildflowers blossom.

  61. Excellent blog, Congrats to the Web Master, nice colors and text.
    Thanks for sharing your knowledge. God bless you.

    Cherry Marmalade Recipe
    Geetings from Venezuela.

  62. Thank you for your interesting and informative blog. I have enjoyed reading it and appreciate the work you have put into it. Here is some relevant information for you to review .
    Kids Tactical Vests