Monday, March 31, 2014

Jim Fetzer

Current events (with Rick Adams)


  1. I am surprised the news that came out a week ago on the evening's ABC newscast about an award bestowed upon George Herbert Walker Bush wasn't mentioned, if only the absurdity of this award. Apparently, Bush was awarded with the JFK "Profiles in Courage" award. How outrageous! What hypocrisy!

  2. I'm very concerned about another false flag that will be blamed on Russia this time. Washington and NATO are both threatening Russia. Russia is the only country acting with maturity and using diplomacy. In my opinion it's really about Syria where the US was outmaneuvered by Russia's intellect and diplomacy which prevented Obama from launching missiles into Syria. The Washington war mongers have egg on their face, and are extremely poor sports. I also suspect Yatzenyuk has been getting a nice pay check from the CIA during the past several years. He seems similar to "Curveball," and "Chalabi" CIA puppets from the illegal US invasion of Iraq.

  3. Anyone soliciting donations such as this Wolfgang Halbig is suspect. Wolfgang Halbig has been exposed as a fraud. Sorry to say Jim but you were duped.

  4. If 'anyone soliciting donations is suspect", is Dr. Fetzer and all bloggers and radio show hosts who operate PayPal buttons suspect?

    Wolfgang Halbig has not been exposed as "a fraud." Be up-front about your accusations and define your terms please.

  5. Yes just go to YouTube and search under the terms 'Wolfgang Halbig fraud' and look at the evidence presented in various videos. He is a dubious character at best.

  6. Please answer this question.

    If 'anyone soliciting donations is suspect", is Dr. Fetzer and all bloggers and radio show hosts who operate PayPal buttons suspect?

    I ask this question because you seem to imply that WH "is suspect" because he asks donations to help him with his mission and that is nothing more than Dr. Fetzer and so many other alternative Internet reporters and investigators ask to help with their missions.

    I have read about those Halbig bashing videos and know only a little about the basis of their accusations, and what I have read tells me that Mr. Halbig does not meet the definition of "fraud" in my book, and neither in the law dictionary book either.

    I have no intention of seeking out those bashing videos and guess you refuse to answer my questions because you know the accusations are spurious and that you do not have a leg to stand on, but I guess standing forthrightly in any sense of the term is not your thing.

  7. I want you to answer my questions including your definition of "fraud." I would like you to stand behind your hit-and-run remarks and give us the basis of your accusations.

    Otherwise, you're just another weak vacuous anonymous entity.

    1. I haven't seen any evidence that Wolfgang is a fraud. I'm not convinced he is going to get anywhere with his approach, but I do think he really does want to expose it as the fraud it was.

  8. Sorry for double post. Thought first one did not post.

  9. JEANNON writes "I have no intention of seeking out those bashing videos". So you refuse to look at the evidence. It's quite convincing in my book. Dr. Fetzer is not a professional fund raiser like this guy seems to be. He's an opportunist and apparently a con-artist. Buyer beware.

  10. "So you refuse to look at the evidence."

    You are presuming "evidence" that has not been established.

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

  11. Yeah and he wants your donations to do so. He wants $100,000. I don't trust the guy. If you listen to Dr. Fetzer's first interview with Halbig, he says "I'm not calling it a hoax". Go on. Listen to the interview again for yourself. Something just stinks with this guy.

    1. Because he wants to determine what did or did not happen without prejudging the case. But he has concluded that it was probably 2 or 2 1/2 years in the planning.

      He is not taking a nickel from any of this--and I find these ad hominem attacks on a good and courageous man to be completely despicable. He has made an impact not one else has had.

    2. Jim, your BS detector didn't work very well for Hailey Otis (and her Zelig-like ex-boyfriend) now did it?

      I can tell you're a soft-hearted guy all right, despite your intimate knowledge and scholarly analyses of the rigors of genuine science. And sometimes you just trust too much without verifying.

      Another trenchant example is your unquestioning provision of free airtime to the impossible rantings of that bitter, delusional New Zealander who finds paedophiles under every bedcover. And then there's the regrettable Judy Wood affair...

      Maybe Wolfie Boy IS an honest truth-seeker regarding Sandy Hoax, but even a cursory search into his past will turn up plenty of clues that he's also something of a hustler.

      Of course, as Webster Tarpley often says when questionable sources, with checkered pasts, still come up with valuable nuggets of previously beyond-our-grasp information:

      "Gold is where you find it!!!"

      So, if Mr. Halbig eventually DOES shake some truth out of the (likely artificial) trees in Newtown (and doesn't get compromised, jailed, or killed in the process) we can all thank him profusely for the effort.

      But if he absconds with the funds donated for his investigation and/or pronounces the official story valid after all -- there are many of us (jaded as we are) who won't be surprised.

  12. Unless it is a tissue of web forgeries, Mr. Halbig's discoverable, on-line history shows him to have once been a vehement supporter of Israel, a hater of Muslims, and an inveterate resume-padder who previously established several short-lived, education-related "consulting" businesses.

    Nevertheless, his injecting himself into the Sandy Hoax mystery may have been initially motivated by genuine curiosity regarding the many impossible, media-spewed details of the event -- and a desperate hope to find some way to profit from burgeoning public scepticism regarding the "official" story.

    But by now, with Halbig's making himself available for (fund-raising) interviews by a large number of alternative-alternative news commentators, he's probably learned to keep his Israel-firster views very, very quiet. ;)

  13. Everything this guy does revolves around fundraising. He doesn't do anything without fundraising. Now he says he needs $100,000 to determine what did or did not happen at Sandy Hook. We already know what happened. We don't need this guy. Distance yourself Jim.

  14. I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when they start to ask for money, my bs alarm starts to ring. I say let's see what he does with the money he's collected so far before we start giving him more. Does anybody know what he is doing now? Has he outlined what he is going to do with the money? My husband and I are spending six weeks in France on less than 10,000. I'll bet Wolfgang can get a lot done in Newtown on seven or eight thousand.

    1. Wolfgang is raising money to pursue legal options, where attorney fees can run high. From my experience with him, he is completely on the up-and-up and has taken a lot of abuse for no good reasons. He is the point man on Sandy Hook--and I support him completely.

    2. I see -- attorney fees cost a LOT more than a visit to France, for sure! Well, more power to him and I sure do hope that we won't be disappointed with him. I'm not the only one who has seen people come and go with hopeful people's money. That's why most of us are questioning this whole situation, because of past experience.

  15. lol, at fetzer continually citing halbig(aliar)'s claim that sandy hook took 2 to 2 1/2 years to plan.

    big deal - the length of time is totally immaterial - obviously, it was planned - but whether it took 6 months, 9.2 months or 2 years is as significant as whether the planners wore white coats and a pink carnation or a red rose.

    Andy Tyme calls fetzer soft-hearted - i'd say soft-brained - how many times did judy wood have to spit on him before he realised it wasn't raining.

    (this is my 1st post so i don't want to leave a negative impression - the professor, for the most part, does valuable work to uncover government malfaesance)

  16. And so its come to this :-) :

    Yesterday I posted in this thread pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of an anonymous poster [Jeannon] calling someone else posting here [John Connour] "just another weak vacuous anonymous entity."

    And today, that post has disappeared.:-)

    It seems we are not supposed to expose the hypocrisy of Fetzers favorite fans ["F.F.F."'s?] here- what a surprise. This one might last a day- we'll see :-)


  17. I guess I should be thankful your vulgar vitriolic and totally erroneous post about me was spiked, and I am, but it dud ckearkt demonstrate what obf is about-- attacks based on error.

    A short search on the web would show you that Jeannon is my real name and that I am not an anonymous poster. My first name is so unusual that all hits will probably be me. I was named after a woman named Jeannon Walker who was Clinton's ambassador to the Czech Republic and who was a close friend of my aunt.

    and if you do that search you will also probably find my last name too which is also a very unique, almost one of a kind last name.
    I post 90 percent of the time under my real first name and the rest under either my first name run together with my real last name (also very unique), or Archie, my beloved deceased dachshund, or Dachsie or DachsieLady and have been posting under these names for 15 years.

    1. I see you've sussed obf out.

      You're absolutely correct, all he does is attack people and he is never correct in any of his accusations. Jim has dismantled his nonsense arguments on a previous show, it all boils down to he simple fact that obf talks nothing but nonsense and is nothing more than a troll.

  18. Malaysian Airline a 'Sandy Hookish' Hoax?

  19. Now this guy Wolfgang Halbig claims to be a German immigrant but no German accent. I bet he doesn't speak a fucking word of German. Ed Cherini purports he's Col. Bo Grites. I have no opinion on this at this time. I know he's not who he says he is.

    1. If you mean Bo Gritz, then that's perhaps the most lunatic thing I've ever heard.

    2. Ed Cherini also thinks that Jimmy Carter is JFK. I am sorry, John, but you are not enhancing your credibility by citing a man who is incapable of distinguishing different faces.

    3. Chariani also claimed John B. Connally was LBJ!!!
      Based on? Their handwritten signatures...and earlobes...of course.
      So LBJ and Connally were both in the motorcade on November 22 1963 at the SAME time??!! A minor detail...according to Chariani!!
      There's one sure thing about Chariani's bullshit: you CAN make it up and Chariani DOES!! And what's more....people actually believe Chariani's crud!!!

    4. Bo Grits...bwahaa...havent heard that name in years.

      Anybody who bs's around with the horrible MIA situation like that idiot did, is truly an f'd up individual

    5. Funny thing is I agree with you on this. I find Cherini entertaining more than anything else. I take everything he does with a grain of salt. He does bring to our attention however how they bring out these troop of actors at these staged events. Some of them being used over and over again.

  20. My patience is running out for those like John Connour and obf who are trashing a courageous and honorable man who is putting himself on the line for Sandy Hook.

    And attack on Jeannon are completely unacceptable. If I have to come here every day and delete them, I will do that. And consider giving the boot to some of you.

  21. Well then Dr. Fetzer, you seem to have an open mind. At least your mind is not closed in your pursuit of the truth from my observation of you over the years. We know that you've been duped before and have admitted it with several guests. I would appreciate it if you would read over this then get back to me (us).

  22. Also this:

  23. This is a wonderful thread.

    One thing I can say for sure, I am the ONLY one who does not know the truth. Everyone else obviously does.

    I guess my mama raised fools after all.

  24. This is a good one. Run with the money and never look back.

  25. Bringing up Ed Chiarini again is really a silly, newbie-ish waste of cyberspace, since he's apparently some kind of "performance artist" whose arty, one-joke routine has long since worn out its welcome (if it ever had one, outside of Sunstein's cubicle brigade).

    Of course, Chiarini might be a true believer in supporting "The Dark Side" (if he really did previously work for that disinfo agent, Robert Groden) and therefore thinks it's worthwhile, for their evil cause, to indirectly discredit the September Clues Vicsim Report by continuing to promote his own, utterly ridiculous claims of false identities and fake photos.

    Repeat: the Vicsim Report is "The Real Deal," (sorry, Jim...) that is so solid (in proving big-media complicity in massive 9/11 fakery) that none of the execrable perp-supporters have even TRIED to debunk.

    So far their tactics (with the possible exception of Chiarini's foolish web-parody) have been just to IGNORE it.

    1. Oh come on Andy, the Vicsims Report is a load of rubbish just like the rest of the Sept Clues work. It wilfully ignores so much evidence that it's not worth the paper it's written on.

      The whole point of Simon Sack an his work is to gatekeep for the perpetrators of the 9/11 crime. If it's all fake and there were no victims then the crime is vastly diminished. Shack would have people believe a pair of empty towers were demolished with dynamite behind a smoke screen while a movie was played on TV and that no-one died. This is a completely false story that he pushes in order t make it seem like the actual crime was nothing more than demolishing a couple of buildings and fooling a whole lot of people in the process. This is blatant disinfo because the actual crime was truly horrific, the mass murder of thousands using nuclear weapons. Shack is an utter joke, his supposed video and image 'analysis' is patheticly amateurish and he has done nothing whatsoever to aid the search for truth and justice, he's a despicable lowlife shill.

    2. The Vicsim report is not the only place where such work has been done. There is another and page on the Sept Clues site and there are many similar questions raised on LetsRollForums, among much mistaken work.

      Indeed we do. We have several which show the same heads on different bodies, and changed backgrounds for the same head and body.

      As such, we have fakes in the record.

      The next questions become:

      with some fakes, why would these be done? how many are there roughly identifiable at minimum? and how many can be extrapolated as likely even if the photos are not provable, so for example, an okay photo exists but are we sure it is of a real character (person) as a real victim?

      As we move to the last question, we run into Don's points about probabilities that some died.


      Ian has revealed a blind spot here: his own -- and it is fairly easy to see why.

      What would be hard for him and anyone logical to swallow is the postulate in it that all victim photos listed in it to be morphed, one from the other. And though in fact that is possible hypothetically without looking properly at the photos we have, the photos do not show morphing in all cases.

      In that aspect, Ian actually is right.

      But the Vicsims report has excellent work within it.

      There are definite fake photos. This can be deduced from proper comparison of some of the photos of the same people and some comparison between different ones. They are faked in different ways, probably done by in different groups of fakers, i.e., different hired hands, different groups of spooks.

      Also, the name lists show an improbability for some of the comments' having been genuine and a look at the names themselves in contexts does indicate the possibility of a morph program's having been used for syllable and consonant creation and variation patterns in parts of the list.

      There are also problems with different photos for different reasons. The photo "board" of "missing persons" which was put up quickly, near the day, contained many really bad quality photos -- really, really bad quality photos. Further, these were never corrected or updated by family thereafter.

      Whereas, other photos are quite fine-grained, quite high resolution, but show fairly distorted faces and necks, similar shapes and so on, which do seem to have been morphed, some from each other with other features new each time, and some just looking distorted from unknown sources (a set of NYFD and other black and white photos have these looks).

      Most fakes, however, which can be definitely identified, have adjustments of blur and darkening of hair and so on, on the same expression of face with badly overlaid suggestions of different lighting or background. These are really the same head cropped onto different bodies for the same person.

      There are also some outright mistakes in the vicsim report and related pages.

      And there are some people whose photos are improbable.

      So yes, there is excellent work, good work, and bad work -- mistake -- in the Vicsim report.

      This does not make OBF or Simon Shack or anyone at Cluesforum or LetsRollForums a shill necessarily, though some may be.

      I did a whole program with Jim Fetzer here some years back going through the fake photos and the less likely provably fake but possibly real or fake persons (a different question).

      Search my name and listen, Ian. You will find how to tell where the more obvious fakes are.

    3. Oh my f*ing God.

      You want the details? Go to my broadcast, as I suggested. We went over specifics there.

    4. "Clare KuehnApril 8, 2014 at 5:58 PM

      Oh my f*ing God.

      You want the details? Go to my broadcast, as I suggested. We went over specifics there. "

      No I don't want "details". I only wanted you to answer one simple question to substantiate your statement and you refused by way of an offensive expletive. I have stated repeatedly that these radio shows and comments sections do not make up what I consider quality investigation, analysis and documentation of each video and still photo.

    5. I think the blind spot is with Clare, rather than myself. As someone who has had a 15 year career in computer graphics and digital video, I can see very clearly just how amateurish and invalid the 'analysis' work of Shack and his cronies really is.

      Clare's blind spot is she gives far too much credit to these people and calls their work 'excellent'; she also defends Judy Wood and her ludicrous beam weapon nonsense.

      Clare couldn't spot disinfo if it sidled up to her and slapped her in the face, that is her blind spot.

      It is so obvious to me that Shack and his cronies and Judy Wood are disinfo agents, I've explained at length why many times and Clare has never been able to refute any of my points, rather she just spouts gibberish about not seeing 'nuance' and being 'uncareful'.


    Live debate: Sandy Hook truther Wolfgang Halbig vs. CW Wade, tonight, April 7th at 8:00 Eastern Time. Duration: two hours. The moderator is Dave Gahary. Call in to speak with the host. Link:

    I hope those supportive of Wolfgang Halbig's valiant efforts to obtain truth will call in and contribute to the debate.

    1. For those who want to listen to the exchange, it is at

  27. Ian Greenhalgh said: "Oh come on Andy, the Vicsims Report is a load of rubbish just like the rest of the Sept Clues work. It wilfully ignores so much evidence that
    it's not worth the paper it's written on."

    Give it a rest, Ian. You've play this card every time this issue is raised, and it's always the same flimsy, generalised rubbish. It boils down to you claiming the Vicsim Report is BS. Yet, to back that claim up with facts or answer some of the multitude of questions that have been raised in regards to this? Hell no. You're definitely not going to go there, are you? After all, you don't even think you NEED to do so. Because in your mind, this is already all debunked. What a pathetic excuse for an argument. If this line of thinking was so completely debunked, then it should be easy for you to defend your position and deconstruct these arguments, shouldn't it? Why is it so difficult to present a cohesive and logical counter-argument against this? This question always lingers, yet the response is always the same straw-man tosh. "Duh! This has been debunked loads! Duh!" Nothing but a cheap tactic employed by those who don't know how to debate.

    Secondly, I don't think the theory of simulated victims (vicsims) and the Vicsim Report are completely interchangeable. An open minded researcher may disagree with some, or even many of the conclusions laid out in that report, but still support the idea that there were fake victims. Understand? In fact, you don't need to have read or even be aware of the Vicsim Report to be able to investigate the theory of faked victims. The Vicsim Report is simply one persons interpretation and thesis of why and how fake victims was accomplished.

    Actually separate yourself from preconception for a moment and think. Forget the Vicsim Report. Forget Simon Shack. Forget September Clues. Think for yourself and do some investigation. Can you honestly say to me, with 100% conviction, that the photos of the supposed victim Elizabeth Wainio are completely genuine, unaltered and undoctored originals? Can you claim, upon investigation, that there is absolutely nothing at all suspect about any of the supposed victims, their almost complete lack of SSDI information, the CNN memorials, and their associated "guestbook" entries? Are you completely certain that the strange 'doppelganger' entities amongst the 9/11 victims (the Lukasz Milewski / Lukasz Rudkowski entity being a prime example) have no significance at all other than coincidence and happenstance?

    1. Bob, I certainly agree with you at least to this extent: none of the 9/11 planes crashed, which means that none of the passengers aboard them died in crashes that did not take place--nor did any of those "suicide hijackers". But that means the passenger lists are fakes of one kind or another, as lists of simulated victims. And there may well be many more.

    2. As Jim says, there must have been some fake victims due to the lake of plane crashes; however, this doesn't mean the Vicsims report is valid, it isn't, it's a trite attempt to whitewash one of the most heinous mass murder events in history by claiming no-one died, it's such a clear case of gatekeeping.

      I've been over the reasons for the Vicsims Report being a load of rubbish before in depth, one of the main reasons is the completely invalid method used - they have looked only at pictures, names and little else whereas the correct method is to consider ALL evidence, they completely ignore the court records of the over 1000 hearings held with families of victims and survivors, the more than 2 years sent by Ken Feinberg and his team paying out more than 3.5 billion dollars in order to prevent families and survivors from taking legal action in court to seek answers and justice, the thousands of body parts found among the rubble an several more key areas of evidence. They have had 5 years or more to revise and strengthen their Vicsims Report, to broaden the scope of the evidence it examines, to make it a more valid piece of work and they have done nothing, zero, nada, zilch, for the simple reason that examining more evidence would refute rather than support their crazy no victims hypothesis.

      Simon Shack and his cronies are the most amateurish 'researchers' around and almost all of their 'analysis' work is laughably poor,they make no effort whatsoever to carry out serious research following proper scientific methods, they are a joke with zero credibility.

      Jim invited Shack to the Toronto conference to present his work and he declined because he's not stupid enough to stand upin front o an audience of serious researchers that included many relatives of victims and survivors and spout his bogus BS, he'd have got lynched if he tried to tell these people who lost loved ones that no-one died and everything is fake.

      I would give my wholehearted support to a serious study of the victims issue if it were to be carried out by serious researchers following proper scientific methods, but that would be a totally different kettle of fish to the laughable Vicsims Report which deeply disgusts me because it's nothing more than a shoddy piece of disinfo that is deeply offensive to the victims, their families and survivors.

  28. Replies
    1. There are plenty of fake photos. The question then becomes broader: are there other constant problems and possible problems? There are.

      Then the question becomes why?

      And if the answer for any of this is that they are fake people, then how many?

  29. I haven't seen it get much publicity, but there was a 2 hour AFP 'debate' last night moderated by Dave Gahary, between Wolfgang and an anonymous shill who goes by only "CW Wade". Halbig won! :)

    A couple summaries of the debate by S.Hoax skeptics:
    ^ see that and the next 2 replies.

  30. The debate between Wolfgang and C.W. Wade is also posted here:

    Though there is a history of censorship at grizzom when it comes to posts on Sandy Hook, the debate was posted by Whooli, and he is the not the one over there who has been doing the censoring and deleting of intelligent comments.

  31. this place is losing all relevance, fast. it has served it's purpose and it's time for all genuine truth-seekers to move on, leaving sasanach ian and his ilk to wallow in their vitriol.

    1. Ian Greenhalgh's poetical prose:

      "disgusting shilling lowlife scum"

      "untenable attacks that spew from you"

      Does one "William Shakespeare" figure in your family's ancestry, Ian? If so, what is your take on Darwin's theory of "the evolution of the species"? And - whatever your take is on that - how do you see yourself fitting into Darwin's theory?

      Simon Shack

    2. As my ancestry is 100% Brythonic Celt from the north of England, I shall refer you to one of the greatest Celtic wordsmiths for a brief explanation of how we use language in a simple, straight forward way quite unlike the prose of the Southern English who have been influenced by the French rather too much:

  32. This comment has been removed by the author.