Monday, May 5, 2014

Jim Fetzer vs. A. J. McDonald Jr.

The Boston Marathon bombing debate


  1. Have you guys seen the photos of the victim with a fake child doll that she carries around? Search Boston bombing fake child on youtube. It's bizarre and a very apparent portable dummy!

    1. *boston bombing fake child* returns this,

      "The Incredible Fake Plastic Bombed Baby"

      as first result. It's a different video. No video on the first page of results is an obvious match for your description. Could you post a link?

      About, "The Incredible Fake Plastic Bombed Baby" - the head does look ridiculously long. The narrator claims the picture appeared in the media immediately after the 'bombing' but provides no TV footage or newspaper clipping. Why not? These youtube videomakers drive me nuts. Superskilled and motivated but really bad at presenting their case.

    2. Sorry, I meant to include that of course. Excuse the narrator's potty mouth, but he IS funny, totally politically incorrect, in a very liberating way.

    3. Yea. He gets around to asking good questions.

      Until mother figure no.1 dumped the baby, nothing very convincing, We don't know - and the narrator clearly didn't know - how long the child was bending her legs, which isn't so extraordinary anyway, or how long the pair were hanging around the scene. I think it's quite plausible that someone in shock would look and wonder around for a few moments.

      But then she dumps the child and comes back to wonder around. Decidedly odd.

      And then a child in identical clothing shows up attached to a second mother figure holding the same fixed pose. Even odder.

      We can possibly imagine some story where the first mum wasn't actually the mum and eventually gathered her wits and sought out the real mum in the tunnel.

      Then, with increasingly long odds, we can say it's possible that the first mum returned to the scene to wonder around, even though being in that area would seem to pose a mortal threat.

      Then - again with absurdly lengthening odds - we get mum no.2 bringing the kid BACK to the scene of carnage. And not walking, nor carried in any other posture, but in the same fixed pose - loosely attached to the woman with legs always bent.

      Unless the video maker has totally conned us, faking footage or burying stills that show the child in other poses, this is very good evidence.

    4. The narrator's political incorrectness is arguably more valuable than any question about whether Boston was a hoax.

      Boston isn't known to matter to life at large, but the idea that unhealth should be venerated as a lifestyle choice and non-beauty celebrated over conventional beauty is part and parcel of the mainstream media and alternative media's joint assault on eugenics.

      Eugenics seeks to increase health, beauty, intelligence and physical grace, but the MSM and alternative media partners lie and say it's a design to promote disease, ugliness and death.

      Your narrator - if he's a typical type - probably buys into the anti-eugenics propaganda, but just like when Alex Jones mocks small-town supporters of neocon wars as low-IQ morons, or complains about a general dumbing-down, or vaccines causing ill health, he's unwittingly acknowledging that what's being enacted is a dysgenics program, not a eugenics program.

      I make that point here, even though it's tangential, because it can never be said enough to consumers of conspindustry propaganda. They need to wake-up from the wake-up.

    5. Very good find. Those permanently bent knees on the nicely made kid, and the very long arm around the back, and the fact the mother figure has her arms out without holding the kid at one point are excellent finds.

    6. Real bodies have some give to them and little kids will sink into the bodies of those holding them, but this obvious fake has no soft tissue to mold to the soft tissue of the woman. The only way you would get this effect is if the child had been dead long enough for rigor mortis to set in.

  2. I worked in Hollywood for years. On location, studio, and post production.
    I've worked around theatrical pyrotechnics, gallons of stage blood, and fake wounds.
    Well, I'm here to tell you, I see all the above in the the Boston Bonging Hoax.
    It was not a bombing or a false flag. No one was a hoax. A poorly staged non event. Created with a level of quality we would have never put our name on.
    Anything else you hear from our obviously complicit media is just embellishment of lies. Straight psy-opera dookie. Brought to you courtesy of the Zionazi Rockefeller-Greenberg-Strong Disinfotainment Clan.
    With all the tax money spent on propaganda, I expect better brainwashing than this pathetic hoax.

    1. Yes, I was shocked at how bad the fakery was, you can visibly see people opening packets of fake blood, there is a bottle of fake blood laying on the sidewalk in some photos and in others, you can even see a moulage kit sat there in plain sight. The stuff with the Craft guys was so blatant and obvious too.

    2. A little experience working with basic special effects and props changes the "simple explanation".
      For instance, before we use the simple explanation and assume that the blood we see on TV is real, we need to know what real blood looks like - which is difficult because the color that reaches your eye will not be anything like what you'd see in a studio or on location. We can "go
      Occam" and complicate our simple assumption with explanations about hemoglobin and oxygen....
      Or, a simple search for stage blood will lead you to manufacturers and instructions regarding tint adjustment of the fake blood.
      As it flows from the bottle, it's presumably - or not - balanced for a certain lighting temperature...probably not sunlight. After all vampires - like Edgar Winter - only come out at night.
      The manufacturer recommends the same technique I learned...add chocolate syrup....which the disinfotainment crew which produces these hoaxes either did not know to do or did not have time for. Many people did comment about the lack of blood at the Giffords hoax and Sandy Hook. I suspect they do not really know what they are doing and do not care - since it will go unnoticed by the casual observer and ignored by the complicit media. Most people really do not posses any patience for details and really are not paying attention - hence the psyop succeeds... although it does not work as intended for you or still works as a diversion - or circus.
      While we're all down here arguing about 911 and the Boston Bonging, we are ignoring the most important issue - we cannot fix our problems politically at the ballot box. The last Presidential election results were announced with less than 1% of the ballots counted. Not only do our votes not count, but the choices we are given make the count irrelevant. So, the hoaxes work at a different level with different people.
      Back to blood...when I see bogus looking blood, I figure it might be bogus blood. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There's occam's razor from my point of view.
      As for what AJ does or does not see, again we have simple answers.
      Filming is not a linear process. Scenes are shot in the order that makes logical sense - not in the order presented on the storyboard. Most people assume the whole Boston event was presented live as it happened so there would not be time to do everything. The simple explanation is that some photos and scenes were not shot at the same time or location.
      Also, we see evidence of a controlled environment - there are designated camera people, whose footage was edited and most people saw that stream.
      But, the Bauman "costume malfunction" was filmed by a German television crew - ignored by our media...very few people saw that footage.
      As for "simulated bombs"...well, the professional term is "theatrical pyrotechnics." And here again, we have videos on youtube that show the exact type that were used at Boston. One of the videos is a short documentary about a "Hyper Realistic Military Training" facility where they are used...complete with amputee crisis actors.
      AJ got duped and his ego will never allow him to admit it. Dude! These hoaxes started years ago...Hint - Columbine was a hoax - easily proven.
      And that is how we got here...trillions of dollars in debt fighting imaginary terrorists with imaginary WMD's.
      The Cold War was much simpler to deal with - even when we did not know it was a hoax.

    3. Columbine was a hoax? How so?
      Are you saying no one died there?
      If so, you are the first to so state, that I've ever heard.

    4. It's been a long time since I could claim being the first at anything.
      As for Columbine...just google...
      Columbine Hoax. And watch this
      Here we see all the clues - drill evaluators walking around with clip boards...police dragging a dummy across a lawn after it's "debut performance."
      Let me ask you this... Have you ever personally known anyone who wanted to kill a school full of kids - who was actually capable of doing so - and then went for it? If you answer "yes", have you ever considered that you need new friends?
      I've met some messed up people in my life. Had many as pseudo friends. But, never met anyone who was "qualified" for the job of mass shooter.
      Media imprints images of terrorists and mass shooters into our minds so often that we accept it as common.
      I for one, have a more positive view on my fellow man...except for Democrats...and Republicans....and media presstitutes...and politicians...hoax deniers....and....

    5. Nodisinfo has done some posts in the week on the staging at Columbine.

    6. I have several reference pages and analysis of the basic points regarding Columbine as a real event falseflag hoax: not nobody dead, but lies about what it was.

      It seems to have been a pre-planned event, but somewhat gone wrong. The gang used to do it was radicalized youth and pedophile-linked adults, with CIA-paramilitary links somehow. As such, it was some kind of anti-gun action but also a sort of precursor to 9/11 style fearmongering.

      There are several pages on my blogsite, at from 2012 December. The titles are:

      Satanism & Pedophilia at Columbine & wider area

      Denver Post: Columbine had 9/11-style hijack to NY

      A German in Orange (and NATO?) at Columbine

  3. This dude is a total idiot.. Not even wasting my time listening to Fetz destroy this moron.

  4. Remind me again, what conditions must apply to each of the competing hypotheses before Ockham's Razor can be wielded?

    Dave Gahary is a very good moderator.

    Remind me again, what conditions must apply to each of the competing hypotheses before Ockham's Razor can be wielded?

    Dave McGowan's photo series and then this movie made me a Boston Hoax-believer:

    Remind me again, what conditions must apply to each of the competing hypotheses before Ockham's Razor can be wielded?

    1. Saw the was great. Now, apply this knowledge of media personality creation and apply that to Presidential candidate creation...need I say more? No...but, I will - because I can't resist.
      I mean - do we know who our country's first black President's father was? Not Obama...the first one....Bill Clinton. No.
      And what did Jimmy Carter do before he ran? He had a nervous breakdown. Speaking of Jimmy - and being a coincidence skeptic - I find this coincidence very interesting.
      While in Los Angeles, then President Jimmy Carter's Secret Service detail detained a potential assassin - which led to the arrests of Raymond Lee Harvey and Osvaldo Espinoza Ortiz. Lee...Harvey...Osvaldo - yes, with a "v". Jimmy Carter was "attacked" by a swimming rabbit while fishing... yes, rabbits swim...actually, they float. Oswald the Lucky Rabbit was Disney's first successful character.
      One last coincidence - Jimmy Carter has similar facial features to JFK.

    2. Occam's Razor dictates that conflicts between two theories should be resolved in favor of the one that posits the least complicated (simplest) explanation. But it only applies as long as they both can explain all of the available relevant evidence.

    3. Oh, I know that Prof. Fetzer. You patiently explained that to Mr McDonald about six times in the debate ... my comment was a joke about that.

  5. After McDonald failed to accurately define the nature of the alleged explosive device as a SHRAPNEL bomb and then impugning Jim's integrity, he revealed himself to be little more than a common troll using hackneyed, trite, and banal methods of obfuscating a competing argument by doing a dance as old as the CIA's methods for demeaning people who openly questioned the Warren Commission. These methods are over 50 years old now and to any informed audience member act as a giant red flag as it pertains to the speaker.

    -DK Wilson

    1. Glad I didn't listen. I didn't get past his first line which I can't even remember.. Something like"how do you know....?"

  6. Remember the Dancer Who Lost Her Leg and Recovered Almost Immediately? Here's Her Story:

    ? Meet Adrianne Haslet - Well Connected Dancing Ski Bunny Bomb Traitor - YouTube

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Excellent patriotic and intellectual performance by our host, Fetzer. Respect!

  9. Prof. Fetzer made mincemeat out of McDonald. I figured it would be a disaster for McDonald after hearing Gahary's introduction of McDonald as being a "thinker". Hilarious.

    Fact after fact provided by Fetzer, and the best McDonald could provide was "it looked real to me". Who is this joker, eh hem..I mean thinker?

    1. He's thinker who hadn't yet thought about it.

      We were all there once, we just accepted what we were told. On Boston I read the news of the 'bombing' on the modern ticker-tape of my digital radio tuned to a UK channel and knew no more about 'til I next went online a coupla days later.

      McDonald is slower even than me, but not necessarily bad.

      I can assure you that Fetzer outsmarts me, probably in greater degree than he does McDonald, but there are plenty of areas where I could make Fetzer look like a doofus. Even stuff he talks about on his show, race and nation issues, climate change, Jews and Israel, we all our blind spots. I take lots of things THEY tell us for granted.

  10. So did you guys fall for the "fake child doll" at the Boston bombing? Did you fall for the fake snow too? LOL Come on you guys... there is no evidence the Boston bombing was a hoax. Sorry, but you guys have been played for fools. Thanks for posting this Jim, I just realized you did.

    1. Some of the evidence for fakery is discussed above - join the discussion if you like, something you never quite got around to in that debate.

    2. AJ: are u daft?--do u seriously deny the announcement of A DRILL before the (fake) bomb-blast? THERE IS EVIDENCE BOST. BOMBING WAS HOAX, comrade. Who's "fool," AJ?

  11. Hello folks: I explained to AJ MacDonald he should be embarrassed he wasted everyone's time--see his blog on the subject:

    AJ also pretends to being a writer, so I read and critiqued his book, "The World Perceived,"

    AJ is just a very WEAK person, w. weak mind--and he likes to take-up people's time, for some reason. I thought Fetzer was very PATIENT w. AJ, as well as being very factual and logical for his expo. Great work, Prof.

  12. Mr. Fetzer, here is an interesting video of a military drill using an amputee with fake blood and all!

  13. The only redeeming value of this "debate" was to hear Jim's agile mind recount the facts. I wish I could do that full tilt like he does. AJ acted the typical shill. Does it come naturally or did he study with the likes of Pete Santilli? The silly laughter while Jim is rattling off the facts, the ignoring of the facts and sticking with one banal idea, aggressively asking a question and while Jim tries to answer repeatedly interrupting and laughing. I look forward to a real debate with a real intellect opposite Jim.

  14. Anyone who thinks those bombs at the marathon were real must be completely ignorant of what a real explosion is like. They were clearly smoke bombs that didn't produce any blast effect like a real explosion would. The evidence for the whole thing being a hoax drill is overwhelming an anyone who says otherwise must be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

    1. Ian said:
      Anyone who thinks those bombs at the marathon were real must be completely ignorant of what a real explosion is like. They were clearly smoke bombs that didn't produce any blast effect like a real explosion would. The evidence for the whole thing being a hoax drill is overwhelming an anyone who says otherwise must be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

      Would you say then, that James Norwood and his views on the subject of JFK should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion?

    2. I think you should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion, such is the nature of the crap you have spewed out here.

    3. Classic Greenhalgh. Dodge the question and attack the person asking it. People dont need to be suspicious of me, I'm just an average joe. All views expressed by me are my own, and if people have a different opinion thats ok. I dont abuse people with a different opinion and I dont think people with a different opinion to me should be banned from the comments section.I dont call people with a different opinion to me shills or claim that people with a different opinion to me are suspicious.