Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Jim Fetzer / Peter Janney

False flags (w/ Rock Cash) / New JFK Show #14 Gary King features banned by Black Op Radio researcher Peter Janney. These radio shows are titled, "The Black Op Radio interviews that never were."


  1. I have heard on two occasions Dr. Fetzer refer to Nathan Folks saying that he had cast one of the crisis actors he viewed on videos of the Boston Marathon bombing.
    The first mention was on Dr. Fetzer’s May 23 show and Dr. Fetzer seems to say clearly that it was Jeff Bauman that Nathan Folks recognized as having been hired by him for one of his films.

    Friday, May 23, 2014
    Jim Fetzer
    JFK assassination / Jewish Holocaust (w/ John Friend)
    01:56:50 on audio track,
    “…he [Folks] noticed the man with his legs blown off, presumably Jeff Bauman, doesn’t have blood spurting, he’s not writhing in agony, in fact, and this is quite remarkable, and even Folks observed that he [Folks] actually knew he [Jeff Bauman] was an actor because he [Folks] had cast him in a previous film that Folks himself had made…”

    The second mention by Dr. Fetzer of this was on this recording of the recent show he did as a guest of Rock Cash on his

    “The People Speak” radio show:

    However on this second mention of this, Dr. Fetzer states that he believes it was Carlos Alejandro, not Jeff Bauman, that Nathan Folks was referring to.

    About 08:15 on the audio track
    James Fetzer:
    “…and who has observed that one of the main players there was an actor he had previously cast in on of his own films.”

    James Fetzer”
    “… We have earlier photographs, by the way, film actually, of him [fellow wearing a cowboy hat – Carlos Alejandro] standing by in the background waiting until he is supposed to begin to perform his role in accordance with a script.
    “And I believe it’s this person [Carlos Alejandro] that Nathan Folks is referring to when he talked about having cast him in a fil of his own, the one with which you are familiar.”

    1. I took it as being Alejandro that Jim was referring to on both occasions, at least that was how it came across to me.

    2. Ian said...

      "I took it as being Alejandro that Jim was referring to on both occasions, at least that was how it came across to me."

      I have always respected you, Ian, but there is no way on God's green earth that you could have understood on Dr. Fetzer's first mention of this Alleged Folks' claim on the show where Dr. Fetzer was a guest on the John Friend show to have been referring to Carlos Alejandro. Absolutely NO WAY! Are we about truth here or are we not?

    3. I'm going from memory of course, which is a fickle thing.

      It's Carlos Arredondo, not Alejandro (fickle memory strikes).

      In order to explain precisely why I inferred from the context that it was Arredondo Jim was referring to I'd have to go back and listen to the show again.

      It's quite incredible they used him at Boston as he was already well known as an anti-war campaigner:

      He was all over the media back in 2007:

      Maybe they think the US public is so asleep they won't remember something from 2007?

    4. I should have double checked the name, but Rock Cash distinctly said on this show Carlos Allejandro.

      Dr. Fetzer is the only person that I know of who has mentioned this incident where Folks is said to have stated that he recognized the actor because he himself had hired the person as an actor in the past in one of his films. I would like to find more about this incident on the web but so far there is nothing whatsover, only Dr. Fetzer's two mentions.

      Friday, May 23, 2014
      Jim Fetzer
      JFK assassination / Jewish Holocaust (w/ John Friend)

      "partial transcript

      begins at 01:56:56 on the audio track

      It’s like the Boston Bombing. We have a Hollywood producer-director named Nathan Folks who has studied the scenes in the Boston Bombing and concluded that they’re what is known as hyper-realistic filming, when you try to make a scene look like it would look if you had soldiers going into combat, what they could be expected to confront, he noticed the man with his legs blown off, presumably Jeff Bauman, doesn’t have blood spurting, he’s not writhing in agony, in fact, and this is quite remarkable, and even Folks observed that he [Folks] actually knew he was an actor because he [Folks] had cast him in a previous film that Folks himself had made…”

      I transcribed from this mp3 of John Friend's original show archive but either copy shows this information.

      I am beginning to think that this particular important sub-story of BMB is one of those times when I am asking questions "out of the playpen" or "out of the sandbox." How very sad.

      I have provided a partial transcript of the show with John Friend in the past and I will now again supply a bit more of the transcript. This was the only point in the show, the last few minutes of the two hour show where Boston bombing was mentioned. Again, Arrendondo was not at all mentioned in this whole show and the immediate context clearly implies Jeff Bauman.

    5. What are you trying to suggest? Not that anything nefarious involving myself or Jim Fetzer is going on I hope.

      It's probably a simple case of my mind conflating together pieces of info I have heard. I do remember Jim saying that the actor was standing there, waiting for his moment to join in, which was a clear reference to Arredondo.

      Anyways, there is nothing suspicious going on, all that has happened is that I jumped to the conclusion that Jim was referring to Arredondo and if you want me to explain the thought process that lead to that jump, I simply can't because I haven't retained the memory. I just made a cup of tea, and I honestly couldn't tell you why I made the decision to have tea rather than coffee, I simply don't retain every thought that goes through my head.

    6. Jeannon is correct. I initially inferred that he was talking about Jeff Bauman, but it appears that I was mistaken and he was talking about Carlos. It is easy to verify my citation of Folks:

      Hollywood Producer Says Boston Bombing was a False ...
      ► 13:56► 13:56
      Jun 9, 2014 - Uploaded by WakeUp OrDieTrying

      Hollywood Producer Says Boston Bombing was a False Flag Event - hoax ... fake, staged, Boston Marathon ...

      Hollywood producer Nathan Folks says Boston Bombing ...

      May 1, 2014 - Hollywood producer Nathan Folks says Boston Bombing was false-flag fakery ... Folks (and others) observed that the pic below is staged.

      Hollywood producer claims Boston bombing was ... - Infowars
      Alex Jones

      Apr 27, 2014 - Hollywood producer claims Boston bombing was a “false flag attack” ... as for the false stages being set up where things were filmed and stuff? Folks: I will start up by saying that if there was an injury or a death in the event that ...

      Hollywood Producer Bombshell Proof Boston Bombing Was ...

      Apr 27, 2014 - Hollywood Producer Bombshell Proof Boston Bombing Was False Flag – Hollywood Producer Says So! ... Anybody who still thinks Sandy Hook, 911 and all these other staged shootings are real, need to get the Hell out of the ...
      Hollywood producer claims Boston bombing was a "false flag attack ...
      Apr 27, 2014 - 20 posts - ‎7 authors
      Hollywood producer claims Boston bombing was a "false flag attack" ... of technology, and knows what tells that would give away a scene as staged. ... That was the one thing he said that IF true, to me, says something is up.

    7. Thanks for the clarification Jim.

      Somehow my mind conflated different things I had heard/read and produced an inference that, while correct, was not consistent with the exact words that Jim had spoken.

      Honestly, there's nothing suspicious going on, what has happened is that I had already read that Carlos had been identified as an actor and when I listened to Jim talking about an actor I jumped to the conclusion that he was inferring the actor was Carlos.

      I hope that makes sense, it's somewhat difficult to explain in words the inner workings of one's thoughts. I'm not trying to hide anything or confuse in any way.

    8. I don't think anyone has any good reason to have any doubts about you, Ian. You are one of the most intelligent and perceptive listeners to the show and your comments are exceptional.

    9. Thanks Jim. There are so many shills, ops and disinfo types around these days that you really can't blame people for being suspicious, in fact, I encourage people to exercise caution, it is merely good common sense given what we know about the infiltration of our movement by those working for the 'other side'.

    10. Reply to Dr. Fetzer’s comment
      Jim FetzerJune 20, 2014 at 5:49 PM

      Well, I now see that Nathan Folks did not specifically name the person he stated as the person he, as one of the three producers of the movie, hired to be an actor in his October 2012 Release Date movie, The Prosecution of an American President.
      Since I focused much of my “research” on the alleged 16 amputees of the Boston Marathon Bombing, I was particularly dumbfounded with Dr. Fetzer’s revelation on his May 23, 2014 show as guest on John Friend show regarding Nathan Folks having identified Jeff Bauman as being the actor that he hired to be in his movie that had an official release date six months prior to the date of the Boston Marathon bombing event of April 15, 2013. I was so impressed that I posted at comment on The Real Deal blog for that show stating that I thought it was bombshell information.

      I thought the most hopeful and promising reason to research and prove a positive identification of the crisis actors at the Sandy Hook school shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing events was for the purpose of establishing strong evidence that actors were used in the these events and that therefore the events themselves were staged productions that had no basis in real events taking place and were fraud of the racketeering kind. That strong evidence could then provide a solid basis for pursing a criminal prosecution in a court of law of the planners and perpetrators of these false, or “false flag”, or “hoax”, events.

      Though I’m not as impressed as I was originally in believing that Nathan Folks had specifically named bilateral amputee Jeff Bauman as the actor he hired, I nevertheless still think Nathan Folks’ revelation regarding “Boston Hero” Carlos Arrendondo, is BOMBSHELL information. This information can be perfectly documented and established as Folks movie was completed and released six months before Boston Marathon bombing.
      The Prosecution of an American President - Trailer - Controversial Bush Documentary
      Carlos Arrendondo is shown clearly
      at 2:00 in this 2:35 trailer of Nathan Folks’ movie, The Prosecution of a President.

      Now we have solid legal PROOF that an actor was used in the Boston Marathon Bombing. We have not heretofore had such solid provable evidence regarding in of our investigations regarding crisis actors.

      I realize no one will carry the ball on this evidence and take it to court, and since Nathan Folks has already allegedly been poisoned and fighting for his life over several months, it would be reasonable to think that Nathan Folks would not consent to testifying and being a witness in such a law suit.

      So all of our searching to establish the prior identities of crisis actors in the Boston Marathon bombing and the Sandy Hook school shooting events will most likely never take us anywhere in regarding to getting criminal convictions. All of our research on the matters of these crisis actors is just academic “playing detective” endeavors that are not meant to reach justice under the rule of law.

      Also good clear photos and video of Carlos Arrendondo, including photos with Jeff Bauman.

    11. No-one is ever going to be able to successfully use the US legal system to get any form of justice for any of the false flags, whether it be the OKC bombing, 9/11, Waco, the Boson Bombing or Sandy Hook.

      Legal action is simply not a valid option, the goal therefore should be moved to reflect this.

      In my opinion, the goal should be to establish concrete proofs that are obviously correct ad then disseminate this info to the US public in the hope that the public wakes up and decides en masse, to take action - a revolution.

      Nov 22, 1963 was a coup that seized power from the supposed elected government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' and placed it in the hands of a shadow govt composed of a handful of cabals such as Texas oil, east coast finance and elements of the military intelligence and CIA.

      The only hope, as I see it, is for a counter-coup that seizes power back from this shadow government and reboots the US governmental and financial systems, restoring the constitution and bill of rights and reforming the USA into the form it was intended by the founding fathers where the individual states hold the power and the federal government apparatus is small and only performs a handful of tasks such as foreign relations.

      For such a counter coup to happen, I believe that a mutiny of the armed forces must take place, the military must overthrow the shadow government, shatter their power structure totally, which means destroying the Fed, the CIA, the NSA, the DHS, the FBI and repealing all the unconstitutional legislation such as the Patriot Act and the many laws created by Obama, Bush and Clinton by Executive Order. In short - reboot the system to restore it to it's original state.

      In order for such a mutiny of the military to take place, a leader of great personal courage and strength of character who is totally devoted to the cause and unable to be corrupted or coerced must arise. I think it is highly unlikely that such a figure will be found any time soon because there has been a process of sacking any senior military officers who might oppose the actions of the shadow govt; Jim has talked about his on the show before, I believe he said that under Obama over a hundred senior officers had been sacked.

      I wrote an article for VT on this subject and where I used George S Patton as an example of the kind of man that is needed to lead a successful counter-coup:

  2. Great interview with Peter Janney, I must read Mary's Mosaic.

    A couple of points:

    Cary Grant was among the more notable users of LSD for therapeutic purposes in the late 50s, he was very open about it and there is plenty of information available on his case.

    Timothy Leary worked for the CIA, he was the infiltrator who brought down the Brotherhood of Eternal Love. It is felt by many that Leary was sent out to California to infiltrate, disrupt and incriminate the hippie culture. Whatever the truth, he is a character who must be regarded with a great deal of suspicion.

    1. I don't know re. CG but yes, TL told Walter Bowart he worked 4 CIA - but he was also the man we know without that: into many of the things he promoted. Those who q you on the direct CIA connections (those who write below) can look it up.

      I feel ungenerous today about providing links 4 people.

    2. Leary is a complex figure, he was without doubt a CIA informant during his time in California - he was responsible for the bust of several of the key figures of the BOEL. I personally think that he began on the level but was compromised and turned by the CIA and then sent to California in order to infiltrate and inform on what was happening there.

      Cary Grant was prescribed LSD by his psychiatrist and was a user for a good many years, it has to be remembered that until 1965, LSD 25 from Sandoz Labs was legal.

    3. All people are complex figures, incl. anyone participating in what overall is conspiracy.

      And ty - I'd forgotten re. Cary Grant. Think I knew that at one point. LSD was being used medicinally by many. Stanislav Groff advocated it.

      As to Sandoz: owned by Rothschilds, by the way. Along with top golf balls and contract for extracting from ponds on golf courses. Think there may be a radio signal now keeping balls from going past? Probably.

      And Tiger Woods: His Dad was in 1st mind control-related division (101st), to which Hendrix was later sent.


  3. Ian, for goodness sakes, don't u understand assertions must be substantiated?--give us some citations if u have any respect for people who read ur stuff.

    1. Point taken, I'll try to give some citations in future. For Leary, the Book 'Orange Sunshine' abut the BOEL is a good starting point.

    2. Until quite recently I was baffled, doubting and generally unimpressed by the work of Jan Irvin at Gnostic Media on drugs, hippies (same for Dave McGowan's related Laurel Canyon stuff).

      It all seemed an assortment of pieces here and there that could, sure, fit the picture Irvin and McGowan paint, but also might fit some other quite different picture.

      Having gone into their stuff more searchingly and linking it up with some stuff I know about the UK neo-pagan movement I'm tending to think Irvin in particular has a very good handle on the hippie/LSD, wider counter-culture thing.

      I'm impressed enough that I hope to spend a few dozen hours going over his written research and links over the next few weeks.

      In other words, RECOMMENDED if not already familiar ...

    3. I've been through their research a while back, I rated it highly too.

    4. I highly recommend Jan's most recent podcast with Bill Joslin. It's an unflinching examination of the practice of meditation, how it functions a distraction, and potentially thwarts critical thinking.
      The interview springboards neatly from Irvin and McGowan's previous research into the psychedelic scene. Very challenging material for fans of meditation.

    5. I shall listen to this, it sounds rather interesting.

      Personally, I have never found any use for meditation, I did try it for a short time in the 90s, but I have always found that there is nothing more effective for sorting out one's thoughts and clearing away clouds of confusion than taking a good long walk in the fresh air, and I know that a great many other people have the same opinion - if you need to think clearly and sort your head out, then going for a good long walk is the way to do it.

    6. apsterian, Ian is talking shite

    7. Seconded kjaze. I listened to the podcast but watching the video with the pdf opened would be optimal.

      Very good show.

    8. Not trying to be a total fanboy for Gnostic Media, but Jan and Joseph Atwill are interviewed by Mater and Frater X a couple of weeks ago.

      After discussing the benefits of various psychedelics, Atwill and Irvin would recommend a long walk for mental clarity as well.

    9. This article goes into depth about the whole subject.

      Manufacturing the Deadhead: A product of social engineering… by Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin

      There is a recording of Dr. Timothy Leary actually describing the retrograde culture that those who dropped out would participate in: In this talk, Leary, Alan Watts, Alan Ginsberg, Gary Snyder and Allen Cohen describe how those that “tune in, turn on, drop out” would abandon modern culture and return to the status of a peasant.

  4. Why does Dr. Fetzer go out of his way to compliment Vincent Bugliosi, who completely denies the truth about the JFK assassination, while continuing to verbally assault researchers who agree with 95% of what he says?

  5. Egad! Where do I COMPLIMENT Vincent Bugliosi? That verges on the absurd, unless I was talking about his other than JFK work. He deserves credit for what he has right as well as condemnation for his miserable JFK "research".

    1. Yes, you complimented Bugliosi on his other work.

    2. I think the notion of crediting good work should also be extended to the larger JFK community. For the most part, everyone's on the same side. I know you like to trot out the 90% of researchers are working for the other side. That's a statement that needs independent verification. I think the arguing and backbiting within the community does more to cloud the real issues than any misguided research. No one in the research community has solved this case. At best, only a strong case of circumstantial evidence can be presented. Everyone's effort should be welcomed, and discussed by the community at large. I don't think it's wrong to focus on consensus points.

    3. OOTPGuru: the spine is interferes w/ thru-shot. Not just circum evidence.

  6. Thanks for using Jim Garrison's televised equal time response to lies by NBC. (That was back when we had the Fairness Doctrine--repealed by Reagan in 1987.) It's very powerful and Garrison is very direct about the CIA's role in the assassination and in stopping all truthful inquiries into the murder. He was truly a hero--one of a few. This interview with Playboy shows how far the government went to destroy his case against Clay Shaw. The same tactics were used in every investigation into the assassinations such as HSCA and others.
    JFK Lancer
    Jim Garrison's Playboy Interview
    vol. 14 no. 10 - October 1967

    PLAYBOY: You have been accused --- by the National Broadcasting Company, Newsweek, the New Orleans Metropolitan Crime Commission and your own former investigative aide William Gurvich --- of attempts to intimidate witnesses, of engaging in criminal conspiracy and of inciting to such felonies as perjury, criminal defamation and public bribery. How do you respond to these charges?

    GARRISON: I've stopped beating my wife. All the charges you enumerate have been made with one purpose in mind --- to place our office on the defensive and make us waste valuable time answering allegations that have no basis in fact.

    Also involved is a psychological by-product valuable to those who don't want the truth about Kennedy's assassination to become known: The very repetition of a charge lends it a certain credibility, since people have a tendency to believe that where there's smoke, there's fire --- although I find it difficult to believe that the public will put much credence in most of the dastardly deeds I've been accused of in the past few months.

  7. Thanks Joan, Jim Garrison was and still a hero to me. I speak with his wife regularly and is such a sweet lady and a dedicated Grandmother. Thanks for commenting on the clips.

  8. Gary, Jim,

    I'm very much enjoying the new format of the JFK show. The long form interviews with researchers are the way to go. The internal debates in the research community are, quite frankly, boring and a waste of time for those of us interested in facts about the case.

    Look forward to hearing from more researchers.