Deep Politics Forum

Peter,

Do me the favor of reading the first several sections of "Thinking about
'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", because you should know better
than to be talking about "logical certainties" at this stage in your life. I
spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning,
and there are no "logical certainties" about historical or empirical events.

The question is, what is the better explanation for the available evidence:
that he died on or about 15 December 2001 or that he died a few days ago?
I really don't think that should be too much of a challenge for someone as
smart as you. If you are looking for logical certainties, then restrict your
attention to proofs in mathematics, because there are none about history.

Alternatively, I also have a chapter about "Assassination Science and the
Language of Proof" in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), where I provide
(what I take to be) an easily accessible explanation of these things. The
term "proof" has different meanings in mathematics, empirical science,
and the law, where my background might contribute to issues like these.

Jim

Peter Lemkin Wrote:Jim, I have read #137 and remember this information at the time. It is very convincing and may well be true....but it is not proven to a logical certainty. Even less [much less] so it the staged event on this Monday past. I'm not passing judgment. I'm curious to know the truth. At this time, I lean more toward OBL having been dead some years now...but that make the question of 'why' and 'why now' the show of Bravado and Lies on Monday.....along with why the MSM and USG kept secret to hidden that he died long ago......there is more here than meets the eye....all of it very foul, indeed.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:I think highly of Magda, but I tend to assume that those who post here are up-to-speed on these things, which, it turns out, is often a baseless assumption. I am a bit more perplexed that, when I suggest someone is not current, you come after me, hammer and tongs, but when some mindless twit accuses me of being "the government's leading spook", not a peep! Please explain. Am I missing something?

Trowbridge Ford's description of you as "the government's leading spook" was banal. It barely registered in my consciousness, and I ignored it out of ennui.

However, for the record, Trowbridge - you were out of line and should withdraw that remark.

Now, back to the substance.

I wrote:

Quote:A very good case can most certainly be made that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001.

A very good case can also be made that he has been deliberately kept alive, as an iconic and impotent bogeyman, to be ritually slaughtered at a time of the West's choosing.

Both these possibilities, and others, are plausible and deserve intelligent, incisive, discussion on DPF.

In fact, there are many variations of these basic themes, including a scenario where Bin Laden the man died in December 2001, but his legend, as an iconic bogeyman, continued to be built as an intelligence psyop, to ensure that a suitable "monster" was available for ritual slaughter at a time of need.

Now, I know about Marfan Syndrome. I made a BBC/Discovery documentary which examined the various medical conditions associated with giantism over a decade ago. It is entirely possible that Bin Laden has Marfan Syndrome. However, it is not 100% proven on the available evidence.

And this is the nub.

It is entirely possible that Bin Laden died in December 2001. It is not proven on the available evidence.

It is entirely possible that Bin Laden (or a version of Bin Laden) died in May 2011. It is not proven on the available evidence.

My own view, as stated throughout this thread, is that the most important deep political question is not whether Bin Laden died, but why the American President decided to kill the legend of Osama on May 2, 2011?

WHY NOW?

This question matters regardless of whether Bin Laden died in December 2001, May 2011, is still alive, never existed, etc etc etc.

Why has Obama decided to declare, with full fanfare, that this impotent, iconic, phantasm has been ritually slaughtered by American heroes at this moment in time?

Many of us on this thread have drawn attention to the sloppy nature of the production. Indeed, I've recorded some of the original official MSM narrative in this thread, so that we can watch it unravel in real time. And unravelling it is, at a breakneck speed.

It is important that we continue to investigate and unpick the officially presented "evidence" to discover what really happened, and why this charade has been played now.

As to when Bin Laden died, you may well be correct. But none of us knows for sure.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:The term "proof" has different meanings in mathematics, empirical science, and the law, where my background might contribute to issues like these.

Dr. Fetzer, I have asked before and I'll ask again (in the greater context of critical thinking) if you might perhaps post (in an appropriate thread elsewhere here) what you consider to be the finest sources of autodidactic learning about critical thinking that those of us who are beginners, or who are up in the cheap seats, can access online or in libraries or bookstores like Amazon, about the process and sub-tasks of critical discernment.

Please don't assume that means I am taking sides in this or some other debate, or that I write now with tongue either in cheek or barbed or forked.

Such a request might also be extended to all other active contributors to DPF.

We have a file of notable books on subjects within the world of deep politics. How about an online seminar featuring you, Peter Dale Scott and any other prominent luminaries in the field on proper approaches to research, reading, formulation of questions, and -- of course-- formulation of conclusions?

Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:

Steve Franklin Wrote:And where did they get the DNA to match? Was it standard practice for the CIA to DNA-type their operatives during the Russo-Afghan War?

To answer that question, at least according to the official narrative:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...ters-brain

So they have his sister's brain stashed away? Along with Kennedy's brain, no doubt. The one with all the lead in it. The problem here is the one with "the boy who cried wolf." After while nobody believes anything you say. Remember, these are the folks who did the "DNA matches" with the folks who supposedly died at Shanksville. I'm sure these folks could do a convincing DNA match between Santa Claus and the mummy of Ramses II. I'm sure they have Santa Claus's brain stashed away somewhere too, along with the Ark of Covenant. These folks are pathological liars. They would literally have an epileptic fit if they ever actually told the truth about anything.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:And this is the nub.

It is entirely possible that Bin Laden died in December 2001. It is not proven on the available evidence.

It is entirely possible that Bin Laden (or a version of Bin Laden) died in May 2011. It is not proven on the available evidence.

My own view, as stated throughout this thread, is that the most important deep political question is not whether Bin Laden died, but why the American President decided to kill the legend of Osama on May 2, 2011?

WHY NOW?

This question matters regardless of whether Bin Laden died in December 2001, May 2011, is still alive, never existed, etc etc etc.

Why has Obama decided to declare, with full fanfare, that this impotent, iconic, phantasm has been ritually slaughtered by American heroes at this moment in time?

Many of us on this thread have drawn attention to the sloppy nature of the production. Indeed, I've recorded some of the original official MSM narrative in this thread, so that we can watch it unravel in real time. And unravelling it is, at a breakneck speed.

It is important that we continue to investigate and unpick the officially presented "evidence" to discover what really happened, and why this charade has been played now.

As to when Bin Laden died, you may well be correct. But none of us knows for sure.

Presumably, Obama did it now for the same reasons he released his birth certificate now; for the same reasons he shuffled his cabinet/CIA now. And I'm sure if you looked closely enough, you'd find other things he has done now. I don't know precisely why he's doing them, but I do know they are of a single piece of cloth. Perhaps it's just the beginning of Campaign 2012.

Ed,

I would be very glad to do something like this. Let me give it some thought and get back to you about this. One great place to begin is a used book store, if you can locate a copy of Alex Michalos, PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC (1969), where Part II on inductive logic and especially the section on informal fallacies is the best that I've ever encountered. Used logic books are not in great demand, so you might be able to pick one up. When it went out of print, I simply xeroxed copies of that section (after obtaining the author's permission) and distributed them to students in my courses in critical thinking. There is also an excellent book titled FRAUDS, MYTHS AND MYSTERIES IN ARCHAEOLOGY by Kenneth Feder, which is now in one of its multiple printings. What is great about books like this is that USUALLY their earlier versions are better than their later ones, because in the earlier editions, the authors were very economical and clearly focused, while later editions tend to have extraneous material added. So if you can find ANY EDITION of that book, it would be terrific. I used it repeatedly in courses on science and pseudo-science, where I will get back to you with more about all of this. There is at least one more I should mention, which is UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS by Robert Fogelin. In later editions, he has a co-author. Once again, a used copy and an earlier edition works to your advantage. So see if you can track down these three books. I am glad to respond to your request and will do what I can to fulfill it. Many thanks! I greatly appreciate your asking.

Ed Jewett Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:The term "proof" has different meanings in mathematics, empirical science, and the law, where my background might contribute to issues like these.

Dr. Fetzer, I have asked before and I'll ask again (in the greater context of critical thinking) if you might perhaps post (in an appropriate thread elsewhere here) what you consider to be the finest sources of autodidactic learning about critical thinking that those of us who are beginners, or who are up in the cheap seats, can access online or in libraries or bookstores like Amazon, about the process and sub-tasks of critical discernment.

Please don't assume that means I am taking sides in this or some other debate, or that I write now with tongue either in cheek or barbed or forked.

Such a request might also be extended to all other active contributors to DPF.

We have a file of notable books on subjects within the world of deep politics. How about an online seminar featuring you, Peter Dale Scott and any other prominent luminaries in the field on proper approaches to research, reading, formulation of questions, and -- of course-- formulation of conclusions?

Ed Jewett Wrote:

Jack White Wrote:

Trowbridge H. Ford Wrote:Right Jan, your complaints about Fetzer are most timely but he has always been in the business of getting those interested in going along with his deceptions, whether it be the JFk assassination, 9/11 or whatever.

My best experience with him was when he sent me an unsolicited copy of The Taking Of America, 1-2-3 by Richard E. Sprague which Fetzer sent me on April 3, 1998 in the hope of coopting me to give up my theory about Nixon being the ringleader of the JFK assassination, and also an unsolicited copy of Assassination Science in the hope to getting me to go along with his deep deceptions.

In the article on p. 78, Sprague said about my work on Compuiters and Automation and other sources: "Whether Nixon was directly involved in the PCG'S planning for the assassination is still open to question, although one researcher believes that he was."

No efforts by Fetzer to get me to change my mind have succeeded in the slightest bit.

The professor is apparently the government's leading spook.
.

Baloney. Fetzer is correct about FACTS 98 percent of the time.
He is wrong only on two minor subjects...JVB and CMH.

I agree that he should refrain from criticizing other researchers
just because they do not see matters as clearly as he does.

Fetzer is a true patriot. The same cannot be said of all his critics.

Jack

Totally unrelated to the Fetzer debate, or the OBL/Obama debate, or any other debate, perhaps a thread should be started in which "a true patriot" can be defined so we can ascertain and discern whether we ourselves meet the criteria.

I had a similar discussion elsewhere with someone else who was ranting about collapse and militia and such stuff and I asked him how one might know, in the middle of such chaos, how one had made contact with those who -- armed with long-range sniper rifles and such -- deemed themselves to be on the right side, whether they were friend (or foe). Were we to wear feathers in our hat-bands, upside-down tarot cards on our foreheads, insignia on our shoulders, or simply to transmit some secret signal like the hjck codes from our iPhone transponders?

A "true" patriot is one whose only agenda is TRUTH, regardless
of what the truth may be. A "true" patriot thinks for himself and does
not represent any governmental or political entity. A "true" patriot
has his eyes wide open and his brain in gear running on all cylinders
to examine all viewpoints and facts objectively, without regard to
other views. A "true" patriot is not a "superpatriot" who blindly follows
an extreme viewpoint established by others. A "true" patriot can discern
phoniness in persons and facts, and is well grounded in information and
facts. A "true" patriot can assimilate and compare "official stories",
propaganda, and documentation to determine truth. A "true" patriot
loves his country, but recogizes its faults when it is wrong. A "true"
patriot is more intelligent and in better control of facts than the ordinary
patriotic average citizen.

That describes many researchers I know...but I must say that not all
researchers are "true" patriots.

Jack

Jack White Wrote:A "true" patriot is one whose only agenda is TRUTH, regardless of what the truth may be. A "true" patriot thinks for himself and does not represent any governmental or political entity. A "true" patriot has his eyes wide open and his brain in gear running on all cylinders to examine all viewpoints and facts objectively, without regard to other views. A "true" patriot is not a "superpatriot" who blindly follows an extreme viewpoint established by others. A "true" patriot can discern phoniness in persons and facts, and is well grounded in information and facts. A "true" patriot can assimilate and compare "official stories", propaganda, and documentation to determine truth. A "true" patriot loves his country, but recogizes its faults when it is wrong. A "true"patriot is more intelligent and in better control of facts than the ordinary patriotic average citizen.

Many thanks, Jack. Well stated, and certainly something for me to hold out in front of me as a standard and a goal. May I use this statement elsewhere?

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Ed,

I would be very glad to do something like this. Let me give it some thought and get back to you about this. One great place to begin is a used book store, if you can locate a copy of Alex Michalos, PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC (1969), where Part II on inductive logic and especially the section on informal fallacies is the best that I've ever encountered. Used logic books are not in great demand, so you might be able to pick one up. When it went out of print, I simply xeroxed copies of that section (after obtaining the author's permission) and distributed them to students in my courses in critical thinking. There is also an excellent book titled FRAUDS, MYTHS AND MYSTERIES IN ARCHAEOLOGY by Kenneth Feder, which is now in one of its multiple printings. What is great about books like this is that USUALLY their earlier versions are better than their later ones, because in the earlier editions, the authors were very economical and clearly focused, while later editions tend to have extraneous material added. So if you can find ANY EDITION of that book, it would be terrific. I used it repeatedly in courses on science and pseudo-science, where I will get back to you with more about all of this. There is at least one more I should mention, which is UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS by Robert Fogelin. In later editions, he has a co-author. Once again, a used copy and an earlier edition works to your advantage. So see if you can track down these three books. I am glad to respond to your request and will do what I can to fulfill it. Many thanks! I greatly appreciate your asking.

Ed Jewett Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:The term "proof" has different meanings in mathematics, empirical science, and the law, where my background might contribute to issues like these.

Dr. Fetzer, I have asked before and I'll ask again (in the greater context of critical thinking) if you might perhaps post (in an appropriate thread elsewhere here) what you consider to be the finest sources of autodidactic learning about critical thinking that those of us who are beginners, or who are up in the cheap seats, can access online or in libraries or bookstores like Amazon, about the process and sub-tasks of critical discernment.

Please don't assume that means I am taking sides in this or some other debate, or that I write now with tongue either in cheek or barbed or forked.

Such a request might also be extended to all other active contributors to DPF.

We have a file of notable books on subjects within the world of deep politics. How about an online seminar featuring you, Peter Dale Scott and any other prominent luminaries in the field on proper approaches to research, reading, formulation of questions, and -- of course-- formulation of conclusions?

Thank you, Doctor Fetzer. I've just ordered your first and third suggestions (I won't be doing a lot of archaeology in the near future) from a used book seller via Amazon. Less than $17, shipping included.

Ed,

Good move. I thought later of suggesting using amazon.com for used books,
which can often be purchased at a cut rate. You really should get the Feder
book, which is quite fascinating. There are lots of issues about science and
pseudo-science that are dealt with there. And you won't regret purchasing it.

Jim

Ed Jewett Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Ed,

I would be very glad to do something like this. Let me give it some thought and get back to you about this. One great place to begin is a used book store, if you can locate a copy of Alex Michalos, PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC (1969), where Part II on inductive logic and especially the section on informal fallacies is the best that I've ever encountered. Used logic books are not in great demand, so you might be able to pick one up. When it went out of print, I simply xeroxed copies of that section (after obtaining the author's permission) and distributed them to students in my courses in critical thinking. There is also an excellent book titled FRAUDS, MYTHS AND MYSTERIES IN ARCHAEOLOGY by Kenneth Feder, which is now in one of its multiple printings. What is great about books like this is that USUALLY their earlier versions are better than their later ones, because in the earlier editions, the authors were very economical and clearly focused, while later editions tend to have extraneous material added. So if you can find ANY EDITION of that book, it would be terrific. I used it repeatedly in courses on science and pseudo-science, where I will get back to you with more about all of this. There is at least one more I should mention, which is UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS by Robert Fogelin. In later editions, he has a co-author. Once again, a used copy and an earlier edition works to your advantage. So see if you can track down these three books. I am glad to respond to your request and will do what I can to fulfill it. Many thanks! I greatly appreciate your asking.

Ed Jewett Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:The term "proof" has different meanings in mathematics, empirical science, and the law, where my background might contribute to issues like these.

Dr. Fetzer, I have asked before and I'll ask again (in the greater context of critical thinking) if you might perhaps post (in an appropriate thread elsewhere here) what you consider to be the finest sources of autodidactic learning about critical thinking that those of us who are beginners, or who are up in the cheap seats, can access online or in libraries or bookstores like Amazon, about the process and sub-tasks of critical discernment.

Please don't assume that means I am taking sides in this or some other debate, or that I write now with tongue either in cheek or barbed or forked.

Such a request might also be extended to all other active contributors to DPF.

We have a file of notable books on subjects within the world of deep politics. How about an online seminar featuring you, Peter Dale Scott and any other prominent luminaries in the field on proper approaches to research, reading, formulation of questions, and -- of course-- formulation of conclusions?

Thank you, Doctor Fetzer. I've just ordered your first and third suggestions (I won't be doing a lot of archaeology in the near future) from a used book seller via Amazon. Less than $17, shipping included.