+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale (/thread-10079.html)
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Dale Thorn - 27-10-2014
Could Fetzer's ban have anything to do with his prominent status and publishing on the Veterans Today site, given its many articles on "The Jewish question"?
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Albert Doyle - 27-10-2014
I honestly think it had more to do with his sudden promotion of some extremely lunatic claims like Oswald in the doorway; Space beams destroying the Towers; Sandy Hook, etc where Fetzer was latching on to any and every wild conspiracy notion. Shame because it wrecks the good research he's done where I agree with him.
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Magda Hassan - 27-10-2014
Dale Thorn Wrote:Could Fetzer's ban have anything to do with his prominent status and publishing on the Veterans Today site, given its many articles on "The Jewish question"?No.
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Dawn Meredith - 15-05-2015
Now he is promoting the Paul is dead story. (as in McCartney). Seriously. Just saw it on facebook. He posts on some blog now that Vets today has dropped him.
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Albert Doyle - 15-05-2015
Jade Helm got him banned. Shame because that was one of the less nutty ones that I kind of agree probably has some merit to it.
Fetzer comes in around 3:40 and typically doesn't help himself with his style:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/05/03/mass-defection-of-writers-from-veterans-today-alternative-radio-hosts-in-suspicious-car-accidents/
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Lauren Johnson - 15-05-2015
::hobbyhorse::::willynilly::::cuckoo::
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Dale Thorn - 15-05-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:I honestly think it had more to do with his sudden promotion of some extremely lunatic claims like Oswald in the doorway; Space beams destroying the Towers; Sandy Hook, etc where Fetzer was latching on to any and every wild conspiracy notion. Shame because it wrecks the good research he's done where I agree with him.
Is Oswald in the Doorway really "extremely lunatic"?
I don't know about the current (or 2001) state of the art in space beams (or directed energy), but I have seen reliable articles in the mid-1990's that revealed energy "capacitors" that look like grain silos that could store the energy of a Hiroshima bomb and direct it at a target. I assume that current technology, for example the Navy's publicly-revealed beam weapons, are just the tip of the iceberg of what can be done now. So exactly why are "space beams" extremely lunatic?
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Albert Doyle - 15-05-2015
Because if you have space beams then you don't need explosives. A space beam would have to come in to the structure vertically. Anything with the energy of an atomic bomb would disintegrate the first thing it came in contact with, which would be the roof and antenna. If you view the north tower collapsing the roof and antenna are fairly rigid and intact while they plunge.
Fetzer made some really crazy claims about Oswald being in the doorway, including partial photo alteration of a face he himself admits is Lovelady and things like mobile photo alteration labs that were utilized before Altgens' film reached the AP wire. He also employed a complete nebbish and lunatic, Ralph Cinque, in his claim.
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Jim DiEugenio - 16-05-2015
I think Jade Helm was probably the last straw.
Fetzer had taken on and advocated for every far out and fruity conspiracy theory in the universe.
I mean, you name it and Fetzer's for it: Judy Wood and space beams and 9/11 was a giant holograph with no planes, Judy Baker and her bioweapon and Clinton/Jackson and Cancun when there was no Cancun, John Hankey and his George Bush did both 9/11 and JFK, Phil Nelson and his LBJ as mastermind, Ralph Cinque and Doorway Man as Oswald, the Jews and JFK, and it really was Morales and Johannides at the Ambassador Hotel.
I don't know what happened to this guy. I think he may have lost it some time around his Z film alteration book. His first two books were not bad, mainly saved by Aguilar and Mantik. But after that, he just went around the bend in a big way.
What makes it so puzzling is that as a professor of philosophy, he had to have known the value of peer review challenge. He never really seemed to apply that in these other fields. I will never forget his unrelenting defense of Baker at EF. No matter how many problems you pointed out, he just would not admit he was wrong. And then his defense of Cinque. Which was almost as bad. HE got nailed on that one and then banned. But he still thought he was right. He sort of reminded me of Martin Balsam in Little Big Man after he and Dustin Hoffman have been tarred and feathered for selling snake oil medicine, Hoffman says to Balsam, "You don't know when you're licked." Balsam replies, "I'm not licked, I've just been tarred and feathered."
I think they have also pulled down all his previous writings too.
DPF Bans Professor James H. Fetzer: The Rationale - Tracy Riddle - 16-05-2015
For years, whenever the mainstream media wanted to get the "conspiracy theorist" point of view, they would invite Fetzer to appear on TV. Which had the effect of making us all look like lunatics.
As for Jade Helm, the way the entire debate has been framed is typical: on one side are the right-wing conspiracy wackos who think Obama wants to take over Texas, on the other are the "normal" people who have been trained to like and trust the military-industrial complex. No middle ground for those of us concerned about the growing militarization of the "homeland."
This is how they keep so many politically-minded people on the reservation regarding the JFK assassination: most liberals don't want to look at it because it threatens their fantasies about "good government." Most conservatives won't look at it because it threatens the National Security State, the only part of government they support. Neither side today has anything to gain (politically) from looking for the truth, because they only care about the politics, not objective truth.