All Episodes
Previous Next
March 18, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
53:47
David Zublick's Dark Outpost (16 March 2022) with Jim Fetzer and Brian Davidson, P.I.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back to the Workout Post.
I'm David Zublik.
Glad to have you with us.
Joining us now, as he does every week at this time, is Dr. James Fetzer.
And joining him and joining us, we are pleased to have with us Brian Davidson.
Dr. Fetzer has some blockbuster breaking news.
Dr. Fetzer, welcome back to the show.
Thank you, David, so very much.
There are those skeptics who are waiting for definitive proof that Sandy Hook was staged.
Well, they're going to see it today.
I want to give a little background prior to introducing Brian, who has mastered the techniques of internet research.
We did a A show together this past weekend in order to introduce all the methods he's developed and discovered for doing serious investigations where he himself is a PI.
And I thought, well, let me test what he's got there.
And I gave him a photograph with no background, just to see what he could do with it.
And the results have been spectacular.
But let's begin with a little background here, David.
And then we'll come up to what Brian has been able to do.
For as we all know, replicability is indispensable to the scientific method.
And as you well know, I have been championing the application of scientific reasoning to sort out conspiracy theories, because after all, they are theories and can be evaluated by the same principles as scientific theories.
Once you fashion them sufficiently, precisely and clearly as to make them testable.
So we can take a look at a few slides and then I'll introduce Brian and what he was able to establish.
Excellent.
Stop, David.
All right.
Let me get this up onto the screen here.
This is absolutely fantastic.
And folks, this is a first.
I want you to pay very, very close attention to what Dr. Fetzer has to say.
Go ahead, Doctor.
Yeah, David, you're getting an exclusive here.
This is the very first presentation, apart from publication on my blog, more proof it was staged for your program, David, which I have so appreciated.
If you go to the next slide, yes, virtually everyone here knows, your audience knows, that I champion a method of collaborative research.
I bring together teams of experts to sort out what really happened.
It began with JFK.
There you see two of my first three books on JFK, Assassination Science 1998, Murder in Dealey Plaza 2000, The Great Sabruder Film Hoax 2003.
Where these books are collections of essays by the various experts and where we shattered the cover-up in the case of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, discovering the autopsy x-rays had been altered to conceal a fist-sized blowout to the back of the head.
That another brain had been substituted for that of JFK?
That the whole movies of the assassination, including the Zapruder, had been massively edited and revised to conceal the true causes of death?
And David, once you shatter the cover-up, you realize there's only a tiny number of possible suspects who could have been involved in this, in particular here, Medical officers of the United States Navy at Bethesda for altering the x-rays and substituting another brain, and the Secret Service when it comes to altering the Zapruder film, which was exclusively in their possession.
Some have argued that means it couldn't have been altered, but their Ignoring the fact that the Secret Service was complicit in setting him up for the hit, where I've elaborated 15 different indications of Secret Service complicity, and it leads all the way back to Lyndon Johnson, who was the mastermind behind the assassination.
Now, if you turn to the next slide, as a professional philosopher of science, I have a lot of advantages as a student of methodology.
Where I contrast the confirmationist approach with a falsificationist approach.
The confirmationist approach looks for confirming instances such as, and here I offer an example that's trivial, all pennies are made of copper, where you could adduce billions of examples of copper pennies as confirmation.
If you seek to refute the hypothesis, look for ways in which it might be shown to be false, as recommended by the great British philosopher Karl Popper, then you test hypotheses to see whether they can be shown to be false, where it turns out that in 1943, because of the shortage of copper for military purposes, they were made of steel.
Now, the point made here, David, is you could have billions of confirming evidence for an hypothesis, and yet it turned out to be false.
And if you don't look for falsifying instances, you may easily be deceived into believing a false hypothesis is true.
Now, if you turn to the next, we're talking about Sandy Hook anomalies, where I've been looking for evidence that this was a staged event.
There were some obvious proofs from the start.
The cars were parked facing the school when they should have been parked facing away.
It was a 38 degree Fahrenheit ground temperature day, but no heat or steam was coming from the building.
The entry was staged using a shotgun slug rather than AR-15 round.
A crime scene investigation vehicle was present before the crime was committed.
Now take a look at the next slide, David.
This is simply a photograph of the parking lot.
You'd think that's pretty innocuous.
But notice, there's no heater steam rising from the building.
Well, you couldn't have conducted classes unless you heated the building.
I mean, it's not freezing, but it's pretty damn cold.
Second of all, notice there is no handicap parking.
There's none of the familiar white and blue parking areas designated or white and blue signage.
Now, I checked the laws in both Connecticut and in The federal government, and this building, this school, was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and therefore could not have been legally operating as a public school in Connecticut in 2012.
So something is definitely wrong.
Then in the third place, there's only one entrance and access to this location, it's by Dickinson Drive.
And if you came in, then you'd notice the arrows on the driveway, right there on the concrete, you'd turn right and then you'd turn around and you'd park facing away.
But notice, in the center rows, they're all parked facing the building.
Yeah!
Tells me that what was going on is they brought him in in a single file and just put him in two by two by two after all.
They were only props who was even going to notice.
But David, it means this whole thing was staged.
Take a look at the next slide, and you see this is the reported entry.
There's a blown out glass window there, you'll notice, right beside the door.
Well, that's pretty damn odd for multiple reasons, but let's take a closer look at the very next slide.
You'll see, this is from inside.
Now notice how the furniture is all right in place, yet we have Wolfgang Halbig tracked down.
Between 12 and 16 Connecticut State Troopers claimed they entered the building through that hole blown in the glass.
Now, as you may well know, David, state troopers and others who wear uniforms are very particular about their uniforms.
Yeah.
If you went that way, you'd run the risk of having it cut or torn.
Even the Three Stooges would have done better.
Larry would have come and gone around and opened the door for Bo and Joe.
I mean, this is just ridiculous.
So here you have a dozen to 16 state troopers swearing false affidavits about their entry.
Hit the next slide and you'll see that magazine rack there.
In the back of the magazine rack is a slug.
This appears to have been from a shotgun shell that was used to blast open the window to create the entrance allegedly taken by Adam Lanza.
But it's obvious nobody came into that opening in the window.
I mean, this is all completely farcical.
Now, if we turn to the next, I have always believed that this photograph was the most powerful proof we have that this was a stage event it shows.
A crime scene investigation vehicle in the area on the parking lot at Sandy Hook.
In the background, there's a string of windows in Classroom 10 that are undamaged.
Which proves this is before the event occurred, because after the event, they would be blown out, as I shall demonstrate.
And while you cannot see very clearly, there is crime scene tape up for a crime that is yet to be committed.
And there's even a figure residing against a wall there with his arms folding, awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent.
That would be Wayne Carver, the medical examiner.
So if this photo is authentic, then we have proof that the Connecticut State Police and the medical examiner were complicit in the fraud.
Let me add, by the way, that I participated in a video deposition of Wayne Carver, and I included there this photograph, and I asked if he could identify himself there, and he evaded the question by saying, well, it was too blurry for him to make out what was going on there, which was his way of sidestepping the issue.
Take a look at the next and you'll see what I'm talking about here.
Notice in the top left you have that string of windows.
They had these little candle cutouts, three in each of the panes.
But look at the right-hand side, top right.
You can see the second in particular is blown out.
On the lower left, you have the perps looking at the window trying to figure out how they could fake it to make it look as though bullets had come through there.
And they did that, as the lower right shows, by drilling holes in the aluminum frame, David.
Drilling holes in the aluminum frame.
Now look at all those holes.
They're perfectly parallel.
They're exactly 90 degrees to the frame.
No one with any experience with firearms whatsoever would be taken in.
That would be an obvious artifact, not from genuine shooting.
And here in the next slide, then, you see how they even had all the furniture pushed up against the wall, indicating that, as we determined from our research, the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there, and that this was actually a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
And David, as you know, We even discovered the FEMA manual, which I included in the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, as Appendix A. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that Amazon.com would want to ban it, even though it had sold nearly 500 copies in less than a month.
David, don't you think a book distributor would be eager to go with a book that had already sold nearly 500 copies?
Absolutely.
And two points just to add to two things that you said.
Number one, the cars are all in the same direction in the parking lot.
That's a clear indication that whoever parked their cars arrived there in a very calm manner.
If you thought your kid had been shot, You'd be all over the place in that parking lot.
You would not be letting someone direct you into a nice, comfortable parking spot straight up.
And number two, if there was a shooter in the school building, the furniture wouldn't be up against the windows.
It'd be up against the door if they're trying to barricade themselves from the gunman getting in.
So this is clear and present truth evidence right here.
Excellent, excellent, excellent comments, David.
I appreciate those tremendously.
Well, if you go to the next slide, last weekend, Brian and I did an interview.
He has his own investigative comedy, Paranormal Investigations, and he was explaining to me all of the Panoramic, yes.
Thank you for the correction, Brian.
Yeah, panoramic investigations.
And he was explaining to me how he put together just a masterful set of tools for conducting research on the Internet.
And after we were done, I thought, well, gee, there's been a debated discussion about that photograph of the crime scene vehicle in the parking lot, for example, in the first edition of the book.
Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
We had declared it was taken the morning of the event.
But in the second, based upon some shadow analysis, we had concluded it was taken the day before.
So I thought, well, gee, here's a guy who's really demonstrating to me he knows what he's doing.
He's amassed his vast arsenal of Internet tools.
I just decided I'm going to toss him out a photograph.
Now, I didn't give him the background.
He didn't know this was from Sandy Hook.
All he knew was I'd given him a photograph, and he inferred, and we'll see from the exchange we have, that I wanted to know, you know, where and when it had been taken, because he showed that he has the ability to compare photographs
Well, imagine I was blown away when yesterday I got back from him his report, which I've now published on my blog.
Go to jamesfetzer.org and you can see this.
And if you don't see the image in sufficient detail, you can open it and make it as high definition as you like, because this is absolutely stunning confirmation That Sandy Hook was staged and that among the key participants were the Connecticut State Police and the medical examiner, Wayne Carver, without whose involvement falsely testifying it had been real.
No one, I think, would have ever been taken in or persuaded that it was authentic.
So go to the very next slide.
This is an overview now, and I want to invite Brian to begin commenting here.
This is an aerial photograph of Sandy Hook.
It's not specific to the date, whereas the photograph we're going to be talking about of the crime scene investigative vehicle there is the crucial one we're going to focus upon.
So this is background.
Brian, I can't begin to tell you how impressed I am with what you have Well, you know, I didn't know what I was getting into with the photograph.
You just gave me a photograph and said, do your thing.
And being an open source intelligence researcher with a modicum of skill, I took the photograph and began to study it.
The first thing I do when I go to study a photograph is go back and find the earliest, most reliable version of the photograph that I possibly can.
And in this case, I was able to identify an article that was written on January 12, 2014, where the article was first used speaking about Adam Lanza's psychiatrist.
I took a look at the source code in the page where that photograph existed, and I was able to find what I thought was as close to the original earliest and highest resolution photograph possible, which is the first step, because you want to see if there's metadata written into the photo that tells me anything about it.
Well, in this case, that metadata didn't exist, so I had to use I just had to use research skills, detective skills, to try to figure out what it was about.
And of course, you hadn't told me anything about the photo, except I knew that it came to me in the context of you saying, hey, what can you use your tools to find out about?
So I began inspecting the photograph and I tried to find any indication of who took the photograph or where it came from.
My conclusions were that it was shot from about 12 feet at a particular location in the parking lot of Sandy Hook.
Let me go ahead and share my screen and I'll just show you the process as quickly as I possibly can.
How do I do that?
Let's see.
Share screen.
I'll just tell you what happened.
I'm not repounding here.
Let's go through this first, Brian, and then we'll go to...
Yeah, because I think you can do one thing at a time, either the PowerPoint first or you can share it.
Right.
I'll just tell you what happened.
It wasn't terribly difficult to work the photograph, and I started looking at it and I said, "Okay, well, the biggest thing here is, has the photo been modified?" And so I ran that through some tests and determined that it appeared to be an original photo without metadata.
And then the second thing I did was try to identify the time and date and location of the photograph.
So in this case, we had a very clear shadow marking at the top of the structure that gave me a good feel for how the sun was set.
So, what I did was I went out and found out exactly from early photographs and satellite imagery what that parking lot looked like.
I found something as close to around December 14th of 2012 as possible and then I.
began cross-referencing that and I what I ultimately what I ended up doing was putting a sun calculator onto the photograph to try to figure out what time it was taken with the angle of the sun and I overlaid that in the spot at the time and was able to determine the approximate time the photograph was taken.
My conclusion With just the photograph was I simply responded to Jim with an email and said it was taken December 13th at approximately.
5 o'clock plus or minus now last night I thought about it and I said, I'm going to advance it.
The sun is a little more lower than I had originally expected so.
Anyway, the long and short of it is the range is approximately 5 between 5 and 6 o'clock.
On the night of December 13th.
And that's verifiable with the sun patterns inside the photograph.
Wow.
David, this is so sensational because of course the event did not occur until the 14th.
So we're told from like 9.35 to 9.40 is supposed to be when it allegedly occurred.
And therefore, the crime scene could not possibly have been present until after the shooting had occurred, which had been sometime late morning, early afternoon on the 14th, but it was already there the day before.
Wow, that's huge.
David, it is huge, because wait till you see the resolution here.
Let's go through what we have on my blog at jamesfetzer.org.
Yes, the very next.
Here's what I wrote.
Editor's note.
In Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, 2015, second edition, 2016, we published an image of an SCI vehicle at Sandy Hook Elementary School before some reported mass shooting had taken place.
In the first edition, reporting it having been taken the morning of 14 December 2012, the day of the event.
And notice here, the text is taken from one of the elevated cameras placed around the car park to record the drill.
Leaves are evident on the trees in the background.
This is not December.
No portable mortuary can be seen, which means this is early morning before the portable mortuary was delivered.
Now, it turns out that it actually was December.
This is one of the points that we would want to correct, but the key point is it was before the event took place.
In the second edition, we corrected that to having been taken the night before.
We knew it was before the event had taken place, because a string of windows in Classroom 10 have not been shot out as they were presented in the aftermath.
Here's what we included in the book to make that point on page 149.
Yes, check it out.
Exhibit 30.
The windows have been fixed to simulate effects of shots.
A mortuary tent can now be seen in the reflection of the window.
This means it's been set up sometime after the windows of Classroom 10, featuring three candle images apiece, were staged to look as though bullets passed through some of them.
I recently learned of the private investigator Brian Davidson, who has mastered internet tools for research, and sent him the photo, but without explaining the background or the context.
He did his thing using the photo I sent, and this is what I have just heard back.
No wonder they banned the book.
Yes, David.
Next slide.
Jim, I'm assuming you sent me the photo to try to determine the approximate time it was taken.
This analysis is a little sloppy, and I don't hold myself out as a pro in this particular area.
I simply claim that it could be done, not that I'm an expert at this type of analysis.
Again, I am a generalist.
First thing I did was find the original source here.
Notice I can read the plates in the original high-res image.
Go to the next slide, David, and we got something approximating.
You see how good the image is.
And if you go to my blog at jamesfetzer.org, You can get it in even higher resolution.
But notice the key points.
The windows right above the roof of the crime scene vehicle, you have the four windows and they're undamaged.
So this has to be before the event.
But even though it's before the event, there's crime scene tape set up for a crime that is yet to be committed.
And if you look on the right-hand side, come down the flagpole, there, resting against the wall with his arms folded, awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent, is Wayne Carver, medical examiner, who claimed he couldn't identify himself.
Brian, comment on this.
I mean, this is, in my opinion, this is the single most damning proof we have that this was a contrived event because you have the state police, a crime scene vehicle, and the medical examiner all present at the scene before the event took place, which we can prove from features internal to the photograph.
And as you're observing, there's a shadow.
Tell us about the shadow there, Brian, and how that figures in determining the time at which the photograph was taken.
Well, the shadow is sort of a dead giveaway.
When I first looked at the photo, I thought, oh, it must be morning, because I didn't know the orientation of the building.
But once I overlaid the orientation of What that looked like in 2012 versus where it is today, and then put the sun calculator on it, I was able to find out the direction of the sun, and what you've got there is evening sun.
Wow.
There's no way that that's morning sun.
It would have been in shadow.
All those things that you see facing that direction, which is east, would have been in shadow.
So you've got an evening sun setting at a particular angle, And sunset that day, December 14, 2012, would have been approximately 6 p.m.
You've got the length of the shadow, which can be seen on the back of the truck, so you know that the sun is rather low in the sky.
And so I simply made the conclusion, not realizing that it was going to become a big deal, I simply made the conclusion this is shot The evening of the 13th when the weather was clear and fair and that's the only way it was possible because we know what the scene looked like on the 14th and this is not what it looked like.
So that's it.
David, of course, I didn't want to bias Brian by giving him any background.
I wanted him just to do his straightforward objective analysis, which is exactly what he accomplished.
And now we have a replication of proof that the Connecticut State Police and Wayne Carver were complicit in the sham, the hoax known as Sandy Hook.
Do you like it?
Well, this is, you know, that never occurred to me, the idea that we never calculated what time of day it was that this picture was taken, and now we know that it was in the afternoon the day before.
I mean, now, this is bombshell proof.
This is Supreme Court complete vindication of Dr. James Fetzer.
Right here.
Right here.
This is it, folks.
You're looking at it.
Well, isn't it ironic this happened just as I'm preparing my writ of certiorari to go to the United States Supreme Court?
Because the courts have been covering up.
It's no wonder they wouldn't allow evidence to be introduced.
Now, just to explain further how Brian proceeded, let's go to the next slide and invite his comments about it.
I am guessing the image is very close to the original, meaning what he found.
Second thing I did was travel back in time to the location and pull satellite images of the structure bearing due north around the time of the event.
I took a satellite image from March of 2012.
Then I went to the SunCalc.org and traveled back in time to December 14, 2012 and found the exact pretty close placement of the camera.
Brian, elaborate.
The landscape has changed, so if you just use suncalc.org, you're going to see what the new Sandy Hook map looks like.
So I had to overlay the old Sandy Hook map, and then you'll see a small ball at the bottom of the circle there.
That would be the position of the sun at any given point in time, and you can use the slider to move it around.
You can also set the height for the shadows.
I didn't do tight mathematics on it.
I mean, it still could be done.
I was just trying to get the big picture as to what I was dealing with.
And of course, once I slid that sun down to almost a setting position, that's where I found that the sun set on the building.
I knew that the sun angle had to be above about 430, and I knew that it had to be below about 6 o'clock, and so once I set it in and sort of took a look at the length of the shadows, I simply did the next thing I did, which is overlay it on Google Maps with the original orientation using Dickinson Drive as my
As my placement mark, and I also had to figure out exactly where the camera is on the new property, but I did that.
That wasn't too difficult.
And so within a few feet, within a few minutes, it's, I would, I would probably go to court and sit on the stand and say, yeah, that's, that's a good analysis.
Although I'm a generalist, probably if you wanted a professional, you'd want the SunCalc people in there to talk about how the software works, but it's pretty close.
Brian, this is just so sensational.
We have another slide, David, that shows how Brian superimposed.
I then overlaid that on Google Maps using the Dickinson Drive in Sandy Hook, Connecticut as my alignment tool.
I was unable to figure out who took the photo, and I can't seem to access anything else in the file where the photo exists.
The metadata on the image is gone from my earliest and most reliable image.
Strange.
And I cannot even access the server without a better skill set.
Anyway, still more work that can be done, including the plates.
These are the license plates, which I don't want to bust out because it could be considered a violation of the DPPA.
It is evening sun, probably the day before, not likely the day of, therefore my estimate puts this on December 13th, perhaps 445, give or take 20 or 30 minutes.
I think this is just sensational because that string of windows is not blown out.
We know it is before the event has taken place, which would be on the 14th, and therefore this must be on the 13th.
David?
Isn't this fantastic?
You know what this is like?
I'm a huge fan of the Columbo movies.
This is like watching a Columbo where the guy says, here's the sun in the position.
I was like, oh my god.
I mean, it's like, this is Bob Shaw.
This is huge.
It is.
We got one more slide here to finish off the blog.
Brian Davidson, Panoramic Investigations, phone number.
And Brian, I think you're going to get a lot of work as a consequence of what you have done here.
I didn't do it for that purpose.
Of course you didn't do it for that purpose.
You didn't even know it was a big deal.
If you want to support my efforts to expose the Sandy Hook Oaks and the court rulings that have had the effect of covering it up, check out givesendgo.com.
This one is for all the marbles.
And David, just go back to the photograph itself.
It's just, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
This is just so wonderful.
And notice, I think that Wayne Carver, had I had a version of the photograph with this degree of detail, it would have been pretty difficult for him to deny he was there.
He knew damn well he was there.
He just had to find a way to evade it.
And he said because it was too blurry.
But I guarantee you, that is Wayne Carver.
And if you go there, you can increase the size of the image so you can see in greater detail.
Just below the flagpole, just to the right, looking at the photograph.
You see that white hand?
He's got his arms folded, awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent.
And then you can see a reflection of the portable mortuary tent in the windows when they're blown out after the event.
David, I think this is as conclusive as it gets.
In terms of modern day lexicon, this is what you call a mic drop.
A mic drop?
It's like boom, that's it.
You nailed it.
This is it.
You win your case.
You win your case.
Well, you see, they've done such a great job of concealing, not allowing me to introduce the evidence.
I mean, in my case, in Dane County, the judge during the scheduling meeting said he wasn't going to allow me to introduce all the evidence I had that nobody died at Sandy Hook, including this photograph.
Including the FBI Consolidated Crime Report for 2012 that shows at the intersection of Newtown and non-negligent manslaughter and homicide, zero deaths in Newtown in 2012.
Where if the official narrative were true, it should have been 27.
We have the failure of the final report by Steven Sedansky, the state attorney from Danbury, that doesn't connect the weapons that were supposed to have been used with the shooter or his victims, because the .22 caliber rifle with which he's supposed to have shot his mother did not have his fingerprints, and of the 150 slugs they gathered at the scene, they admitted in a footnote, that's rather stunning, they could match none of the slugs to the weapon,
No, it couldn't be excluded.
They couldn't identify, which means this was a complete forensic failure for not creating a causal nexus between the purported shooter, his victims, and the weapons he's alleged to have used.
And it goes on from there, that we have the stage Of the photograph of the woman, policewoman, you know, escorting a string of kids from Sandy Hook where there turns out to be an earlier photograph where parents are present casually looking on, you know, while the kids are being rearranged to get a better shot.
Do you know the position of the time of Day of the Sun when that photograph was taken of the policewoman leading the kids?
Well, look, I'll kick it over to Brian and he can give me his thoughts about it.
Maybe that was shot the day before, too.
Yeah, we don't know.
We'll find out.
That's right, David.
I like that.
Highly probable.
Highly probable.
You provided so much proof, Doctor.
You've shown pictures of the kids that were taken when they were older after this.
There was a group shot, like a reunion shot of these kids.
You've shown the Posner kid.
Technically, you know, you've shown the cross-advanced photograph with the aging.
You've shown the fact that Larry Posner was not the same individual who appeared in court.
There's been so, so much proof.
But this is the icing on the cake, right here.
David, don't you think this is really, truly stunning?
Yes, and then, of course, throwing the FEMA manual, which we have itself.
Everyone must check in.
You know, it's just stunning!
Brian, I'm just so delighted with your skills using the internet, and I want to, you know, we're going to do additional interviews, of course, but I'm just tremendously impressed.
I want to get Brian as much business as I can.
If anyone wants this man's services, what is your telephone number again, Brian, because you really deserve accolades on this.
If they want me, they can find me.
I'm not hard to find.
I run pretty easy to find.
It's on my blog, David.
Anyone can go to my blog and find JamesFetzer.org and the phone number for Brian Davidson.
He just did this sincerely because I made the request.
He didn't realize this was a big deal.
He just decided he would follow through, apply the tools he'd explained to me, and I offered it as a test case.
We all know that in science, a key aspect of scientific research is replicability.
They can reproduce the outcome.
What Brian did was to reproduce the outcome we'd already published in the book with an even higher resolution photograph and with greater exactitude than we'd accomplished before, which is about as stunning confirmation that this was a fraud as one could possibly have.
I regard this as a single most devastating proof I think you proved you're worthy of it.
a drill to promote, you know, present it as mass murder to promote gun control, David.
Yes, and I appreciate it.
If anyone thinks I'm worthy of your support, I'm carrying this to the Supreme Court.
I just think you proved you're worthy of it.
More than enough worthy of it.
Let's give Sanford.com forward slash fundingfetzer.
Give SendGo.com forward slash funding Fetzer.
Let's contribute today.
This man has just proven his case beyond any shadow of a doubt, folks.
Help the man.
David, I so appreciate that.
What I'm doing is exposing the judicial corruption and covering it up.
If I, a former Marine Corps officer, a retired university professor with a mountain of evidence, can't get a fair shake in a courtroom, how can any Ordinary citizens expect to be treated fairly.
So I was denied when I sought access to the Soto versus Remington case.
Not only did the, because I was pointing out that there's never been a judicial determination that anybody died at Sandy Hook.
And I was not only opposed by the Sandy Hook fake parents, which was unsurprising.
I was opposed by Remington!
Remington!
How in the world could Remington, you know, not want me to enter to exonerate Remington from this massive suit that wound up settling at $73 million, David.
$73 million.
And then I sought to introduce myself into a Lafferty lawsuit too here with Alex Jones.
And again, the judge denied my effort.
And I'm now entering the bankruptcy case with Remington, making the same key points, because we're talking about defrauding the stockholders, the stakeholders, and the public, the taxpayers.
The insurance companies are settling, but $73 million, you know that's going to be passed on to those who obtain their insurance.
And David, here's the crux of the matter.
They're making this insurance thing a big deal.
They're going to push for insurance for every weapon any of us possess.
And in order to get insurance, you've got to register your weapon.
Once they know where your weapon is registered and that you have it, they are going to move to confiscate it.
Dave Hodges observed that in the 20th century, there were 19 democides, which were the slaughters of whole societies by their own governments, each of which was preceded by gun confiscation.
We cannot allow America to become number 20.
No, no, we cannot.
And I think when all is said and done, not only are you going to win your case, but I think you're going to be able to really This is going to be huge because you have righteousness and proof, legal proof, on your side.
And one of the things I've always admired about you, Dr. Fetzer, is that you're a scientist, basically.
You're a professor, you're a realist, you're a logical human being.
Everything is based on research, your own, and the collaboration of others.
Nothing is ever presented half-assed.
It's always, I mean, you just I'm just blown away by how well you conduct your investigations into these theories, and you've proven your case here.
Brian Davidson, you're to be commended as well for helping Dr. Fetzer out and exposing this photograph.
This is great.
Well, it's interesting you mention counterclaims, because in my answers to the complaint, I issued counterclaims for abuse of process, because this lawsuit was brought in bad faith.
It wasn't a legitimate lawsuit.
It was to punish me for having exposed what happened at Sandy Hook.
Number two, for fraud and theft by deception because the fake parents that Sandy Hook received between $27 and $130 million from sympathetic but gullible Americans, that was a form of theft because they were donating in the false belief that they'd actually lost kids.
And then I was counterclaiming for a fraud upon the court because the person who came and testified during an oral deposition as Leonard Posner was not Leonard Posner.
Not from all the photographic evidence we have.
He was 20 years or more younger.
He was 100 pounds or more lighter.
And I have secured further confirmation, David, that this guy was an imposter.
But the judge Bifurcated the case.
He said I'd only be allowed discovery to pursue my issues after the suit that was lodged by the plaintiff, Leonard Posner, who in fact had provided the uncertified death certificate to my research colleague, Kelly Watt, over which I was being sued.
Yeah, it had been resolved, and then he abused summary judgment when the status of the death certificate was in dispute, because even though he wouldn't let me bring in that massive evidence nobody had died, I introduced the reports of two forensic document experts, both of whom testified that the documented question was a fake, And that the judge simply set it aside as someone else's opinions.
Now, you can only use a summary judgment if there's no disputed facts.
But here, the central issue, the authenticity of the death certificate was in dispute.
It had to be sent to a jury.
And David, this is such a blatant violation that it's staggering that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District simply sided with a judge and reiterated the official narrative of Sandy Hook, citing cases which never reached the determination as to whether anyone had died at Sandy Hook, but which were settled on procedural grounds.
And then, believe it or not, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, even though my attorneys had submitted a masterful petition for review, declined to review it, and now I have 90 days to get my writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court, I have the law and and now I have 90 days to get my writ of certiorari before the United You sure do.
What I need is funding to carry this forward.
They use these lawsuits to bankrupt individuals who are trying to pursue the truth.
They've weaponized courts of law.
I want to undo it.
I want to ask the Supreme Court to put a halt to it, David.
And with the public's help, I believe I can do it.
I've got a great shot.
If ever there was a reason to donate to any cause, yours is it.
Yours is it.
I'm going to send you money myself.
We're sending giftsendgo.com funding Fetzer.
Do that.
I want to ask one quick question of you, Dr. Fetzer, regarding another topic because this came up last night.
I was listening to Caravan at Midnight with John B. Wells.
Your name came up last night on the broadcast.
I guess that's one of the shows you're going to be appearing on in the near future.
Well, I hope so.
I will be reaching out to John.
I've been on his show half a dozen times.
He's gone straight to audio now, of course, as in the old days.
They had a video show for a while.
I was on there numerous times.
But yes, what did John have to say?
Well, he was talking about another article that, well, first of all, he commended you tremendously on your research on Sandy Hook.
He believes you 100%.
He expressed a tremendous amount admiration for you and that's why I'm pretty sure that you're gonna be on his show in the near future but the second thing he brought up an article that had appeared on your website I believe in April of 2020 and he was going to be posted on his website and I can't find it but it was an article that also proved that COVID-19 was started here in the United States at Fort Detrick in Maryland
It was not written by you, but it's on your website, JamesFetzer.org.
I was wondering if you wanted to comment on that and if you could possibly send me the link to that article, because I would like to tell my viewers about that.
Well, David, I'll track it down for sure.
I think, yes, the original evidence appeared it originated at Fort Detrick, and it was shut down at Fort Detrick and moved to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where I myself taught for a year.
And then when that was closed down, they moved it to the Wuhan Lab in China, with vast funding approved by Barack Obama and Tony the Rat.
Well, we know now that these vaccines contain HIV.
That's a real tell that Anthony Fauci was involved in the design of this.
He's the one who promoted the HIV-AIDS myth, because apparently HIV does not cause AIDS, but he's doing everything he can to destroy the world's population.
And, David, do not be surprised if it turns out that work on these vaccines was conducted in the Ukrainian bio labs, which the mainstream is desperately trying to cover up, notwithstanding the fact that Victoria which the mainstream is desperately trying to cover up, notwithstanding the fact that Victoria Nuland herself, back in the Department of State, has acknowledged the existence of those bio labs and are concerned that Russia could get
And the Department of Defense, on its own website, had statements about the biolabs in Ukraine.
So, David, I will see if I cannot find that for you.
And I'm very glad you mentioned John B., because he'd be a great guy to help get the word out here.
I'm hoping that he does.
And of course, you won't even need to send me the email today, Dr. Fred, so I will be sending you the video of this interview to post wherever you want to post it.
I'll do it immediately after the show today.
Just tremendous.
Wow, you have Brian Davidson kind of disappeared and then he came back.
I don't know if he's having some technical issues, but... He had advised me, David, that he had a commitment that may require him to depart early, but I wanted to introduce him to the world on this occasion because he did such superb work.
I mean, he just did his thing.
He did it unknowingly.
There was no question of bias here.
He didn't have any predetermined expectation.
He did not even know the significance of the photograph I'd sent him to study.
I just, and this is, like I said, this is slam dunk.
There is no, this is the icing on the cake and obviously all of this, I'm assuming that when all of this is over and done and you win your case, and I am now confident that you will win your case unless you get a complete Unless the Supreme Court, for some stupid reason, you never know, refuses to take this up or whatever.
But assuming that the evidence gets presented before them and you win, there will be a third edition of this book which will include this additional information.
That's absolutely right, David.
In fact, I also have a book on the whole legal case that I'm seeking to get out and to print as soon as possible.
So, there's a lot going on here.
If there is anything other than, as I said, we're going to send you a contribution ourselves today.
We recommend everyone, everyone, please contribute to GiveSendGo.com forward slash funding FEDSA.
But if there's anything else that we here at Dark Outpost, my audience, anything else we can do, please do not hesitate because I want you to win this case so badly and I can taste it because you're a righteous man.
You're a critical thinker.
You are a man of science and a man of integrity.
And this needs to be brought out there.
This is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people.
And I am no fan of Joe Biden, but I will say one thing.
To quote Joe Biden, this is a big effing deal.
David, let me add, I offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years.
It has occurred to me I could do an online course on critical thinking once a week for 15 weeks, an hour on Wednesdays, right now tentatively set from 8 to 9 p.m.
Central Time.
That would be 9 to 10 Eastern and 6 to 7 Pacific.
I am going to be announcing this and moving forward with a course on Critical Thinking and Conspiracy Theories, where I explain to you the mode of functioning of the human mind, the role of language, the nature of arguments, the different kinds of arguments, the kind of fallacies or mistakes that are made in argument, and use conspiracy theories to illustrate the application of the principles of scientific reasoning to sorting things out.
I am going to be doing that.
Tentatively, we might begin as early as the 30th of this month or the first week in April, the 6th of April, depending on enrollment.
If I get a sufficient enrollment, David, I'm going to move forward with it.
And I think this would be of tremendous benefit to everyone who missed the course.
I used to tell my students, David, if they come to the university to take just one course, this was the course they ought to take, because it'll enable them to sort things out as they move through life and not allow themselves to be played.
I will sign up for the course myself, and you can publicize it as much as you want.
You send me the information, I'll make sure I pound it every day so we can get you students in that class.
Because you are a philosopher.
You're the Socrates, the Epictetus, you name it.
The Plato of our time, because critical thinking is a skill that is highly, highly sought after and highly missing in our society today.
Evidence-based forensic research, the critical thinking skills that you provided not only here, In all of your research, in your tremendous seminars that you've given, this needs to get out there.
You are a man that needs to be heard.
You are a man that needs to be supported.
I consider you a hero.
I don't get to say it enough, but you are the man.
You are the man, and you are going to win.
You're going to prevail.
Well, I appreciate all those thoughts, David, and I like this Socratic comparison.
Remember, he irritated the authorities in Athens, Greece, by asking too many questions.
They didn't like it.
And he was committed to, he was forced to drink the hemlock.
It's just as my efforts to support have been refuted by the courts.
They're using them to punish me.
It's the analog.
I'm not being forced to drink Hemlock, but I'm sure being forced to put up with a whole lot of nonsense right at this point in time have liens against me of 1.1 million for seeking to expose the fraud of Sandy Hook and that the person who came to testify in my case was in fact an imposter.
It's just stunning, David.
Well, you're not going to be forced to drink Hemlock, but your enemies are going to be forced to eat crow when they're done.
And I know that you have other interviews that you have to get to.
I'll send you a copy of this video for your, for whatever needs, whatever we can do.
Again, GiveSendGo.com forward slash FundingFetzer.
And Dr. Fetzer, of course, we'll see you again next week on the program.
Thank you so much for having us to be the first program in which you delivered this blockbuster information.
You got it, David.
You got an exclusive.
And I'm so grateful to Brian Davidson for the excellence of his research.
Me too, very much so.
▲
Export Selection