All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 18, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
51:17
JAMES FETZER, PhD - Princeton in the Nation's Service - Class of '62 Style
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back everyone to False Flags and Conspiracies Conference 2024. This is day two and Jim Fetzer is with us again.
I'm so excited because Ron Avery just gave a great presentation on what happened to Jim in court over the Sandy Hook I think we should just call it that, the Sandy Hook experience of Jim Fetzer.
There we go.
And he's going to present to us, though, a little bit of a dovetail into what's happening with his Class of 62. His title is Princeton in the Nation Service, Class of 62 Style.
And the description reads, my own class of 62 has blackballed me from making a class scholar's lecture, even though I am the most published member of the class with hundreds of articles and 40 books.
Jim, I don't even know what to say.
This is going to be amazing.
Thank you so much.
And go ahead.
It's all yours.
Thank you, Lorian, so much.
And Ron, just super, super, super.
Yes.
Princeton in the Nation Service, Class of 62 style.
That's the motto.
Princeton in the Nation Service.
Here's a secretary of the class to me.
I do not have any interest in involving a Class of 1962 lecture series in your work.
19 October, 2024. On 13 October 2024, I received the following announcement from Thomas Dunn regarding the Princeton Glass of 1962 Scholars Lecture Series, David Thorburn, October 22, 2024, at 4 p.m.
Eastern.
Having known David, it sounded like a great idea to me.
The 1962 Scholars Lecture Series, a second lecture of the fall 2024 semester.
Everyone previously signed up remains registered.
Only new need to register a Zoom presentation October 22nd at 4 p.m.
Featuring David Thorburn, 62. Story Machine, American TV, and the network here and beyond.
Our classmate, David Thorburn, 62, is Professor Emeritus of Literature and Comparative Media at MIT. He earned his MA and PhD from Stanford, taught in the English department at Yale for a decade, before joining the MIT faculty, where he taught for 47 years.
An influential scholar in two fields, his early work focused on literary modernism and the history of the novel.
He's the author of Conrad's Romanticism, Knott's Book of Poetry, and many essays on literary, cultural, and media topics.
His later work helped to shape the emerging field of media studies.
His essays on television in his MIT course, American Television, A Cultural History.
We're among the first in the country to examine the medium in a humanistic context.
His popular undergraduate course, The Film Experience, available on YouTube and the MIT OpenCourseWare platform, has reached an international audience of tens of thousands.
In this multimedia presentation, David will compare our current experience of media change with earlier periods of cultural and technological transformation, and he'll discuss the evolution of American television, a history on which our octogenarian generation has a unique perspective.
Coming Attractions, 4 p.m.
November 12th, Drayton Neighbors, 4 p.m.
December 10th, Ken Phillips.
This reminded me that back on 6th February, 2023, I had previously written to Tom to propose a lecture of my own as follows.
Jim Fetzer, 62. What's wrong with the conspiracy theories?
Our classmate, Jim, graduated magna cum laude in philosophy when Princeton ranked number one in the world in math, physics, and philosophy.
Commissioned a second lieutenant at graduation, he resigned his commission as a captain USMC in 1966. to enter graduate school in the history and philosophy of science at Indiana, following the recommendation of his thesis advisor, Carl G. Hampel.
His first appointment at Kentucky was followed by visiting appointments at Virginia twice, Cincinnati, North Carolina Chapel Hill, New College of Florida, then of the University of South Florida, and the Luth campus of the University of Minnesota, where he retired in 2006, as distinguished McKnight University Professor Emeritus.
Jim has published 24 books on the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundation of computer science, AI, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.
His first paper in Computer Science and AI, Program Verification, The Very Idea, 1988, ignited an international debate over the role of mathematics in guaranteeing what a computer will do when it executes a program.
He founded the International Journal Minds and Machines and the International Book Library Studies in Cognitive Systems.
He's received many honors and awards, including entries in Who's Who in America 2001 and Who's Who in the World 2001. Since 1992, he has pioneered collaborative research on some of the most complex and controversial events of our time, including on JFK and 911, on which he has lectured in Athens, Buenos Aires, London, Cambridge, Yale, and Harvard.
Six of his 12-plus books in this area have been banned by Amazon.com.
Here he explains how Hemphill's work on scientific theories applies to conspiracy theories, which every American needs to understand, because we are being played in ways that confirm Voltaire's observation that history is a pack of lives the living play upon the dead.
Jim believes the American people are entitled to the truth about their own history.
Naively supposing my proposal had been lost in the mix, I wrote to ask if it had been considered, to which he replied that one of the members of the committee knew someone who had died at Sandy Hook, as though that were a determinant of the matter.
So on 17 October 2024, I wrote to him again as follow Tom.
Could you fill me in on my being blackballed for our lecture series?
I'm among the leading experts on Hemphill, having edited two volumes for Oxford University Press and authored the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy intro on Hemphill Karl.
I'm also one of the three leading experts on false facts and conspiracies, along with Nicholas Kollerstrom and Ole Damagard.
I have been in personal contact with some of the participants in the Sandy Hook event.
Where we even have the FEMA manual for the exercise, and it's listing on the Connecticut FEMA schedule.
So I don't get why I am being opposed.
Someone who appears to have been played is the key, you have told me.
But has he reviewed my work?
The College Complex's presentation, the book itself, which can be downloaded from my blog at Fake News, The Truth About Alex Jones, The Truth Versus Alex Jones?
Check out my motion to open and open motion exhibits attached.
I'm baffled beyond words.
And here I included the Connecticut FEMA headquarters schedule of events showing the San Diego event where they even sent out a map as to how to get from Bridgeport, Connecticut to Dickinson Drive.
On October 19, 20, 24, I wrote again with adding, testing the hypothesis that somebody died at Sandy Hook with the following propositions.
Read, how to spot a false light, part 1, how to spot a false light, part 2, Tom!
On the phone with a research colleague, Moni Alexis Presley, who's done superb work with me in the past, especially related to Las Vegas, I asked if we could learn the name of the party our classmate believes died at Sandy Hook.
She would do the research to ascertain if they were dead or alive.
This can be tricky because most of them had fake names and were members of families created for the event, known as crisis actors.
But if she can confirm that they actually died, so be it!
And these are photographs, by the way, from Las Vegas.
Mona studied the alleged scenes at Las Vegas and found that when they were not simply photoshopped variations of themselves and appeared more than once, they had died in different states or on different dates or from different causes of death.
She also found a crime map for the concert area from 8 p.m.
before the event to 8 p.m.
the following day, which did not include a single gunshot incident.
So why not let Mona know whom he believes died at Sandy Hook and let her do her thing?
If you watch How to Spot a False Flag, Part 1 or Part 2, I think you'll be astonished at the degree of detail with which we have exposed these events as staged false flag events with crisis actors galore.
Leave me out of it.
Just let Mona know whom he believes to have died at Sandy Hook, and let's find out if he's got it right or wrong.
I will certainly step down if he's right, and I'm wrong.
Many thanks.
And because I believed it might have been one specific person who my classmate believed had actually died, I added the following addendum.
Some of the kids actually sang at the Super Bowl following the event.
Among them was Averill Rose Richmond.
Others have been identified in this video, Sandy Hook Line and Sinker 2017. You can start about 39 minutes to watch, including Averill, whose real name is Lenny Urbana.
She was very distinctive because you can barely see her right forehead.
She had a distinctive birthmark.
Which was clearly visible.
Tom Dunn's response was short, prompt, and to the point.
Please do not contact me again.
I do not have any interest in involving the Class of 1962 lecture series in your work.
Tom.
In the meanwhile, I had written to Ron Avery, who followed my case closely and created a blog about it, as well as recently authoring a book explaining what happened in the Wisconsin courts.
If he could write the disabused Tom of false impressions widely published when I was found liable for defamation in this case, which he did on 15 October 2024. Ron Avery, architect, Montclair, Segan, Texas,
Thomas W. Dunn, chairman, the 1962 Scholars Lecture Series, 1962 Princeton alumni, reconsideration of Dr. James H. Fetzer's request to make a presentation on what's wrong with conspiracy theories at the 1962 Scholars Lecture Series.
Mr. Dunn.
I was asked by Dr. Vetser to send my recommendation for reconsideration based on the information I know about a lawsuit he's been in since 2018. I am glad and honored to do so.
I have written the only book about his treatment in the Wisconsin court system and his discoveries concerning how the U.S. Supreme Court dispenses with the guaranteed rights of the U.S. Constitution.
That's all my book is judicial plundering of Dr. James H. Fetzer, co-editor and co-author of Nobody Died.
It's Sandy Hook.
My book is not about the merit or weight of any of the evidence put forth by Dr. Fetzer, the defendant, or the plaintiff regarding Sandy Hook, but rather, my book is an analysis of the unsound summary judgment methodology used to find Dr. Fetzer liable for defamation and the perversion of law used to take his book to remove it from public access and continually plunder Dr. Fetzer and his wife, who isn't involved in the lawsuit.
It's my informed opinion that this lawsuit displays the most extreme violation of judicial principles on every issue involved and at every level of review, which is a disgrace to the condition of modern law practice in America.
Obviously, this condition would lead anyone to ask the question, why all this perversion of law regarding Dr. Fetzer and his book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook?
I'm naturally led to suspect that it is to send a message to all Americans to never challenge the mass media cartel narrative, no matter how it is or how false it might be.
I think Dr. Fetzer's topic.
What's wrong with conspiracy theories and the power of the mass media cartel over the court system in America?
Would tie in very well with David Thorburn's story machine, American TV and the network here and beyond as a cartel machinery is in place to adjudicate reality out of fiction regardless of the true facts of any event.
What a fortunate possibility for this lecture series to host a living example of a victim of the vicious story machine in Dr. Fetzer.
This potential gives new meaning to the term network when the judicial system adjudicates the mass media cartel's narrative into reality, regardless of proof and without a jury to weigh and find the facts.
Please allow me only a moment more of your time to substantiate what I've said regarding the plundering of Dr. Fetzer.
It was just one of many examples in my book.
A summary judgment is a judicial procedure used to apply the law to an issue when both parties agree to the facts.
A summary judgment must have two functions.
First, to bypass an unnecessary jury when the facts are agreed to by the parties, and second, to protect the right of trial by jury of the non-movement who is at risk of losing that right.
Why have a jury when the parties agree to the facts?
The judge can safely apply the law to the facts agreed to by the parties.
Therefore, the judge cannot weigh evidence submitted by the parties and some other facts, but only look for agreement to the facts.
If the judge finds disagreement supported by evidence, they must deny the motion for summary judgment.
Next, The motion for summary judgment must protect the right of trial by jury of the non-movement.
Hence, the judge must accept all the evidence favorable to the non-movement as true and indulge every reasonable inference that can be drawn from that evidence, and further, any question must be resolved in favor of the non-movement.
The reason for this is, again, to protect the right to a trial by jury of the one at risk of losing it.
There's no guaranteed right to a summary judgment, but there is a guaranteed right to a trial by jury.
Dr. Fetzer was a non-movementer one at risk of losing his right to a trial by jury, and all evidence favorable to the movement was taken as true.
In all questions resolved in the movement's favor, the wrong party.
Had the motion for summary judgment been properly denied, both Dr. Fetzer and the plaintiff could have proceeded to a trial by jury, and neither party would have been injured.
But instead, Dr. Fetzer was found liable for defamation when the two parties did not agree on anything, and both submitted evidence supporting their allegations of fact.
To my astonishment, I discovered that this unsound summary judgment methodology used by the judge in Dr. Fetzer's case is the standard throughout Wisconsin, and hence was affirmed by the Wisconsin Appellate and Supreme Courts.
And even more shocking, I discovered in this case that the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury and common law matters in the U.S. Constitution does not apply to state courts.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it defines a simple logic, which I explain in my book, that you will receive shortly if you kindly give Dr. Fetzer your physical mailing address.
One final note.
It is apparent that very powerful entities in our nation are eager to disarm the American people against the law of the land, making them vulnerable to abject tyranny, and they have spent millions of dollars to accomplish that goal.
Would it be so unwarranted to consider that televised street theater could be used to obtain such a wicked goal without actually harming anyone at least immediately?
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely, Ronald F. Avery.
Now, I do not know which of any of these submissions, and there were more, Thomas Dunn may have read.
I can only conclude that his mind was made up, and he didn't want to be bothered with facts.
It would not have made any difference.
What we have found, alas, could perhaps best be called Princeton in the nation's service, class of 62 style.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., a former Marine Corps officer, as a McKnight professor emeritus on the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota and author-editor of 40 Books in Philosophy and on False Flags and Conspiracies.
Then I submitted a part two.
A Princeton in the nation's service class of 62 style.
It is easier to fool a man than to convince him he's been fooled attributed to Mark Twain.
Dear classmates, Now that Drayton has presented his class lecture on the importance of character, character matters, I write to make a final plea as to whether the class of 62 has any character.
The very idea that Tom Dunn, a real estate lawyer, who appears to have no grasp of the principal innocence until proven guilty, or of standards of proof, since I have refuted the claim that somebody died at Sandy Hook, including evidence from participants in the FEMA drill, Who was declared to be dead, Emily Parker and Victoria Soto, I'm at a loss as to where my own classmates stand.
Incidentally, not one of you has written back one way or the other in my request of Drayton to poll our members about this may have been missent.
Please be sure that Drayton, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, receives this message.
In case no one has noticed, none of my books and conspiracy research, four on JFK, two on 9-11, one co-authored on Wellstone, and the rest on Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, and even the moon landing were solely authored by me.
On the contrary, I have pioneered collaborative research on the most complex and controversial events of our time by bringing together collections of experts to sort things out, which, as a case of 9-11 so clearly illustrates, requires the expertise of civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, and even aeronautical engineers to get things straight.
Some of our findings have been on the extraordinary side.
Here I shall illustrate a few of our most striking discoveries.
With 11 contributors, we established that the 19 Islamic terrorists were Patsy, that Osama bin Laden was an officer in the CIA, who died in 2001 in Afghanistan, by the way, only to be resurrected by Obama to die again in Pakistan.
That two of the planes, flights 11 and 77, were not even in the air that day.
That the other two flights, 93 and 175, were still in the air.
After having officially crashed in Shanksville or hit the South Tower.
The Twin Towers did not collapse, but were destroyed by many nukes in the sub-basements, which destroyed the inner tube from the bottom up and the outer from the top down.
And that was an Israeli Mossad off to create a pretext for the U.S. to become militarily involved in the Middle East and take down the government's Of seven governments in the next five years, an agenda Israel currently seeks to complete.
That's America nuked on 9-11, compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad, with 12 contributors.
We'll say that Lee Oswald was in the doorway of the book depository at the time the JFK motorcade passed by, and therefore, not only cannot be the lone demented gunman, but not even one of the eight shooters there that day, that the backyard voters and other evidence implicating it was fabricated or faked,
that the plot originated in Los Angeles when LBJ lost to JFK for the DNC nomination, and forced himself on their ticket to accede to the presidency when Jack was taken out, that there are 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit and covering it up,
including forcibly removing the body from Barclay in the hospital to put it under military control, that autopsy x-rays were altered, another man's brain was substituted, and that the home movies were extensively edited to remove proof of the true causes of his death, Hit five times, including three times in the head.
JFK, who, how, and why?
Solving the world's greatest murder mystery.
With fifteen contributors, we established that the moon landings were fake, and that we did not have the propulsion power to escape low-earth orbit, that the computers said to have navigated was not even functional, that it would have been impossible to transit the Valhalla radiation belt, and much more.
Of the six books I've edited, banned by Amazon.com, on Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Parkland, Charlottesville, and the moon landing, five appear to have been at the request of the U.S. government to suppress proof these were staged events,
but the last, because it had a section exposing the Holocaust as a mass illusion rather than an historical fact at the behest of the ADL. One of the contributors, Nicholas Scholes, from PhD, has a book, Breaking the Spell, 2014, to which I contributed the introduction.
I liked his photo of the British soccer team at Auschwitz so much that I placed it on the back cover.
And I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
The Beatles, the Holocaust, and other mass illusions.
With 13 contributors, including six PhDs, we established that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students or teachers there, and that it had been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Residents of Newtown have participated in the drill, love the book, because it's honest, unlike the hokum that is spread across the internet, most recently with the reversal of a fake auction of AlexJonesInfoWars.com.
Not to belabor the point, but the school was actually closed in 2006. It was not even an elementary school, but a special needs school.
And Eric Holder offered Newtown $114 million to participate in an event intended to illustrate what could happen if we don't take guns away from the American people, which I only learned from two of the crisis actors cast in the event involuntarily by their mothers.
Who, as a consequence, did not sign the non-disclosure agreement signed by the others.
The scam continues to rake in donations to the order of around a million bucks per month.
And participants continue to receive fringe benefits, such as paying no taxes and free college tuition.
Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
You can download the redacted edition of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control 2024 from my blog and check it out for yourselves.
I must admit to being dumbfounded that my own classmates would support blackballing me from Berzina Class's 62 lecture on the basis of hearsay evidence That purportedly shows somebody died at Sandy Hook.
Hearsay.
Just ask yourself, what is more likely?
That Jim Fetzer and five other PhDs together with eight other experts could not establish that the school was closed by 2008 and there were no students or teachers there and publisher findings?
Or that an anonymous source should contradict their research, especially when it's been confirmed in spades by participants in the event themselves?
Should this stand, especially when I've agreed to step aside should the anonymous allegation prove to be true, I would be forced to conclude that my own 62 classmates lack integrity or courage or the moral character to do the right thing, and that the very idea of Princeton in the nation's service turns out to be hollow with regard to members of my own class.
Jim.
I had a very interesting comment on my blog where I published both.
William DeBerg.
Well, I may disagree with you on a few points, Jim.
You are overall spot on, and your individual and collaborative works have been important testaments to historical truth and products of great courage.
Having graduated from an Ivy League university myself, I can attest that Ivy League grads are some of the least informed in society about the nefarious deeds of our elites.
For one, they believe in work in the system, which in turn profits them, and many are actually key players in the misinformation campaigns of the federal government and media.
They also taught by professors who nowadays promote the same woke agendas and societal divisions that the elites use to divide the common men and women of this nation as a means of controlling us finally.
When over 95% of faculty and administrators are of the same political persuasion, groupthink begins to steamroll dissenting views, creating heretics out of truth-seekers.
As a personal example, I offered to write a posthumous article for the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine on Gonzalo Lira, a Dartmouth graduate and hero to millions around the world for his journalism.
He was shunned during and after his time at the university, in the latter case, merely for speaking truth to power on the subject of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, and was disgracefully left by our government to rot and then die in a Ukrainian prison.
In the end, the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine completely ignored my request to honor one of the university's more famous alumni.
There it is.
Thanks.
And I'll be glad to take your questions.
Lorian.
Jim, gosh, I can't believe the way they treated you.
Oh, my God.
It's so sad.
You know, and I love that last comment.
He's absolutely right.
People in higher education, in my opinion, this is just Lorian's opinion, they sometimes have the most closed-minded people I want to call it mind control at this point, because they've been indoctrinated not to think outside of the box, and yes, they are working for the establishment, most of them.
So they can't really do it, or, you know, there goes their livelihood, right, Jim?
Well, let me just add, you know, if you went to my blog, if you visit, for example, the page Fake News, you The Truth vs.
Alex Jones.
You can scroll down to the bottom and you can download the redacted version of the book and of Ron referred to as a blog.
It's actually a short book that was edited by Robert David Steele with my assistance on Sandy Hook Truth.
You can download them both where those three sentences in the one book and the one sentence in the other have been removed.
But believe me, The books are available for you because they're PDFs.
They're all photographs.
They're in color.
And as I explained before, the participates in the drill like the book.
Exactly!
Exactly!
They like the book!
I mean, I've been in contact with two of them by way of a third party, their mutual friend, and I've intermittently spoken with them directly.
They called me.
He called me.
His name is Steve Lucia.
He called me, oh, I don't know, two and a half years ago, reaching out because they didn't like the way I was treated in the courts.
They still do not like it.
They want me to prevail.
You're not going to believe this, but even the guy who calls himself Lenny Pazner, Wants me to prevail.
He turns out to be a pretty good guy, though that's not his real name.
The son is a fiction created out of photographs of his youngest son when he was a kid.
The party who came and appeared in court and I got sacked with an extra $650,000.
Contempt a court by the judge when I tried to expose that the party who came to testify under the name of Leonard Posner wasn't the same person as the Leonard Posner of the crime scene, who's actually his older brother, he uses him.
He's too small and too young to be, but I'm just telling you, I'm trying to get the case reversed because I have all this additional evidence, for example.
The older son went on 60 Minutes for an interview about Sandy Hook, and in order to make him look more like Sandy Hook, his father, they brought in this world-famous makeup artist, and he spent hours reconstructing his face to make him look more like the real guy.
And I've got the photographs of it.
So, you know, it's just amazing, the evidence I've got.
And of course, you know, they gave me a photograph of the kid who died at six celebrating his eighth birthday, for example.
That's in the record, too.
I mean, it just goes on and on and on.
It's mind-boggling.
Okay, we've got questions, Jim.
Yeah.
Okay, Abatha says, Jim, how do you stay so strong during all of these persecutions, trials, dismissals, and betrayals?
Good genes.
It was something about the Marine Corps.
You know, I mean, I had this natural aptitude, and the Marine Corps strengthened my sense of discipline.
But I've gone through the ropes.
I was denied tenure at Kentucky because I had published too many books.
The students gave me the first teaching award to one of 135 teachers, assistant professors, to show they wanted this guy to get tenure.
I gave talks at like 10 different No one in history of the university ever had that because we're so interdisciplinary and broad.
It's just in my constitution.
I'm not gonna let this go.
Yeah, great.
That's great.
I think they've been kind of astonished by my resilience.
I think that you're like Superman in my opinion, but hey, what do you know?
Okay, Hunter Green says, how did you get into writing about conspiracies after writing and lecturing about traditional academic topics for decades?
Well, it all happened related to JFK, uh, I was just lying in bed.
When I came back from the Far East, I had a tour in the Far East, right?
I mean, I graduated in 62. I think I wasn't old enough to vote for JFK. I was anchored out in Kaohsiung Harbor when the officer of the deck, who was the executive officer of the mortar battery, of which I was the fire direction officer, telling me, JFK had been shot.
And then an hour later, he came back and told me they'd got the guy done.
He was a communist.
So I thought then that was pretty fast work.
So when I returned to the United States, I began reading some of the books about JFK. I remember one of the first was by a fellow named Josiah Thompson.
He'd actually been a professor of philosophy at a small college.
He'd actually been a UDT, this kind of stuff.
And he was doing this research on JFK. So, you know, I read his book.
I began reading other books.
And it was when I was just lying in bed, drinking a cup of coffee, reading the paper, when my wife came in and said, you won't believe this, flipped on the TV. And there was this very distinguished looking guy standing behind a logo For the American Medical Association,
denouncing everyone who'd ever done serious work on the assassination, contradicting the Warren report, turned out to be a guy named Lundberg, George Lundberg, who was the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association known as JAMA. Well, I already had a lot of editorial experience.
I was an associate editor of Sindes, a very famous international journal for epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science.
I knew this was an abuse of his position as editor.
And it occurred to me then that if someone of his distinction was going to use this journal for political purposes, then perhaps some of us with special background and ability needed to become involved.
So I began looking at the journalist and was a letter to the editor by a fellow who resonated with me.
His name was David W. Mantic, MD, PhD.
And I reached out to David and suggest we collaborate on a long article or a book with which he agreed.
And before I knew it, others were wanting to join us in this collaborative enterprise.
So David and I have been collaborating since 1992. And as Jerry may have mentioned, I published three classic volumes, Assassination Science, 1998, Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000. The Great Zephyr Film Hoax 2003, to which John Costello contributed, see, by bringing together these groups of experts.
Now, no one had done that before in terms of conspiracy research, but because I had done all these conferences as an academician, it was second nature to me.
The way you deal with the problem is you bring together the best experts.
That's what I always thought.
And then it just carried over.
And when 9-11 occurred, I actually founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth.
And I had 600 to 800 from all over the world by the end of 2006. I was being flown around the world.
I was flown to Athens in December of 2006. To appear on a television program, the host of which was the leading muckraker in Greece, who had been responsible for the falls of Greek governments by exposing their corruption.
It was going to be a three-hour show, and they had 12 panelists.
And they told me going, and they said, well, usually only two or three will ask questions.
I said, not tonight.
Every one of them asked questions.
They had wonderful video clips.
It was sensational.
It was so good, they extended it for an extra half hour.
It was broadcast worldwide by satellite television.
That was a high-water mark for 9-11 research, because meanwhile, I was being betrayed by my associates For scholars for 9-11, truth are upset that I'd interview Judy Wood on a show because I was convinced nanothermite couldn't cut it,
and that Judy at least had a theory that was worth exploring, and I'd go on and interview her 15 different times, pioneering interaction between the computer and the radio and the internet, because I'd have her on my radio show but tell everyone, go to the internet to Judy's Blog to her website.
We look at photographs, studies, videos, and all that.
It was sensational.
And then she was on with John Hutchison, who claims to have performed these miraculous physical events.
And I asked John, I said, what was his background, since this is in the area of electromagnetism, where Costello, by the way, has a PhD.
And he said he flunked crayons and coloring books.
Which Judy thought was hilarious, but I did not.
And, you know, when I organized the Vancouver hearings in 2010, I invited John to participate, a fellow named Crockett, who was a physicist, but largely on Judy's side.
They both agreed.
I invited Judy, but when she learned that they'd agreed, she discouraged him from doing it.
And in the meanwhile, I posted a five-star review of her book.
Where did the towers go?
But explained that while I thought she was successful in knocking out the hypothesis of large nukes, that she hadn't knocked out the hypothesis of small or mini nukes.
And when I went to the conference, I got several presentations talking about all the evidence for the use of nukes.
So when it came back, Would you believe I discovered there have been over 2,000 comments on my review?
I'm not talking about Judy's book, on my review.
And they were overwhelmingly attacking me.
So I revised my review.
I said, this is ridiculous.
I downgraded it to three-star and talked about the U.S. Geological Survey dust studies, which showed elements that would not have been present.
This is sampling dust from 35 locations in lower Manhattan.
Had it not been a nuclear event and I rewrote it.
Well, the last time I had a chance to look, I had 7,000 comments on my comment, on my review.
Overwhelming.
This is when Amazon decided they couldn't allow comments on reviews because, I mean, look at this.
I couldn't even get it told when eventually there was so many comments and they were almost all hostile.
See, Judy has a cult.
She's got a mystical leader, Judy Wood.
It's got a sacred text.
It's got a praetorian guard, a guy named Thomas Parder, another one, Andrew Johnson from the UK, and others.
They'll go after hammer and tongs, anyone who disputes the least.
Claim made by Judy Wood.
So when she wouldn't respond to the USGA dust sample, I knew she'd abandon science.
Because in science, when you get new evidence, you may have to reject hypotheses you previously accepted, accept hypotheses you previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
In fact, there's a massive steel assembly that was blown out at a 45-degree angle, like, I don't know, 600. 100 tons into the winter garden.
That couldn't have been done by dues.
And the claims she makes for molecular dissociation would occur from a nuclear, even the damage to the toasted cars.
And by the way, Joe Olson has published multiple articles about the use of nukes on 9-11.
So I'm just saying those are some of the And it makes sense, Jim, because of the molten whatever underneath the ground burning for months at a time.
Come on!
That's nuclear fallout stuff.
At that tonning temperature.
Yes, yes.
You're exactly right.
I don't know why people can't get that through their head.
I've been screaming this for 10 years now.
I know.
I think there are a couple other questions there, if you can find them.
I suggest they put them in cash.
Oh, yes.
I'm sorry.
I'm shirking my duties here, Jim.
Checking caps.
Okay.
What is the address of your book and the other one you just mentioned?
JamesHFetzer.org.
There you go, folks.
And that specific blog you want is called Fake News, The Truth vs.
Alex Jones.
And you'll not only...
Get my critique of the Alex Jones case.
But you get a video where I did an interview, you know, I did a program where I talked about my relationship with the girls, with the woman who was cast as Emily Parker and the woman who was cast as Victoria Aurelio, as Victoria Soto, whose real name is Victoria Aurelio.
She's a daughter of the Newtown Town Clerk.
And the other is Margaret Alice Cottle.
And in both cases, their mothers cast them into the road without getting their permission, so they never signed the nondisclosure agreements.
See, people who have participated get all these benefits.
I mean, they get a lot of it, like not paying any taxes forever.
Not paying any taxes.
So they like keeping their hand in.
And I'm telling you, their scam is still bringing in a million bucks a month.
I learned that from them.
A million bucks a month.
Absolutely.
It's crazy.
Okay, Jim, is there any chance summary judgments will eventually apply to criminal cases for political dissidents?
The judicial system is constantly ignoring the U.S. Constitution anyway.
What's your thoughts on that?
Well, remember, as Ron said, So I'll probably explain.
You're only entitled to a summary judgment if there's no dispute on the facts.
Right.
I mean, otherwise it shouldn't be applicable.
What's fascinating about this case, as he also pointed out, we were in dispute about every aspect.
Every aspect.
And I mean, he only signed some of the IELTS of the FBI Consolidated Crime Report for 2012 that at the intersection of murder and non-negligence Manslaughter in Newtown is the big number zero.
Even the FBI agrees nobody died at Sandy Hook, which is a part of Newtown, in 2012. And I was presenting all this to the judge.
I was outlining all my evidence.
So his first ruling was that none of that evidence I had that nobody died at Sandy Hook was relevant to the authenticity of the death certificate, even though The death certificate says a decedent died at Sandy Hook of multiple gunshot wounds on the date, 14 December 2012. I mean, how absurd is that?
Just so crazy.
Okay, well, we have a long one from William here.
He says, Ron Avery's quote of John Locke was, who interpreted forms for legal abuse as a form of war resonated with me as well as Joaquin Hagopian's listing of wide variety of deep state Marco abuses.
Let's see.
Let's see if there's a question here.
Okay, I'm going there, William.
Let's see if there's a question.
Oh, there it is at the bottom.
Okay.
Political dissidents are very similar to what was depicted in the Russian film The Checklist or the movie The Killing Fields.
Okay, I've got to go find the beginning of this.
Jim, are you reading this?
I'm trying to disturb what he's asking.
I'm giving it to you.
The Check is a very disturbing film.
This happened after the Bolshevik Revolution.
They took anyone who stood out in any way And they gathered them up and they stripped them and they shot them in the back of the head.
It's a very disturbing move.
It's roughly what the Democrats would like to do to Trump supporters right here in the USA. Don't be deceived.
These people are Marxist communists and they don't give an S-H-I-T about the Constitution to them.
It's just as W said, a goddamn piece of paper.
I agree.
Hunter Green says, oh, we're going to switch the moon landing for just a second.
Are there any moon landing whistleblowers such as astronauts or NASA employees that say they never went to the moon?
As of yesterday's presentation.
Well, see, Gus Grissom had a little lemon hanging on his desk.
You know, he had one of these little stands with a lemon there.
He thought the whole thing was a failure, a flop.
None of the systems ever worked.
So he got Gus and two other astronauts into a capsule, filled it with pure oxygen and sparked it off and he was roasted, dry roasted.
There's skepticism.
There are others who are going to blow the whistle among the astronauts who died before they had a chance.
See, they're monitoring everything.
This is part of the reason the state wants all this spyware, so they know what you're going to do before you actually do it, and they can interfere with it so it doesn't happen.
So those are some of the casualties right there.
Four astronauts dead.
And Stanley Kubrick actually confessed to having filmed the moon landing.
You can find it online.
I mean, you know, people are still thinking we went to the moon.
I mean, honest to Pete, if you watch my little...
That was a very reduced, I have a much longer version.
But I mean, if you're not convinced by that...
I don't know what to tell you.
There's no way we went to the moon.
No way.
And there's no way we're going to have a manned mission to Mars either.
So some of those who raised questions about Elon Musk, well, there's something there to question.
Yes, I agree.
Yeah, there we go.
Don Graham's making a comment.
Why did parents of 26 dead Sandy Hook kids get $1 million payments at Christmas that year?
It was 2012. Is that true?
Did they all get a million bucks?
Do we know?
No, I think he's mixing, you know, housing.
They did bring, these were fabricated.
Most of these parents, these kids weren't even married to one another, and they used fake names and all that.
I mean, that's a very long, very detailed, but boy, I've had years of details about all this business, so there's an awful lot to it.
It was all a elaborate fraud that they don't want to admit.
They don't want to admit it.
Well, of course.
But is it true that all of their house payments and mortgages were paid off?
Do we know if that's true?
A lot of them got houses.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, okay.
So that is true.
Okay, one more question, you guys, and then we've got to move on here.
This is regarding the moon.
Why did they risk faking it four times for four different moon missions?
What do you think?
Say that once again.
Why did they risk NASA faking it four times for four different moon missions?
Why do you think they did it four times, Jim?
Look, look, look.
NASA is almost certainly a branch of CIA. And see, the public likes the moon missions.
The idea is something spectacular like that, so they're willing to shovel up money for it.
They're being conned.
We're being blamed.
And by the way, there's a question there about where to find the PDF copy of the book.
That's what I'm telling you, where to find the PDF copy of my book.
Go to jameshfetzer.org.
Actually.
And then go to the specific blog.
I'll actually put a link in here.
Yeah, I was going to say, Jim, there's a link further back in the chat, you guys, where you can just click on it and go to the book.
Yeah.
I saw it.
It was earlier.
And Jim will do it again.
There are two different books.
You can download both of those.
Remember, Ron said one was from a blog.
Well, actually, it was from a blog, but that blog was published in the book, and you can download the whole book.
It's about 130 pages.
It's wonderful.
I brought virtually every one of those contributors to Robert David Steele to include in the book.
And Michael posted it for us there.
Well, Michael, it went to only the host and the panel.
So if you could do it to everyone, that would be wonderful.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Okay.
Well, I think we've hit our moment, don't you, Jim?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Wonderful.
Delighted.
I just so appreciate Ron.
He's got a wonderful blog, you know, website devoted to my case where there are over 600 documents in this case now.
And he's got a big, you know, collection of them there on his blog, his wonderful stuff.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I'll put that up there, too.
I'll put that in the blog.
Great.
Wonderful.
Okay.
▲
Export Selection