Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Twilight of the Psychopaths

Twilight of the Psychopaths

by Dr. Kevin Barrett

Twilight of the Psychopaths
“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” – John Lennon, before his murder by CIA mind-control subject Mark David Chapman
When Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western civilization he said it would be a good idea. But that oft-cited quote, is misleading, assuming as it does that civilization is an unmitigated blessing.
Civilized people, we are told, live peacefully and cooperatively with their fellows, sharing the necessary labour in order to obtain the leisure to develop arts and sciences. And while that would be a good idea, it is not a good description of what has been going on in the so-called advanced cultures during the past 8,000 years.

Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and “warfare.” Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder.

The prevailing recipe for civilization is simple:

1) Use lies and brainwashing to create an army of controlled, systematic mass murderers;
2) Use that army to enslave large numbers of people (i.e. seize control of their labour power and its fruits); 
3) Use that slave labour power to improve the brainwashing process (by using the economic surplus to employ scribes, priests, and PR men). Then go back to step one and repeat the process.

Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, injure, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse. The inventor of civilization — the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers—was almost certainly a genetic psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies — especially military hierarchies.

Political Satire
Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.

In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: “Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges” (Grossman, p. 4).

Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!)

Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent. The sane majority, would rather die than fight.
Political Satire
The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers’ behaviour in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution. Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs. Evidently, psychopaths exercised an enormous amount of power in seemingly sane, normal society.

How could that be? In Political Ponerology, Andrzej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks of social hierarchies. Because they can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured by lie detector tests) psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want. In court, for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath. As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies. The result is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy with psychopaths.

So-called conspiracy theorists, some of whom deserve the pejorative connotation of that much-abused term, often imagine that secret societies of Jews, Jesuits, bankers, communists, Bilderbergers, Muslim extremists, papists, and so on, are secretly controlling history, doing dastardly deeds, and/or threatening to take over the world. As a leading “conspiracy theorist” according to Wikipedia, I feel eminently qualified to offer an alternative conspiracy theory which, like the alternative conspiracy theory of 9/11, is both simpler and more accurate than the prevailing wisdom: The only conspiracy that matters is the conspiracy of the psychopaths against the rest of us.

Political Satire
Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, is the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve their disproportionate power. And as that power grows ever-more-threatened, the psychopaths grow ever-more-desperate. We are witnessing the apotheosis of the overworld—the criminal syndicate or overlapping set of syndicates that lurks above ordinary society and law just as the underworld lurks below it. In 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, we are seeing the final desperate power-grab or “endgame” (Alex Jones) of brutal, cunning gangs of CIA drug-runners and President-killers; money-laundering international bankers and their hit-men, economic and otherwise; corrupt military contractors and gung-ho generals; corporate predators and their political enablers; brainwashers and mind-rapists euphemistically known as psy-ops experts and PR specialists—in short, the whole sick crew of certifiable psychopaths running our so-called civilization. And they are running scared. It was their terror of losing control that they projected onto the rest of us by blowing up the Twin Towers and inciting temporary psychopathic terror-rage in the American public.

Why does the pathocracy fear it is losing control? Because it is threatened by the spread of knowledge. The greatest fear of any psychopath is of being found out. As George H. W. Bush said to journalist Sarah McClendon, December 1992, “If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.” Given that Bush is reported to have participated in parties where child prostitutes were sodomized and otherwise abused, among his many other crimes, his statement to McClendon should be taken seriously.

Psychopaths go through life knowing that they are completely different from other people. They quickly learn to hide their lack of empathy, while carefully studying others’ emotions so as to mimic normalcy while cold-bloodedly manipulating the normals.

Today, thanks to new information technologies, we are on the brink of unmasking the psychopaths and building a civilization of, by and for the normal human being — a civilization without war, a civilization based on truth, a civilization in which the saintly few rather than the diabolical few would gravitate to positions of power. We already have the knowledge necessary to diagnose psychopathic personalities and keep them out of power. We have the knowledge necessary to dismantle the institutions in which psychopaths especially flourish — militaries, intelligence agencies, large corporations, and secret societies. We simply need to disseminate this knowledge, and the will to use it, as widely as possible.

Above all, we need to inform the public about how psychopaths co-opt and corrupt normal human beings. One way they do this, is by manipulating shame and denial — emotions foreign to psychopaths but common and easily-induced among normals.

Consider how gangs and secret societies (psychopaths’ guilds in disguise) recruit new members. Some criminal gangs and satanist covens demand that candidates for admission commit a murder to “earn their stripes.” Skull and Bones, the Yale-based secret society that supplies the CIA with drug-runners, mind-rapists, child abusers and professional killers, requires neophytes to lie naked in a coffin and masturbate in front of older members while reciting the candidate’s entire sexual history. By forcing the neophyte to engage in ritualized behaviour that would be horrendously shameful in normal society, the psychopaths’ guild destroys the candidate’s normal personality, assuming he had one in the first place, and turns the individual into a co-opted, corrupt, degraded shadow of his former self — a manufactured psychopath or psychopath’s apprentice.

This manipulation of shame has the added benefit of making psychopathic organizations effectively invisible to normal society. Despite easily available media reports, American voters in 2004 simply refused to see that the two major-party presidential candidates had lain naked in a coffin masturbating in front of older Bonesmen in order to gain admission to Skull and Bones and thus become members of the criminal overworld. Likewise, many Americans have long refused to see that hawkish elements of the overworld, operating through the CIA, had obviously been the murderers of JFK, MLK, RFK, JFK Jr., Malcolm X, ChÈ, AllendÈ, Wellstone, Lumumba, Aguilera, Diem, and countless other relatively non-psychopathic leaders. They refuse to see the continuing murders of millions of people around the world in what amounts to an American holocaust. 

 They refuse to see the evidence that the psychopaths’ guilds running America’s most powerful institutions use the most horrific forms of sexualized abuse imaginable to induce multiple-personality-disorder in child victims, then use the resulting mind-control slaves as disposable drug-runners, prostitutes, Manchurian candidates, and even diplomatic envoys. And of course they refuse to see that 9/11 was a transparently obvious inside job, and that their own psychopath-dominated military-intelligence apparatus is behind almost every major terrorist outrage of recent decades.

All of this psychopathic behaviour at the top of the social hierarchy is simply too shameful for ordinary people to see, so they avert their gaze, just as wives of husbands who are sexually abusing their children sometimes refuse to see what is happening in plain view. If deep, deep denial were a river in Egypt, American citizens’ willful blindness would be more like the Marianas Trench.
But thanks to the power of the internet, people everywhere are waking up. The only obvious non-psychopath among Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul, also happens to be the only candidate in either party with significant grassroots support.

If “love” is embedded in the Revolution Ron Paul heralds, that is because Dr. Paul — a kindly, soft-spoken physician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies — implicitly recognizes that government is the invention and tool of psychopaths, and therefore must be strictly limited in scope and subjected to a rigorous system of checks and balances, lest the psychopath’s tools, fear and hatred, replace love as the glue that binds society together.

The decline in militarism since World War II in advanced countries, the spread of literacy and communications technology, and the people’s growing demands for a better life, together represent a gathering force that terrifies the pathocracy, (those alternately competing-then-cooperating gangs of psychopaths who have ruled through lies, fear and intimidation since the dawn of so-called civilization).

Since nuclear weapons have made war obsolete, the pathocracy is terrified that its favourite social control mechanism — ritualized mass slaughter — is increasingly unavailable. And if war was the great human tragedy, the pathocrats’ pathetic attempt at a war-substitute — the transparently phoney “war on terror” — is repeating it as sheerest farce.

Truly, we are witnessing the twilight of the psychopaths. Whether in their death throes they succeed in pulling down the curtain of eternal night on all of us, or whether we resist them and survive to see the dawn of a civilization worthy of the name, is the great decision in which all of us others, however humbly, are now participating.

About the writer:

Dr. Kevin Barrett, co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth, LINK, has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. Barrett became a 9/11 truth activist in 2004 after reading David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor and conducting follow-up research that convinced him Griffin had accurately summarized evidence indicating 9/11 was an inside job. 

In the summer of 2006, Republican state legislators and Fox newscasters demanded that Barrett be fired from his job teaching an introductory Islam class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but the University refused to buckle, and Barrett got high marks from his students. He has appeared in several documentary films, lectures widely on 9/11 and hosts three radio programs on three different patriot networks.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Oswald Innocence Project: Reasoning about Doorman

Reasoning about Doorman

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. – Sherlock Holmes (A. Conan Doyle)

Jim Fetzer

Since there appears to be considerable confusion about reasoning scientifically in a case of this kind, the most valuable contribution I can make to the discussion of Doormån and Oswald concerns the pattern of reasoning that applies here.  Having offered courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning to college students for 35 years, I am well positioned to explain the principles that apply in cases of this kind, which are part and parcel of the application of the scientific method

Scientific method is a process involving four steps or stages of investigation or inquiry, beginning with PUZZLEMENT, where some phenomenon or event does not fit into your background knowledge and understanding; SPECULATION, where the full range of appropriate alternative explanations are advanced; ADAPTATION, where those alternatives are tested relative to the available relevant evidence; and finally, EXPLANATION, where the alternative that is best supported is acceptable as true but in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.

Scientific Reasoning

The key stage is ADAPTATION, which involves the application of inference to the best explanation to the available evidence.  This requires comparing the relative degrees of evidential support for alternative hypotheses by calculating the probability of the data on the assumption that the hypothesis is true.  Do that for each of them and see which of them confers the highest probability on the evidence, if it were true.  It sounds like a process of reasoning backwards and, in a way, it is:  you are treating the evidence as the effect of a cause and comparing the probability with which various causes could have brought about an effect.  If you found a tree that had been cut in half and felled, what is the probability that that had been done with a pen-knife, a Swiss Army knife or a chain saw?  Consider the effects and figure out which among its possible causes is most likely.

An hypothesis with a higher likelihood is preferable to one with lower, where the one with the highest likelihood is acceptable as true when the evidence has “settled down”.  It is always possible to return to make a recalculation when new evidence or new alternatives become available.  Here I want to highlight a few of the key considerations that have led me to conclude that Doorman and Oswald are indeed one and the same, where, in this case, we are essentially dealing with only two alternatives, namely:  that Doorman was Billy Lovelady, as the government contends, or that Doorman was Lee Oswald, as David Wrone, Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke, Orlando Martin and I – among others – contend.  Because there are only two serious candidates, evidence that favors one of them disfavors the other, and evidence that disfavors one of the favors the other.  Doorman is one or the other.  If Doorman was Oswald, he wasn’t Lovelady; if he was Lovelady, he wasn’t Lee.

“Out with Billy Shelley in front”

It was astonishing to me to learn – only last year, 2011 – that the Assassination Records Review Board had discovered the handwritten interrogation notes of Will Fritz, the DPD Homicide Detective who had interrogated Lee Oswald, notes that had been released way back in 2007, that said Oswald told Will Fritz that he had been “out with Bill Shelley in front” during the assassination.  This discovery led me to take a second look at Altgens6 and to revist the question of whether Doorman could have been Oswald.

Some have claimed Lee was not talking about his location during the shooting but some time thereafter.  That makes no sense at all, however, since we know he was observed in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM by Carolyn Arnold, the executive secretary to the Vice President of the TSBD.  So, Oswald could not have been referring to being outside with Bill Shelly before the shooting. Within 90 seconds, after the shooting, Oswald had been accosted in the lunchroom by Roy Truly and motorcycle officer Marion Baker.  Oswald could not have meant he was “out with Bill Shelly in front” after the shooting because Bill Shelly was not there then.  Shelly said he left immediately, with Billy Lovelady, to walk down to the railroad tracks to look around.  When Lovelady and Shelly returned, they re-entered the building through the backdoor, of the TSBD, and went to the base of the back stairwell (in the northwest corner (rear) of the building).  So, Bill Shelly was definitely not out in front when Oswald was leaving.

The Altgens6 was Altered

It would have been unbelievably remiss of Detective Fritz not to have asked Lee Oswald where he was at the time of the shooting; that is the most pertinent question Will Fritz would have needed to ask. Three questions therefore arise about what Lee told Fritz:

    (1) Why would Lee have said he was “out in front” if it were not true?
    (2) Why mention Shelley unless Lee believed that he would confirm it?
    (3)  How could he have known Shelley was there if Lee had not been?

These questions appeared to me to create a prima facie presumption that Lee was telling the truth during his interrogation.  I therefore began to take a closer look at Altgent6 and was astonished to discover—and on a John McAdams site!—that Altgens6 was altered:

Notice I am NOT talking about Doorman but the figure to his left / front (our right / front viewing the images).  I original inferred that the face that was obfuscated must have been that of Lee Oswald, but I now believe—based on new research by Richard Hooke-- that it was instead that of Bill Shelley.  For Shelley to have been in the immediate vicinity of the enigmatic Doorman would have made Lee’s remark to Will Fritz just a bit too intriguing, which would have invited taking a closer look and risk exposing the entire charade.  As we have taken a closer and closer look, it is remarkable how many of the features used to pull off this charade are present in this composite image, including not only Billy and Lee but the man in a checkered shirt, who was a Lovelady imposter, and frames from a faked film.

Taking a Closer Look

That the Altgens6 was altered at all creates the presumption that something was wrong.  Surely it would only have been altered if someone had been there who should not have been there.  The only candidate for that role would have been Lee Oswald.  While I now believe that the face that was obfuscated was that of Bill Shelley, his importance there would only become apparent when Oswald’s remarks to Fritz would eventually become available.  And, to the best of my knowledge, that did not occur until 1997.  I published my first article accenting this discovery, “JFK: What we know now that we didn’t know then” (21 November 2011), mistakenly asserting that the obfuscated face was that of Lee, which led Ralph Cinque to contact me to explain why he thought that I was right about my conclusion—that Oswald HAD been in the doorway—but that I was wrong about my reasons for thinking so, where the clothing that Doorman was wearing was the key!

It did not take long for Ralph to convince me that he was right, which led to our joint article, “JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (25 January 2012).  The uniqueness of Oswald’s clothing had never really been addressed before.  Well, perhaps it had, but not in a long time, and not with any widespread recognition.  When you compare the clothing of Oswald and Doorman in detail, you realize it had to be the same clothing, which means it had to be the same man.  Unless Billy was wearing Lee’s clothing, the probability that Doorman was Lovelady approaches zero and the probability Doorman was Lee approaches one.  Not only is there no serious chance that Billy Lovelady just happened to dress himself exactly the same way as Lee Oswald on that particular day, but Billy himself would go to the FBI and show them the shirt he had been wearing that day —an incredibly implausible thing to do unless it was true—and it was not the same shirt!

Inference to the Best Explanation

As you will find on the pages of The Oswald Innocence Project, Ralph Cinque and Richard Hooke have done brilliant work in displaying the full range of alterations to which this photo has been subjected, where the more they have done, the stronger the case has become. Any one familiar with the principles of scientific reasoning--most importantly, of inference to the best explanation--will have no difficulty appreciating that the case for alteration has been made, again and again.  The complexity of what was done is rather astonishing, but the price of failure would have been to blow apart the greatest hoax in American history, namely: that JFK had been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone, demented gunman.  We know that cannot be true on multiple grounds, but this proof is as powerful as they come.

An hypothesis has been proven beyond reasonable doubt when no alternative hypothesis is reasonable.  There would have been no reason to alter Altgens6 unless someone had been there who should not have been.  Altgens6 was altered.  Therefore, someone was there who should not have been.  The only person that could have been was Lee Oswald, the designated “patsy”.  Questions have long revolved over the identity of Doorman, but they have been pursued in the past in ignorance of what Lee told Fritz and that Altgens6 had been altered in at least one respect—and now turns out to have been altered in many others.  We have found that the man in the checkered shirt appears to have been used as a “target of opportunity” to explain away the differences between the shirt Doorman was wearing and the shirt that Billy was not.  As you will discover here, there is no reasonable alternative to the hypothesis that Lee was Doorman, which has been further confirmed in detail by more recent studies.  Beyond a reasonable doubt, the charade has been exposed.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and journalist with Veterans Today, has joined The Oswald Innocence Project (now aka The Oswald Innocence Campaign) which he highly recommends.  Fifty years of deceit and deception are enough.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

James H. Fetzer - Wikipedia NOT

Jim Fetzer

Those familiar with Wikipedia will not be surprised when I report additional confirmation that Wiki affords a central source for the dissemination of information that is false and misleading, especially about crucial and controversial issues of our time, even going to far as to distort and twist the history of the first major research society devoted to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, as I have explained in "Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op".

In that instance, I repeatedly attempted to correct the history of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which I founded, and was repeatedly rebuffed. For the past several years, therefore, I have worked to maintain the accuracy and completeness of my Wiki entry, with some considerable success until relatively recently.

The first change to the text is that I am no longer identified first as an "American philosopher" who is also a conspiracy theorist, but now as an "American conspiracy theorist" who is also a philosopher, even though of the 29 books that I have published 24 are in philosophy and only 5 deal with conspiracies.  But they wanted to tarnish me with the label of being a "conspiracy theorist", because it is so useful politically as an ad hominem attack regardless of the quality of one's research.

In the past couple of weeks, it has been butchered by removing around half the content and more than half the supporting links, which I feature below, showing the original at least since 22 July 2011 (where I had made occasional updates from time to time), where I have highlighted in red the parts that have been removed when you compare the current version with this one.

The first thing you will notice is "the warning labels", which are used to instill uncertainty in readers about an entry like mine, no matter how copiously it has been documented.  Here is the version they installed since the massacre of my old entry:

Wiki has several policies that can be cited on any occasion, since they are at least partially inconsistent.  One is that of so-called "neutrality of viewpoint", where the subjects of entries are not supposed to edit their own entries.

This is a rather odd policy and even self-defeating policy, since no one is going to be more aware of the activities and accomplishments of a subject than that subject himself.  Another is the condition of "verifiability", where Wiki is especially keen on third-party sources, no matter how extensively a subject may have documented his entries.

Since no one knows a subject better than that subject himself and all of my entries were verifable, discounting an addition on the basis of its source, especially when it is verifiable, commits the common "genetic fallacy".  There is no reason to discount verifiable additions.

Even my promotion to Distinguished McKnight University Professor in 1996, which is recorded on my curriculum vitae, was being rejected in this latest version until I offered a source at the University. For this modest victory, however, there were many--and far more serious--defeats.

I had been aware of incremental changes to my entry, which included, for example, removing the sub-heading, "Explaining the Explanandum", in which I explained why Judy Wood, Ph.D., had not only done more to clarify evidence of the destruction at the World Trade Center that needs to be explained (technically known as "the explanandum") but had also done more by way of "proof of concept" to elucidate her take on how it was done using directed energy weapons than had Steven Jones in relation to his endorsement of nanothermite (technically known as "the explanans").

Scientific explanations combine explanans with explanandum, as I have detailed in many places. Because I had mentioned that I discussed it here in passing during a rather intense exchange with supporters of Judy Wood, who appear to believe I am not sufficiently supportive of her in spite of (most recently) giving her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2009), a 5-star review, the thought passed my mind that the edits were theirs, since most of my discussion related to her was taken out.

I now suspect that it was not Wood or her supporters who made these edits, but rather that this latest wholesale revision to my Wiki page--with its omissions and severe deletions in two main areas--was probably instead done to diminish knowledge of my lack of support for Steve Jones' work and to minimize my contributions to the study of the assassination of JFK.  Here is the lastest version of what Wiki has to say about my JFK research:

This entry has many problems, including citing me as "the author" of three books that I edited and claiming that I assert that "approximately six gunmen were firing at Kennedy", when there is nothing "approximate" about it.  In an effort to make this new version at least more accurate and more informative, I submitted revisions as follows, which were also promptly rejected:

My experience with Wikipedia has been replicated time and time again by others, whose views post a threat to the interests that dominate its operations.  Ironically, given its avowed commitment to "neutrality" in its point of view, one of Wiki's editors is John McAdams, who is a notorious "lone nutter" and defender of the THE WARREN REPORT (1964), which of course has been refuted on multiple grounds over and over again.  (A nice review of Adams' book, JFK ASSASSINATION LOGIC (2011) by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has recently appeared.)

Attempts to hype the credentials of proponents of the "official account" and to diminsh those of its criticis appears to be what we should expect in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination in 2013.

Another sacred myth that Wikipedia appears committed to defending at all costs is that of the Holocaust, where the author of books that argue the American high command, led by Dwight David Eisenhower, had allowed many deaths which could have been prevented found himself in a similar situation, where he attempted to correct flaws in the Wikipedia entry that dealt with them but was similarly rebuffed.

These paragraphs by Peter Meyer come from "Why is Wikipedia Censoring me?"

So here is the earlier version of my entry, where the deletions have been identified in red.  The copyright laws make exceptions for fair use and especially for criticism, since it would be difficult to criticize a work if you could not display it for that purpose.

I would welcome those who have further thoughts about this, but I am convinced on the basis of my own personal experience, first in relation to the history of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and now in relation to my research on JFK (and my discussions of 9/11 and the work of Judy Wood) that it cannot be relied upon and should not be regarded as a trustworthy source.

For trivial and non-controversial issues, it works fine; but when it comes to matters of great importance, such as the Holocaust, JFK and 9/11, the situation is reversed.  The more controversial a subject, the less one should place confidence in Wikipedia.  User beware!

James Henry Fetzer - 

Wikipedia as a disinfo op

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James H. Fetzer

James Henry Fetzer (born December 6, 1940 in Pasadena, California) is an American philosopher, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth,[1] and a well-known conspiracy theorist.[2][3][4] He has written on the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.

Two of his most recent books were on the evolution of intelligence and philosophical aspects of "the Christian Right's crusade against science". He is also an advocate of the 9/11 conspiracy[5] and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.  He has published three collections of studies on the death of JFK, co-authored another on the plane crash that took the life of Senator Paul Wellstone, and edited the first book from Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization he founded. Fetzer makes frequent appearances on radio and television.




James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School.[6] He went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962.[6] After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.[6]

Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[1] At the University of Kentucky, he received the first Distinguished Teaching Award from the UK Student Government.


Fetzer has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence and cognitive science.[1] He also founded the international journal, Minds and Machines, which he edited for eleven years, the professional library, Studies in Cognitive Systems, which includes thirty volumes, and the professional organization, The Society for Machines & Mentality.[7] The Society for Machines & Mentality has been accepted as a special interest group (SIG) of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy (IACAP).[8] His first article in the philosophy of computer science, "Program Verification: The Very Idea", Communications of the ACM (1988), ignited an international debate that has not subsided to this day.[9]

Controversial views

Fetzer has written about the John F. Kennedy assassination and has been interviewed on his theories about the September 11, 2001 attacks, by Richard and Kate Mucci, hosts of Out There TV, and radio hosts such as Laura Ingraham, Jerry Springer, Donny Deutch and several hosts on Air America, among others.[10][11] He has been interviewed on Hannity & Colmes (twice) and on The O'Reilly Factor as well as other television programs. Some have questioned his apparent endorsement of a military coup to overthrow the Bush administration,[12] members of which he believes have betrayed the country and violated their oaths of office. From the fall of 2006 to November 2008 he co-hosted an internet radio program "The Dynamic Duo" on the Genesis Communications Network with Kevin Barrett. He co-edits an on-line journal for advanced study of the death of JFK.[13]

Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Fetzer maintains that John F. Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a well-planned and precisely executed conspiracy, which included altering the autopsy X-rays, substituting another brain, and recreating the Zapruder film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. He has edited three collections of studies on the assassination, run four conferences on the subject, and continues to make numerous talk show appearances on the topic.[14] Fetzer has lectured on this subject at Harvard, Yale, and Cambridge Universities.[15] In June 2007 he published a detailed review and rebuttal of Vincent Bugliosi's massive study of the assassination, Reclaiming History, for Assassination Research.[16]

In January 2009, in collaboration with Jack White, he published a new study of the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film of the assassination.[17] This was a recent development in a long-standing dispute with Josiah Thompson, which he has discussed in numerous articles, including New Proof of JFK Film Fakery[18] and Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid.[19] A recent study, "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"[20] demonstrates inconsistencies between Clint Hill's description of his actions that day and what the film records. Another, "Did Zapruder take 'the Zapruder film'? [21] argues that Zapruder cannot have taken the film that bears his name. Fetzer has observed that presuming its authenticity functions as the backbone of the cover-up, since it becomes impossible to reconstruct the actual sequence of events in Dealey Plaza on the basis of a fabricated film.

In response to the announcement that a Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, had shown that the "backyard photograph" of alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was authentic, after decades of controversy, he and Jim Marrs, the author of Crossfire (1989), one of the primary sources for Oliver Stone's "JFK", published an article arguing that Farid's research was inadequate on multiple grounds, including (a) that he only studied one feature (the nose shadow) of one photo, when there are four, (b) that he ignored other, more imposing proofs of fakery (including the block chin, the insert line between the chin and the lower lip, and the cut-off finger tips of his right hand), and (c) a demonstration by Jack White using the newspapers as an internal ruler that the person was too short to be Oswald.[22]

Fetzer and Marrs also asserted that, if Farid had conducted a search of the literature, he would have known that the face is exactly the same across all four photographs taken in different poses at different times, which is a photographic impossibility. Others have taken an interest in their work and published articles of their own about their study.[23]

September 11, 2001 attacks

Fetzer supports the assertion that elements within the U.S. federal government orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks for political and economic gain and that World Trade Center One and Two were destroyed using a novel form of controlled demolition from the top down, while World Trade Center Seven was brought down by a conventional controlled demolition from the bottom.[24] Fetzer also believes the hijackings were staged and that calls from passengers to relatives and operators were faked.

During recent lectures, Fetzer encourages the study of the possibility that high-tech weapons, including ground or space-based directed-energy military weapons, may have been used to bring down the Twin Towers.[25] He has not endorsed any specific hypothesis about the destruction of the WTC, but he has expressed skepticism that conventional explosives, including thermite/thermate, could have brought about such devastating effects. On May 17, 2007, he presented a two-hour critique of Steven E. Jones' work, which has been archived under the title, "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community".[26]

On June 22, 2006, Fetzer was a guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes where he discussed his stance on several 9/11 conspiracy theories.[27] That weekend, he appeared at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium in Los Angeles, California.[28] On December 18, 2006, he was the featured guest on a three and 1/2 hour television program devoted to 9/11, which was broadcast live from Athens by satellite worldwide.[29][30] During June 2008, he was flown to Buenos Aires to present a series of lectures on 9/11 and JFK. His visit received considerable publicity, including a 20-minute television interview broadcast across South America and articles in the News Service of the Republic of Argentina.[31][32] He was flown back to Buenos Aires and presented the principal lecture during "The International Conference for 9/11 Truth and Justice" held at The National Library on September 11, 2009.[33] On 14 July 2010, he spoke along with Kevin Barrett and Gilad Atzmon at a symposium, "Debunking the 'War on Terror'", at Friends House in London, which was moderated by Ken O'Keefe.[34]

In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, "this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state." Fetzer agreed to appear on O'Reilly's show himself on October 12, 2006.[35] Fetzer has detailed his research and theories during the Midwest Social Forum held on the campus of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee in a joint presentation with Kevin Barrett, also a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which they recently reprised at the University of Wisconsin–Madison[36]

Fetzer is founder and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11".[37] Differences in attitude and approach toward the science and the politics of 9/11 research led to a split with Steven Jones, whom Fetzer had invited to be his co-chair, in December 2006, almost exactly one year after its creation. Many 9/11 activists support Jones over Fetzer. A recent interview in which Jones was Fetzer's guest, which revealed the depth and breadth of their differences, elicited dozens of negative comments[38] On August 3–5, 2007, he conducted the first conference sponsored by Scholars on "The Science and Politics of 9/11", and produced its first DVD.[39]

In his most recent work as a columnist for Veterans Today, "Seven Questions about 9/11" and "More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity", he has presented evidence that all four of the plane crashes on 9/11 were faked, where no planes crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon and one or another form of fakery was used in New York.[40][41] Even more strikingly, in collaboration with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, he has challenged "the myth of nanothermite" by explaining that it does not have the gas-expansion properties of explosives and, with a detonation rate of 895 m/s, cannot have destroyed the concrete or the steel in the Twin Towers, which would require rates in excess of 3,200 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel, which has punctured perhaps the most widely help belief within the community about how the towers were destroyed and accented his disagreements with Jones.[42]

Explaining the explanandum

Fetzer has spoken positively of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, who left Scholars due in part to disagreement with the organization, objecting to the unwillingness of the society to consider 'no big boeing' theories (conspiracy theories arguing that no large aircraft hit the World Trade Center and that video evidence of the planes hitting the towers have serious inconsistencies showing them to be "doctored").[43] Fetzer has been impressed by their efforts to clarify the extent of devastation at the World Trade Center and mentions a wide range of theories, including that a "satellite-mounted military weapon" may have been used to destroy it, as among those that deserve investigation. He has written that "the range of alternative explanations that might possibly explain the explanandum must include non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using mini-nukes, and . . . non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using directed energy weapons. . . . The specific weapons used to destroy the WTC could have been ground based or space based." [44]

For Fetzer, "Judy [Wood] appears to have done far more to develop her "proof of concept" than has Steven [Jones]".[44] Steven Jones and others claim to have refuted the mini-nuke hypothesis[45][46] Jones has responded to Reynolds and Wood directly, but they have not viewed his remarks as refutations.[47] After featuring fifteen or more students of video fakery as guests on his radio program, Fetzer decided that claims of video fakery and claims that no planes hit the tower are logically distinct issue. He has become convinced that video fakery took place on 9/11 and has published several articles about it, including "Mounting Evidence of Video Fakery on 9/11" [48] and "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11".[49] Wood and Reynolds both contributed chapters to his first book for Scholars, The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007).

Death of Paul Wellstone

Fetzer has co-authored a book in which the authors collect and analyze public information and witness statements, arguing that Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone's death in an airplane crash was not accidental but resulted from a small-scale conspiracy to ensure Republican control of the Senate.[50] He has co-authored a study of the documents on which the NTSB's report was based with John P. Costella, a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which was published in Michael Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" newsletter.[51] He recently addressed this subject again in the context of an article inspired by the revelation of Seymour Hersh that Vice President Dick Cheney had been running an assassination operation from his office.[52]


In Fetzer's words, "in this day and age, we all have to become experts on disinformation."[53][54] According to Fetzer, "disinformation... should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying. Indeed, the parallel with lying appears to be fairly precise." [53] Misinformation Fetzer defines as "false, mistaken, or misleading information"; disinformation is misinformation propounded "in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse."[55] Fetzer describes five levels of disinformation.[56]


From 2001-08, Fetzer made regular appearances on Black Op Radio,[57] an internet broadcast dedicated to conspiratorial subject matter, primarily the JFK assassination. He still appears on the show occasionally, but less often than before. For a time, Fetzer co-hosted "The Dynamic Duo", a show on the GCN network, along with fellow 9/11 Truther Kevin Barrett. Today, Fetzer solo hosts a show called "The Real Deal" on Revere Radio.[58] He has interviewed a wide range of experts on various subjects, including JFK, 9/11, election fraud, domestic politics and foreign affairs.[59] A recent series of four programs was devoted to suspicious non-combat military deaths, a subject he was drawn into by research on the death of Cpl. Pat Tillman for his OpEdNews article, "Has Cheney been Murdering Americans?".[52]


Philosophy of Science:

  • Principles of Philosophical Reasoning. Rowman & Littlefield. June 1984. p. 292 p.. ISBN 0-8476-7341-3.
  • edited by James H. Fetzer. (August 1985). Sociobiology and Epistemology. Springer. p. 296 p.. ISBN 90-277-2005-3.
  • Definitions and Definability: Philosophical Perspectives. 1991. ASIN B000IBICGK.   
  • James H. Fetzer (October 1992). Philosophy of Science (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 197 p.. ISBN 1-55778-481-7
  • ed. by James H. Fetzer (January 1993). Foundations of Philosophy of Science: Recent Developments (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 512 p.. ISBN 1-55778-480-9.
  • Charles E. M. Dunlop; James H. Fetzer. (March 1993). Glossary of Cognitive Science (A Paragon House Glossary for Research, Reading, and Writing). Paragon. p. 288 p.. ISBN 1-55778-567-8.
  • James H. Fetzer. (January 1997). Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 191 p.. ISBN 1-55778-739-5.
  • Minds and Machines: Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science, Vol. 7, No. 4. Kluwer. November 1997. ASIN B000KEV460.
  • edited by James H. Fetzer. (December 2000). Science, Explanation, and Rationality: The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. Oxford. p. 384 p.. ISBN 0-19-512137-6.
  • James H. Fetzer. (January 2001). Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits. Springer. p. 364 p.. ISBN 0-7923-0548-5
  • Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are Not Machines. Springer. January 8, 2002. p. 352 p.. ISBN 1-4020-0243-2.
  • ed. by James H. Fetzer (May 2002). Consciousness Evolving (Advances in Consciousness Research). John Benjamins. p. 251 p.. ISBN 1-58811-108-3.
  • James H. Fetzer (2005). The Evolution of Intelligence: Are Humans the Only Animals With Minds?. Open Court. p. 272 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9459-7.
  • James H. Fetzer. (August 9, 2006). Scientific Knowledge: Causation, Explanation, and Corroboration. Springer. p. 348 p.. ISBN 90-277-1335-9.
  • James H. Fetzer (December 28, 2006). Render Unto Darwin: Philosophical Aspects of the Christian Right's Crusade Against Science. Open Court. p. 288 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9605-0.

Conspiracy Research:

  • edited by James H. Fetzer. (October 1997). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK. Open Court. p. 480 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9366-3.
  • ed. by James H. Fetzer. (August 2000). Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then. Open Court. p. 496 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9422-8.
  • ed. by James H. Fetzer (September 2003). The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK. Catfeet Press. p. 480 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9547-X.
  • Four Arrows (aka Don Trent Jacobs) & James H. Fetzer. (November 2004). American Assassination: The Strange Death Of Senator Paul Wellstone. Vox Pop. p. 188 p.. ISBN 0-9752763-0-1.
  • ed. by James H. Fetzer. (March 28, 2007). The 9/11 Conspiracy. Open Court. p. 450 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9612-3.


    1. a b c Lederer, Sarah (February 2009). "James Fetzer's Home Page". Duluth: University of Minnesota. http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
    2. ^ "We're all conspiracy theorists at heart"BBC News. February 16, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6368341.stm. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
    3. ^ http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2010/Jan10/011110/011210-06.htm
    4. ^ "O'Reilly Takes on 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist!"Fox News. October 13, 2006. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220500,00.html.
    5. ^ Pope, Justin (August 6, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive". Associated Press. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/06/AR2006080600393.html. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
    6. a b c http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
    7. ^ http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/specialcv.html
    8. ^ "Society for Machines and Mentality"http://www.cs.hamilton.edu/~sfmm/. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
    9. ^ http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2783
    10. ^ http://twilightpines.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=47
    11. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMrBMPq_Axo
    12. ^ John Gravois, "Professors of Paranoia?: Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories"The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006.
    13. ^ Fetzer, James H; Costella, John P (2 February 2009). "Assassination Research - Journal for the Advanced Study of the Death of JFK". Duluth MN: Assassination Research. http://assassinationresearch.com/. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
    14. ^ http://911scholars.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=53
    15. ^ "Reasoning about Assassinations: Critical Thinking in Political Contexts". 3rd International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities. 2005. http://h05.cgpublisher.com/proposals/488/index_html. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
    16. ^ Fetzer, James H (5 June 2007). "A closed mind perpetrating a fraud on the public" (pdf). Assassination Research (Duluth MN: Assassination Research) 5 (1). http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1fetzer.pdf. Retrieved 3 February 2009.
    17. ^ Fetzer, James H (20 January 2009). "Moorman In The Street - Revisited". JFKresearch. http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
    18. ^ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm
    19. ^ http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html
    20. ^ http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html
    21. ^ http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-zapruder-film-zapruder-film.html
    22. ^ http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html
    23. ^ http://www.infowars.com/farids-photo-is-a-real-fake-and-so-is-he/
    24. ^ Narain, Jaya (6 September 2006). "Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'". London Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers Ltd. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-403757/Fury-academics-claim-9-11-inside-job.html. Retrieved 2009-02-03.
    25. ^ [1]
    26. ^ http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf
    27. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08va1i6LYPc
    28. ^ American Scholars Symposium
    29. ^ [2]
    30. ^ http://www.911blogger.com/node/5222
    31. ^ http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&idPub=109367&id=235352&dis=1&sec=1
    32. ^ http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&dis=1&sec=1&idPub=109367&id=235361&idnota=235361
    33. ^ http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jim-fetzer-on-911-at-the?xg_source=activity
    34. ^ [3]
    35. ^ Jim Kouri, "Activist Kevin Barrett Claims Bill O'Reilly Threatened Him"National Ledger, July 23, 2006.
    36. ^ Megan Twohey, "Lecturer denounces critics of his 9-11 teachings: 'Inside job' theory draws calls for firing, UW probe"Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 9, 2006.
    37. ^ Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Who Are We
    38. ^ [4].
    39. ^ http://www.avatarproducts.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=AP-SP911&Category_Code=BMV
    40. ^ [5]
    41. ^ [6]
    42. ^ [7]
    43. ^ http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones#NBB
    44. a b http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/OpenLetterToJones.html
    45. ^ Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
    46. ^ Theories that Nuclear Weapons Destroyed the Twin Towers
    47. ^ Jones: Reply to Reynolds & Wood
    48. ^ [8]
    49. ^ [9]
    50. ^ Dameron, Eva (2005, October 31). "Author makes case for murder". Daily Lobo (University of New Mexico). http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2005/10/31/News/Author.Makes.Case.For.Murder-1039349.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailylobo.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com.
    51. ^ http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070605_wellstone.shtml
    52. a b http://www.opednews.com/articles/Has-Cheney-been-Murdering-by-Jim-Fetzer-090408-987.html
    53. a b Jim Fetzer, "Disinformation, the Use of False Information, Minds and Machines, 14: 231–240, 2004."
    54. ^ Arabesque, "9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples"
    55. ^ Jim Fetzer, Information: Does It Have To Be True? Minds and Machines, 14, pp. 223–229."
    56. ^ Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation."
    57. ^ http://www.blackopradio.com
    58. ^ http://www.revereradionetwork.com
    59. ^ http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/

  1. External Links

[show]v · d · eArticles on 9/11 conspiracy theories