The BBC has massively edited an interview with me to use me as an example of a "conspiracy theorist", where they excluded most of the proof that I presented during a 40 minute interview and added a lot of poppycock psycho-babble about why people are predisposed to believe conspiracy theories regardless of logic and evidence, the significance of which they systematically ignore: for them, reason and rationality do not matter!
Here is a link where you can download the 18 minute program broadcast worldwide: http://www.bbc.co.uk/
programmes/p03kpvjf. If anyone finds it where I can embed it directly, please let me know. Contrast what they used with my previous, "Why I (Jim Fetzer) AM a "conspiracy theorist", which I extracted from my pre-interview for the published BBC interview, because I made many more points about Sandy Hook, including on my banned book, NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015) and its thirteen (13) contributors.
This is not my first go-around with the BBC, which came to my home years ago an interviewed me for eight (8) hours, then used 4.5 minutes in their first "Conspiracy Files" program on 9/11. They would return a couple of years later and interview me for another four (4) after I extracted a promise that they would give me somewhat more of a "fair shake". I published about it here:
"The BBC's Instrument of 9/11 Misinformation"
But the BBC is far from the only major media outlet to publish propaganda and disinformation, including about Sandy Hook. Here are three examples about which I have recently published:
"Proof that The New York Times publishes Sandy Hook disinformation and propaganda"
"The Washington Post joints the Sandy Hook propaganda game"
Indeed, to my utter dismay, even The Chronicle of Higher Education has joined in:
"The Chronicle of Higher Education buckles to the 'official account' of Sandy Hook"
Like so many other complex and controversial issues, if you have not actually done any research (on 9/11, JFK, Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, for example), because the mainstream media is endlessly propagating the "official accounts" of these events, you are very likely to be taken in (as appears to be the case with one of our own).
We must understand the phenomenon in order to be in the position to cope with it. While all of you know the score regarding the misrepresentation of the evidence in the case of JFK, what we have been told about 9/11, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing has been equally misleading. I encourage each of you to check it out for yourselves.