Monday, December 4, 2017

Pete Santilli: Maverick Media Gorilla Truth-Seeker or FBI Informant and Agent Provocateur?

Jim Fetzer

             Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

On Tuesday, 28 November 2017, I was featured on "The Pete Santilli Show" for the second time. The first had been perhaps the most bizarre interview I have ever endured, where Pete repeatedly asked me the same few questions over and over again, no matter how often I had answered them. It would turn out that Pete had Judy Wood, Ph.D., on Skype, where she was telling him what to ask me--and was willing to be repetitious. It would lead his producer, Susanne Posel, to leave the show in disgust.

So what was I doing back on his show for a second round? In the meanwhile, Pete had contacted me to apologize for abusing me during my appearance there. He had become involved in events in Nevada involving the Bundy Ranch, which, it now appears, sits on land loaded with uranium, which Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, sold to Russia via Uranium One, a Canadian company, for a donation to The Clinton Foundation of $145,000,000 as part of her (infamous) "pay to play" scams.

Bundy Ranch Entanglements

While others may have appreciated (more than I) Pete's entanglements at the time, there is scant room for doubt that he became the source of information about the protesters who were encamped at the wildlife preserve, which was reported by The Los Angeles Times (28 January 2016), for example, "Where was the FBI during the armed standoff in Oregon? Out of sight, but listening and watching", explaining with some degree of specificity that that "listening and watching" was done by Pete Santilli:

Pete would eventually be arrested and incarcerated, where, at the urging of Dean Ryan, with whom I have done interviews on Hillary Clinton and her use of body doubles, The Charlottesville Psy-Op and (now) The Las Vegas Massacre, to which I shall return--proposed that I do a video supporting justice for Pete Santilli and the Bundy ranchers, which I was glad to make with him. Insofar as Pete cites it at the beginning of our second interview, I presumed that I was not going to be subjected to the kind of verbal abuse that had made my first interview with him an excruciating experience.

The Second Interview

Here's the second interview, where I was asked about the current state of research on JFK, but where I now believe that the reason Pete had me on the show was to set up a "spontaneous and unrehearsed" call in by an associate of his, who claimed that I am "hard to nail down" and that he regards me as a traitor to "the truth movement'--apparently encompassing JFK Truth, 9/11 Truth, Sandy Hook Truth, the Boston Bombing Truth, Charlottesville Truth and (now) Las Vegas Truth--asserting that I take the most extreme positions to discredit the sincere and honest members of these movements:

When Jeremy, "a friend of the show", comes on, he wastes no time calling me out as a "false flag" myself for taking the most extreme positions possible in an intentional effort to make "those of us who are really seeking the truth" look bad. I was a bit taken aback on multiple grounds, especially since my research is evidence-based and collaborative. He brought up Dean Ryan, who has told me he knows someone who was killed in Las Vegas (which we are investigating), where Pete asserted that he "has personal first-hand knowledge that he (Dean Ryan) would not be the most credible source to challenge Dr. Fetzer" and mentioned two other parties about whom I should ask Dean Ryan, which bothered me because it seemed rather out of place.

The Attack on Dean Ryan

Dean Ryan and I are good friends and we have done quite a few shows together, including one on "The Las Vegas Massacre (Full Story)". Perhaps it was good that Jeremy brought up Dean to point out that Dean claims to know someone who died in Las Vegas. (Dean has sent me the name and I have forwarded it to Mona Alexis Pressley to track down and verify or falsify, about which I will report our findings.) Of course, I am not infallible and if someone actually did die, which I deny, then I would respond to bona fide proof and qualify my position. But I have found no good reason yet to believe this and the available evidence makes it overwhelmingly unlikely.

Given the above report from The Los Angeles Times, that Pete Santilli is an FBI informant appears to be indisputable--where he also appears to have co-opted The Truckers March on Washington, D.C., in 2013 and, according to other reports, may have made off with over $50,000 in donated funds. His calls for violence if the trucker protest fails, moreover, strike me as entirely consistent with the conduct of someone who is not merely an informant but a covert agent provocateur, where the fax hacked from his computer in 2013 leaves no doubt about his collaboration with the FBI:

Dean and I believe that the public deserves to be aware of these aspects of his persona, which turns out to be more complex and less on the up-and-up than the impression of a fearless truth-seeker out to expose corruption and chicanery, which he attempts to convey through his radio program and publicity. Frankly, had I been aware of some of this information at the time, I would have had to decide whether or not I really ought to go on his show, which is further compounded by reports from sources whom I trust that Pete actually set me up for Jeremy to attack me on the show, which receives support from several directions.

One of them has noted, first, that the host kept repeating that the call was not a set-up or pre-planned is an indication that it was, in fact, a set up; and, second, that Jeremy claimed to know someone who "walked over bloody and dead bodies" but refused to name him as not trusting you but would give the information to Pete indicates collusion between them. We have reviewed 33 videos from the scene with sounds of shots but no proof of anyone having actually been hit. I would add that the FBI has come off looking very bad for wiping cell phones and laptops of witnesses in Las Vegas and would no doubt appreciate any attempts to tarnish someone as aggressive as I have been in outing the scam.  

Who is Pete Santilli?

Neither Dean nor I are inclined to censor anyone or recommend against listening to "The Pete Santilli Show". But we do believe the public should be aware that some hosts are not precisely who they claim or pretend to be. Of course, Jeremy (and by implication, Pete) were implying that I might not be all I claim or pretend to be, which is alright with me. Each of us has to sort these things out for themselves. But in Pete's case, unlike mine, there are good reasons to believe that he is working for the FBI and that his credibility suffers from blemishes that are not associated with other hosts, including Dean and me. For those who want more about Pete Santilli, here's something to ponder further:

With regard to Las Vegas, we have many reports from sources who claim they knew someone that knew someone who was there and was wounded or killed. When pressed to give names or contact information, however, they become offended and defensive. In terms of the law, these reports are simply hearsay (as in, "I heard someone say . . . ."), which turns out to be the least credible form of evidence when presented. It is almost always thrown out of court and usually not even allowed to be entered into the record. When I have authentic proof someone died in Las Vegas--such as bona fide death certificates or autopsy reports--I will respond to it. But the evidence of fakery and fraud is simply overwhelming.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota and co-editor of