[Article update 01/19/14: the ideas/concepts discussed in this blog post were further discussed by me on live radio recently,12/28/13, here- obf]
Professor Jim Fetzer says:
"....Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic.."
[Disclaimer: this article is not intended as a character assassination of Professor James Fetzer, who, after all, was gracious enough to invite me onto his popular show, despite him already being fully aware of my opinion regarding the events of September 11th 2001. An opinion that he had in fact already publicly derided as being "crackpot" :-) . However it IS to be freely construed as a direct attack, by this very same "crackpot"{myself}, on the revealed scientific methodology, or rather the consistent lack thereof, of Professor Fetzer with regard to his own published 911 research to date, and also on the revealed non-scientific investigative methods employed by other persons whose 911 research he has chosen to give his name and support to at this time, including Dr. Richard Hall, plus Don Fox, Jeff Prager and Ed Ward. ]
Onebornfree On Jim Fetzer's "Real Deal" Radio Show 27/09/13
On September 27th 2013 , I guested for the 3rd time on Professor Jim Fetzer's "Real Deal " radio show. Jim had asked me on to specifically discuss my claims that Simon Shacks 911 research had revealed that the original "live" MSM broadcast footage aired on 911 was, on close inspection, actually 100% fake, pre-fabricated, computer generated imagery, and that therefore, the alleged "live" MSM footage of flight 175 approaching/striking the WTC2 was also wholly faked footage, as were all of the various "live" broadcasts of the tower collapses [WTC1, 2 and 7] and associated buildings, and also that, last but not least, Mr Shack's other research [ with fellow researcher "Hoi Polloi"] had revealed that most, if not all, of the alleged 911 victims also appeared to be entirely fabricated, fake persons/identities. ]
My full, on air September 27th 2013 radio discussion with Professor Fetzer can be heard here.
Professor Jim Fetzer's Most Revealing , And Self Damaging, Quote to Date
During that broadcast I managed to bring up a quote made by Prof. Fetzer, addressed to this alleged "crackpot" [yours truly :-)] , in an exchange we had in the "Veterans Today" online comments section, back in May 2013.
Dr. Fetzer had said to me :
"This is just silly. You cite an article because you don’t know what you are talking about. I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years. Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic. Unless there is some good reason to question it, there IS no good reason to question it. So you can meet the burden of overcoming the presumption that it is authentic or not. But that burden is upon YOU, not the rest of us." [emphasis mine]
[Prof. Jim Fetzer to myself in May 2013 on my comment concerning the burden of proof. ].
Original "Veterans Today" source thread for Prof. Fetzer quote
[Prof Fetzer has also made similar statements [and various negative comments about myself] more recently here ].
In my opinion, this statement by Prof. Fetzer has to be just about the most revealing [and professionally self-damaging] statement that he has made in his exchanges with me to date [roughly from August 2012 , when I first appeared on his podcast, through- May 2013], which is why I tried to draw attention to it during my latest appearance on his radio show.
The Bad News: Hindsight Is 20/20!
Regretfully, at the time of my radio interview I still had not actually bothered to look up the dictionary definition of the latin phrase "prima facie", with which I was already vaguely familiar. In retrospect, if I had bothered to be a little more investigative, and a little less assuming , I could have been a lot more forceful in the interview regarding his oh so casual deployment of the term "prima facie", that's for sure . I guess as with 911 itself, "hindsight is 20/20" :-).
What The Term "Prima Facie" Actually Means
Prima facie ......is a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter, first blush, or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face" or "at first appearance"... [Wikipedia]
What Jim Fetzer's Blase Statement Actually Means Within the Context Used
First of all let's remind ourselves, Jim Fetzer claims a degree in the philosophy of science, as well as being someone who claims to have "taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years".
So this is not some random layperson with an "I don't know any better" type excuse, but a person supposedly fully accredited in the scientific methodology.
And yet, Prof. Fetzer is hereby claiming that because, according to him, the 9/11 MSM and alleged amateur "live" footage, ON INITIAL INSPECTION,"AT FIRST BLUSH", AT FIRST SIGHT, WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION, "appears" to be authentic, and that it therefore "looks O.K.", then a person schooled in the scientific methodology [such as himself] has no good reason to even attempt to pre-verify its authenticity before citing it/using it as bona fide reliable evidence!
An Outrageous, Egregious,Total Denial of Scientific Methodology!
This has to be about the most outrageous, egregious "in your face" denial of the scientific methodology that you are ever likely to encounter. And this, ironically, from a person claiming both an education in the philosophy of science, and of having "taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years", to boot! :-)
Prof. Fetzer's Accredited "Scientific" Opinion = "Joe Six-Pack's" Laymans Opinion!
The most alarming aspect of Prof. Fetzer's blase statement is that it is essentially no different from that of a person with absolutely no educational background in either logic, critical thinking, the burden of proof, nor in the standard scientific methodology!
Which makes this statement, so thoughtlessly tossed out there by Prof. Fetzer, a dramatic illustration of the complete lack of critical thinking ability of the average University "educated" American, let alone the average non- University educated individual.
After all, if fully credentialed scientists, professors of the philosophy of science, and teachers of logic and critical thinking are unashamedly, innocently [?] and routinely making this kind of "off the wall" statement, is it really any wonder that the broad mass of the population, indeed most of the world, believes in the exact same line of er... "reasoning"?
I think not!
So What's Really Going On Here - Why Is Dr. Fetzer Behaving In such An Egregiously Un-Scientific and Unprofessional Manner?
I can think of a number of reasons that might explain why Prof. Fetzer has consistently engaged in such an obviously anti-scientific "thinking" process:
1] A University "Education" Pre- Conditioning?[i.e. Brainwashing]
He really does not know any better- he's been thoroughly conditioned by the by university system whereby he earned his credentials. I say this after accidentally coming across an old essay by Noam Chomsky [someone I had previously avoided reading too much of , because what little I had read to date I had not liked]. The essay in question is titled "What Makes The Mainstream Media Mainstream" , and Chomsky does an admirable job of explaining/illustrating exactly how people within the media mainstream, such as news anchor persons etc. , are all successfully pre-condtioned via the University "education" system, before they ever even set foot in a news studio or get to be a news anchor person; so well conditioned, in fact , that typically they remain completely unaware of their pre-conditioning throughout their entire media careers.
While Prof. Fetzer is obviously not an MSM news anchor, he has apparently been through the exact same government-funded University"education" conditioning system, so it is highly likely that his fundamental pre-conditioning regarding the sanctity of the MSM with regard to 911 remains firmly in place, because of his own educational pre-conditioning.
2] Or, He's A Paid Disinfo Agent ?
It would be very easy for me to assume that this is indeed the case with Prof. Fetzer [ that his is deliberate behavior by a paid disinfo agent. ]
After all, he is a former "employee" of the US military [Navy]. Indeed many fans of Simon Shacks work, including, as far as I can tell, Mr Shack himself, assume that this is indeed the case [ that Fetzer is is a paid disinfo agent], which is probably why Mr Shack has rejected Prof. Fetzer's invitations to appear both on his show, and elsewhere. But for myself, right now I cannot prove this [Fetzer's an agent], and furthermore, ultimately I don't really care if he is or is not - it wouldn't change anything, as far as I can see.
As far as I'm concerned , the truth about the MSM's wholesale video fakery on 911 will eventually become fairly common knowledge, despite the "naysaying" and "smoke-screening/obfuscation" by alleged "scientific experts" such as Prof. Fetzer, deliberate or otherwise.
3] Or, He's Simply Trying To Make a Fast Buck Or Two [More] Off Of Continued 911 Controversy/Debate?
He realizes that the continual generation of ongoing controversy via a complete ignoring of actual, bona fide scientific methodology when investigating 911 events, coupled with a deliberate diversionary tactic of his promotion, of silly holographic plane image theories and equally ridiculous mini nuke theories [both of which "scientific" hypothesis' are totally dependent on the wholesale ignoring of the scientific investigative methodology], ensures/fuels continued endless 911 debates [ concerning, for example, exact demolition methodology], which for himself and his associates means more money in the bank in the long run, via a continual income stream generated for himself on the 911 "truth" circuit, the longer he can generate continued, seemingly unresolvable controversy.
Conclusion - His Own Reputation Suffers
Unlike some, I really do not care which of the three above possible explanations for Prof. Fetzers irrational thinking process regarding his conclusions to date about the events of 911 is actually true.[Maybe there is another explanation I have not thought of.] In the long run, it makes no difference, except maybe, in one area, to his own reputation.
Prof. Fetzers Book "The 911 Conspiracy-The Scamming Of America" was the first book that got me asking questions about the events of 911, and I thank him for that, and also for his generosity in asking me to appear on his radio show.
However, at this time, I am sorry to say that because of his ongoing complete refusal to even attempt to employ a run of the mill, standard scientific methodology regarding an examination of the events of 911 [which would necessitate the very close, frame by frame examination of all MSM and other video footage and photos, before any part of it could ever be considered to be reliable evidence of anything, plus the deep background checking of ALL alleged eyewitnesses to the events of 911 if their testimony is to be used/relied on]; for what little my opinion is worth, I have to say that for me personally, at this time his behavior to date leads me to seriously question the conclusions of any of his other, none 911 research to date [JFK, MLK, OKC, etc. etc.]
Regards, ["crackpot"] onebornfree.
*************************************************
More About "Onebornfree":
"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant , a problem solver, and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom .
Music Info:
Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel
Home studio recording example "Somewhere Over The Rainbow Blues":Youtube link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2oS9iI2zWU
Live solo example [own composition "Dreams [Anarchist's Blues]:
Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk
Onebornfree Personal Freedom Blogsites:
I [onebornfree] received these responses, via email, today [11/11/13] from Prof. Fetzer and Don Fox, so I am posting them here for all to see:
ReplyDeleteJim Fetzer said : "So do I have the opportunity to respond to this stunningly stupid attack?"
Then Don Fox gave this lengthier response:
"OBF,
Rest assured that neither Jim or I are making any money off of 9/11. Jim lost several thousand dollars putting together the Vancouver Hearings. I was down a few hundred from Vancouver. The way to tell if someone is an operative is if they are willing to change positions in the light of new evidence. Honest researchers will change whereas operatives have a company (CIA) line they have to adhere to. Judy Wood and her crew are prime examples of operatives. No ability to adapt, no give and take, no exchange of ideas.
I’ve seen Jim modify his views on 9/11 several times as have I when confronted with new evidence. 9/11 is an extremely complex subject and no one should pretend to have ALL of the answers. Obviously the mainstream media lied to us on 9/11. There is no doubt about that. However, I think Jim and I are in agreement that the MSM extant videos regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers show basically what happened: giant skyscrapers exploding in every direction and a massive dust cloud that rolled out and covered Lower Manhattan in a fine dust powder. Are you saying that the Towers didn’t explode and cover Lower Manhattan in a fine dust powder? There are literally MOUNTAINS of evidence to support that scenario. We find your contention that the videos of the destruction of the Towers were faked a bit dubious to say the least. If you can demonstrate that the videos of the destruction of the Towers were faked we’ll certainly take a look at your evidence.
Was there funny business with the “planes” impacting the buildings? I think that goes without saying since no commercial plane crashed anywhere on 9/11. It’s extremely doubtful that a commercial airliner could even penetrate a Twin Tower let alone melt into the buildings as observed. Neither of us would quibble with your contention that the “plane” impact videos were faked. It just becomes a matter of what method was used and what actually happened. We are currently doing some research in an effort to determine what exactly hit the buildings.
Don"
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDon Fox said: " If you can demonstrate that the videos of the destruction of the Towers were faked we’ll certainly take a look at your evidence."
DeleteFirst of all, Don, the burden of proof is on yourselves to prove the collapse videos are in fact genuine, _before_ you can legitimately use them as evidence of _anything_, not on me to prove they are fake - after all, you and your partners hold those videos up as evidence/proof of your hypothesis, and yet you have NEVER subjected that claimed "evidence" to even a pretense of an authentification analysis, let alone a real frame by frame analysis!
Second of all, if I were to try to "prove" to you that the collapse videos were fake, exactly what types of features would you and your partners be looking for . Please list them all here.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWhat if any knowledge of the 911 Commission Hearings from January 2003 to June 17 , 2004 , do you posses ?
DeleteAhem- "stunningly stupid attack" was putting it mildly; JF must either like you or pity you.
DeleteAnd has probably been out to you already (hopefully within the past 2 years that this assassination attempt has lingered), "prima facie" in the legal sense, denotes evidence that would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact absent any rebuttal; it furthermore is taken to mean "on the face" rather than "at first glance" as you (OBF) outline.
Please forgive the extreme thread necromancy, but in the wake of Sandy Hook FOIA hearings, I've had about all the character assassination that good sense can accommodate.
Regards,
J. Carroll
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Another comment from Jim Fetzer [ I hope he and Don Fox decide to post their comments here directly to save me the trouble of copy/pasting them from my email account] :
ReplyDeleteJim Fetzer said: Don,
Excellent commentary! I have asked OBF if I am going to have the chance to respond to his incredibly stupid post, but I doubt that he will allow me that, which will indicate which of us is on the up-and-up. I invited him on my show to discuss his views. Will he permit me to respond to his rubbish? We'll see.
Jim
Relevant to the discussion here, here's what Don Fox said about Simon Shack and yours truly in the comments section of Jim Fetzer's Real Deal" blog[ http://radiofetzer.blogspot.it/2013/07/mike-harris-gary-king.html ] back in Aug 2013:
ReplyDelete" I think September Clues is the last 9/11 myth to destroy. We've destroyed the nanothermite, DEWs and jet fuel myths. My next 9/11 article will dismantle the Simon Shack and OBF BS once and for all. Look for that sometime this fall/winter after I finish a couple of personal projects."
Oooh! Can't wait! :-) Regards onebornfree
SIMON SAYS
ReplyDelete[ Here is most of an excellent reply to J. Fetzer regarding the whole "Prima Facie" issue, from Simon Shack, posted on J. Fetzers Real Deal Radio show comments section for a show dated 11/29/13 with Allan Weisbecker}:
" Dr. Fetzer,
......I would now like to share with you some facts I learned today in a long phone call with an old friend of mine I’ve known for about twenty years, a now retired Italian judge – highly regarded in the area I live in. Since you used the latin legal term ‘prima facie’ in your conversations with Onebornfree, I thought you might like to learn the exact meaning it has in the context of legal proceedings – since your understanding of the term is evidently nil. As a matter of fact, you have it exactly “upside down”.
As my old friend explained to me – in his usual, crystal-clear fashion – the term ‘prima facie’ denotes the amount of evidence that a party / plaintiff needs to show in order for there to be a case to answer. For a legal proceeding to commence, a PRIMA FACIE case needs to exist, i.e. the plaintiff must be able to present a minimum of preliminary (“at first sight”) evidence which, if considered sufficient, will allow for the trial to take place. So let me now quote the exact words which you, Dr Fetzer, uttered in your radio broadcast with Onebornfree:
“Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a PRIMA FACIE claim to being taken as authentic. Unless there is some good reason to question it, there IS no good reason to question it.”
As I said - and as anyone can judge for him/herself - you have it completely upside down. It is certainly not for the TV networks to make any prima facie claim; they are the ones suspected of the crime, you see? The prima facie claim is what any given plaintiff (in this case, the deceived public) is asked to produce for any legal proceedings to initiate. As you well know – and will surely agree with – we have long provided some very strong prima facie evidence that the TV networks aired fabricated imagery on 9/11. Exactly how much of it was fabricated is not even an issue here, what matters is that we have an eminently valid prima facie case to present to any court of law willing to review it.
In this light, seeing how you have made a sorry fool of yourself with your pompous use of latin / legalese terms that you have no grasp of, I’d say that for you to call someone an ‘idiot’ for trying to set you straight – as Onebornfree has righteously and repeatedly attempted – only makes you even more of a fool. It would behoove to your oft-asserted scholarly conduct to present your humble apologies to Onebornfree - the sooner the better............" Simon Shack