tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post4690194688068995478..comments2023-03-24T16:40:13.496-07:00Comments on Onebornfree's 9/11 Research Review: 9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof"Onebornfreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-9031461922348744892014-10-25T10:48:46.631-07:002014-10-25T10:48:46.631-07:00In a private email group message, with regard to m... In a private email group message, with regard to my blog post, Mr Fetzer in part said :<br /><br />"...but I am less certain of OBF and others. He bhas made the same kind of irresponsible claims in the past and I have replied to them before. He is a broken record and has no warrant for his attempt to shift the burden of proof. His attacks on me are reprehensible. " <br /><br />Well, to remain true to Mr Fetzer's characterization of me as "a broken record" , I _again_ ask Mr Fetzer , since he did not reply to my question the first time I asked him within that email group, for whatever reason:<br /><br />in a US criminal trial, is the burden of proof primarily on the prosecution [i.e. the government], or on the defendant[s]?<br /><br />As an unapologetic pessimist/cynic, I expect his silence to continue :-) .Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-90008459994706511482014-10-21T07:37:21.172-07:002014-10-21T07:37:21.172-07:00Let us imagine the following scenario: Jim Fetzer ...Let us imagine the following scenario: Jim Fetzer has an arch-enemy named John Doe. One day, Fetzer delivers to the police two videos, allegedly filmed (by two CCTV security cameras) at one of his conferences, showing what looks like John Doe shouting death threats at Fetzer. The police acts on Fetzer's complaint and apprehends John Doe - on the basis of the two videos submitted by Fetzer. When interrogated, however, John Doe denies having ever attended any of Fetzer's conferences - and asks to view the videos. At close inspection of the two "incriminating" video clips (A & B), it is found that "A" shows John Doe standing in (and shouting his death threats from) the 5th row of the audience, whereas "B" shows John Doe (shouting the same death threats /identical audio) from the 7th row of the audience. Clearly, the two videos cannot both be real - and cannot depict the very same (alleged) event in time. <br /><br />It goes without saying that, in such a case (and since the two videos, presented as authentic, constitute the plaintiff's main, 'incriminating evidence' against the defendant) the burden of proof rests squarely upon the plaintiff (Fetzer). John Doe, on the other hand, has - and undeniably so - a valid prima facie claim in support of his prime allegation (that he never even attended Fetzer's conference in the first place). <br /><br />Furthermore, no matter how many - purported - eyewitnesses of the alleged event Fetzer can produce, he will still have to explain why the two videos are in conflict with each other. Any honest / intelligent judge would dismiss / reject Fetzer's requests of hearing out ANY of his alleged eyewitnesses - until Fetzer can convince the judge that the two videos are, in fact, authentic - and that no foul play was involved on his part. <br /><br />Simon Shacknorwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-24633130382995682282014-10-20T12:58:58.734-07:002014-10-20T12:58:58.734-07:00OBF loves to take quotes out of context and promot...OBF loves to take quotes out of context and promote indefensible theories in the name of truth. Alas, I have had too much exposure to his bizarre lines of argument. In the past, I have explained a dozen reason why the Twin Tower footage deserves to be take at face value as long as there is no good reason to doubt it. Consider the available video record:<br /><br />(1) the towers are there, then they are not;<br /><br />(2) the are blowing apart in every direction from the top down;<br /><br />(3) all their floors remain stationary until they are blown apart;<br /><br />(4) they are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust;<br /><br />(5) when they are gone, their footprints are bereft of debris;<br /><br />(6) a classic controlled demolition does not blow buildings apart;<br /><br />(7) a classic controlled demolition does not convert buildings into dust;<br /><br />(8) a class controlled demolition leaves a debris about 12% the original height;<br /><br />(9) WTC-7 was a classic controlled demolition;<br /><br />(10) WTC-7 left a stack of debris of about 12% its original height (5.5 floors);<br /><br />(11) photos and films from all over New York present the same sequence;<br /><br />(12) not a single witness has reported seeing any other sequence of events;<br /><br />(13) if the perp were going to fake it, they would simulate a collapse;<br /><br />(14) two telling signs of nukes are (a) very fine dust (b) over a very large area; <br /><br />(15) there are no good reasons to believe that this footage was faked.<br /><br />I have explained to him again and again in the past that, if there were any good reason to doubt their authenticity, then he might have a case. Given there is no good reason to doubt them, however, the burden of proof is upon him. This is a complete waste of time and resources for someone who now appears to me to be mentally incompetent. And that would remain the case if he were defendant in a court of law. His argument has no merit. NONE.Jim Fetzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16693289419736393961noreply@blogger.com