I didn't appreciate Kevin's glib and condescending attitudes to the points that Jim made in this broadcast. Whether, Jim is right or wrong or if he is jumping the shark is not the issue. Jim had some valid points that really needed to be addressed. To see Kevin adopt the lame stream media approach of dismissing everything as a "conspiracy theory" (even if this was staged by Jim and Kevin) was not appropriate to the potential seriousness of this Jade Helm possibility. Just like Duff, Kevin seems more concerned about being a comedian than attempting a serious analysis of our problem. If this is the current state of the so called "alternative media", we are ,indeed, in dire straits and sinking fast.
Unfortunately, BOTH of these guys are limited-hangout gatekeepers taking you for a ride and wasting your time and neither one is remotely honest even when confronted with totally proven things an 8 year old can comprehend. For example, Fetzer claims that only the images of the planes on 9-11 were faked (and he's been saying some variation of the same thing, like a broken record, this since 2007, when Alex Jones supposedly fired him from GCN for being a "No Planer"), but not the shots of the buildings and skylines, etc., when he was easily proven wrong multiple times. Here are ONLY THREE of the images that prove Fetzer wrong among thousands analyzed by Simon Shack at Clues Forum:
And remember, there is no need to analyze every last image aired that day, only ONE image being proven conclusively fake is ALL that is necessary to discredit the ENTIRE testimony of the witness (in the case of the 9-11 PsyOp, the entire mainstream media) claiming the opposite, i.e., its authenticity, due to the principle of law called:
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
False in one particular, false in everything.
This principle of Roman law is still respected and has been appropriated by other disciplines. The concept is that if a witness has been shown to lie in one particular respect in a case, he is not to be trusted in anything else he says. This is why it is important for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: it discredits the rest of their testimony. The object behind the principle is to reject questionable testimony (even if it might be true) before accepting falsehood into evidence.
The legal principles of interrogating witnesses have been drawn into the task of evaluating historical sources. Just as a witness in court can be impeached by being shown to have lied, an historical source likewise loses much of its authority if its author can be shown to have deliberately falsified something--how can we trust an author concerning fact X when we know him to have lied about fact Y? Such an author may corroborate something a better witness says, but has forfeited our trust where he speaks without corroboration.
It is the ENTIRE mainstream media which claimed "authorship" of the 9-11 event, since THEY aired ALL the images that have been analyzed by all the researchers. The most they can claim in their own defense is that "somebody else" gave these to them and they aired it without checking authenticity. In which case, they would have to name that someone or organization and if they can't, they would become 100% treasonous fraudsters and guilty as charged.
However, since the courts are bought and paid for, they know they don't have to worry about any of this.
The limited hangouts work is to bait you with a lot of truth in one PsyOp (Fetzer on Sandy Hook and Boston) in order to get you to keep biting on the hook of his BS on more important earlier PsyOps like 9-11. Even Alex Jones did this recently. He admitted that Sandy Hook was ENTIRELY faked, but of course, completely denies that any part of 9-11 was faked, just done by different people than the media claimed, people on the "inside."
Fetzer was confronted about this to his face on radio by Brian Staveley and he FLAT-OUT REFUSED to even look at the above images. all he did was say: "You guys are doing a good job on this. I don't have to look at it."
"Well, what you're telling me is that this is a group created to manage research on 9/11, not to pursue it. The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- Jim Fetzer
3 comments:
I didn't appreciate Kevin's glib and condescending attitudes to the points that Jim made in this broadcast. Whether, Jim is right or wrong or if he is jumping the shark is not the issue. Jim had some valid points that really needed to be addressed. To see Kevin adopt the lame stream media approach of dismissing everything as a "conspiracy theory" (even if this was staged by Jim and Kevin) was not appropriate to the potential seriousness of this Jade Helm possibility. Just like Duff, Kevin seems more concerned about being a comedian than attempting a serious analysis of our problem. If this is the current state of the so called "alternative media", we are ,indeed, in dire straits and sinking fast.
Unfortunately, BOTH of these guys are limited-hangout gatekeepers taking you for a ride and wasting your time and neither one is remotely honest even when confronted with totally proven things an 8 year old can comprehend. For example, Fetzer claims that only the images of the planes on 9-11 were faked (and he's been saying some variation of the same thing, like a broken record, this since 2007, when Alex Jones supposedly fired him from GCN for being a "No Planer"), but not the shots of the buildings and skylines, etc., when he was easily proven wrong multiple times. Here are ONLY THREE of the images that prove Fetzer wrong among thousands analyzed by Simon Shack at Clues Forum:
http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/xz7nxm2ha6/Simon_Shack_SUNdoesnotlie.jpg
http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/2a2eluawyv/000_Shack_GAMMAPRESSvsSEAN_ADAIR.jpg
http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/ddefjao2p6/SimonShackAAA_HugMeClones_COMPLETE_01.jpg
http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/hhmips4jnt/FallFailManKTF_01A.jpg
And remember, there is no need to analyze every last image aired that day, only ONE image being proven conclusively fake is ALL that is necessary to discredit the ENTIRE testimony of the witness (in the case of the 9-11 PsyOp, the entire mainstream media) claiming the opposite, i.e., its authenticity, due to the principle of law called:
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
False in one particular, false in everything.
This principle of Roman law is still respected and has been appropriated by other disciplines. The concept is that if a witness has been shown to lie in one particular respect in a case, he is not to be trusted in anything else he says. This is why it is important for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: it discredits the rest of their testimony. The object behind the principle is to reject questionable testimony (even if it might be true) before accepting falsehood into evidence.
The legal principles of interrogating witnesses have been drawn into the task of evaluating historical sources. Just as a witness in court can be impeached by being shown to have lied, an historical source likewise loses much of its authority if its author can be shown to have deliberately falsified something--how can we trust an author concerning fact X when we know him to have lied about fact Y? Such an author may corroborate something a better witness says, but has forfeited our trust where he speaks without corroboration.
It is the ENTIRE mainstream media which claimed "authorship" of the 9-11 event, since THEY aired ALL the images that have been analyzed by all the researchers. The most they can claim in their own defense is that "somebody else" gave these to them and they aired it without checking authenticity. In which case, they would have to name that someone or organization and if they can't, they would become 100% treasonous fraudsters and guilty as charged.
However, since the courts are bought and paid for, they know they don't have to worry about any of this.
The limited hangouts work is to bait you with a lot of truth in one PsyOp (Fetzer on Sandy Hook and Boston) in order to get you to keep biting on the hook of his BS on more important earlier PsyOps like 9-11. Even Alex Jones did this recently. He admitted that Sandy Hook was ENTIRELY faked, but of course, completely denies that any part of 9-11 was faked, just done by different people than the media claimed, people on the "inside."
Fetzer was confronted about this to his face on radio by Brian Staveley and he FLAT-OUT REFUSED to even look at the above images. all he did was say: "You guys are doing a good job on this. I don't have to look at it."
"Well, what you're telling me is that this is a group created to manage research on 9/11, not to pursue it. The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- Jim Fetzer
He who smelt it, dealt it
Correction to "Here are ONLY THREE of the images," should be FOUR, since I put an extra one in there.
Post a Comment