Dr. Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson & Deanna Spingola: "9/11 Truth Perception Management", 9 April 2012

[James H. Fetzer]

Dr. Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson & Deanna Spingola:  "9/11 Truth Perception Management", 9 April 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9yM1MSY0ow

Am I wrong to think that this is a sloppy and irresponsible attack on Jeff Prager and me?  Your thoughts.

For an interview with Jeff Prager,

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Jeff Prager

Nukes at the Twin Towers?

Posted by Total at 11:49 PM 5 comments

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-jeff%20...

[James H. Fetzer]

Egad!  Who is this person?  Questioning whether I am an "expert" on JFK or on 9/11?  That is simply bizarre.  So from this I would infer that she was featuring Judy and Andrew as a deliberate attempt to smear me.  I was struck that she never asked any questions, such as why I would be mentioned 52 times and Judy not once, which was because Jeff had included my "Real Deal" interview with Leuren Moret and Christopher Busby in his book, where I asked them around 50 questions during the course of a two-hour interview.  This Singola person is clearly not on the up-and-up.  And her behavior with you was completely maniuplative and dishonest, down to not including the emails to which she was presumably responding.  These are not behaviors of an honest host.  I am truly dumbfounded.  Does anyone else know about her?

[Jeannon Kralj]

I recently exchanged several emails with Deanna Spingola.  They concerned you.  She deliberately did the straw-man thing with me and in her replies to me, she would misstate my questions and statements to her and then she would proceed to tell me why she would not reply to "my" questions and statements.  She did this about 5 times in an exchange of about 8 emails.  (Will email all these emails to Dr. Fetzer if wanted.)

Anyway, previous to this email exchange, I had thought Deanna Spingola was trying to do high quality work, especially with her two new books, and that she was honest and objective.  However, due to her communicating with me so dishonestly and twisting everything I said, I no longer trust the quality of her work.  I know it is probably no objective of me to take such a stance against her now and that I should still respect some of her interviews and writings and should consider buying and reading her new books, but I just no longer trust her methods of inquiry.  She appears to have "an agenda" and to be "working for someone" or at least to have a set of personal biases that prevent her from doing honest research.

 

I did not listen to the audio you posted, Dr. Fetzer, for the reasons just stated.  I have abandoned listening to this person and have formed an opinion of her work.  I guess now I have an unfair bias.  I do not judge her as being "dishonest" or if she was dishonest with me, I certainly forgive her.  Some people are psychologically unable to communicate completely honestly. 

 

Deanna never would just hit the reply button to reply to my emails so that we could see at the bottom my email to her she was supposedly responding to.  She did each of her emails to me as a separate new email.  I found that odd.

 

Here is my last email to her to which she did not reply. Had to drop the complimentary close of “God bless you.”

“I was asking you to name the "others you can think of" and you again put words into my mouth by saying

 

"You are correct in your summation - I do not wish to share further opinions regarding Fetzer."

 

That is NOT my summation.  I was not requesting you "share further opinions regarding Fetzer."  You seem to have some bias against him that you prefer not to elaborate on and that is fine.

 

My clear question to you was to please identify by name the "others you can think of who fit that description more accurately."  You know very well I was not asking for further opinions of yours regarding "Fetzer."

 

"Dr. James Fetzer, an "expert" on the JFK assassination and the 9-11 event? I can think of others who fit that description more accurately."

 

I guess you regard "Piper" as more of an "expert" than Dr. Fetzer so I guess you have given the name of one of the "others."

 

I guess I do not appreciate the three or four times you have misstated my clear statements and inquiries.

 

Jeannon Kralj

[Thoth II]

There statements about it being odd Vancouver conf. is being held in Canada vs. USA are just stupid statements, like Judy saying it is to avoid US law.  

Their main point about Vancouver conf. being a "debunking" session is also stupid.  Dr. Fetzer , and I've followed his key research and interviews, makes sure all hypotheses are put on the table and extensively discussed.  Dr. Wood has been avoiding his interviews and is now trying to avoid this conference with flimsy excuses.  Maybe it's because she cannot show the link being her DEW H and the evidence she knows exists, and if she hasn't started that after all this time, I suspect it's because there is nothing there.  

So this is a stupid and simply not true attack and I suspect just a way of excusing their selves from the debate.  If they had a strong DEW H they would happily put it up at the conference against the others.  They are running scared.