Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Even more lunatic ravings from Judy Wood and her band of trolls . . .
Emmanuel Goldstein says:Matthew R. Naus says:James H. Fetzer says:(1) My featuring Judy Wood on my radio programs 15 times: POSITIVE!
(2) My publishing a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: POSITIVE!
(3) My providing Judy Wood three hours to speak in Madison: POSITIVE!
(4) My inviting Judy Wood to speak at the Vancouver Hearings: POSITIVE!
(5) My posting a 5-star review of Judy's book on amazon.com: POSITIVE!
To any objective reader, what would Judy's groupies think had I never featured her on my radio programs? had not published her chapter in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY? had not given her an unprecedented three hours to speak in Madison? had not invited her to speak in Vancouver? had not given her book a 5-star review? There are many forms of lunacy; the evidence suggests they suffer from severe cognitive impairments.
Last edited by you 20 minutes ago
James H. Fetzer says:"Reasoning about Assassinations"
http://assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf
Presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal, this article demonstrates that, simply by establishing where JFK was hit in the back, the existence of conspiracy can be proven;
"Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" (with Jim Marrs)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/19/framing-the-patsy-the-case-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
Demonstrates that the "backyard photographs" were faked in order to implicate Lee Oswald in a crime that he did not commit (with Jim Marrs, the author of CROSSFIRE, one of the sources of Oliver Stone's "JFK");
"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html
Demonstrates that the consistent testimony of Clint Hill over nearly 50 years supports the conclusion that the home movies of the assassination were extensively revised to conceal the true causes of death of our 35th president;
"JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!" (with Ralph Cique)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/
The first of a five-part series (with chiropractor Ralph Cinque, who brought a fresh pair of eyes and distinctive background to resolve an old and contentious issue) proving Lee Oswald was in the doorway as the motorcade passed by;
"JFK Conspiracy: The bullet hole in the Windshield"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/28/jfk-conspiracy-the-bullet-hole-in-the-windshield/
Multiple lines of proof that establish the existence of a through-and-through entry hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine, which was fired from an above-ground sewer opening on the south side of the Triple Underpass and hit JFK in the throat.
If anyone can find a reason to suppose that "Emmanuel Goldstein" is not a complete and total flake, when my books and articles prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was framed and JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I would like to hear it. Because this has gone beyond absurd into simple insanity.
Views: 308
Comment
-
Comment by Jeannon Kralj on July 3, 2012 at 1:35am
-
"And her profound paranoia has even seduced previously good men like Matt Naus to The Dark Side."
The "profound paranoia" is a characteristic I have observed in Dr. Wood for a few years. For that reason, I think it is best not to respond to her, and her followers', ravings.
She always said she wanted her work to stand on its own. Dr. Wood, at least in her "debut" years, debut years that you, Dr. Fetzer, made possible for her, always said she did not want to focus on criticizing others' work. She wanted her work to be considered on its own merits, and she used to have strong "faith" in her ideas and would go out and "defend" them to some extent. The fact that she would not go to the Vancouver Hearings and support and defend her ideas indicates to me that her paranoia and animosity toward you have overtaken that ability.
Thoth may be on to something when he attributes Dr. Wood's rumblings these days, and those of her followers, to the recent work of Jeff Prager, Chuck Boldwyn and others that do rather thoroughly refute her ideas. So many of the anomalies that Dr. Wood said could not be explained but by DEWs are anomalies that can be explained by mini-nukes. (toasted cars. huge bent "pipes", massive amounts of dust etc.)
Anyone who has listened to you over the years on the radio interviewing Dr. Wood knows that you were from the beginning and consistently supportive of her. You never said you totally accepted her ideas regarding destruction of the Twin Towers, or said that of anyone else's theories on that, but you applauded her original thinking and approach, as well as her collection and cataloging of the "evidence" that needed to be explained. Your record has always shown that you thought ALL ideas need to be discussed without prejudice as that is what scietific inquiry requires. I listened to your original interview of her the other day as it was part of some video. You were VERY enthusiastic and supportive. So all this nonsense from Matt N. and others with screen names (not real names) is, to me, of the nature of something to be ignored and not dignified with a defense. But you may see need to set the record straight, and I am not the one experiencing these ridiculous and sick) paranoid attacks. It is just that your record is so on the books and so clear that I think it serves as your defense without your having to respond this garbage. I do not regard these postings attacking you as sincere inquiries. I think they want to put you in defensive mode.
I said that some who conduct these kinds of attacks are sinister, and I would offer Jonathan Kay as falling into that category. I believe he wrote a book with someone named Michael Roth who was proven by Joshua Blakeney to be a member of the Mossad. Kay's books are published by Rupert Murdoch publisher so the indications are that Kay is doing a typical subversive manipulative "Israeli" or "Mossad" operation, and these entities are super sophisticated and accomplished in these kinds of operations. I saw a video recently where Barry Zwicker, Richard Gage, and one other person whose name started with a Z reacting to the ridiculous statements of Kay in a book about conspiracy theorists. In a way, I guess they had to point out Kay's ridiculous and taudry accusations and enuendos in print in his book and call him on the carpet about them. But I got the strong impression that Jonathan Kay fully intends to draw people out into dignifying his garbage in such panel discussions. That is part of Jonathan Kay's serious sophisticated and evil plan, and not expressions of a person with growing paranoid ideations. ( I do not ascribe to the "theories" of those defending their good name on that panel, and it may me some of the defenders of their good name were play acting too to make themselves appear a certain way. But that is all another story.)
Dr. Wood, I do not believe, ever has been a puppet of entities like this. She really was fired from her university teaching position. Dr. Steven Jones' firing I believe was fake. The whole Mormon (Brigham Young University) thing is looking more and more to be connected with those who stage Jonathan Kay.
All of your "defense" regarding Judy Wood accusations is on the record for all to see. You have been nothing but cordial and supportive of Dr. Wood. But she has gradually become suspicious of many and is so concerned that someone wants to steal her work or misrepresent her work and put her down. I do not think that kind of thinking on her part was ever grounded in reality or truth. Even if there could have been some researchers at first that may have been jealous of her good work, I doubt if there are any these days as she is turning herself into rather a pitiful character and her followers as well.
I say let the battle of the "theories" of what happened to the Twin Towers go on and may all be given exposure and discussion, as you have facilitated for her and many others, and may they best theory win out and take precedence.
I personally do not think we will ever have the truth regarding what happened to the Twin Towers and I do not want to debate that issue much anymore. The layers of deception employed on that matter are many and very sophisticated and still being uncovered to some extent, and almost none of the "data" we have can be said to be "solid evidence." The video fakery at the Towers matter seems to be "growing" and more things were faked than just plane crashes, so all of that appears to be moving to what I have regarded as absurd. the idea of Simon Shack, and writer Mr. Ogilby on VeteransToday that we do not have a real video of the destruction in progress of the Twin Towers and that the Towers were destroyed but not in a way that we observed on the very controlled videos we have been allowed to have on that issue (Naudet brothers, Fairbanks, Hezarkhani videos, etc.) So though this idea still seems crazy to me, all who think that the Towers were actually destroyed from the top down as viewed on the controlled videos may be responding to more deception and fakery. Again, all of this cannot be proven one way or the other and all we have been able to do is show very well that the official conspiracy theory could not possibly be true.
I think the work you have done on no plane crashes at the four desginated sites (with consequent "no planes" and "no real passengers" work of Nick Dean) as well as the your video fakery work regarding plane crahes into the Towers is "where it's at" for me.
-
Comment by James H. Fetzer on July 2, 2012 at 6:23pm
-
Jeannon, I am finding it increasingly difficult to dismiss this as innocent or naive. Something is seriously wrong.
About
© 2025 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum