| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Jim Fetzer and his list of Direct Video Fakery Evidence.; To clarify who is who and what is what | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 26 2009, 05:06 AM (1,442 Views) | |
| RasgaSaias | Jun 26 2009, 05:06 AM Post #1 |
|
There's a difference between evidence for fake planes and evidence for video fakery. This needs to be established to prevent parasitical profit from separate things. Inside the complex "no-planer" universe we can find endless theories and hypothesis. Being the video fakery hypothesis only one of them. All of these theories, also including for example cloaked missiles or thin air holograms share the same principle. The one suggesting: "There were no real plane hitting the WTC on 9/11" based on laws of physics only. So considering evidence supporting this shared principle also as evidence supporting video fakery is parasitical and misleading. To prove an hypothesis among others sharing the same principle, selective, exclusive and distinguishable evidences are necessary. After confronted with my request, Jim Fetzer suggested the following list with 19 "possible" evidences supporting directly the video fakery hypothesis:
4 - Flight 175 - Impossible Speed - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY 5 - "9/11: Impossible Speed & Impact - Busted! Updated" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L978nIT-AY4 6 - Another aeronautical engineer confirms impossible speed - http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pf_011909.mp3 These are not direct evidence of video fakery. These are just supporting the common principle shared by many other hypotesys. So they will be excluded from the following analysis. |
 |
 
|
| RasgaSaias | Jun 26 2009, 05:08 AM Post #2 |
|
1 - New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11 - http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html From this website there are only the following points suggesting directly video fakery. The "study" in question was brought to us by Simon Shack. Direct source of these claims The "secondary explosion" claim:  I recommend everyone to watch the video again and this time without reading the misleading titles. Because instead of a secundary explosion, we're just witnessing fire, smoke and wind interacting on a real environment after an explosion. When the huge fireball was formed, the hole and what was inside understandably caught fire. Then, when the fireball moved up and to the left, the fire already comming out of the hole became visible to the camera. And it remained that way for some time even when the fireball smoke was already above the building.  Suggesting a secondary explosion took place based on this piece of footage is absolutely false. But it is very common to see this kind of apparently innocent misenterpretations in what comes to Simon Shack's videos. They only make sense if we follow and trust his titles. The "right wing cut-out penciled in" claim:  Keep in mind Simon Shack is the only one suggesting the hole is too small and the dark gash was needed. That's how he tries to pull the trick on us.  But if we compare with photographs from the plane hole we'll find out he's as always lying. He's even giving the false position from the plane wings, representing them with a straight line in the wrong angle.  And the gash was just smoke coming out of what seems to be a broken window.  http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/0/_/p/FirstTowerHit.jpg If Simon Shack was an honest and reliable researcher he wouldn't misplace the wing holes like he did.  And he'd know the fire he called a secondary explosion was coming exactly from the wing hole he's telling isn't there. Edited by RasgaSaias, Jun 26 2009, 06:25 AM.
|
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jun 26 2009, 05:09 AM Post #3 |
|
The "student" here is Simon Shack once again. Direct source of these claims Through all the baseless speculation about what Fairbaks saw or didn't see, I could only find two relevant points directly related to video fakery. The "extraordinary viewing angle" claim  Sugesting absurd possibilities like being a dwarf or that he dived into a manhole are merely distractions. The objective is to convince the audience it's either those possibilities or the video is fake. Although a grown up adult is able to understand a man with a video camera can easily crunch down next to a car to get a more dramatic angle. And if we add to that some special hardware like fisheye lens, we get the final result without any kind of video fakery involved. Here's an example of a shot using eyefish lens and how they distort the image:  The "impossible reflection" claim  This is a misleading and fraudulent claim.  And to agravate, Simon Shack Instead of flipping the reflex horizontaly and compare to the event it was reflecting, he rotated it, giving the false inpression the reflex was inverted. Why would he resort to this kind of trickery? This absolutly possible reflex, given the windsheild's angle, the towers' height and the camera's low position, is easyly veryfiable. The laws of physics are all correct. Just try to recreate it going outside and looking at cars' windsheilds. You'll see Simon Shack is lying again. Killtown's specific post on his blog didn't add anything new to the video fakery hypothesis. He just reinforced the no-plane principle using somebody else's idea. |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jun 26 2009, 05:11 AM Post #4 |
|
2 - September Clues NEW (1st half) - http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/7F39E60C4F004BCC8062B5EB2F0F6891/september-clues-new-1st-half.aspx 3 - September Clues NEW (2nd half) - http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/BC194C47C2204E6E8DA38207EAF31846/september-clues-new-2nd-half.aspx 7 - SEPTEMBER CLUES high quality (1ST HALF) - http://blip.tv/file/1272900/ 8 - SEPTEMBER CLUES high quality (2ND HALF) - http://blip.tv/file/1273564 9 - The SEPTEMBER CLUES playlist (YOUTUBE) - http://tiny.cc/septcluesenglish 10 - The "911 AMATEUR" playlist - http://tiny.cc/911amateur 11 - Simon Shack's additional 9/11 research - http://tiny.cc/911addresearch All of these can be included into the same category. September Clues is an endless parade of half truths and complete lies which have all been debunked repeatedly. It has been intensely gatekeeped and it's only seen as a reliable source of information thanks to hate campaings lauched against those capable of exposing it as a fraud. 911movement.org (Killtown's forum) being the most common place where the gatekeeping and the hate campaigns are put to practice. The author of September Clues - Simon Shack - Insists to pretend he's an honest researcher. But he suspiciously seems unnable to percept the world as a three dimentional environment. He's unnable to understand the simple laws of prespective. He doesn't show the full footage nor the best quality available to prove a point. He uses persuasive methods and misleading trickery to induce false conclusions. And he never retracts a proven wrong claim. It seems September Clues main objective is to create an endeless backgound of fabricated evidences, giving the impression video fakery is a valid hypothesis. But in fact, September Clues is based in the same kind of the 9/11 footage misinterpretation, repeated over and over again by the author. For such, debunking it point by point is unecessarialy tiering. So I suggest Jim Fetzer to pick his favorite claims demonstrating directly video fakery and coming directly from September Clues or any other creation from Simon Shack. I'm extremely confident he won't find any that hasn't been debunked yet. Edited by RasgaSaias, Jun 26 2009, 05:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jun 26 2009, 05:12 AM Post #5 |
|
12 - 9/11 Octopus Part 8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ySSJ_L6Zs 13 - 9/11 Octopus (New World Order) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3280828063975945650 BSRegisteration (aka Fred) is the author of 9/11 Octopus. He's a fluent hate campain instigator and oftently posts life threats to innocent people at 911movement.org. I don't think Jim Fetzer is aware of the kind of people he's dealing with. 9/11 Octopus was what I'd call a primitive prototipe for September Clues. Simon Shack himself admited publicly his work was influenced by it. The problem is, in what comes to video fakery evidence, the speculation and rudimentar trickery used are even worse than those presented by Simon Shack at September Clues. I'd also suggest Jim Fetzer to pick his favorite claims demonstrating directly video fakery and coming directly from 9/11 Octopus or any other creation from BSRegisteration. I'm even more confident he won't find any that hasn't been debunked ages ago. Edited by RasgaSaias, Jun 26 2009, 06:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jun 26 2009, 05:13 AM Post #6 |
|
14 - No More 9/11: Game Over! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PCr8CyG1Sg&feature=related 15 - Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #1 [video] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6MIU-rUPrI 16 - Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #2 [video] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKJxFArD-o 17 - Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #3 [video] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-adnwEIQU 18 - Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #4 [video] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMiVjSpoMHI  Seeing that these have all been removend, I'm starting to think Jim Fetzer didn't really pay much attention to my request. |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jun 26 2009, 05:15 AM Post #7 |
|
19 - "Chopper 5 Composite": - http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html[/quote] This has been addressed some time ago: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1441498/1/ |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jun 26 2009, 05:17 AM Post #8 |
|
When Jim Fetzer says "There's a growing montain of evidence for video fakery" I'm forced to correct him and say "There's only a growing montain of lies about video fakery". I'm still waiting for the Top 5 Evidences proving directly video fakery. The vague and broken list didn't do it. In a short, the following quote sums up the whole thing for now.
Edited by RasgaSaias, Jun 26 2009, 05:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Matt | Jun 26 2009, 05:55 AM Post #9 |
|
Well said. Peer review is crucial. We do that here, eh? 
|
|
|
|
| shure | Jun 26 2009, 06:44 AM Post #10 |
Administrator
|
Some emails between Jim and mylself; Me
Jim
Me
Jim
I thought Jim started to understand something at this point, but he seems to have dismissed the distinction and continues to follow down the road of disinformation. |
|
|
|
| genghis6199 | Jun 26 2009, 12:14 PM Post #11 |
|
i like fetzey, but he's obviously trying to act "long-term" dim or he's a perp. he interviewed me, and raved on about flatline. six months after taboo came out [HE FEATURES IN IT] i mentioned it and he went back to blabbing for 20 minutes solid, he has been challemged about simonshacks work, has offered no rebuttals, but continues to promote it, and do a radio show pretending to spread truth whilst ignioring any evidence that is sane truth, and continuing to promote what has debunked many times. this kind of research is spelled S-H-I-L-L. i kind of wrote him off as a dummard, but i have my doubts. you can only catch onto the truth a few years behind so many times before it doesn't look like an accident anymore. if you only ever push theories that have been debunked, you wouldn't get near the truth would you?. but you would appear to be spreading truth no?. it's funny how he still supports judy, even though she was debunked two years before simonshack!!!. he caught on to npt when it was obvious you were a shill if you didn't, but it was 5 years too late, now he's promoting incorrect npt, and he will for about 5 years. is better late than never an operative idea in these circumstances? i think not.' Edited by genghis6199, Jun 26 2009, 12:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
| elephant room | Jun 27 2009, 03:34 AM Post #12 |
|
thanks for taking to the time to lay some of this out Rasga. I have had the same thing on my mind recently after listening to 3 hrs of John Lear & Fetzer recently discussing points that have been completely debunked or are in serious question ... they both need to sign up here and educate themselves on how far the research has come to correct the misinformation of 'psy-mon shack' & 'I don't care how it was done-town'. Wise up gentleman (lear & fetzer), your missing the boat and stuck on the disinfo train-wreck. Edited by elephant room, Jun 27 2009, 03:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jun 27 2009, 02:34 PM Post #13 |
|
That's a nice piece for the forum, Rasga. 911 doesn't make sense. But Jim Fetzer seems more interested in outrageous ideas and how much crap people have to go along with them (hence judy wood getting lots of airtime, killtown getting called a "video expert" etc.) than he is in actually looking into the crap he spreads. Any one of us could go on his show and turn it into an actual scientific study and completely debunk 99% of the stuff he talks about with regards to the plane videos. He's just another stupid part of a massive stupid goddamn mess. Only he makes more money from it than we do. Its his career lol. Spreading flashy bullshitee for money. Idiot. f*** him. f*** all of them. We'll get there guys. Keep up the good work everyone. Edited by broken sticks, Jun 27 2009, 02:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jun 27 2009, 06:07 PM Post #14 |
|
What annoys me the most is the fact that Jim continues to say there's plenty of evidence for video fakery even if some are wrong, but never points to any in particular. He prefers to babble about vague concepts the whole time. This is almost the same thing Killtown does. They say there is something but never tell what. |
|
|
|
| Jenny | Jun 28 2009, 05:20 AM Post #15 |
|
This was the interview where you got five words in and they were "that's Troy from West Virginia"? I saved this wanting to hear your ideas and instead was treated to 30 mins or however long it was of this blowhard's bleating. It was so pointless I deleted it to save disc space. And that whole bit where he pretends to not know it's Troy from West Virginia calling in? Give us a break. Where's the man been in the last five years--a cave?
It's worse than that--without him Judy Jetson would be nothing. The rest of my views on Fetzer are known--no need to go over tired ground right now.
What is with that? Which universe is this in? A Star Trek episode I missed? "Mirror Morron"--where all the trolls in our universe have a life in the Mirror 'Verse? This annoys me--god knows how actual video experts feel. Fact, I honestly have trouble finding anything "katherine" is expert on--unless one counts trolling. Edited by Jenny, Jun 28 2009, 05:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
4:52 PM Nov 28
