| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Jim Fetzer is a Psy-Operator | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 24 2009, 03:22 PM (1,134 Views) | |
| acebaker | Jul 24 2009, 03:22 PM Post #1 |
|
I know Jim Fetzer as well as anyone in 9/11 truth circles. I spoke at his conference, I've been on his show a dozen times, he's been to my house. Jim fetzer is a psy-operator, a very important part of the controlled opposition that we know must exist in the 9/11 coverup. Fetzer has been publishing his list of evidence for video fakery. He cites September Clues, which is full of mistakes and strawmen, like "pixel perfect match", and "missing frames", and "line penciled in", and which now promotes the diabolical "total animation theory", with "moving bridges" and "missing skylines", and claiming the 9/11 videos were completely animated by some unknown advanced technique. Fetzer also promotes the hologram theory, which is physically impossible, and he knows it. I, of course, have written a book length treatise compiling the correct evidence for no plane crashes and video fakery. The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites It is published online for all to experience. I have discussed this material ad nauseum with Fetzer, on his show, and presented him with multiple revised versions. The entire project stemmed from HIS request for me to author a chapter in his alleged forthcoming book. And yet, Dr. Fetzer refuses to include a link to this treatise. Why would that be? Why would Dr. Fetzer promote the dubious material, and not the scholarly work? There are critics of my work. In my opinion, none of the criticism stands up to scrutiny, but that's a bit beside the point here. There's plenty of criticism of September Clues also. "Impossible Speed" is a good argument, but only applies to a stock 767. It leaves open the possibility of some modified aircraft (Anthony Lawson's hangout). "Impossible Entry" is a brilliant argument, and applies to any aircraft, but Fetzer never gets around showing the impossible video frame, the "magically healing columns" frame from Hezarkhani. I have repeatedly explained why there is more than sufficient resolution to see the hole in the tower, if it were there. The goal of the psy-operators is to protect the truth, spinning all seekers off into some false territory. Observing the behavior of Fetzer and all the other ops is the perfect compass pointing to the truth, you just need to know how to read it. Edited by acebaker, Jul 24 2009, 03:22 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| AtlasShrugged | Jul 24 2009, 03:58 PM Post #2 |
|
Ace - you broke my heart with your ridiculous, self-absorbed and damaging 'Performance Shite Piece'......and the criticism certainly DID stand up to scrutiny..or else you would have not apologized 4 it! ...that being said - I agree (more than not) that Jim (like you?) is a psy-operator and a very important part of the controlled opposition. Impossible Entry is a brilliant argument - and APPLIES TO ANY AIRCRAFT!!! No Planes! No Modified 'Aircraft'! ...and it's not only about spining seekers off into false territory...it's about - as Disinfo is...mixing elements of truths with preposterous lies that necessarily lead truthseekers themselves to close their minds to real possibilities, were it not for the wacko's hanging their hats on it! .....moving on...... a much more constructive argument on the NO-plane issue would be to return to an object vs. no object debate!.....go from there! - I intend to move on to the destructions (finally)....it's cruel to beat dead animals!!  Edited by AtlasShrugged, Jul 24 2009, 08:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
| ToothedV | Jul 24 2009, 04:12 PM Post #3 |
|
Not a good way to get your chapter published, babe, but keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
| JimFetzer | Jul 24 2009, 04:51 PM Post #4 |
|
Egad! Ace Baker stabs me in the back again! What has become of honest differences of opinion? I had a high enough regard for his work that, even after he had pulled the hare-brained stunt of faking suicide on my radio program (on Freedom Underground Radio), i was willing to feature him again on "The Real Deal", where you can hear the program at radiofetzer.blogspot.com. He had told me he was sorry for having done that and would be willing to say so on the air, but I simply let it go. This is such ridiculous drivel that I can hardly believe what I am reading here. We all have our own preferences as to which arguments we find the most persuasive. I outlined those I have found most appealing in "New Proof of 9/11 Video Fakery". I have featured as many as fifteen different students and experts on these questions on my radio programs, many of which are archived at the same site. Apparently, if it is not Ace Baker/Ace Baker/Ace Baker, over and over, all the time, this self-centered, immature narcissist will not be satisfied, which means that he will never be satisfied. So what if I don't have a link to his site? What the hell difference does that make? I featured him again and we told the audience how to get there. I even stated that I still intended to publish his study of compositing in the new book on 9/11 that I am editing. That, I am afraid, would be difficult to do under these circumstances. That he would make these claims after our history is beyond belief. There is no objective basis for such claims. I have persistently pursued a "big tent" approach in dealing with these subjects, featuring Joe Keith, John Lear, The Webfairy, killtown, Morgan Reynolds, and many more, in my efforts to present alternative views to the public and to sort them out for myself. Moreover, if I am an op, I wish those checks would start showing up, beause--in today's economy--I could make good use of the money. So I suggest that Ace contact the CIA, NSA, or whomever to get those funds flowing! He thinks I've earned it! |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jul 24 2009, 05:03 PM Post #5 |
|
Acebaker sez: "Fetzer also promotes the hologram theory, which is physically impossible, and he knows it." A few points, Ace: a) By "promotes", do you mean that Fetzer maintains that the hologram theory is the correct theory? Or do you mean that he has discussed holograms as one possible explanation? If it's the former then you are in error. b) How can you know that, "...he knows it"? c) And most important, how can you make such a positive assertion that holograms are "physically impossible"? It is very hard to prove a negative such as that, and the history of science is littered with people who said things were impossible just before a scientific advance showed that it WAS possible. |
|
|
|
| beatprophet | Jul 24 2009, 05:11 PM Post #6 |
|
It's good old paranoia again ... How did the perps fake aircrafts hitting the twin towers that were seen by both the public in Manhattan and the people at home on their television sets ... That I doubt will ever be answered ... what we should be asking is how do we prove no planes hit the towers ... We all know about plane speed and crash physics by now .. That’s what we should be looking into .. These areas prove no planes .. Composites ect is a complete irrelevance .. Beat |
|
|
|
| acebaker | Jul 24 2009, 07:09 PM Post #7 |
|
I don't recall apologizing for my performance art. If it broke your heart, I suggest you don't watch the end of my movie, assuming I find a way around the looming lawsuits. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 24 2009, 07:31 PM Post #8 |
|
Two bald men fighting over a comb. Ace Bakers "One Obvious Mask" shown to be as incorrect as the rest of ace's lame composite theory Jim Fetzer's Direct Video Fakery gets royally owned The dinosaurs have had their day. edit. Just spotted, ace has removed his "One Obvious Mask" at some point over the past couple of weeks, but his "Over-under Puffball" page remains, which has the same fundamental problem, as detailed here by Rasga: The Problem With CGI Composites edit. Should i really take the time to show his Magically-Healing Columns page is another example of ace "misinterpreting" the video? Don't forget, ace still thinks there is no plane in the wide-shot on the WNYW live footage, and has not admitted that a simple shadow caused his errors in the One Obvious Mask and Over-Under Puffball analyses. Edited by broken sticks, Jul 24 2009, 07:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 24 2009, 07:44 PM Post #9 |
|
Yeah. Compositing is a fine way to fake a video. But there just happens to be no evidence for this in relation to 911. |
|
|
|
| Mars Rover | Jul 24 2009, 07:51 PM Post #10 |
|
|
|
|
|
| AtlasShrugged | Jul 24 2009, 08:16 PM Post #11 |
|
you're an absolute disgrace ace! |
|
|
|
| DrBabs | Jul 24 2009, 08:17 PM Post #12 |
|
As far as any of us know, this new "rift" could be yet another BS (sorry Broken Sticks) concoction between the two of them. I've seen them both in the same room, so they aren't the same person. That much I know, but that's about all. It's hard to keep believing that a person who acts like an op over and over again isn't an op. I think you're into the muddle up game, and have been for years. Can you tell me, in three words or less, who killed JFK, Jim? If not, what the heck have you been doing for forty years? |
|
|
|
| AtlasShrugged | Jul 24 2009, 08:19 PM Post #13 |
|
..........isn't it painfully obvious by now? lol |
|
|
|
| YOUROOM101 | Jul 24 2009, 10:20 PM Post #14 |
|
This heading 'Jim Fetzer is a Psy-Operator,' is why we have to keep our perspective, if you think anyone is a Psy-Op, letting it be known makes no sense to me what so ever. Just keep it to yourself, then when you change your mind you will not have burned your bridges, or you have an advantage against them if that fact holds water. I find it hard to get anywhere with people attacking one another for not supporting a particular view point. There are so many possible ways they could have done 9/11 that we should be allowed our own voice without condemnation, although we should be allowed to point out flawed logic of Simon Shack who will not admit to making errors in September Clues and maybe Alex Jones for giving the media exactly what they want, someone to put on screen to poke fun at. Just a short note to Jim Fetzer, the CIA says the money's under the big pot next to the tree in your garden, keep up the good work lol |
|
|
|
| shure | Jul 25 2009, 12:34 AM Post #15 |
Administrator
|
As much as I don't think all the people who took a picture, video or said the saw a plane on 9/11 are liars and part of the 9/11 coverup, I don't think Jim or many others mentioned are "psy-operators". I think it has much more to do with difference of opinions, egos and attention seeking. Jim, for example, entertains many ideas that at first sound plausible such as September Clues or a planted engine. He seems to take peoples word alot of times instead of looking into the information himself, where if he did, he would see that alot of the stuff people say doesn't stand up to the evidence. I think Ace truely believes he is right about his compositing theory, but turns a blind eye to anything that would refute what he believes. If Ace was being honest with himself he would admit that there is alot of information he has overlooked to come up with his conclusion. Its similar with Simon Shack, he has enjoyed all the attention he has got over September Clues and lately with his total fakery stuff. There are alot of people that believe it, but Simon knows he is wrong and if he admitted it he would be left with nothing. Too bad everybody couldn't just drop all the nonsense and work together to find out what actually happened instead of trying to feed their own selfish desires. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
12:19 AM Dec 2
