Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone

Craig Lamson · September 22, 2005

Jim since Costella is a member of this forum [ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2357 ] why doesn't he post here himself?
Why do we need you as a go between?

Are we to infer from this that he is afraid to debate his ideas here? Dr. PhD in physics expert on what ever field you so declare him - even if it doesn't relate to his thesis and he hasn't published any papers on the subject - can't hold his own against people who don't even have B.S. degrees [i have a BA, Craig is a self declared college drop out, I don't know about Evan.]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are correct in my case, left after two years when I discoverd my artistic vision. Actually learning by doing was the path for me. No regrets either. However I do love to argue and my path prior to finding photography was law.

Edited September 22, 2005 by Craig Lamson

September 22, 2005

I think the answer is that John is smarter than I am and is not willing to waste

his time in pointless exchanges where your opponents are not bound by logic

and evidence but are willing to commit fallacies galore for the sake of their

own agendas. Most of you have not even read the book or, so far as I can

see, our study, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone". You adopt crackpot stances on

the non-existence of EM weapons, in spite of hundreds, even thousands, of

sources, now even including http://www.deps.org/. Colby, no doubt, will con-

tinue to deny their existence as the leader of a new Flat-Earth Society. Many,

like Burton, want to explain part of the evidence while ignoring the rest. My

Ph.D., by the way, is in the history and philosophy of science. Figuring out

what happened in a case like this requires logic, critical thinking, and the use

of scientific reasoning. My background, training, and expertise in these areas

far exceeds that of my critics, including Josiah Thompson, who spent his time

on the Danish mystic Kierkegaard, who is widely noted for his attitude toward

reason exemplified by his stance, "I believe because it is absurd!" Follow him

at your peril. Anyone who has read AMERICAN ASSASSINATION knows we

have presented a very rigorous and thorough analysis of the evidence. Now

we have more, of course, including the Waukegan GPS phenomenon. I am

starting to believe John is right, but I obviously have a slower learning curve.

Jim since Costella is a member of this forum [ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2357 ] why doesn't he post here himself?
Why do we need you as a go between?

Are we to infer from this that he is afraid to debate his ideas here? Dr. PhD in physics expert on what ever field you so declare him - even if it doesn't relate to his thesis and he hasn't published any papers on the subject - can't hold his own against people who don't even have B.S. degrees [i have a BA, Craig is a self declared college drop out, I don't know about Evan.]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are correct in my case, left after two years when I discoverd my artistic vision. Actually learning by doing was the path for me. No regrets either. However I do love to argue and my path prior to finding photography as law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 22, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

Len Colby · September 22, 2005

Amazing Fetzer misquoted his own book and pays fast and loose with the truth.

- Despite claims of objectivity he decided the moment he heard about the crash that it was a "conspiracy"

I have discovered two cases of Fetzer knowingly distorting the truth

Case 1 - "The poll" -

[this is based on a message I posted to the Yahoo forum, Fetzer had previously spelled out "four conditions" that had to be met before a person could be said to be lying. Did his version of events meet his own conditions? - No doubt about it!]

On Fetzer's site he makes 2 references to a poll in which a majority of respondents said they thought the Wellstone crash was due to "a GOP conspiracy". Problem is that this was an Internet survey which is of course a totally unscientific method for gauging public opinion. He repeated this distortion of the truth in this thread and various other places.

The poll in itself is not important. I don't think that Fetzer even considers it a key piece of evidence, but he does like bringing it up. The issue is how he reports it. Is shows that he is willing to distort the truth to prove his case.

He reported it like this -

1] 'In the wake of the crash, 69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP

conspiracy" for Wellstone's death.'

http://www.assassinationscience.com/Americ...assination.html

This distorted version of the truth appears on Amazon's page for the book

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

and in slightly different form on the book publisher's site, "At the time, 69% of Minnesotans polled said they had a hunch a "GOP conspiracy" was at play in his death. American Assassination validates the common wisdom: the people had it right all along."

http://www.voxpopnet.net/index.php?id=54&t...Hash=48d825d50d

and in one form or another on about 110 other webpages

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...acy&btnG=Search

Obviously there was no way to draw this inference from the poll,

because it only measured the opinion of those who chose to

participate. Also there is not any way of knowing how many people

voted various times or how many 'voters' were Minnesotans.

It's totally illogical to believe that 69% of Minnesotans believed

this. A few days later Coleman got 50 % of the vote. Even if we would make the highly dubious assumption that all the people who voted for Mondale or the

other candidates believed in the conspiracy, we would have to

believe that 19 % of Minnesotans [38 % of Coleman's voters] blamed

a "GOP conspiracy" and voted for Coleman any way. I am most certainly

not a Republican and sometimes find it hard to believe they make the

choices that they do, but I can not believe that over 38 % of them

would have voted for Coleman if they thought Wellstone had been the victim of a "GOP conspiracy".

[i edited the bold part of the above sentence due Fetzer's hair-splitting complaint, see below]

2] "A survey that evening [Oct. 25, 20002] by THE ST. PAUL PIONEER

PRESS would show that 69% of the respondents thought his death was

the result of 'a GOP conspiracy.' "

http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...SASSINATION.pdf

This is not as distorted as the first quote. But tends to leave the

reader with the impression that a telephone survey was carried out by

the paper.

He gave a similar version on this thread:

'Not to mention that a poll conducted immediately after the crash reported by

THE PIONEER PRESS found, given choices like an accident, an act of God, etc.,

69% picked "a GOP conspiracy"! '

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39571

Again if the reader got the false impression that the 69% figure accurately measured public sentiment or that the poll was scientific it's obvious that this false impression was not unintentional.

Let's apply Fetzer's 'four conditions' - "someone is lying when and

only when (a) the claim they are making is false, ( they know it is

false (that means they believe it is false, they have evidence that

it is false, and it is false), © they are asserting it

intentionally (d) with the aim or purpose of misleading."

[ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaims...NK/message/1939 - the replies are interesting too!]

(a) - The claim that '69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP conspiracy"

for Wellstone's death.' was false.

( - Obviously he knew it was false.

(d) - © was already superfluous and (d) is too, (a) and ( were

already sufficient to define a lie. What was his intention here if

not to mislead?

That Fetzer puts so much faith into web surveys is quite humorous if you consider this one:

Poll Results

What do you think of Jim Fetzer's JFK/Wellstone theories?

He's probably right [12 votes, 19.05%]

Somewhat plausible [28 votes, 44.44%]

Nutty as a fruitcake [23 votes, 36.51%]

http://www.perfectduluthday.com/2003_12_01_archive.html

I also found the comments quite amusing

java script:openBackBlog('107129493991962988','Perfect%20Duluth%20Day','feedback')

Case 2 -Fetzer misquotes his own book!!

From "The NTSB Failed Wellstone" By Jim Fetzer and John Costella in From the Wilderness July 6, 2005

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ne.shtml#_edn56

they = the FBI Hildrup = Fred Hildrup a NTSB investigator

'When further asked what they were doing on the scene for many hours before the arrival of the NTSB, Hilldrup (who only took over on Monday) speculated that “maybe they were responding to the—you know—the conspiracy theories.”

When it was further pointed out to him that there could hardly have been any conspiracy theories operating before the crash was even known to the general public (first reports emerged around 1:30 PM),'

The footnote cites pg. 14 of American Assassination as the source

Excerpt of American Assassination [presumably page 14] as quoted on Fetzer's site:

[Fetzer makes a big deal about this interview, like it is some sort of "smoking gun". but it is ridiculous. They are asking some guy from the NTSB who arrived three days later what the FBI was doing on the day of the crash]

FH = Fred Hilldrup , FA = Four Arrows - Fetzer's co-author

"FH: I can't say for sure, since I only took over on Monday; but maybe they were there responding to the--you know--the conspiracy theories.

FA: How could there have been any conspiracy theories operating before the plane crashed?"

Arrows did not ask the right question, but that didn't stop Fetzer from quoting him as if he had. Arrows should have asked "How could there have been any conspiracy theories operating before the plane crash was even known to the general public?". Arrow's had not "pointed out to him that there could hardly have been any conspiracy theories operating before the crash was even known to the general public", therefore Fetzer's statement was false and since he wrote the book he knew it was false.

Also his assertion that "first reports emerged around 1:30 PM" is false. All times in the article refer to local [Central] time and first reports emerged BEFORE 12:30 PM.. This is clear from two webpages that I found.

On October 25, 2002 [the day of the crash] at 6:35 PM GMT, "King Air-Minn" a new thread was started in airdisaster.com's forums with the following post:

"Early report of King Air down enroute from St Paul, Minn. Eight POB including possibly Senator Wellstone. Crashed 7 miles from intended destination, Eveleth, Minn. Reported no survivors."

3 minutes later someone replied that [they're] "talking about it on CNN"

http://airdisaster.com/forums/printthread....26&page=1&pp=25

Minnesota is 6 hours behind GMT so the message was posted at 12:35 local time. http://www.worldtimezone.com/

- A post titled "Wellstone's plane crashed" appeared on the liberal Daily Kos blog site, it quotes CNN.com and an AP story which appeared on the Minnesota Star-Tribune's website. The AP story quotes a local TV station. http://www.dailykos.net/archives/000436.html

The post time is 10:35 AM but no timezone is mentioned. Nor could I find any indication of which state the blog was based in . Obviously the the post could not have been made Eastern time or Central time, if it was made Mountain time that would be 11:35 in Minnesota and Pacific time would make it 12:35 PM. Fetzer could try to argue the blog is based in Alaska or Hawaii. HOWEVER on the blog's homepage http://www.dailykos.com/ and elsewhere on the site post times are shown as PDT or Pacific time, no other timezones appear. The only logical assumption is that the message was posted at 12:35 Minnesota time simultaneous with the airdisaster.com post.

Obviously the following steps took more than 5 minutes 1] the TV station reports the story, 2] AP picks up the story and publishes an article, 3] the Tribune places the article on their site 4] the blogger finds and reads the article 5] the blogger writes and posts his message

Fetzer was listening to the radio or TV at the time so he should have known when the story broke

"The day of the crash, I was interviewed in my office at the University of Minnesota about the death of JFK by a reporter for a weekly alternative newspaper in Duluth, THE RIPSAW. We listened to intermittent reports about the tragedy, including that emergency workers had not had access to the plane, which was still burning hours after the crash. This led me to ask myself, "So how do they actually know that he is dead?" When we ended our conversation several hours later, he remarked that the contents of the "black box" should be important. I told him there wouldn't be one"

This passage is interesting because it shows that Fetzer within hours of hearing about the crash, before he had any evidence was sure that a conspiracy was involved. [How else can we interpret his comment about the black box?] His publisher claims the book is based on "meticulous, objective, and scientific analysis"*. How could his analysis be objective if he had reached his conclusion before he had any evidence? Doesn't sound very scientific does it?

* http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

Edited September 22, 2005 by Len Colby

September 22, 2005

This guy is getting more and more bizarre. There is nothing sinister or mislead-

ing about the poll, even if the publisher wanted to make more use of it than it

may have deserved. All it showed is that 69% of those who participated were

of the opinion that Wellstone's death had been a "GOP conspiracy". It was not

a random or scientific poll, merely an interesting aside. So what's the big deal?

Colby seems to think there would be some link between "GOP conspiracy" and

Norm Coleman personally as a participant, which I do not believe and have not

alleged. I don't think most Minnesotans would drawn that inference. Coleman

was merely playing the role assigned to him by Karl Rove. What's with Colby?

As for Four Arrows interview with the lead investigator on the crash, that is a

whole different matter. In my opinion, Four Arrows nailed him again and again,

so we used it as the front piece in the book. It is discussed more than once in

the course of its pages, but I don't see the point of Colby's meanderings. He

claims that, following the proper definition of "lying", which includes making an

assertion that is false while knowing it is false with the intent to deceive, I have

committed some lie. But everything I have said or published on this matter is

something that I have sincerely believed. He can do all the verbal contorting

that he wants, but that does not make it reasonable and does not make it true.

This guy, in my opinion, has gone off the deep end. He has lost his marbles.

Anyone who actually reads the book and studies the case and understands

what we are about in analyzing the evidence in an attempt to figure out if the

government is using an official agency and an official report to cover up the

assassination of a leading member of the opposition party will comprehend

the profound lunacy of his repeated, obsessive attacks on those of us who

are committed to the integrity of government and the preservation of democ-

racy in the United States. His dedication as a character assassin is well docu-

mented on the posts of this forum, but surely his objectives are misguided

and wrong. If this guy is sincere, he appears to me to have lost it. Totally.

It is certainly true that I thought the circumstances were suspcious from the

start. The timing, the situation, the man. But entertaining suspicions is not

the same thing as possessing knowledge. My suspicions motivated me to take

a long hard look at the case and try to figure out if they were well-founded

or not. Colby does not appear to know the difference. Entertaining possi-

bilities is not the same thing as drawing conclusions based upon evidence.

Everyone knows everyone's position and should be able to sort all this out

for themselves. But if I might make one modest suggestion: A good place

to start is by actually reading the book and our "fromthewilderness" study.

Amazing Fetzer misquoted his own book and pays fast and loose with the truth.
- Despite claims of objectivity he decided the moment he heard about the crash that it was a "conspiracy"

I have discovered two cases of Fetzer knowingly distorting the truth

Case 1 - "The poll" -

[this is based on a message I posted to the Yahoo forum, Fetzer had previously spelled out "four conditions" that had to be met before a person could be said to be lying. Did his version of events meet his own conditions? - No doubt about it!]

On Fetzer's site he makes 2 references to a poll in which a majority of respondents said they thought the Wellstone crash was due to "a GOP conspiracy". Problem is that this was an Internet survey which is of course a totally unscientific method for gauging public opinion. He repeated this distortion of the truth in this thread and various other places.

The poll in itself is not important. I don't think that Fetzer even considers it a key piece of evidence, but he does like bringing it up. The issue is how he reports it. Is shows that he is willing to distort the truth to prove his case.

He reported it like this -

1] 'In the wake of the crash, 69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP

conspiracy" for Wellstone's death.'

http://www.assassinationscience.com/Americ...assination.html

This distorted version of the truth appears on Amazon's page for the book

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

and in slightly different form on the book publisher's site, "At the time, 69% of Minnesotans polled said they had a hunch a "GOP conspiracy" was at play in his death. American Assassination validates the common wisdom: the people had it right all along."

http://www.voxpopnet.net/index.php?id=54&t...Hash=48d825d50d

and in one form or another on about 110 other webpages

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...acy&btnG=Search

Obviously there was no way to draw this inference from the poll,

because it only measured the opinion of those who chose to

participate. Also there is not any way of knowing how many people

voted various times or how many 'voters' were Minnesotans.

It's totally illogical to believe that 69% of Minnesotans believed

this. A few days later Coleman got 50 % of the vote. Even if we would make the highly dubious assumption that all the people who voted for Mondale or the

other candidates believed in the conspiracy, we would have to

believe that 19 % of Minnesotans [38 % of Coleman's voters] blamed

a "GOP conspiracy" and voted for Coleman any way. I am most certainly

not a Republican and sometimes find it hard to believe they make the

choices that they do, but I can not believe that over 38 % of them

would vote for a murderer.

2] "A survey that evening [Oct. 25, 20002] by THE ST. PAUL PIONEER

PRESS would show that 69% of the respondents thought his death was

the result of 'a GOP conspiracy.' "

http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...SASSINATION.pdf

This is not as distorted as the first quote. But tends to leave the

reader with the impression that a telephone survey was carried out by

the paper.

He gave a similar version on this thread:

'Not to mention that a poll conducted immediately after the crash reported by

THE PIONEER PRESS found, given choices like an accident, an act of God, etc.,

69% picked "a GOP conspiracy"! '

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39571

Again if the reader got the false impression that the 69% figure accurately measured public sentiment or that the poll was scientific it's obvious that this false impression was not unintentional.

Let's apply Fetzer's 'four conditions' - "someone is lying when and

only when (a) the claim they are making is false, ( they know it is

false (that means they believe it is false, they have evidence that

it is false, and it is false), © they are asserting it

intentionally (d) with the aim or purpose of misleading."

[ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaims...NK/message/1939 - the replies are interesting too!]

(a) - The claim that '69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP conspiracy"

for Wellstone's death.' was false.

( - Obviously he knew it was false.

© - Unless Dr. Fetzer claims "the devil made him do it" or that he had been subject to some sort mind control how can he deny that he 'asserted it unintentionally'

(d) - © was already superfluous and (d) is too, (a) and ( were

already sufficient to define a lie. What was his intention here if

not to mislead?

That Fetzer puts so much faith into web surveys is quite humorous if you consider this one:

Poll Results

What do you think of Jim Fetzer's JFK/Wellstone theories?

He's probably right [12 votes, 19.05%]

Somewhat plausible [28 votes, 44.44%]

Nutty as a fruitcake [23 votes, 36.51%]

http://www.perfectduluthday.com/2003_12_01_archive.html

I also found the comments quite amusing

java script:openBackBlog('107129493991962988','Perfect%20Duluth%20Day','feedback')

Case 2 -Fetzer misquotes his own book!!

From "The NTSB Failed Wellstone" By Jim Fetzer and John Costella in From the Wilderness July 6, 2005

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ne.shtml#_edn56

they = the FBI Hildrup = Fred Hildrup a NTSB investigator

'When further asked what they were doing on the scene for many hours before the arrival of the NTSB, Hilldrup (who only took over on Monday) speculated that “maybe they were responding to the—you know—the conspiracy theories.”

When it was further pointed out to him that there could hardly have been any conspiracy theories operating before the crash was even known to the general public (first reports emerged around 1:30 PM),'

The footnote cites pg. 14 of American Assassination as the source

Excerpt of American Assassination [presumably page 14] as quoted on Fetzer's site:

[Fetzer makes a big deal about this interview, like it is some sort of "smoking gun". but it is ridiculous. They are asking some guy from the NTSB who arrived three days later what the FBI was doing on the day of the crash]

FH = Fred Hilldrup , FA = Four Arrows - Fetzer's co-author

"FH: I can't say for sure, since I only took over on Monday; but maybe they were there responding to the--you know--the conspiracy theories.

FA: How could there have been any conspiracy theories operating before the plane crashed?"

Arrows did not ask the right question, but that didn't stop Fetzer from quoting him as if he had. Arrows should have asked "How could there have been any conspiracy theories operating before the plane crash was even known to the general public?". Arrow's had not "pointed out to him that there could hardly have been any conspiracy theories operating before the crash was even known to the general public", therefore Fetzer's statement was false and since he wrote the book he knew it was false.

Also his assertion that "first reports emerged around 1:30 PM" is false. All times in the article refer to local [Central] time and first reports emerged BEFORE 12:30 PM.. This is clear from two webpages that I found.

On October 25, 2002 [the day of the crash] at 6:35 PM GMT, "King Air-Minn" a new thread was started in airdisaster.com's forums with the following post:

"Early report of King Air down enroute from St Paul, Minn. Eight POB including possibly Senator Wellstone. Crashed 7 miles from intended destination, Eveleth, Minn. Reported no survivors."

3 minutes later someone replied that [they're] "talking about it on CNN"

http://airdisaster.com/forums/printthread....26&page=1&pp=25

Minnesota is 6 hours behind GMT so the message was posted at 12:35 local time. http://www.worldtimezone.com/

- A post titled "Wellstone's plane crashed" appeared on the liberal Daily Kos blog site, it quotes CNN.com and an AP story which appeared on the Minnesota Star-Tribune's website. The AP story quotes a local TV station. http://www.dailykos.net/archives/000436.html

The post time is 10:35 AM but no timezone is mentioned. Nor could I find any indication of which state the blog was based in . Obviously the the post could not have been made Eastern time or Central time, if it was made Mountain time that would be 11:35 in Minnesota and Pacific time would make it 12:35 PM. Fetzer could try to argue the blog is based in Alaska or Hawaii. HOWEVER on the blog's homepage http://www.dailykos.com/ and elsewhere on the site post times are shown as PDT or Pacific time, no other timezones appear. The only logical assumption is that the message was posted at 12:35 Minnesota time simultaneous with the airdisaster.com post.

Obviously the following steps took more than 5 minutes 1] the TV station reports the story, 2] AP picks up the story and publishes an article, 3] the Tribune places the article on their site 4] the blogger finds and reads the article 5] the blogger writes and posts his message

Fetzer was listening to the radio or TV at the time so he should have known when the story broke

"The day of the crash, I was interviewed in my office at the University of Minnesota about the death of JFK by a reporter for a weekly alternative newspaper in Duluth, THE RIPSAW. We listened to intermittent reports about the tragedy, including that emergency workers had not had access to the plane, which was still burning hours after the crash. This led me to ask myself, "So how do they actually know that he is dead?" When we ended our conversation several hours later, he remarked that the contents of the "black box" should be important. I told him there wouldn't be one"

This passage is interesting because it shows that Fetzer within hours of hearing about the crash, before he had any evidence was sure that a conspiracy was involved. [How else can we interpret his comment about the black box?] His publisher claims the book is based on "meticulous, objective, and scientific analysis"*. How could his analysis be objective if he had reached his conclusion before he had any evidence? Doesn't sound very scientific does it?

* http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 22, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

Len Colby · September 22, 2005

You adopt crackpot stances on the non-existence of EM weapons, in spite of hundreds, even thousands, of sources, now even including http://www.deps.org/.

Jim all that the deps.org page proved is that these weapons are being researched. Note that almost all the people work at some research facility. No one denies that such weapons are being developed.

What is still "in dispute" is if WORKING models of such weapons that could have been deployed against Wellstone's plane exist.

Short range weapons don't count, weapons that only cause pain don't count either, nor do ones that cause headaches or ones that blind people. It has to be a weapon that could disable the plane and/or the pilots. That an EM weapons triggered the fire is not crucial to your argument but you insist that is the case.

1] That you can't even find one report [NOT from CT/UFO site] that says these weapons exist is very telling. If such weapons exist why are there any articles saying they do. You can't simultaneously argue they are secret weapons the gov't is trying to keep 'under wraps' and cite articles based on DoD PR.

2] Even the articles you cite and all the articles I have read say that these weapons are NOT ready for use.

3] Why don't you get in touch with the people at deps.org and see if any of them will confirm that such weapons exist?

4] If you want to argue that the pilot's were disabled AND that the plane was disabled and/or set on fire, you would need two or three weapons. If you have seen any reliable accounts of a single weapon being able to accomplish all three or just being able to disable people AND electronics, quote a few snippets and provide a link

Colby, no doubt, will continue to deny their existence as the leader of a new Flat-Earth Society.

Once again you are switching the burden of proof. You are the one insisting that something exists even though you can't cite one sources that says they do.

I think my analogy comparing you to Creation Scientists, Holocaust deniers [like your buddy Bollyn] and Moon landing deniers [wait you are one!] is more apt.

September 22, 2005

Here's another sick post from Thompson to add to his scrapbook of publications!

Anyone here can assess his commitment to truth from this and his other posts

on this forum. That should not be too demanding a task. I said I had piloted a

jet; I did not claim to be a "jet pilot". I said that I had served four years as a

commissioned officer in the Marine Corps; I did not say I was "an experienced

warrior". This guy would have you believe that Marine Corps officers can pick

and choose their assignments, so I was "skedaddling" out of the Marines as the

war "heated up". Before I was "skeddaddling" away from a tour in Vietnam. I

had served four years. It was time to pursue my professional career objectives.

Why this man has no respect for honorable service to our nation is beyond me.

But my point is that he has no respect for truth. He makes cheap points only

by exaggerating and concocting positions that are not factual. This is known as

the straw man. ("To be a Christian, you must believe a guy can walk on water!")

If Colby wants to expose lies, as he claims, then it should not be too difficult

for him to figure out if Josiah Thompon is making assertions that are false and

that he knows to be false with the intention to deceive. Why will it not surprise

me when Colby ignores the false assertions of Thompson and continues with

his tedious tirades? That's just Colby's way of showing that he is evenhanded.

Tsk, tsk Professor. You really are so attractive when you huff and puff and rant and rave.
You wrote:

"I did not make it into a big deal because it wasn't a big deal, but I briefly piloted a T-33 during that phase of my training. There were other aspects to

it, of course, but what he was asserting was literally false."

A T-33 was a two-place training plane. The real pilot took off and landed the plane. For a few seconds while you and the pilot were aloft, he let little Jimmy put his hands on the stick. That's what you are trying to bootstrap into "I piloted a T-33 during that phase of my training." And it's that vast experience in a T-33.... isn't it?.... that you earlier claimed qualified you to understand what happened in the Wellstone crash.

The rest is the usual Fetzerian rant. But thank you for confirming that you sat on your ass in Okinawa and went to a recruit depot before skedaddling from the Marine Corps in June 1966 when the Vietnam War was heating up and the Marine Corps needed lieutenants and captains. As for your claim concerning the Zapruder film... the full story of this is being told in the just published scholarly book by Richard B. Trask, National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film (Danvers Mass.:Yeoman Press, 2005). As in David Wrone's earlier scholarly work on the Zapruder film, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination(Lawrence, Kansas: The University of Kansas Press, 2003) your tabloid style of research provides only comedic interest for both authors. Why is it, Professor, that real scholars take your work to be silly?

Now back to the Wellstone crash and that "bluish smoke."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 22, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

Len Colby · September 22, 2005

This guy is getting more and more bizarre. There is nothing sinister or misleading about the poll, even if the publisher wanted to make more use of it than it may have deserved. All it showed is that 69% of those who participated were of the opinion that Wellstone's death had been a "GOP conspiracy". It was not
a random or scientific poll, merely an interesting aside. So what's the big deal?

You can try spinning this however you want but I caught you in a lie. The poll itself was not "sinister or misleading", what was misleading [sinister would be an overstatement] was how YOU reported it. YOU are the one who wrote 'In the wake of the crash, 69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP conspiracy" for Wellstone's death.' If you are going senile and forgot having written that all you have to do is click on the link provided.

How else did you expect your reader to interpret the offending sentence if not to infer that a scientific random poll had been conducted?

Unless you can argue that the sentence wasn't deceptive or that you didn't know it was deceptive - you have no grounds to claim you didn't lie.

You lied I called you on it and I am the disreputable one! Your fetzerian logic never fails you! Your trying to pin some of the blame on the publisher is a cop out, you wrote the deceptive sentence not one of their PR people.

Colby seems to think there would be some link between "GOP conspiracy" and Norm Coleman personally as a participant, which I do not believe and have not alleged. I don't think most Minnesotans would drawn that inference. Coleman was merely playing the role assigned to him by Karl Rove. What's with Colby?

I think if one thought that Wellstone's death was due to a "GOP conspiracy" it would be logical to assume that Coleman as one of the principal beneficiaries would have been in on it. Didn't you use the qui bono [who benefits] principle to point the finger at Bush?

In any case I rewrote the sentence, I hope it's to your satisfaction .

As for Four Arrows interview with the lead investigator on the crash, that is a whole different matter. In my opinion, Four Arrows nailed him again and again, so we used it as the front piece in the book.

Nailed him how? By asking him questions most people wouldn't expect him to be able answer? Why should he be able to explain what the FBI was doing days before he got there? His answers were not that far, if at all off the mark. The FBI was not a party to the investigation, they were carrying out a parallel investigation and yes possibly there to help identify bodies. I didn't see any information in any of the various reports that came from the FBI, did I miss something?

That the FBI would respond to the site of a plane crash that killed a US Senator a little over a year after 9/11 and the anthrax letters seems natural to me. If it turned that the crash was criminal they would have been the lead agency and they not the NTSB are qualified to look for signs of terrorism or criminal activity. If they hadn't shown up, you would have made an issue of that, you would say "they didn't even bother to investigate because they already knew what happened!"

But everything I have said or published on this matter is something that I have sincerely believed.

-You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because you assert something people have to accept it as 'a Fetzer given fact'.

-Did you sincerely believe that '69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP conspiracy" for Wellstone's death'?

His dedication as a character assassin is well documented on the posts of this forum,

Funny this coming from the guy who compared me to Hitler! The guy who repeatedly accuses me of being a government agent , deranged or intellectually challenged. He is the one who pounced on Pat and Steve and Evan.

"It is certainly true that I thought the circumstances were suspcious from the start. The timing, the situation, the man. But entertaining suspicions is not the same thing as possessing knowledge. "
"Entertaining possibilities is not the same thing as drawing conclusions based upon evidence."

It's clear from you statement about the 'black box' that you weren't merely suspicious you had already made up you mind. Webster's defines prejudice as "1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge"

My suspicions motivated me to take a long hard look at the case and try to figure out if they were well-founded or not.

Your prejudices led you to come to a preconceived conclusion

Colby does not appear to know the difference.

Incorrect I know that your suspicion was not well founded

Len Colby · September 22, 2005

Wikipedia has an excellent entry on fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire

"There are many different classification systems used for uncontrolled fires; In Europe and Australasia 6 groups are used:"

"Shock Risk (formerly known as Class E): Fires that involve any of the materials found in Class A and B fires, but with the introduction of an electrical appliances, wiring, or other electrically energized objects in the vicinity of the fire, with a resultant electrical shock risk if a conductive agent is used to control the fire."

"In the U.S., fires are generally classified into four groups: A, B, C, and D."

"Class C: Fires that involve any of the materials found in Class A and B fires, but with the introduction of an electrical appliances, wiring, or other electrically energized objects in the vicinity of the fire"

Unfortunately I couldn't find anything relevant ther about smoke

This site was more informative

Color of Flames and Smoke http://www.maiif.net/pdf/fire_chapter4.pdf

Color of smoke may indicate the type of material being burned. Complete combustion often produces little or no smoke, while dense smoke often indicates incomplete combustion. Flame color may indicate the type of materials being burned. As the amount of hydrocarbons increase the flames will become darker or more orange in color. A lack of sufficient oxygen usually causes flames to be darker than when the same fuel is burned in a well-ventilated area.

Extreme caution is required when using color of smoke and flames as an indicator. Remember, the investigator often arrives on the fire scene during the latter stages of the fire, and may observe smoke colors that relate to materials burning in the latter stages, which will give false indications. Also, most vessel contain fuels with hydrocarbon

bases which, when burning, may produce smoke and/or flames which can mislead the investigator. Smoke and flame colors which indicate the type of material being burned are listed in the chart below.

Kerosene is listed as giving off green smoke*

*Source: Kirk's Fire investigation, 1991 and Factory Mutual Engineering Corporation. A Pocket Guide to Arson Investigation, 1979.

Josiah Thompson · September 22, 2005

Thank you, Professor, for a scintillating example of “fetzering.” You duck and cover like no one else.

This all began with me reviewing your latest book on Amazon. I wrote in a review:

“The two co-authors parade their Ph.D.s in philosophy and education to make you believe they are serious analysts. They aren't. Neither has ever piloted an aircraft and their analysis shows that they know butkus about aviation.”

You reply:

“I piloted a jet as a midshipman while I was in college. There is ample evidence of knowledge of aviation and expert contributions distributed throughout our research.”

No, there isn’t any of that “ample evidence.” If anyone cares to look at what you and Four Arrows put out, they’ll grasp immediately that both of you know zilch about aviation. Then you make your big claim:“I piloted a jet as a midshipman while I was in college.”

This is hilarious! You no more piloted a jet than I just flew to the moon and back. During your summer NROTC camp, a real pilot took you up for a spin in a T-33. While in the air, the pilot let little Jimmy touch the controls. When you say, “I piloted a jet...” that’s what really happened. Right?

Of course, you can’t admit the silliness of your claim. You might say, “Hey, you’re right. I was just a tourist during that spin in a T-33. But it doesn’t matter because Four Arrows and I are professors. We have Ph.D.s and that means we’re really smart.... much smarter than you dummies on this board.” That’s what you’d really like to say but you know you can’t say that. So what do you do, you fetzer!

You don’t deny that your “piloting a jet” was just as described. [“Here young midshipman Jimmy. Put your hand on the stick and see how it feels. That’s fine. Now keep your hands off everything while I land this mother.”] Instead, you change the subject. That evil guy Thompson, you claim, has put words in your mouth: “I said I had piloted a jet; I did not claim to be a ‘jet pilot.’” Sorry, Professor, but fetzering can’t get you out of this. I said (see above) that neither you nor Four Arrows “has ever piloted an aircraft.” So I guess you’re going to have to show us that touching the controls while someone else flew the plane is really “piloting a jet.” Go on, have a go at it. It’ll be a lot of fun watching.

And as for “skedaddling”... You write: “Before I was ‘skeddaddling’ away from a tour in Vietnam, I had served four years. It was time to pursue my professional career objectives.” You served four years because you had to. Then you neither resigned from the Marine Corps on principle nor stayed in out of loyalty to the Corps. Nope. In 1966, just when the Marine Corps desperately needed lieutenants and captains in Vietnam, you elected “to pursue my professional career opportunities.”

My point exactly! Sic semper blowhards!

Edited September 23, 2005 by Josiah Thompson

Evan Burton · September 22, 2005

Mr Fetzer,

Why do you cling to your theory when it borders on the ridiculous? Why don't you attack the problem from a new direction, like any logical person would do?

There may well have been 'foul play' in the crash - it's simply NOT as you have hypothesised. Can't you understand that?

What about the flight crew? Either one or both might have deliberately crashed the aircraft. Have there been any checks on whether their families received any unusual sums of money? Any insurance payouts? Stuff like that.

Futuristic weapons are not required. Why don't you develop a theory that does fit the facts?

Edited September 23, 2005 by Evan Burton

Josiah Thompson · September 22, 2005

A swell idea, Evan. Since the plane just got ahead of the flight crew, one could claim that it was a conspiracy and not just a series of cascading mistakes that crashed the plane. The only problem in claiming they crashed it deliberately is that they were on it! We have to assume they were suicide pilots who believed Bush when he promised them 37 Texas virgins in the afterlife!

Don't hold your breath but the Great Wind might buy it and abandon his present theory which is pretty much in tatters.

Mr Fetzer,
Why do you cling to your theory when it borders on the ridiculous? Why don't you attack the problem from a new direction, like any logical person would do?

There may well have been 'foul play' in the crash - it's simply NOT as you have hypothesised. Can't you understand that?

What about the flight crew? Either one or both might have deliberately crashed the aircraft. Have their been any checks on whether their families received any unusual sums of money? Any insurance payouts? Stuff like that.

Futuristic weapons are not required. Why don't you develop a theory that does fit the facts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Craig Lamson · September 23, 2005

A swell idea, Evan. Since the plane just got ahead of the flight crew, one could claim that it was a conspiracy and not just a series of cascading mistakes that crashed the plane. The only problem in claiming they crashed it deliberately is that they were on it! We have to assume they were suicide pilots who believed Bush when he promised them 37 Texas virgins in the afterlife!
Don't hold your breath but the Great Wind might buy it and abandon his present theory which is pretty much in tatters.

Mr Fetzer,
Why do you cling to your theory when it borders on the ridiculous? Why don't you attack the problem from a new direction, like any logical person would do?

There may well have been 'foul play' in the crash - it's simply NOT as you have hypothesised. Can't you understand that?

What about the flight crew? Either one or both might have deliberately crashed the aircraft. Have their been any checks on whether their families received any unusual sums of money? Any insurance payouts? Stuff like that.

Futuristic weapons are not required. Why don't you develop a theory that does fit the facts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Na Tink...a deranged pilot is just not as sexy as some death ray. Just think, the sound bites on Air America and Black Op radio would just not have the same impact. Not to mention the presser at the National Press Club.

Nope death rays sell way more books.

Edited September 23, 2005 by Craig Lamson

Josiah Thompson · September 23, 2005

For those of us who have been arguing this topic, it might be useful to put together a collection of "Fetzer's Follies."

I have in mind the various claims he's made about Wellstone's crash and how they turned out to be not credible. For example, Fetzer has claimed that "communication with the plane was suddenly lost." Of course, this is false since the plane made all its usual and standard communication transmissions. Or recently, Fetzer claimed that there was something sinister in the fact that the propellers were not providing much thrust at the time of the crash. Investigation showed that the propeller's thrust was appropriate for where the plane was in its landing approach; what Fetzer saw as sinister was quite normal and proper. This list could be endlessly extended.

I offer this because it seems likely that the Professor is not going to defend his spin in a T-33 in the early 1960s (with a Navy pilot at the controls) as grounding his vast knowledge of aviation. Too bad. I was looking forward to that.

A swell idea, Evan. Since the plane just got ahead of the flight crew, one could claim that it was a conspiracy and not just a series of cascading mistakes that crashed the plane. The only problem in claiming they crashed it deliberately is that they were on it! We have to assume they were suicide pilots who believed Bush when he promised them 37 Texas virgins in the afterlife!
Don't hold your breath but the Great Wind might buy it and abandon his present theory which is pretty much in tatters.

Mr Fetzer,
Why do you cling to your theory when it borders on the ridiculous? Why don't you attack the problem from a new direction, like any logical person would do?

There may well have been 'foul play' in the crash - it's simply NOT as you have hypothesised. Can't you understand that?

What about the flight crew? Either one or both might have deliberately crashed the aircraft. Have their been any checks on whether their families received any unusual sums of money? Any insurance payouts? Stuff like that.

Futuristic weapons are not required. Why don't you develop a theory that does fit the facts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Na Tink...a deranged pilot is just not as sexy as some death ray. Just think, the sound bites on Air America and Black Op radio would just not have the same impact. Not to mention the presser at the National Press Club.

Nope death rays sell way more books.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

September 23, 2005

Checking out "mazers", microwave lasers, has turned up some interesting stuff.

I noticed a couple of paragraphs buried in the data, such as (A) and (, which

illustrate why this appears relevant as another kind of EM weapon that might

have been involved in bringing down the Wellstone plane. We can expect the

usual flurry from Colby, Lamson, Burton and Thompson. (Incidentally, I hope

no one is being taken in by the sleazy practice of misquoting me and distorting

my position to make cheap points, which are the only points that some of these

critics are capable of making. Thompson's latest is a nice example. Read it

carefully and compare it with the post he would like you to think he is quoting.

Sometimes the deception can be as subtle as changing a period into a comma.

The man has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale and must know what he is doing.

He is playing the members of this forum for saps, insulting their intelligence.

Surely my four years with the USMC are at least equal to his two in the UDT!

Anyone with military experience should be able to see through his distortions,

which are in line with his long string of abuses of logic and languge in attacks

upon me, which appear to be motivated from a combination of envy regarding

my academic accomplishments compared to his and supporting research that

has revealed the Zapruder film was recreated to provide a phony account of

the death of JFK, which means his book was based on the study of a fake film.

Notice how he deflects attention from his departure from Haverford, which, I

strongly suspect, was related to his acknowledged theft of film from Time/Life.)

Radiation Health Foundation Inc. at URL: www.rhfweb.com, Email ...

Engineered Force fields, directed energy beam, laser, mazer jamming, ...

Directed energy beam (radio frequency beams),laser, and mazer detection and

jamming ...

www.rhfweb.com/research.html - 23k - Sep 21, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

http://www.rhfweb.com/research.html

(A) "Since magnetic induction may be used to create alternating eddy currents

in the human body producing joule heating and electricity in the body, it

may be possible to use magnetic energy beams in electronic harassment;

and, magnetic beams may pass through metals. Furthermore, electrical

circuits may create heating and burns on the body. Electromagnetic radiation

may be used to create or effect electric circuits in the human body which can

cause heating, burns, seizures, organ dysfunctions etc. The directed

energy beams used in electronic harassment may not be detected by

standard electromagnetic meters since those meters may not be fine

enough or since the directed energy beams may pass right through the

metal detector plates."

*

( "A non-lethal weapon for disabling an engine such as that of a

fleeing car by means of a high voltage discharge that perturbs

or destroys the electrical circuits. The transmission of the

disabling voltage to the distant target is via two channels of

electrically conductive air. The conductive channels are

created by multi-photon and collisional ionization within the

paths of two beams of coherent (laser) or collimated incoherent

ultraviolet radiation directed to the target. A single beam may

be used when the high voltage source and the target are

grounded. The high-voltage current flows from electrodes at

the origin of the beams along the channels of free electrons

within them. U.S. Patent 5,952,600"

*

Researching composite materials which can be used to deflect, absorb,& block out

all forms of radiation especially sound, radio waves & directed radio frequency

beams,

high intensity lasers, directed energy beams, uv, infrared, & electronic

harassment radiations.

I. Standard Materials that can be used to absorb, block out, or deflect radiation.

Many materials can be used to block out ordinary radiation coming from

electronic devices such a microwave ovens.

But many materials used to block out ordinary radiation may only block out a

small percent of directed high intensity radiation

coming from directed energy beams (such as radio frequency beams, mazers,

lasers, & 4D beams.

For more information on how high intensity directed energy beams

may be used in electronic harassment click on speculation.

Some of the materials listed below can be used to block out most forms of

radiation emanating from simple electronic harassment devices and from other

electronic devices.

Metals or screening can be used to block out some forms of radiation such as

microwaves.

Stainless steel vacuum insulting shells such as in a thermoster can be used to

block out some forms of radiation such as sound due to the

vacuum.

Reflective surfaces such as aluminum, mirrors, & crystals can be used to

deflect some of the energy from

lasers. But very high intensity lasers can go through most standard

reflective substances.

Some forms of radiation can be absorbed by brick or lead.

High voltage can be blocked by using isolated circuits and traps.

Electromagnetic pulses can be absorbed with a Faraday cage or grounded steel mesh.

A non-screen farady cage- a solid sheet of metal (i.e. copper) enclosing all

sides in which the individuals are inside

and are not in contact with the metal walls. The walls should be connected to

a transformer output of half wave reversing currents

which prevent the penetration of different energies. U.S. Patent Number

5,291,829.

Some forms of radioactive elements such as iridium stored in a ditch circling a

house can be used to create a shield which

absorbs some radiation.

Heavy metals such as lead or zinc covered with with pyramids or cones from 1/8

to 5 inches high. The pyramids or cones should be sprayed

with a metalic based and conductive or reflective paint. This material

construction can block out some radiation.

The plastic polyethelene may be used to block out some forms of radiation.

Magnetic waves can be blocked out by using Magnetic Shield Foil MU-Metal,

Faraday Cages, & Inductor/Transformer Fields.

Conductive glass, paint, and brick material can be used to block out some

forms of radiation and sound.

A metal plate with two electordes in it to create a force field which can be

tuned to different frequencies and energies may be used to

block out radiation.

Shielded fabrics can be purchased to block out some forms of radiation. Contact

Less EMF (518) 392-1946, 26 Valley View Lane, Ghent Ny 12075 USA,

for such fabrics.

Metal with 3" inches of vacuum in it to block out sound.

Crystal fibers woven in materials to block out gravit waves and heal bodily

frequencies.

4 feet of specilized plastics to block out gravity waves.

Ceramics may block out or absorb some gravity waves and subatomic partilces.

II.Engineered composite materials that can be used to absorb, block out, or

deflect radiation.

Current Research:

1. Current research is being done on the reflective and absorbance properties

of all electromagnetic frequencies on metals and other materials. This research

will also

attempt to consider the effects of intensities of radiation at each frequency

on different materials.

Other research areas include:

1. Composite materials that may be engineered to absorb or reflect all known

forms of electromagnetic radiation at any frequency or intensity.

Such materials may be comprised of a combination of conductive microcircuits,

plastics, metals, vacuums, and cooling systems.

2. The 4th dimensional properties of materials and radiation.

There are speculated composite materials which can completely (100%) block out

all forms of electromagnetic radiation and

all forms of directed radiation beams but these materials are kept secret from

the general public.

RHF is interested in doing research on composite materials which can block out,

deflect or absorb all forms

of directed energy beams which may include high intensity radio frequency

beams, masers, and lasers.

[Top of Document]

*

Research in force fields, cold plasma, and lasers, and directed energy beams

that can be used to deflect,

absorb, & block out all forms of radiation especially sound, radio waves &

directed radio frequency beams,

high intensity lasers, directed energy beams, uv, infrared, & electronic

harassment radiations.

I.Standard force fields which can be used to block out some forms of radiation

Jamming devices to jam microwaves, ELF waves, & magnetic waves may be used to

block out radiation.

Alter the magnetic frequencies of the body and generate negative wavelengths

of other

frequencies involved. I.E. Create a magnetic field around your body by means

of placing magnets

around your body, or rotating magnets. Also a conductive coil placed around

your body may work.

Creating mangetic noise or other noise from the sounds of motors and other

electronic devices may help to

jam some of the radiation being directed at a human target. A screen which

has a reversing high frequency voltage and

a reversing magnetic field.

See U.S. patent numbers 5213562, 5356368, 3647970, 5101831.

Magnetic fields created with an induction or transformer coil can be used

to block out some forms of radiation and magnetic fields.

Radio frequency jammers can be used to interfere with and absorb radio

frequency waves.

Ion generators as used in air purifiers can be used to filter the air and

block out some forms of radiation.

EMF neutralizers and shields can be purchased which can block out some forms

of radiation.

Contact Less EMF (518) 392-1946, 26 Valley View Lane, Ghent Ny 12075 USA for

the following products:

i.e. Bioshield 2000 which is a small magnetic oscillator producing a

directional 7.8 Hz field.

Electrosmog Corrector

Telsar Watch

Earthsafe (Tunable Schumann Field Device from 2Hz to 20 Hz)

Polarizers can be used to absorb some forms of radiation

Contact Less EMF (518) 392-1946, 26 Valley View Lane, Ghent Ny 12075 USA for

the following products:

i.e. Life Field Polarizer

For more information on how high intensity directed energy beams

may be used in electronic harassment click on speculation.

"Voltages can cause harm, and your are totally responsible for

your own safety. Also please note that the radiation effects of the above devices

are unknown and in the using the device your situation may change from worse

to bad.".

II. Engineered Force fields, directed energy beam, laser, mazer jamming,

defection, absorption, and blocking devices

RHF is interested in research in the following areas:

1. Cold Plasma Force Fields see Force Fields.

Also please see U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,414,324, 5,387,842, and 5,456,972

at http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html, which show how to use

radio-frequency waves

to energise a gas such as air to create a plasma, which could be used as a

force field

to absorb or deflect directed energies and radiations.

2. Directed energy beam (radio frequency beams),laser, and mazer detection and

jamming devices

3. Some laser detection devices already exist such as:

Communication Wave tracking and identification

PCO Laser Radiation Warning System

Detection and indication of radiation from laser range finders and target

markers & indication of the direction to the radiating source.

Determination of the type of the radiation source &

indication of time elapsing from the moment of detection of laser.

ITU-compliant Mobile spectrum monitoring and Direction Finding DF System

Identify, classify, locate , and analyze intercepted signals traffic

Electronic Intelligence System

CS-2221 receiving System

4. Fourth dimensional properties of force fields.

[Top of Document]

*

Research in measuring instruments, techniques, and procedures which can be used to

sense, test, and record all forms of radiation especially sound, radio waves &

directed radio frequency beams,

high intensity lasers, directed energy beams, uv, infrared, & electronic

harassment radiations.

I.Currently available standard radiation testing equipment and procedures

In construction.

II.Electronic harassment testing equipment and procedures

RHF is interested in researching techniques, procedures and equipment that can

be specifically used to detect & record radiation, lasers and directed

energies used

in electronic harassment. RHF is also interested in researching biomedical

testing techniques which can

indirectly be used to show the amounts of radiation in the human body. Such

techniques might include very specific

and precise measurements of the amount of heat energy and pressure at a

specific point in the body such as on the forehead

or in the eyes. Measuring techniques already exist to measure the amount of

radiation emitted from the body in a thermogram but these

techniques may not be able to specifically and precisely measure the exact

amount of heat in the eyes or forehead for instance.

The directed energy beams used in electronic harassment may not be detected by

standard electromagnetic meters since those meters may not be fine enough or

since the directed energy beams may pass right

through the metal detector plates. Also some forms of 4th dimensional

properties of radiation and energy man be used in directing

forms of radiant energy through metals and other materials in electronic

harassment. 4th dimensional properties may not be detected

by standard electromagnetic meters.

It should be also noted that techniques would have to be developed

which could measure the radiation levels, and the affected biological

properties (pressure, heat, & electrical)

within and around a human organism. The measuring techniques would have to be

reliable under difficult circumstances

since the accuracy of the measuring equipment could be affected by the

suspected harassing directed energy beams.

An energy beam could, for instance change the properties of an electrical

component such as a magnetic coil

in a measuring device. Techniques would have to be developed to calibrate the

testing equipment, and to continuously recalibrate

the testing equipment during a measurement. Also special shielding might

developed to guarantee the accuracy of the testing equipment.

Techniques and procedures would have to be developed to measure the

environmental variables such as pressure, heat, humidity, natural radiation levels,

around a test subject. Also techniques would have to be developed to precisely

and accurately measure all the relevant biomedical parameters of test

subject over long periods of time. Many of the above techniques may already

exist in part from medical physics but these techniques would have to be

repackaged and described in manuals which could be used by a physician, law

enforcement officer, or an ordinary group of citizens.

Current areas of research:

1. Standard biomedical measuring equipment.

2. Standard electromagnetic measuring equipment.

3. Inventive engineering of new types of electronic harassment measuring

devices and procedures.

Special pieces of equipment that work like a polygraph could be developed

which measure

several different biomedical parameters (respiration, skin resistance, pulse

rate,

pulse amplitude, magneto and electro grams, & temperature)

at the same time to test for indirect effects of electronic harassment.

Radiation measuring meters which use methods to detect radiation that can

pass through metals

and radiation that jumps around quickly or is 4 dimensional in nature.

4. Magnetic, electrical, & frequency properties of the human body.

5. Radiant auras, holography and 4th dimensional properties of the human body.

Kirlian Photography - which captures on film the aura of a person subjected

to high frequency.

Holographic photography - using high speed film.

6. Psychotronics.

[Top of Document]

*

Research in energy sources such as forms of highly compact portable safe energy

to be used to power portable force fields.

RHF is interested in researching energy sources & technologies that can be made

highly compact

to be used to power force fields or directed energy beams, lasers, & mazers to

be used in jamming devices.

For more information on how high intensity directed energy beams

may be used in electronic harassment click on speculation.

[Top of Document]

*

Many materials used to block out ordinary radiation may only block out a small

percent of directed high intensity radiation

coming from directed energy beams (such as radio frequency beams, mazers, and

lasers. A directed energy beam may continually

increase the intensity the energy and the radiation transfer rate of energy in

the radiation to penetrate materials.

It is speculated that radio frequency beams with frequencies in the hundred

megahertz or greater range (TV(UHF), Cellular Phone & FM frequencies)

may be used in electronic harassment.

In order to block out sophisticated tracking and targeting directed energy

beams one may need a material which

completely (100%) blocks out a high powered directed energy beam and such

materials are speculated to exist but are kept top secret.

Also it is speculated that multiple directed energy beams may be directed at an

object. These energy beams each individually may have their own

frequency properties which when combined with the other energy beams at an

intersection point may create new frequency patterns through a mixing

of frequencies. Two radio frequency beams which may have harmless radio

frequency properties separately when combined at an intersection point

may have harmful mixing radio frequency properties. Mixed radio frequency beams

may be used to simulate sound by changing the pressure (expansion

and compression) properties of the gases and liquids in and around the human

body. Also mixed radio frequency beams may cary information such as

holographic images, and sound waves which may be perceived by the human brain

when directed at a human being.

There is a U.S. patent, number 5,952,600, which completely explains in detail

how two intersecting lasers are

used to stun & electrocute people and cars:

"This invention relates to weapons and more particularly to a

type of non-disabling weapon which may be used by military

personnel or law enforcement agents for the temporary

immobilization of a target subject or subjects. The invention

also relates to muscle tissue involuntary contraction by

application of electric current identical to or closely

approximating the physiological neuroelectric impulses which

control muscle movements. This weapon may further be used

to stop an automobile or other vehicle by disabling the

electronic circuits which control its engine. U.S. Patent 5,952,600"

"Tetanization is the stimulation of muscle tissue by a rapid

series of electrical impulses of such frequency as to fuse

individual muscle contractions into a single sustained

contraction. Tetanization is a well-known phenomenon: see

Offner, "Stimulation With Minimum Power," Journal of

Neurophysiology, Vol. 9, pp. 387-390, 1946; Dalziel, "Effect

of Wave Form on Let-go Currents," AIEE Transactions, Vol.

62, pp. 739-744, 1943; Dalziel and Lee, "Lethal Electrical

Currents," IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 6, pp. 44-50, 1969; Dalziel,

Ogden, and Abbott, "Effect of Frequency on Let-go Currents,"

AIEE Transactions, Vol. 62, pp. 745-750, 1943;

Kouwenhoven, Hooker and Lotz, "Electrical Shock Effects of

Frequency," Electrical Engineering, Vol. 55, pp. 384-386,

1936; and Ferris et al., "Effects of Electrical Shock on the

Heart," Electrical Engineering, Vol. 55, pp. 498-515, 1936. U.S. Patent 5,952,600 "

"A non-lethal weapon for disabling an engine such as that of a

fleeing car by means of a high voltage discharge that perturbs

or destroys the electrical circuits. The transmission of the

disabling voltage to the distant target is via two channels of

electrically conductive air. The conductive channels are

created by multi-photon and collisional ionization within the

paths of two beams of coherent (laser) or collimated incoherent

ultraviolet radiation directed to the target. A single beam may

be used when the high voltage source and the target are

grounded. The high-voltage current flows from electrodes at

the origin of the beams along the channels of free electrons

within them. U.S. Patent 5,952,600"

The full details of the patent is on line at the US Patent and

Trade Mark Office at http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html:

The engine disabling patent U.S. Patent 5,952,600 is located at:

http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+PATBIB-

ALL+0+971730+0+7+107894+OF+1+1+1+PN%2f5952600

Since magnetic induction may be used to create alternating eddy currents in the

human body producing joule heating and electricity in the body,

it may be possible to use magnetic energy beams in electronic harassment; and,

magnetic beams may pass through metals. Furthermore, electrical

circuits may create heating and burns on the body. Electromagnetic radiation

may be used to create or effect electric circuits in the human body

which can cause heating, burns, seizures, organ dysfunctions etc. The directed

energy beams used in electronic harassment may not be detected by

standard electromagnetic meters since those meters may not be fine enough or

since the directed energy beams may pass right through the metal detector plates.

Through the use of the principles of the physics of dielectrokinetics, static

field detection, dielectrophoresis, electrostatics, electrodynamics,

electromagnetics,

DC and extremely low frequency AC, it may be possible to detect objects through

metals and other materials.

Dielectrophoresis is the motion of electrically polarised matter in nonuniform

fields

Electrophoresis the movement of charged particles .

Electric signals at ultra-low frequencies travel right through barriers that

absorb or reflect higher

frequency energy. Every object has it own weighted charge which is summed with

the ambient atmospheric field to create an

electric field signature which can be detected by sensors matching the

characteristics to a field of opposite polarity.

For more information please refer to:

Time-Varying Electrostatic Modeling Techniques, David M. Hull , U.S. Army

Research Laboratory at

http://sensor.sanders.com/public/sensors97...racts/2_rf.html and to Hull,

David M., and Steven Vinci.

Passive Detection and Noncooperative Target Identification of Helicopters Using

Extremely Low Frequency

(ELF) Electric Field Sensor. 1998 Army Science Conference Proceedings, June

15-17, 1998

Subatomic particles, Tesla high energy radiant electicity, gravity waves or

gravitons may be used in

directed energy beams to pass through all known substances at great distances.

Sound waves, ultrasound, and infrasouind may be used to pass through most

substances which do not have

a vacuum.

There is a U.S. patent, 5,159,703 number , which completely explains in detail

how silent sounds

may be used in electronic harassment:

"A silent communications system in which nonaural carriers, in the very low or

very high audio frequency

range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude or

frequency modulated with the desired

intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement into

the brain, typically through the

use of loudspeakers, earphones or piezoelectric transducers. The modulated

carriers may be transmitted directly

in real time or may be conveniently recorded and stored on mechanical,

magnetic or optical media for delayed or

repeated transmission to the listener. "

The full details of the patent is on line at the US Patent and

Trade Mark Office at http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html:

The silent subliminal presentation system patent U.S. Patent 5,159,703 is

located at:

http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?S...=1&u=/netahtml/

srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5159703'.WKU.&OS=PN/5159703&RS=PN/5159703

Cosmic rays may be created on a satellite by plasma creations. A magnetic gauss

field compresses

waves to compress plasma which creates cosmic particles. These cosmic particles

are tuned to an ELF

frequency to make a focused beam of cosmic rays. The ELF waves are tuned to

the frequencies of the human body and brain

which allows the ELF beams to pass through materials.

EMF beams may be created by weak force electromagnetic energy/pyramid

energy/Telsa's electromagnetic pyramids. Weak force emf

is different from strong force emf, since it travels further and penetrates

everything and it can not be measured by standard emf

devices. A high frequency photograph might show strong emf's on the body.

[Top of Document]

September 23, 2005