Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone


Recommended Posts

And a reminder what I said then (and what I say now):

(BTW, please excuse the use of Mr rather than Prof or Dr - I didn't really understand Dr Fetzers professional qualifications at that time)

Mr Fetzer,

I'm not looking at the politics surrounding the Senator.

I am looking solely at the facts of the flight and subsequent crash.

If there was anything to suggest that outside interference was responsible for the events of that flight, THEN those political motivations might explain why those events happened. The simple fact is, however, there is nothing to suggest that this was anything more than pilot error. Nothing.

Jack,

Perhaps you'd prefer a more unbiased view? I can give the report to a couple of people. One is a former senior air accident investigator for CASA (now the ATSB); the other is a work mate who performs a similar role but for the Navy.

Would yourself and Mr Fetzer be interested in their opinions regarding the NTSB report and the conclusions they drew? I am willing to pass the report (along with the various URLs Mr Fetzer has supplied)

I suspect that if they both concurred with the NTSB report, Mr Fetzer would 'dismiss' their opinions on some ground and continue with his original assertions.

This leads me to a question for Mr Fetzer which I have asked Jack on a different subject: what WOULD convince you that you were wrong and the crash was caused by nothing more sinister than pilot error?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please note that Dr Fetzer nor Jack White asked me to provide those professional reports. I suspect that they knew what they might contain and preferred not to have such professional opinions aired in contradiction to their own.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a previous post, but worth repeating (italics are Dr Fetzer's comments):

[There was no distress call, even though the plane--whose passengers included

a US Senator, his wife and daughter, and three aides--was going down in a

remote, swampy area where the rapid arrival of first responders might make

the difference between life and death. There were two pilots. He is committing

a fallacy of equivocation by playing with words. That the copilot, who had handled

most of the communications, did not send a distress call suggests he sent no call

because communications were disabled and he was unable to send out a call.]

It is also just as feasible that no call was made because the crew were in a high workload situation, pushing a bad approach, and did not realise the situation they were in. There is nothing to suggest that the comms were in any way inoperative.

[This is a nice example of "spinning" by trying to turn vice into virtue. Since

the plane was in distress, the pilots would be expected to "power up" and get out

of trouble, which is exactly what happened during the NTSB's own simulations.

They were unable to bring the plane down, even when it was flown abnormally

slowly. They were not landing. The field was miles to the north from where they

were. This remark displays either massive ignorance or deliberate deception.]

I think the ignorance is on your part here. The simulation demonstrated that it would have been possible for the aircraft to climb out and conduct a missed approach; there was sufficient power available from the engines. The fact that the engines were still in Flight Idle shows the crew did NOT attempt to apply power - another indication that they did not have SA.

"... the weather was fine..."

It was not. The AWOS was reporting scattered at 400, overcast at 700 (AGL). With a field elevation of 1378 ft, this means it was overcast at about 2080 ft AMSL. The MDA was 1840 ft AMSL - a difference of a little over 200 ft. That's about 10 seconds to get visual with the field and transition from the instruments to a visual approach before reaching MDA and having to conduct a missed approach. Factor in the fact it was scattered at about 1780 ft AMSL (400 AGL + FE), altimeter tolerance of +/- 50 ft, and an increased rate of descent to maintain profile, and they may have been breaking out at minimas. That is NOT fine weather. That is marginal - at best - and is further confirmed that the pilots planned an alternate, and the ATCO asked about intentions after a missed approach.

"...Richard Healing, a member of the NTSB team that wrote the report, admitted that they had no idea what caused the crash and were merely speculating..."

Was that a direct quote? I think he may have phrased it differently although, in some regards, it is correct. There was no physical evidence to indicate that the aircraft should not have been able to make an approach and land safely. Because there was no CDR / CVR, they have no record of what occurred in the cockpit apart from the radio transmissions. With nothing to positively identify what caused the crash, they have to look at the known facts and develop a most likely hypothesis as to why the accident occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And some of Dr Fetzer's supporting evidence? Well, it's dodgy to say the least. The Troy Hurtubise mentioned below is a well-known loon.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/2296/

http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/print.asp?c=6657

Hurtubise says invention sees through walls-BayToday.ca exclusive

By Phil Novak

BayToday.ca

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Photo by Bill Tremblay, Special to BayToday.ca.

Troy Hurtubise has done the seemingly impossible with his newest invention and

defied all known rules of physics, he says.

The Angel Light—Hurtubise claims the concept came to him in a recurring

dream—can reportedly see through walls, as if there was no barrier at all.

That’s not all, though.

So impressed

Hurtubise, 41, said the device detects stealth technology.

And he’s done the tests to prove it, with the covert help of scientists at the

famed Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Hurtubise said.

If that’s not enough, Hurtubise also said the French government sent

representatives to North Bay to witness a demonstration of the Angel Light.

Hurtubise said the reps were so impressed with the eight-foot long device they

paid him $40,000 in cash to put the finishing touches on it.

New universe

The French, Hurtubise adds, have also agreed to pay him a “substantial” amount

of money for the technology if it passes rigorous tests in France.

“They couldn’t believe what they saw,” Hurtubise told BayToday.ca.

“One of them told me it was as if I’d discovered a new universe.”

Gary Dryfoos, a consultant and former long-time instructor at MIT, said "there's

a Nobel Prize" for Hurtubise if the Angel Light really performs as described.

"There are laws of physics waiting to be written for what he's talking about,"

Dryfoos said.

The French aren't the only ones interested in Hurtubise's innovations.

BayToday.ca has obtained documentation confirming that the former head of Saudi

counter-intelligence, who asked that his name not be used, has been in regular

contact with Hurtubise regarding the Angel Light, fire paste, and the Light

Infantry Military Blast Cushions (LIMBC).

Ultra-wideband technology

While Hurtubise’s claims appear, on the surface, to strain credulity, he has now

placed himself miles ahead in the quest by high-tech companies to invent

something that will do the same thing.

Motorola Inc. for example, has set its sights on emerging technology that could

allow first responders and Special Forces to see through building walls, the

Washington Technology Web site reports.

Camero Inc. an Israeli firm founded by technology and intelligence veterans,

received $5 million from Motorola and other investors to develop portable

imaging radar that uses ultra-wideband technology to create a 3-D picture of

objects that are concealed by walls or other barriers.

Plasma light

Three units make up the Angel Light.

The main unit, which Hurtubise calls the centrifuge, contains the Angel Light’s

brains and includes black, white, red and fluorescent light sources, as well as

seven industrial lasers.

The second unit, or the deflector grid, contains a large circle of optical

glass, a microwave unit and plasma intermixed with carbon dioxide.

The third unit contains eight plasma light rods, CO2 charges, industrial

magnets, 108 mirrors, eight ionization cells industrial lights, and other

components Hurtubise chooses to remain tight-lipped about.

Just a dream

Hurtubise said the Angel Light has cost $30,000 to build—he sold percentages of

his other innovations to finance it—as well as 800 to 900 hours of his time.

He credits his subconscious with the idea.

“I had a dream about a year and a half ago as I do for most of my innovations,

just a dream, and I saw it, saw the whole casing and everything, and I saw what

it could do,” Hurtubise said.

“I had the same dream about that three times and by the third time I had it in

my head and I started to build it.”

Through the wall

Troy dreamed the Angel Light would be able to see through walls with window-like

efficiency, and then built it with no blueprints, drawings or schematics.

“I turned it on—that was well over a year ago—and it worked and it was really

awesome.”

Hurtubise said he could see into the garage behind his lab wall, and read the

licence plate on his wife's car and even see the salt on it.

"I almost broke my knuckles three or four times, because it was almost like you

could step through the wall," Hurtubise said.

"You could be fooled into believing that you could actually walk through the

wall and go touch the car."

Across the border

Hurtubise called his MIT contacts with news of what he’d done.

“They told me that I was playing with electromagnetism,” Hurtubise said.

The conversation ultimately led to the discovery of the Angel Light’s other

startling properties.

Hurtubise said “somebody from MIT” shipped him an eight-inch by eight-inch piece

of panelling from the latest Comanche helicopter, which was built using

radar-resistant stealth technology.

“It’s amazing what you can get across the border on a Greyhound bus,” Hurtubise

said.

Pick it up

Hurtubise was instructed to set up an outdoor track, which he did on First

Nations land.

He attached the panel piece to a remote control car that went down the track.

Hurtubise then aimed the Angel Light at the panel and turned on a radar gun.

“I was able to pick it up the panel on the radar gun,” he said.

Stopped working

But a strange thing happened to the car, once it was hit by the Angel Light

beam: it stopped working.

Hurtubise returned to his lab and began testing the Angel Light on other

electronic items including portable radios, TVs and a microwave over.

“They all stopped working,” Hurtubise said.

He duly reported this to his MIT contacts.

"They said 'Troy, this is unbelievable.'"

To the ground

Hurtubise purchase a remote-control plane for $1,800 and took it and the Angel

Light to a flying field on the way to Powassan.

He directed the Angel Light beam toward the sky and started the plane flying.

"On the first loop it came around, passed through the beam of light and fell

right to the ground,” Hurtubise said.

Peeled it back

Hurtubise continued testing the light on other materials and discovered it could

also see through other metals including steel, tin, titanium and, unlike

Superman, lead.

As well the beam also penetrated ceramic and wood.

The Hurtubise put his hand in the light beam.

“I could see my blood vessels, muscles, everything, like I’d taken an Exacto

knife, cut into my skin and peeled it back,” Hurtubise said.

Bad stuff

Soon after, Hurtubise discovered the Angel Light had devilish side-effects.

He lost feeling in the finger of the exposed hand and began suffering an overall

malaise.

“MIT told me every time I turned it on there must have been splash-back hitting

me,” Hurtubise said.

A test on a tank of goldfish was even more disturbing.

“I turned the beam on it and within minutes all the goldfish died,” Hurtubise said.

“That’s when I realized there was a Hyde effect, as in Jekyll and Hyde, and I

dismantled the whole thing.”

Walked on water

He didn’t reassemble it until the French called him after seeing a Discovery

Channel program about the LIMBC.

Hurtubise believes the Hyde effect can be taken out, but by others who have far

more expertise than him.

In the meantime Hurtubise believes that after 17 years inventing, his ship may

finally have come in with France.

"My brother told me the only way I'd be able to sell any of my innovations is by

walking on water," Hurtubise said.

"Well, I think I've just walked on water."

View Photo Gallery for this Story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again from earlier in the thread:

Let's assume for a moment that Dr Fetzer is correct about a 'high energy' weapon of some type 'luring' the aircraft off-course and completely frying all the aircraft electrics.

That would make his theory about the crash correct, wouldn't it?

Simple answer: no.

If all electrical systems are completely fried:

1. Engine power and blade pitch controls still have a mechanical linkage that would allow close to normal performance - sufficient to fly out of the stall;

2. Aircraft still has altimeter - pressure operated, no electrical power required;

3. Aircraft still has Air Speed Indicator (ASI); pressure operated from pitot tube and static port on fuselage - no electrical power required;

4. Aircraft still has Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI); operated by pressure - no electrical power required; and

5. Aircraft still has Standby Atitude Indicator (AI), sometimes called the 'artifical horizon'. Main AI runs off electrics; standby AI run off vacuum reserve specifically in case of total electrical failure. FAA standards say it must run for at least 30 mins with no power.

So you still have control of your engines to deliver power, you know your pitch / roll (AI), how fast you are going (ASI), your altitude, and how fast you are descending / climbing (VSI) - everything you need to fly out of the situation. Even if the stall warning was disabled, part of instrument flying is maintaining an instrument scan - looking at all those primary flight instruments.

EVERYTHING indicates they didn't have a proper scan going (PIC responsibility), they should have seen the airspeed bleeding off, failed to recognise the impending stall, then failed to correctly recover from the stall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I first came into the thread on 16 SEP 05. I posted the opinion that the circumstances of the crash were not suspicious, that they had occured before. Len Colby warned me that by posting in opposition to Dr Fetzer, I would make myself a target and subject to attack.

A couple of days later I made my most provoctive statement. Dr Fetzer had earlier said:

"...This remark displays either massive ignorance or deliberate deception..."

and in response I replied:

"...I think the ignorance is on your part here..."

Dr Fetzer then posted reprints of numerous articles on the web, presumably in support of his position.

On 19 SEP 05 I said:

There is no way to either prove or disprove that some parties may have wanted Wellstone dead. That being said, there is absolutely no evidence that the crash was anything other than pilot error.

Ten minutes later Dr Fetzer commenced with the insults:

With this post, Evan Burton proves that he has no serious commitment to the

truth in the Wellstone case, since we devote more than a chapter to laying out the evidence that the White House wanted to get rid of him. I am appalled at

the level of ignorance displayed by some members of this forum, which does not seem to inhibit them from making assertions that are not only false but

even provably false. I suggest Burton exercise just a modicum of effort to ascertain whether or not his suggestion is even remotely reasonable, which

it is not. Egad! This guy really doesn't know even the basics about this case.

Here's an example that displays Burton's massive ignorance about this case.
Here's another. Frankly, it's embarrassing that this guy is posting on this subject.

At this time I clarified my position, and I gave specific points in support of my position. Then I said:

"Mr Fetzer,

I'm not looking at the politics surrounding the Senator. I am looking solely at the facts of the flight and subsequent crash.

If there was anything to suggest that outside interference was responsible for the events of that flight, THEN those political motivations might explain why those events happened. The simple fact is, however, there is nothing to suggest that this was anything more than pilot error. Nothing."

Dr Fetzer did not address my points but rather posted (again) numerous verbatim reprints of articles that he believed supported his claims.

Then on 20 SEP 05 I said:

"...I'm not going to put up with any more of Mr Fetzer's dribble; he has fixated on the idea that the crash was an 'assassination' and nothing will convince him otherwise. I suspect that if the ghosts of the flight crew appeared before him and said they screwed up, Mr Fetzer would accuse them of being part of a 'cover up'..."

Joshia Thompson then posted in support of me, which naturally made him a target of Dr Fetzer:

Non-explanatory replies from Burton are useless. The smoke was bluish-white,

not simply white. Spite from has-been hack Thompson is all we should expect. Neither of them appears to have anything of value to contribute to this thread.

and again Dr Fetzer repeated posts making it more difficult to see what evidence - if any - had been produced by both sides of the debate.

I replied:

"Mr Fetzer, you keep on ignoring the arguements put before you and maintain your tirade, insisting that you are right - no matter what is shown to the contrary. Please continue to do so, because it simply further weakens your credibility as far as the cause of the accident is concerned."

He then replied:

I have also noticed a pattern, namely: that whenever I put up a post that lays out the case for assassination using a directed-energy weapon and leading the pilots into the "kill zone" using manipulated GPS data, there is a flurry of posts from Burton, Colby, and Thompson that makes it hard to even find the explanation I have provided, given the blizzard of new posts. This appears to be a technique of obfuscation intended to distract attention from what we have found. I hope no one is taken in.

Dr Fetzer fails to notice that Joshia Thompson made perhaps two or three posts. Still, Dr Fetzer believes that if you are not with him then you must be an enemy.

I summed up several replies in a single post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=41244

I ended with:

Mr Fetzer, I challenge you to put your hypothesis to any recognised organisation of professional pilots and publish their unedited reply here.

Dr Fetzer failed to do this. After a couple of years absence from the thread, Dr Fetzer made a post. I reinterated my position. Dr Fetzer asked "..If you learn of similar cases, I would like to know...". I did so in a number of the following posts. The result? In December of 2009:

...My impression is that you have never read my ten columns on the case...My co-authors and I know how to conduct research, which you apparently do not.< RULE VIOLATION, BY THE WAY> That you would shoot off your mouth in a state of virtual ignorance tells me all I want to know about Evan Burton... I and others are likely to conclude that you are simply one more phony who posts on this forum based upon their own ignorance!

"...What a nitwit!"

"...Evan Burton appears to be pulling this right out of his ass."

At which point Dr Fetzer has chosen not to address my posting - in response to his request - the numerous examples of similar accidents, as well as the various statistics regarding such accidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Almost since the NTSB report was released, Fetzer has made a big deal about the planes engines being on “idle”, in his 2004 “press conference” he said “the use of an EMP type weapon…could explain the engines on idle.”

www.assassinationscience.com/About_AMERICAN_ASSASSINATION.pdf

In 2005 he proclaimed on this thread [All Caps in original]

“THE PLANE HAD NO FORWARD THRUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAD HAPPENED, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY AN ENERGY SURGE THAT SET THE PROPS ON IDLE”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...e&pid=41088

He continued on that vein even after it was pointed out to him that the engines were on “flight idle” the proper setting for landing. Tink pointed this out in his review of American Assassination to which our hero replied:

“Since the plane was in distress, the pilots would be expected to "power up" and get out of trouble, which is exactly what happened during the NTSB's own simulations.”

www.assassinationscience.com/ThompsonReview.pdf

Later he went back to his earlier position, 2008 over at the Yahoo Group he wrote:

No pilot could attempt to avoid a crash with the props set on idle!

And

“Do you expect anyone to think that two qualified pilots, discovering

they are about to crash--since they have both ignored their airspeed,

their altitude, their azmuth, and even their stall warning alarm!--

would leave their engine on "idle"? Surely you gest!”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaims...NK/message/3310

And in December 2009 over he wrote:

“the props were on idle, even though the pilots should have been "powering up" to avoid a stall”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=176386

Of course there is a critical to differentiate what the pilots reactions should have been when stall was imminent with those after the plane started diving. Note that according to Fetzer powering up would have been the proper reaction in both situations. In the latter case however, as I speculated before, powering up would be the WRONG thing to do. Referring to the John F. Kennedy Jr. crash an aviation expert said:

“I am conjecturing that there was no loss of power, that for some reason the airplane nosed into a dive and power was not pulled, causing it to speed up. One of the first things GA pilots are trained to do when getting into a situation like that is to reduce power and pull it completely off. That doesn't seem to have happened here. I think it went down under power.”

http://edition.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/edmund.pinto.html

I Guess Fetzer will reverse track now and claim that the props being powered at all is evidence an EMP was used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Dr Fetzer may adopt cozening ways to make people believe his argument. It seems to be a tactic often used by some people of his ilk.

and an aussie fly-boy with way too much time on his hands can develop a decent philosophical argument these day's? LMFAO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

One of the things Jim has insisted on is that the fact that the pilots stalled on approach is quite unbelievable. I've posted examples of where this has happened in the past, and I said it would happen again... and it has: Air France 447. Their pitot system iced up giving erroneous readings. Instead of doing what we're are all taught - aviate, navigate, communicate - the pilots continued to try to pull the aircraft's nose up whilst it was in a stall (the correct action is to lower the nose, build up airspeed and stabilise the aircraft, then pull out of the dive).

From the link below:

In the Colgan Air crash on February 12, 2009, near Buffalo, New York, that killed 50 people, the captain overreacted to a warning that the Bombardier Q400 turboprop had slowed too much and pulled the nose upward. If he had pushed it down, the National Transportation Safety Board said, he might have saved the plane. On August 16, 2005, a West Caribbean Airways Boeing MD-82 crashed in Venezuela, killing all 160 aboard, after it stalled at 11,000 metres. The Venezuelan government blamed the pilots for failing to recognise that they were in a stall during a 3½ minute plunge.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/air-france-crash-investigation-sparks-calls-for-better-pilot-training-20110603-1fl24.html#ixzz1OGEyXkLc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 7 months later...

Multiple unanswered posts often a sign of denial. Twisting words and repeating dogma unsubstantiated by fact or reality. Its an addiction for them.

Whenever one sees these multiple unanswered posts by the truth deniers he should remember these words of the late author Edward Abbey;

“When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense”

We see this (above) in the supporters of the official story of Wellstone's plane crash. That and JFK assassination and 9/11 attacks. All the travesties of secret operations that is. It is as if these mega, multiple post addicts believe that one can change data by endlessly repeating falsehoods.

If Gary Mack could just host ANOTHER JFK documentary he could prove CE399 really took out six inches of Gov. Connally's rib and stayed in pristine condition. If Len Colby could just find one trivial, minor element wrong with Jim Fetzer's argument he feels he can nullify all substantive research contrary to his skewered world view. We see this kind of "debate" in Conservative forums everywhere.

When reality doesn't meet their world view? They post endlessly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...