Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Fetzer on National Geographic documentary


Jack White

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply
For someone who claims to have taught logical and critical thinking, Unca Fetz displays neither.

Another disinfo piece from Unca Fetz.

Evan,

Please don't confuse what Fetzer puts out with Disinformation.

Disinformation is a very specific form of propaganda that's used as part of a designed psychological warfare operation and dispensed by agents and assets that are affiliated with a national intelligence agency or network.

Whatever Fetzer says or does, it isn't affiliated with any intelligence agency or network, foreign or domestic. He's a lone wolf, and doesn't dispense his nonsense on behalf of any intelligence, as far as I can tell.

That can't be said about others, who do dispense, real, certified and distinguised Disinforation, like Russo, Holland, Epstein, et al.

Maybe its Misinformtion, or just plain confusion, but Fetzer is not disinformation, while the real Disinformaiton is worth studying because it leads to those who were behind what happened at Dealey Plaza.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I was going to disagree but I looked up the word disinformation:

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).

2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

You're right. Perhaps I should use prevarication? The question is: does he sprout this (and other) nonsense through woeful ignorance or deliberate intent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite it having being pointed out to him on several occasions they are wrong he keeps repeating the same claims. So its willful ignorance somewhere between mis and dis info.

The only thing new here is that he seems to be once again embracing the thermite theory that he had rejected for the last couple of years as inadequate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite it having being pointed out to him on several occasions they are wrong he keeps repeating the same claims. So its willful ignorance somewhere between mis and dis info.

The only thing new here is that he seems to be once again embracing the thermite theory that he had rejected for the last couple of years as inadequate.

No Len,

It's not in between anything.

If it's not "deliberately misleading information announced or leaked by a government or a government intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion...." it's not disinformation.

Fetzer isn't an agent or asset of any government or intelligence agency so why confuse the matter?

The only person between confused is you.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, I was going to disagree but I looked up the word disinformation:

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).

2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

You're right. Perhaps I should use prevarication? The question is: does he sprout this (and other) nonsense through woeful ignorance or deliberate intent?

methinks you Evan need to review what is known re updated information concerning 9/11 rather than what you WANT to believe.... Fetzer has more solid ground under him than you, Len or Craigster when it comes to this topic.... All your dancing won't change that...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, I was going to disagree but I looked up the word disinformation:

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).

2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

You're right. Perhaps I should use prevarication? The question is: does he sprout this (and other) nonsense through woeful ignorance or deliberate intent?

methinks you Evan need to review what is known re updated information concerning 9/11 rather than what you WANT to believe.... Fetzer has more solid ground under him than you, Len or Craigster when it comes to this topic.... All your dancing won't change that...

Come on David, Fetzer publishes the crap by Costella that is completely thrashed here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

He can't deal honestly with the truth. Why should we expect him to deal with 9/11 any differently? Once a snake, always a snake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, I was going to disagree but I looked up the word disinformation:

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).

2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

You're right. Perhaps I should use prevarication? The question is: does he sprout this (and other) nonsense through woeful ignorance or deliberate intent?

methinks you Evan need to review what is known re updated information concerning 9/11 rather than what you WANT to believe.... Fetzer has more solid ground under him than you, Len or Craigster when it comes to this topic.... All your dancing won't change that...

Come on David, Fetzer publishes the crap by Costella that is completely thrashed here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

He can't deal honestly with the truth. Why should we expect him to deal with 9/11 any differently? Once a snake, always a snake.

tsk-tsk heard it all before Craig.... ya simply can't find a Ph.D in Physics (optics or any other category for that matter) to back up lone nut contentions. Ya got three (3) of them contributing to TGZFH, and YOU can't find one to support you in 6 years? C'mon Guy! What are they paying you for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, I was going to disagree but I looked up the word disinformation:

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).

2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

You're right. Perhaps I should use prevarication? The question is: does he sprout this (and other) nonsense through woeful ignorance or deliberate intent?

methinks you Evan need to review what is known re updated information concerning 9/11 rather than what you WANT to believe.... Fetzer has more solid ground under him than you, Len or Craigster when it comes to this topic.... All your dancing won't change that...

Come on David, Fetzer publishes the crap by Costella that is completely thrashed here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

He can't deal honestly with the truth. Why should we expect him to deal with 9/11 any differently? Once a snake, always a snake.

tsk-tsk heard it all before Craig.... ya simply can't find a Ph.D in Physics (optics or any other category for that matter) to back up lone nut contentions. Ya got three (3) of them contributing to TGZFH, and YOU can't find one to support you in 6 years? C'mon Guy! What are they paying you for?

What good are PhD's when they have an epic FAIL?

Yea, those yahoo PhD's from TGZFH tried in vain to refute the unimpeachable empirical evidence that Costella can't understand the simple physics of parallax. That is an epic FAIL.

Your guys are hiding under a rock afraid yo show therir faces on this one davie.

The proof is unimpeachable and Fetzer is still spreading his own brand of DISINFORMATION, along with the rest of the PhD gang that do basic physics....

Please try again next time davie.

For Bill Kelly, this fits Fetzer and company to a tee:

Main Entry: dis·in·for·ma·tion

Pronunciation: \(ˌ)dis-ˌin-fər-ˈmā-shən\

Function: noun

Date: 1939

: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite it having being pointed out to him on several occasions they are wrong he keeps repeating the same claims. So its willful ignorance somewhere between mis and dis info.

The only thing new here is that he seems to be once again embracing the thermite theory that he had rejected for the last couple of years as inadequate.

No Len,

It's not in between anything.

If it's not "deliberately misleading information announced or leaked by a government or a government intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion...." it's not disinformation.

Fetzer isn't an agent or asset of any government or intelligence agency so why confuse the matter?

The only person between confused is you.

BK

Although American Heritage uses the definition quoted by Evan and Random House defines it as:

false information, as about a country's military strength or plans, publicly announced or planted in the news media, esp. of other countries.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinformation

…most dictionaries don’t say the source of disinfomation has to be a government agency.

Definitions:

Noun Date: 1939 : false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

Noun false information intended to mislead

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disinformation

Noun * S: (n) disinformation (misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (foreign enemies or business competitors etc.))

WordNet -Princeton University

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=disinformation

Information that seems truthful, relevant and based on unbiased facts, but has been concocted to mislead the recipient in order to attain fraudulent monetary, military, political, or religious objectives. The information explosion has been continuously shadowed by an almost equally powerful disinformation explosion, especially on the internet.

BusinessDictionary.com

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definiti...nformation.html

false information which is given deliberately in order to hide the truth or confuse people, especially in political situations [↪ misinformation]:

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [british]

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/disinformation

Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

In espionage or military intelligence, disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. In politics, disinformation is the deliberate attempt to deflect voter support of an opponent, disseminating false statements of innuendo based on the candidates vulnerabilities as revealed by opposition research. In both cases, it also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless.

Disinformation techniques may also be found in commerce and government, used to try to undermine the position of a competitor. It is an act of deception and blatant false statements to convince someone of an untruth.

Wikipedia -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation#Other

Additionally in the real world the term is normally used to refer to false (or supposedly) false information from non-governmental sources. He are the relevant results (other than definitions) from the 1st page of Google hits none refer to government sources.

Automakers Launch New Disinformation Ad Campaign”

ExMo Aims Its Disinformation At Europe”

“The year before the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment in Rio, a coalition of coal and utility companies launched a disinformation campaign designed by a public relations firm”

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2asA2v...lient=firefox-a

“Disinformation: 22 media myths that undermine the War on Terror”

http://books.google.com/books?id=CwjWnPT01...;q=&f=false

“The White House wants people to believe they are losing the health care debate because “scary … videos are starting to percolate on the internet” that are spreading “disinformation” about Obama’s health care plan.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/05/mornin...bout-obamacare/

"DISINFORMATION”

A GOP video challenging the Obama administration’s claim that opposition to their health care plan is “disninformation”.

http://www.gop.gov/media/features/09/08/06/disinformation

Novruz Mammadov: “Turkish newspaper’s disinformation about Azerbaijan shocked me”

http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=107069

I don’t think Fetzer is being intentionally inaccurate and misleading but nor is he wholly innocent because his errors have been pointed out to him on several occasions.

EDIT: Formatting

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation.

Thanks Evan,

I think if we define things more specifically we can think more clearly about these things.

Of course, if you assume the more broad way of defining things, as Len would have us do, then you can make things more confusing for everyone, if that is your intention.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

What good are PhD's when they have an epic FAIL?

Yea, those yahoo PhD's from TGZFH tried in vain to refute the unimpeachable empirical evidence that Costella can't understand the simple physics of parallax. That is an epic FAIL.

Your guys are hiding under a rock afraid yo show therir faces on this one davie.

The proof is unimpeachable and Fetzer is still spreading his own brand of DISINFORMATION, along with the rest of the PhD gang that do basic physics....

Please try again next time davie.

...

FAIL? You're still here putting up a less than feeble fight aren't ya? Tinkster, Mack and Co., too.... The credibility of the alleged in-camera Z-film is in question, so just who is it that's hiding? See below:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

everything you need to know right at the above url. 6 years and all we hear is whining, ya can't debunk Z-film alteration, wonder why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

What good are PhD's when they have an epic FAIL?

Yea, those yahoo PhD's from TGZFH tried in vain to refute the unimpeachable empirical evidence that Costella can't understand the simple physics of parallax. That is an epic FAIL.

Your guys are hiding under a rock afraid yo show therir faces on this one davie.

The proof is unimpeachable and Fetzer is still spreading his own brand of DISINFORMATION, along with the rest of the PhD gang that do basic physics....

Please try again next time davie.

...

FAIL? You're still here putting up a less than feeble fight aren't ya? Tinkster, Mack and Co., too.... The credibility of the alleged in-camera Z-film is in question, so just who is it that's hiding? See below:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

everything you need to know right at the above url. 6 years and all we hear is whining, ya can't debunk Z-film alteration, wonder why?

Yep!..FAIL.

Your dear leader J.P Costella PhD Physics, can't even figure out the concept and basic physics of photographic parallax.

And your THREE PhD's from hoax can't figure out how to refute this very simple empirical experiment that proves dear leader J.P.Costella is as dumb as a box of rocks.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Now considering that jonboy Costella does not have an ounce of intellectual honesty, tell us again exactly WHY we should believe a word he utters, given that he has zero photographic experience (and he IS writing on photography) and can't even get the basic physics of photographic parallax correct?

Z-film alteration...what a hoot!

What's next...you pimping Jack Whites awful work? ROFLMAO!

Nope youe dear leader is an epic FAIL.

That's why he is hiding like a coward under a rock down in OZ.

Try again next time davie, you lose again....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...