Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
John Simkin

Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone

Recommended Posts

Len, welcome to the forum. Have you ever looked into the deaths of Senators Heinz, and Tower, also from aircrashes. Steve..

Not really. Can't say anything about the Tower case but that Heinz death was anything but an accident I find to believe.

From what I understand there was a problem with the landing gear of his plane and a helicopter was sent up to fix it. Unfortunately the helicopter and plane collided.

I can't see how it would be murder unless the helicopter pilot was kamikaze or was subject to mind control or the helicopter was remote controlled [over riding the pilot] etc. It seems to far fetched.

But if anybody has any reliable info indicating otherwise I'd like to see it.

What do you know about those cases?

You should try asking Fetzer about them, far fetched CTs are his area of specialty!

What's your opinion about the Wellstone crash?

How does a Brit know so much about US politics. The only MP living or dead who I could name [not counting ministers] is George Galloway!

Len

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Len, I lived in the US for about 18 months 1974-1975, pretty hot times politically, what with Dick "doin the funky chicken" got the bug from that I guess. Like you I have come to believe that the Heinz crash was probably just a tragic accident, shame really the guy might have brought a degree of rationallity to the GOP. Tower on the other hand might just be a horse of a different color. I will post what I have found out soon. All the best... Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Len, I lived in the US for about 18 months 1974-1975, pretty hot times politically, what with Dick "doin the funky chicken" got the bug from that I guess. Like you I have come to believe that the Heinz crash was probably just a tragic accident, shame really the guy might have brought a degree of rationallity to the GOP. Tower on the other hand might just be a horse of a different color. I will post what I have found out soon. All the best... Steve.

Steve/all - I don't know if Heinz could "have brought a degree of rationality to the GOP". I don't think one man could have stopped the rightward lurch of the US, GOP and even the Democrats. In some ways Clinton was to the right of Nixon! The Democrats are just about where moderate Republicans were 25 - 40 years ago on some issues.

The Republicans have moved to the right of Barry Goldwater !! And he used to be considered an extremist. In 1989 he said the party had been taken over by a "bunch of kooks" and seven years later told Bob Dole "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

But you avoided one my questions. What's your take on the Wellstone crash?

I'd actually like to hear everybody's answer to the above question, or at least anyone who could be bothered to reply. Even if it's "I have no idea" or "of course Fetzer is right is was murder". I just want to get an idea what the "take" is of people following this forum.

Len

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Len, after following your postings on the Wellstone crash, i am minded to put it in the same catagory as Heinz, a simple tragic accident. I have not as yet read Dr Fetzers book however, and reserve the right to change my mind,( that statement will not surprise my wife..LOL) But what you have posted makes common sence to my C/T ears. I think we C/T ers weaken our case by accepting to wide a spectrum of conspiracies, and being English I follow the holmes dictum, " when you have eliminated evrything else, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth"You do however need to eliminate the more mundane possibilities first.

Regards Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "unbiased" opinion is don't waste your time and money on the book! Or at least not your money. I imagine they have good libraries in Cambridge you might be able to find a copy at one. There are serious reseachers out there much more deserving of your hard earned cash!

As a starting point if you are interested go ahead and read Fetzer's online articles

http://assassinationscience.com/

see the assassination and Minnesota sections of the menu bar

and

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ne.shtml#_edn76

and the read the NTSB final report which he so denigrates.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf

This page is a graphic representation of the course of the plane from take off till it crashed. It takes only a few minutes and is very interesting.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2003/Eveleth/Ev...Meeting_IIC.pdf

other NTSB reports and documents can be linked from this page

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...wellstone/ntsb/

but about half the links don't work :ph34r::(

If anyone is interested I can provide tons of links to articles etc about the Wellstone crash and plane crashes in general

I believe the more you know about the crash the stronger the case for a tragic accident becomes. Doubly tragic first because of the loss of life and secondly for how it changed American politics.

Len

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

If someone has called you "an idiot", it was not me. I think you misunderstood the

point of David Mantik's remarks. If you were to base your understanding of the

death of JFK solely upon THE WARREN REPORT, it would seem very plausible to most

readers. It is only by testing and probing the authenticity of the evidence that we

have discovered that the X-rays have been altered, that a brain was subtituted, that

the Zapruder film was recreated, and that Oswald was framed using manufactured

evidence. In an analogous fashion, if you were to base your understanding of the

death of Paul Wellstone solely upon THE NTSB REPORT, it might seem plausible to

most readers--at least, until you realize that the official scenario (that two pilots,

who were well-qualified, simply lost track of their airspeed and altitude and let the

plane crash) ignores that it was equipped with a loud stall-warning alarm and that

the NTSB's simulations, using a simulator with a weaker enginer thant the King

Air A-100 and flying at abnormally slow speeds, were unable to bring it down, so

the NTSB's conclusions are contradicted by the NTSB's own evidence! That ought

to be the first sign that something is wrong. Then the bluish-white smoke instead

of coarse black smoke, the intense fire that could not be extinguished, the odd

cell phone anomaly, the garage door openings, and so forth provide evidence that

suggests the possibility that this plane was brought down deliberately and that the

crash was no accident. The motives for murder were overwhelming. I hope that

you will look at the evidence and read the book, as well as my later co-authored

piece in FROM THE WILDERNESS and my appearance on The Mike Malloy Show,

because the first demonstrates omissions and distortions between the NTSB's own

report and the multiple reports on which it was ostensibly based and the second

relates our latest finding concering the apparent manipulation of GPS data in order

to bring the plane into the "kill zone" for a directed-energy weapon to bring it down.

Most Americans, by the way, do not even know that the NTSB cannot investigation

a crash scene as the scene of a crime unless the Attorney General so declares it,

which Ashcroft declined to so in this case. So we appear to have a fool-proof way

to remove our political opponents by taking them out and using the NTSB to cover

it up. Moreover, it is the government's policy that NTSB reports cannot be used as

evidence in courts of law! We explain all these things and lay out the case that this

was no accident but appeared to have been an assassination in the book. I please

do read it and then decide which of us has or has not done his "homework". Thanks.

Dr. Fetzer, I'm sorry if my post upset you.  If you read my words closely I think you'll see that I am withholding judgement on the Wellstone case, at least until I read your book. You clearly put a lot of time into it and I heartily agree that someone should read someone's book before criticizing it, which is more than many have been willing to do for Bugliosi, by the way.

I was merely applauding Len on his hard work.  I applaud you on your hard work as well.  I was also probing Len to see if he's uncovered anything on his own that smells of foul play.  He insists the answer is no. Since I haven't read your book,  I am at this time non-committal on Wellstone's death. I'd be more likely to trust Len's research if he was willing to admit there were some signs that didn't add up.  As strange as it may sound, the fact that according to him everything points to pilot error makes me suspect that in his own zeal to prove you wrong he's missed something.  To me, the truth is rarely neat and tidy.

You seem to have a bit of a temper, Dr. Jim.  In some ways I envy you that.  But you mustn't let a rush to judgment blind you.  You completely misinterpreted my statements about the magic bullet. In your book, Murder in Dealey Plaza, which I purchased after we exchanged some relative pleasantries on another thread, there was quite a bit of material by Dr. Mantik. Consequently, I know you stand behind his work and his words. Dr. David Mantik has written "If the evidence in the JFK case is merely accepted at face value, then the conclusions are rather trivial. The rookie Scotland Yard detector can easily solve this case--it was Oswald alone. The real challenge is to assess the credibility of the evidence.” This to me means he believes the magic bullet and the cowlick shot and all the other garbage of the medical evidence all add up, which I know is not true.  My offer to debate the Davids was predicated on them defending the premise that their "proofs" of alteration are necessary to prove conspiracy and not just a distraction. I made this debate offer half-jokingly, fully believing that Dr. Mantik's words were merely hyperbole intended to convince readers that proving alteration is the key to proving a conspiracy. I don't expect anyone to take me up on it.  If however, he is willing to stand by his words and defend the SBT, and the existence of phantom skull entrances, as I said, I'm game.

I firmly believe that science, not necessarily assassination science,  will eventually rule the day, but not by proving alteration.  Instead, I expect that scientists and doctors will gradually break ranks and admit that the analysis of the Forensic Pathology Panel, the Trajectory Analyst Thomas Canning, and the Neutron Activation Analyst Vincent Guinn, among others, was unscientific and heavily flawed.  I expect the Neutron Activation Analyis, which concluded that the wrist fragments were highly probable to have come from the magic bullet, CE399, will be debunked within the year by a group of established and respected scientists, experts in their field.

So let's make nice.  I'll read your book if you please stop calling me an idiot.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

This is the kind of post that troubles me profoundly. We consider dozens of different

possible explanations for the crash, including those related to the plane, the pilots,

and the weather, plus losing a prop, hitting a gaggle of geese, and such, and, unlike

the NTSB, which only considered accident alternatives, also consider non-accident

alternatives, such as the use of a small bomb, a gas canister, or a high-tech weapon

of one or another kind. The logical structure of the case is laid out explicitly in the

book using the principles of inference to the best explanation. I cannot believe the

gullibility of members of a "research forum" who derive conclusions about cases of

great importance without even considering the evidence! That verges on the unbe-

lievable--but here it is happening before our very eyes. You can believe whatever

you want about anything you want, but until you consider the available evidence

and subject it to an objective appraisal using the appropriate principles of logic,

just don't claim that you possess a rational belief! Your views are merely articles

of faith. For all our efforts to expose the truth, I cannot think of an attitude that is

less worthy of commendation that forming beliefs without the benefit of evidence.

Len, after following your postings on the Wellstone crash, i am minded to put it in the same catagory as Heinz, a simple tragic accident. I have not as yet read Dr Fetzers book however, and reserve the right to change my mind,( that statement will not surprise my wife..LOL) But what you have posted makes common sence to my C/T ears. I think we C/T ers weaken our case by accepting to wide a spectrum of conspiracies, and being English I follow the holmes dictum, " when you have eliminated evrything else, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth"You do however need to eliminate the more mundane possibilities first.

Regards Steve.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

It is a common technique to suggest that authors write books to make money. It

may often be true but, as this guy ought to know (since I have explained it more

than once on another forum where he has been publishing his rubbish for some

time), I use royalties from my books on the assassination of JFK and the death of

Paul Wellstone to support additional assassination research. I think it would be a

good idea to also consider that I have collaborators who are themselves highly

respected, including Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, Ed.D., Ph.D., in relation the book

and John P. Costella, Ph.D., in relation to our FROM THE WILDERNESS study. I

wonder why they would join me in this search for truth if they did not believe in

it? Why do you think they would do that? Four Arrows has published some 14

books of his own and Costella has Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electro-

magnetism. When you read the drivel coming from Colby and others, ask your-

self why these very good men would join in common cause if this were nothing

but "smoke and mirrors". And ask yourself who is trying to mislead and deceive.

Because you are being played upon by some rather shabby characters, who, in

at least some cases, alas!, appear to be taking in the more gullible among you.

My "unbiased" opinion is don't waste your time and money on the book! Or at least not your money. I imagine they have good libraries in Cambridge you might be able to find a copy at one.  There are serious reseachers out there much more deserving of your hard earned cash!

As a starting point if you are interested go ahead and read Fetzer's online articles

http://assassinationscience.com/

see the assassination and Minnesota sections of the menu bar

and

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ne.shtml#_edn76

and the read the NTSB final report which he so denigrates.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf

This page is a graphic representation of the course of the plane from take off till it crashed. It takes only a few minutes and is very interesting.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2003/Eveleth/Ev...Meeting_IIC.pdf

other NTSB reports and documents can be linked from this page

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...wellstone/ntsb/

but about half the links don't work :angry:  :(

If anyone is interested I can provide tons of links to articles etc about the Wellstone crash and plane crashes in general

I believe the more you know about the crash the stronger the case for a tragic accident becomes. Doubly tragic first because of the loss of life and secondly for how it changed American politics.

Len

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

If you cite only evidence favorable to your side, you can make a pretty good case

that all coins are copper, that every human is male, and that every number is odd.

Conry had 5,200 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's certification (which

is the highest civilian rating), and passed his FAA "flight check" two days before

the fatal flight. By the government's own standards, this man was highly qualified

to fly the plane. He was extremely meticulous, where another pilot, who had flown

with him more than 50 times, described him as the most careful pilot with whom

he had ever flown! Wellstone, who did not like to fly, preferred to have him as

his pilot because he liked the way he handled the plane. It is true that a second

log book, with some variances from his regular logs, was discovered at his home

but not by his wife, who reported she had never seen it before and the house

had been thoroughly searched already. (Think of Mexico City "bus tickets"!) The

communications were being handled by Guess, not by Conry, and there is every

reason to suppose Conry was flying the aircraft. The kind of incidents those who

want to make a case against him use are incidents where the plane was falling at

the rate of 1,000 ft. per minute, for example, which took place for a few seconds,

rather like when you drift to the left and your wife reminds you to keep looking

ahead. This is insignificant, but those who want to blame the pilots exaggerate

to create misleading impressions. What Colby does not tell you is that we take

up all of these things in the book and in our studies. He wants to guide you away

from the book so you will not see the absurdity of his position, once you grasp

the through and rigorous manner in which we have pursued our investigation. I

suggest, why not actually try reading the book for yourself? It just might help

you to make up your mind by looking at the case we have laid out, rather than

the caricature that folks like Colby are laying upon you. I suggest that this guy

is the Gerald Posner of the Wellstone plane crash. He is very good at playing

mind games by selective use of evidence. Why not give it a shot and look at

all of the evidence we have put together, which just might expose his charade?

Richard Conry was an incompotent pilot this is clearly borne out by the facts and this was the opinion of many of his colleagues at the charter company. There are signs that Conry himself was under no illusions as to his abilities as a pilot.

He had been flying for Aviation Charter for only 17 months when the King Air A100 under his command crashed killing all aboard including Wellstone. During that brief period there were 4 occasions in which he would have crashed but for the intervention of the co-pilot [i will provide more info about these incidents in a future post]. Fetzer tries to spin and down play these incidents. Brushing them off as nothing much. The co-pilot on the last of those incidents thought otherwise. He was so unnerved  that he suggested that Conry retire [i don't think Fetzer tells his readers this].

What is especially damming is that those four near crashes occurred during so little flying time. He accumulated only 598 flight hours while working for Aviation Charter. Only 200 of these were as pilot in command [PIC]. On most of the flights where he was nominally the PIC he let the co-pilot fly the plane. He was the PIC on 6 flights during the 3 days before the crash all on King Air A100s [a plane he did not like to pilot]. The co-pilots flew all 6. "According to several Aviation Charter copilots, the accident pilot was generally well liked by them because he had a reputation for letting them fly the airplane...Some copilots said Conry rarely, if ever flew when they were paired with him, and this made them uncertain of his skill level. One Citation captain also said that Conry often turned down offers to fly when it was his turn, flying only 12 approaches out of 41 legs they flew together". Distracted indeed, the last time Conry flew the Senator he repeatedly misidentified the King Air he was flying as a Citation until corrected by the air traffic controller. [NTSB Human Performance Report - http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252885.pdf ].

One wonders why such a competent pilot would so consistently avoid flying and essentially take credit for work he had not performed. Might one infer that he normally did not feel up to the task or was afraid that the other pilots would notice how poor his skills were?  Several of his colleagues expressed doubts about his abilities "Aviation Charter's lead ground instructor stated that the pilot was average on learning airplane systems and that several company pilots had indicated that the pilot's flying skills were below average...One  pilot expressed concerns about Conry’s flying skills, monitoring capabilities, and potential for distraction..."[ NTSB Final Report - http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf ].

One also wonders why such a competent pilot would so consistently feel the need to exaggerate his experience [see my previous post], might it be compensation or did he merely lie to improve his chances of getting hired.

The 55 year old Conry said he was surprised he got hired because felt old. According to a friend who had known Conry since he was 9 years old Wellstone's pilot felt especially uncomfortable flying King Air A100s. Timothy Cooney who was also a pilot remembered a conversation he had with his friend of over 40 years in April 2001 [only 6 month before the crash].  'Conry said he didn't think his legs were strong enough to operate the rudder pedals for taxi, takeoff, or landing. His legs were too weak to guide it with the rudder pedals...he did not feel he was fast enough to fly the King Air 100. He said he felt behind the airplane. This was shortly after he began training with Executive Aviation. He was concerned about his response time. The phrase Conry used was that “he wasn't fast enough,” and he was worried about it.' To be fair to Conry they had spoken as late as June but April was the  last time he mentioned problems with A100s [NTSB Interview Summaries - http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/well stone/ntsb/252886.pdf ]  Also to be fair to Conry, Cooney and other people who had flown with him descried the pilot as being very careful "by the book" and meticulous. One person said that Conry was the  most careful pilot he knew. However being careful and being competent are not the same thing. Many drunk drivers get stopped for driving too slowly and cautiously.

That Conry told his friend that, "...he didn't think his legs were strong enough to operate the rudder pedals for...landing."  is especially damning because the plane crashed while coming in for a landing. Him saying that "...he did not feel he was fast enough to fly the King Air 100. He said he felt behind the airplane...He was concerned about his response time..." is also significant because whoever* was flying the plane not being fast enough, "falling behind" the plane and having inadequate response time could explain why the King Air crashed.

In another incident Conry had miss set the VOR, the navigational tool used to guide planes to the beacons at airports. "...another company King Air copilot indicated that during a flight with the accident pilot about 2 months before the accident, the pilot did not have his navigational radio tuned to the VOR in use for the approach, which caused the pilot's course deviation indicator (CDI) to provide erroneous indications during the entire approach. The copilot was the flying pilot and had his navigation radio tuned to the correct VOR and completed the approach without incident. The copilot stated that he later had to explain to the accident pilot the reason that his CDI was not indicating properly during the approach". This is significant because the fatal Wellstone flight went off course during a VOR approach. Fetzer claims this is evidence of something sinister. How is it possible an experienced pilot like Conry could have ignored the CDI? he asked. The truth is that there were problems with beacon at the Eveleth airport. In FAA test flights 2 days after the crash several pilots we diverted south like the Wellstone plane, one of them flew close to the crash site.

There are other factors which make pilot error seem more likely. The weather was poor according to at least one study this puts increases demand on pilots and in cress the chance of error. Another study found that pilot error is more common on Fridays [the day of the week of the crash] due to accumulated fatigue. Conry shown various signs of being fatigued during the three days before the crash. Aviation Charter had been found not to properly train it's pilots and teach them to follow procedures among other violations. On demand charter flight have been found to be especially dangerous. The FAA required Conry wear corrective lenses to fly but he seems to have felt otherwise and there is a good chance he was not wearing them.

* There is no way to know if Conry or Michael Guess the co-pilot was flying the plane. Due to Conry propensity to let he co-pilots fly for him their is a good chance Guess was at the controls.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Some of these references are so obscure that I have trouble remembering them!

Taking remarks out of context can certainly make you look bad. Cleverly done.

Since I began serious research on the death of JFK, I have been the recipient of

well over 2,000 attacks, including more than 1,000 over my Wellstone research on

a forum created by a former student and one-time friend. This guy is spending an

awful lot of time and effort trying to make his case against me, which suggests to

me it may be his full-time job! So I ask, "Len, what do you do for a living? Are

you an employee of the US?" He may have unlimited resources to devote to this,

but I still have classes to teach, etc. I have at times run out of patience with some

of the more ridiculous arguments and smears that I have encountered and I have

not always been diplomatic in expressing my contempt. But I hope everyone is

noticing the extreme lengths to which this guy is going to dissuade you from even

reading AMERICAN ASSASSINATION. Isn't that rather strange? Why should he

be so concerned? If the book is as bad as he claims, shouldn't it die on its own?

Why this massive effort to attack it? I find this both flattering and disconcerting.

Most of the issues raised are discussed in the book he doesn't want you to read!

I would certainly welcome input from forum members who have ACTUALLY READ

the book and are willing to advance the discussion in light of their familiarity with

it, which, of course, no one would acquire if they followed this guy's advice. (By

the way, wouldn't it be clever to claim that I might suggest that you are dishing

out disinformation when you ARE dishing out disinformation? I've dealt with so

much of it that it no longer surprises me. But what an ingenious defense! If I

call disinformation "disinformation", that makes me some kind of nut case! I

love it!) But it would be useful if someone out there were to outline the case we

make for the assassination hypothesis as opposed to the accident hypothesis,

the principles of reasoning we employ, the evidence we cite, and things like that.

Everyone knows he thinks our work is rubbish. Well, let's test the proposition.

"... a local attorney initiated a web site for the purpose of attacking my research on the death of Senator Paul Wellstone...Josiah...and a bizarre assortment of others,..have been attacking me for years, all to no avail. (That includes a fellow who has posted here as though we knew each other, when all I know of him is that he has put up some scurrilous posts on that web site.)..."

"...all to no avail"?

I think Fetzer is off in a world of his own creation we have pointed out major holes in his thesis and he has not made any substantive replies

"scurrilous posts"?

I will leave it up to the other participants in this thread to determine who is making substantive points and who is avoiding and dodging what he can't explain away and distorting the truth to bolster their argument.

(That includes a fellow who has posted here as though we knew each other, when all I know of him is that he has put up some scurrilous posts on that web site.)...
..Leonard Colby, whom I do not know from Adam, but who likes to insinuate we are well-acquainted
.

Gee Jim I said

Hello,

Except for Josiah, Craig and Fetzer I don't think any of you know who I am. Greetings to one and all!

Fetzer knows me all too well! On the Yahoo forum mentioned by Tink. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/ . One or two other people and I poked so many holes in his claims about the Wellstone case there that he fled. Come back Jim, we miss you!

Do you really think that makes it sound like we know each other personally?

Just for the record I have never had any contact with Fetzer other than on the Wellstone Forum and now here.

I know the kinds of rubbish that Thompson and his cronies have been dishing out,

because I have been dealing with it for years.

As with Fetzer my only contact with Tink has been through the Wellstone forum although it appears I went to college with his daughter. Fetzer seems to assume that any one who tries to debunk him is a spook or is in cahoots with his Tink! You aren't paranoia if they really are out to get you!

Anyone who wants to trace the history of our exchanges over the Wellstone book can go to the Bieter site, FETZERclaimsDEBUNK@yahoogroups.com, and review them. By now there are over 2000 posts, most of them quite nasty.

Most no but indeed many were.

Jim - You of course were the worst offender any one who criticized you accused of being corrupt or "cognitively impaired" or both. Have you forgotten the time you refereed to the other participants in the forum maggots? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/205 Or the time you revealed Bieter's personal and legal problems? Do you want we to cite more examples? The time you compared a journalist who works with Alexander Cockburn to Gagnon? And what about his reply to Pat here. Is that how a philosophy professor is supposed to conduct himself in a forum?

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone has called you "an idiot", it was not me.

Come on Jim go back and see how you replied to Pat's post. You did not use the word idiot but you called him "massively ignorant" among other things [see post 23 for the 'lowlights']. Your infamous temper and unpleasantness do you a disservice. Are you so detached from reality that you don't remember what you wrote only 2 days ago! If feel a certain responsibility to defend him because in a certain way "I got him into it" and he is such a nice guy that he apologised to you after you insulted him! Do yourself a favor and do the right thing apologize and admit you were wrong. Try to make it sound sincere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you were to base your understanding of the death of Paul Wellstone solely upon THE NTSB REPORT, it might seem plausible to most readers--at least, until you realize that the official scenario (that two pilots, who were well-qualified, simply lost track of their airspeed and altitude and let the plane crash) ignores that it was equipped with a loud stall-warning alarm

1] People can accumulate qualifications and still be incompetent! As Conry clearly was. [see posts 18 & 19] Jim look back at his four near crashes, what do you think would have happened if the co-pilot had not intervened? We can't ignore the possibility that he simply pushed the wrong button like he did the last time he flew Wellstone but this time his relatively inexperienced "non-assertive" low skill co-pilot did not save him this or even that Guess was at the controls.

Guess flunked out of a ground instructor course and his colleagues had serious doubts about his skills. " Several pilots who had flown with the copilot described him as 'not assertive' and expressed concern about his flying skills, especially his inability to land the airplane without assistance. Two pilots stated that the copilot had difficulties with power management when flying an approach and that he had to be reminded to keep one hand on the throttles and to monitor his power gauges. One of these two pilots, who had been mentoring the copilot and flew with him often, stated that this was a consistent problem for the copilot. [http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf Final Report pg. 15 (27 in Adobe Reader) All page numbers below also refer to the Final Report unless otherwise noted] According to Joanne Conry her husband told her "the other pilots thought Guess was not a good pilot. Richard said when Guess flew with him he was just fine. Richard did not say specifically what complaints the other pilots had about Guess" [http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/252886.pdf Interview Summaries pg 26(27)]

2] Airline pilots who are in a category way above Conry's have also blundered. If one examines the 20 worst aviation disasters in history several were caused by gross pilot error. # 2 the deadliest non-terrorist incident happened because one pilot "began his takeoff roll without authorisation" on a fog shrouded runway! Causing a collision with another plane killing 583 people. Disasters #s 4,5. 7, 14, 16 were also caused entirely or partially by flight crew error [see esp. # 14], #s 1 [9/11] 6, 7, 11 and 12 were due to terrorist or military action. http://www.planecrashinfo.com/worst20.htm

"simply lost track of their airspeed and altitude and let the plane crash"

Both pilots had problems with landings Conry had problems paying attention and so did Guess [Conry post 19, Guess above]. What seems likely is that whoever was flying came out of the clouds and expected to see an airport in front of them but there was none insight. {They were off course*} While looking around they could have forgotten to pay attention to airspeed. Since he [or they] started out too high and too fast "the flight crew had to lose a significant amount of airspeed and altitude in a short amount of time" anyway [pg. 44 (56)] another distraction.

"The Safety Board has investigated numerous accidents and incidents involving commercial flight crews that inadvertently failed to maintain adequate airspeed. For example, the Board has investigated at least [18 events] since 1982 ...in which stall or failure to maintain airspeed during the approach or landing phases was cited as a causal or contributing factor and in which icing was not cited as a factor. In addition, the Board has investigated other events in which the drag associated with airframe ice and pilot inattention led to a critical loss of airspeed. Failure to maintain airspeed during these flights resulted in catastrophic and other unsafe circumstances, such as loss of control, impact with terrain or water, hard landings, and tail strikes. pg. 55 (67)

"ignores that it was equipped with a loud stall-warning alarm"

Jim I assume you read the entire Final Report. So either you are trying to con your readers or you infamous reading comprehension errors have struck again!

"Several of the airplane's systems, including the stall warning and deicing systems, were too damaged by postimpact fire and impact forces to determine their preimpact configuration and operability" pg 25 (37)

"the flight crew should have received at least several seconds of aural stall warning in the cockpit if the airspeed decreased below 81 to 84 knots, if the stall warning system was working properly, and if the airplane was not affected by ice accumulation. ... However, because the airplane was not equipped with a CVR, because of the approximate nature of the airspeed calculations, and because airplane maneuvering or small amounts of ice accumulation can increase an airplane's stall speed, the Safety Board was not able to determine when or whether the stall warning horn activated on the accident flight" pgs 45- 6 (57 -8)

"stall warnings do not always provide flight crews with timely notification of developing hazardous low-airspeed conditions. For example, abrupt maneuvering can increase angle-of-attack so rapidly that a stall could occur nearly simultaneously with the stall warning, and ice accumulation, which raises the stall speed, could degrade the stall warning margin to the point at which little or no stall warning is provided" 54 - 5 (66 -7).

'Abrupt maneuvering'? The plane might have been circling back. Gary Ulman said "The path of the wreckage, about two miles southeast of the airport, suggested the pilot may have aborted the landing" {http://www.rense.com/general31/INDI.HTM}

The last time a King Air A100 crashed it was an Aviation Charter flight [same company as the Wellstone flight!]. The flight also started in the Twin Cities and crashed due to a stall in Colorado when the pilot was lost and trying to find the airport. The pilot was a certified flight, ground and instrumentation instructor. Like Conry he had over 3000 flight hours. The NTSB determined the stall was caused by a combination of bad weather and pilot error. The stall warning system was turned off! https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=...W98FA074&akey=1

I decided to divide my reply to Fetzer in 2. Continued in my next post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone has called you "an idiot", it was not me.

Come on Jim go back and see how you replied to Pat's post. You did not use the word idiot but you called him "massively ignorant" among other things [see post 23 for the 'lowlights']. Your infamous temper and unpleasantness do you a disservice. Are you so detached from reality that you don't remember what you wrote only 2 days ago! If feel a certain responsibility to defend him because in a certain way "I got him into it" and he is such a nice guy that he apologised to you after you insulted him! Do yourself a favor and do the right thing apologize and admit you were wrong. Try to make it sound sincere.

Len, I can do my own feuding. I took Dr. Fetzer's post as an attempt to find common ground. As such, it was an acknowledgement that he had over-reacted.

I respect Dr. Fetzer and his attempts at unveiling a "secret history," in both the JFK case and the Wellstone case. I have noted the looks on people's faces when I've told them I'm investigating the JFK assassination, and I imagine the looks Dr. Fetzer receives are far worse. There's a security one derives from touting the official government position, or defending the "safest" viewpoint. You know you're on the side of the American flag, and Walter Cronkite and Uncle Ron. I don't know the entire history between you two, Len, but I can see clearly how your sudden arrival on this Forum to continue your assault on his book, would make Dr. Fetzer paranoid. He probably feels like he's being stalked. While you claim to be a liberal, one doubts you were as upset by the Bush Administration's attempts to blame September 11th on President Clinton, as you are by Dr. Fetzer's attempts to link Wellstone's death to the Bush Administration. I wonder as well how you responded to the Clinton Chronicles videos which purported to prove that Clinton was behind the murder of Vince Foster, not to mention those poor little kids by the railroad tracks. Somehow I don't see you as having devoted as much time and energy to fight those kinds of outright lies, as you do in refuting Dr. Fetzer's not-unfounded opinion that it was unlikely for a plane with two pilots to crash in the manner described, and that an alternative explanation is worth exploring. If I'm wrong, and you've spent a lot of time arguing against the multitude of right-wing lies, I apologize to you for my incorrect impression.

If I'm right, however, then maybe you can answer me why it is so important to you that people NOT THINK Wellstone was murdered. Your answer could be most helpful to us studying the JFK assassination, as it may help us understand why the media at least initially cooperated with the government in depicting the Warren Report critics as cranks and scavengers, and why even today a TV show such as Bullxxxx would pick Jim Marrs as a representaive of the research community, and then use his UFO studies to make us all look like wackos.

I'm sorry if my dimestore psychiatry offends you, but I'm sincerely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part II of my reply to Fetzer see above

All page numbers refer to the NTSB final report unless otherwise noted

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf

the NTSB's simulations, using a simulator with a weaker enginer thant [sic] the King Air A-100 and flying at abnormally slow speeds, were unable to bring it down, so the NTSB's conclusions are contradicted by the NTSB's own evidence!

Bringing down the plane was not the objective of the simulations! The objective was to "To observe flight crew workload" pg. 30 (42)So by your logic I could say "I was unable to turn on my stereo with my TV remote control so the remote must be broken"

What the simulation showed was that the pilots should have been able to recover. They also showed that the way the crew had "set up" the approach increased the crew's work load. So this combined with the fact they were lost and possibly looking for the airport could explain why either one of these pilots, both of whom had problems landing and paying attention, could have neglected to monitor airspeed during a landing approach.

Then the bluish-white smoke instead of coarse black smoke, the intense fire that could not be extinguished

Jim how many times did we go over this in the other Forum? I'll try to explain it to you once again and for the benefit of members of this forum in another post.

the odd cell phone anomaly

Ditto above

the garage door openings

Jim you are very unreliable. Are we supposed to believe a story that you claim an unnamed doctor told you about supposed comments made by some of his unnamed patients?

Do have any other evidence of this? Why wasn't this reported any where? Did you check with the electrical company to see if there had been any surges? Why were only garages doors affected but nothing at the [presumably] closer airport? Isn't it normal for garage doors to be unreliable? Could it be the doctor was humouring a CT nut? Or that you misunderstood? Did you make this up?

The motives for murder were overwhelming.

Granted Bush had reasons to kill Wellstone but as per my previous post why BEFORE the election?

our latest finding concering [sic] the apparent manipulation of GPS data in order to bring the plane into the "kill zone" for a directed-energy weapon to bring it down.

ROTFLMHO I'd love read that one since they were not navigating with GPS!! Give us one reliable link stating that a working directed energy weapon capable of doing this is operational. No UFO or pothead sites* this time please! Nothing saying simply that the US is working on them - I grant you that, various governments and companies have been working on "death ray" weapons for years.

Most Americans, by the way, do not even know that the NTSB cannot investigation a crash scene as the scene of a crime unless the Attorney General so declares it

1] This is irrelevant except for the fact that once again it shows your reading comprehension problems because that is not what it says at YOUR source. [see below]

2] a) Investigating a crash as a crime is up to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies which the Board can 'call in' at will. B) The Board does not carry out criminal investigations under ANY circumstances. c) The AG's role is to determine who leads the investigation not what can be investigated by who. I already pointed this out to you in the other forum!

"the NTSB has complete discretion over which organisations it designates as parties to the investigation...In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity".

"As the result of recent legislation, the NTSB will surrender lead status on a transportation accident only if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Safety Board, notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act. "

When did the "recent legislation" go into effect? The page was posted Sept. 2004, 2 years after the Wellstone crash.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/invest.htm this is the same page you cited in the From The Wilderness article.

So we appear to have a fool-proof way to remove our political opponents by taking them out and using the NTSB to cover

it up.

You have yet to supply one shred of reliable evidence in this regard

Moreover, it is the government's policy that NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence in courts of law!

This done "to ensure that Safety Board investigations focus only on improving transportation safety" same link as above.

*I used to be a pothead and still enjoy a joint now and again but I don't consider canabis.com a reliable source for information about secret weapons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×