Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Craig Lamson

Oh yes..the hacks have had at it...Fetzer Costella, Four Arrows et al.

The debunking of Fetzers falsehoods and downright lies are here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/

I agree with Fetzer on one point...do the reading and the research yourself and come to your own conclusions.

_____________

your last sentence in your post above [finally, one beyond the 3rd grade level] a few of us can agree on-- thank you -- I'd also add, when future research is complete covering the discussed subject matter (and I certainly don't expect any from Lansom) please post with document cites supporting your theses pro and/or con... Lets see what these armchair pros are made of, shall we? The NTSB posted their results, Fetzer posted his and his teams -- we await yours and what's his name Colby's [retired attorney or is he the guy who sells souvienrs from Brazil, can't keep track of these newly risen pillars in research community] If the best you can do is point to NTSB findings ONLY, and can't take the Fetzer/Four Arrow/Costella findings point-by-point, displaying contrary support evidence, I hear nothing more than .john McAdams WCR supporting clone type rhetoric ... shall we see what you're made of... or will you be relegated to the 'noise maker hall of shame er, fame' peanut gallery?

Everyones a "hack" according to the Indiana drygoods photog. Gott'a love America, those without Wellstone subject matter credibility, overnight, become experts on his death, not to mention, additional incidents covering murder.... truck on Craigster... one should sell internet streaming tickets... if you had something, anything to show that wasn't thrown about here as opinion... so make a point-by-point case, who knows, I might learn something... Hell, you might get a book offer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig - Good to 'see' you again, I haven't seen you since our last debriefing at Langley [lol].

Yes our rival proves the old adage "the more people stay the same the less the change". I hope the reader sees through his pandering.

Funny this guy's ego is big that he assumes that anyone he can't match wits with is a spy. Yes Mr."eminent" Ph.D. how many years did it take him to get tenure at a lowly ranked school?

I predicted that he would not argue the merits of the case he briefly proved me wrong but now seems to be falling back to form. Notice how he has not even bothered to rebut most of my most recent claims? He has not even attempted to explain his changing story about what Sheriff Wahlberg told him and the differences between what his sources said and how he quoted them [bollyn, NTSB regulations, the logbook discrepancies and who found which logbook]. I will take his continuing silence as an admission of error.

On the subject of avoidance notice how he has yet to address the subject of his other crackpot ideas about 9/11 [WTC was a demolition job, Pentagon was hit by a missile], the Moon ['we' never went there], and the Dallas Parks Department's involvement in the JFK cover up. Also that the Challenger was shot down with a 'death ray' just like the Wellstone plane!.

Explain for the benefit for the rest of us about "the principal of the lever" debate. Even I missed that because it was before my time on the Yahoo forum. I sure we will all find it enlightening.

I need to call you on your usage error, fetzer and fetzering should not be capitalised. I should know I am an English teacher and I coined the word!

Craig let's try to avoid bringing in the JFK mess here as much as possible. This only works to Fetzer's advantage because it draws attention away from the Wellstone case.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason the 'quote box' funtion isn't working Fetzer's quotes are in blue.

Jack White, who has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation than anyone else in the JFK research community...

From what I know about White's work on JFK, the Moon landings, 9/11 and now Katrina I think he should be described as "one of the more experienced disseminators of disinformation" on the face of the planet!!

..developed an axiom some time back, which holds that the more intense the attack, the closer you are to the truth.

That's a great Catch 22 to use against your debunkers when you can not easily counter their arguments. What about your "intense attack" on the Warren Commission Report, the Zapruder film, and the NTSB reports of the Wellstone crash! Using YOUR own logic against you they must be very close to the truth. I can't say with the former, doubt your arguments about the second but know you are wrong about the latter.

Certainly, nothing this guy has had to say offers any good reason for thinking otherwise.

LOL - Then why are you sweating so much?

The subtle things can easily be overlooked. Just a casual glance revealed that, in his discussion of Conry's qualifications, where I bserved that he had passed his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight, in his response, this guy omits the phrase, "just two days before the fatal flight".

Jim you're right I did cut that out. That was an editing error I will correct it. You can hardly call that a "cover up" since you had it in your post on the same page!

Now why don't you TRY to debate the merits of the case? I said why I though it was irrelevant and pointed out that he had a 'small' problem during the test that was eerily reminiscent of the crash. What do you have to say about that? What's wrong 'Facts got your tounge'?

He suggests that I am paranoid for asking whether he works for the US, but does not answer the question.

LOL - I think you were the only person who did not get it Jim! I live in Brazil where I teach English and sell art among other things as explained in my bio which there is a link to at the bottom of all my posts. If it will make you happy I will you collect from here so that you won't have any doubts as to my location. For the record I am not now nor have I ever been an employee of the US or any other government. I did take the State Department's entrance exam but did make the cut [only 2% of the takers do].

There are dozens and dozens of slights of hands and misrepresen-tations.

A very good description of your work. See the inconsistencies I pointed out in my reply to Craig and my other posts and try to explain them.

He is very good at ridicule; indeed, in my opinion, he's a professional.

I am glad that you no longer classify me as "cognitively impaired"!!!

He has certainly cast many aspersions on my character

And you on mine.

he is here on a mission, which is to present the most extensive verbal assault he can muster, no matter how many fallacies he has to commit in the process. His expertise in ad hominem attacks is breathtaking.

If my case has so many fallacies why can't you counter them. Jim do you know what ad hominem means? I believe your misuse of the word was brought up in the Yahoo forum. This is the definition from Webster's

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dic...ominem&x=14&y=9

We both have attacked each other's character but I am the one arguing the merits of the case which something you avoid doing.

Some of you have suggested that he does his homework! Well, un-less you have done yours, how could you possibly know? Unless you have in fact taken the fime and the effort to read THE NTSB REPORT, the reports on which the NTSB report is based, and our book and studies, you cannot know. So stop and consider the possibility that this clever guy is playing you for saps. Unless you have studied the case independently, you can't know who's right!

1] Saying I've done my homework is not the same as saying I'm right Jim. They just recognized the obvious that I know a lot about the case.

2] Wasn't it I who provided the links to the reports and urged everyone to read them and urged people to read YOUR articles? I point out various fallacies with your arguments. Funny only after I provided the links do you now urge people to read the reports. When you don't have a good reply all you can say is "read the book". Since you are the author I would expect you to be able to make reasonable replies to the following. Nothing at length just a few sentences.

1] Why kill Wellstone BEFORE the election? How would this be expected to help Coleman? In the first poll with him as a candidate Mondale as would be expected INCREASED Wellstone's lead over Coleman. The Dems lost the election because of 1) the partisan nature of the funeral 2) unfair and exaggerated spin of funeral by the GOP 3) and possibly by vote stealing by the Republicans. Polls taken after the funeral showed Mondale with a reduced lead or trailing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Congressi..._Polls.html#MN/

Tell me how the Max Cleland thing worked. It doesn't make sense The Republican Senatorial candidate in Georgia gets to spend an extra $700,000 because the Democratic candidate in Minnesota died!?!?

2] I have already asked you a few times here and we asked you back at Yahoo repeatedly for ONE reliable link stating that operational EMPs that could bring down a plane exist. If they did you should be able to come up with a few but you have yet to give us one!

Ask yourself why three Ph.D.s--one also an Ed.D.--are committing themselves to the thesis that Paul Wellstone was taken out for political reasons. Why would we do that? Why would we expend the time, money, and effort to get to the bottom of this case if we did not believe what we were doing?

I already answered that one in post # 57. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39518

This guy insists that he wants you to read everything we have written on this case--except the book! Why do you suppose that is? Why not read it and find out?

When did I tell people not to read the book? I think I made comments like "Don't waste your time and money or at least your money" get it from the library and "If you're not convinced by my arguments go ahead and buy the book" I made the second after you had already accused me of dissuading people to read your book.

We have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was not an accident.

LOL

The NTSB, however, confined itself to accident alternatives. It never even considered the possibility that the plane was taken down deliberately using a small bomb or a gas canister or a high-tech weapon.

That's because they aren't CT nuts like you fantasising about not existent weapons. As for the gas canister, was it shot into the plane from the ground or was it planted? Why didn't the coroner detect anything during the tox screens of the victims?

... a member of the NTSB's own team--who signed the report!--admitted that they had no idea what had happened and were merely speculating! If the case is as clear as this guy says, why would Richard Healing have done that?

Are you really that thick Jim or are you pretending for arguments sake? Didn't we go over this in the Yahoo group? Of course they don't know what happen exactly because there were no voice or data recorders on the plane. The info they had about speed, direction and altitude was approximate. A plane with 2 incompetent pilots stalled and crashed. They did not have enough info to know EXACTLY how and why this happened.

Since there have been several similar crashes WITHOUT distress calls including one where a commercial airliner simply flew into the ground with a THREE member crew and another were the crew simply let the plane run out of fuel there is no reason to doubt the NTSB's conclusions. http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/Hu...rrorVsTerrorism Even very competent people can make mistakes but improperly trained incompetent ones are more likely to.

Notice too that his appeals to the family, for example, do not determine whether our hypothesis is true or false. Like the Kennedy family, they appear to have their own reasons for not wanting to confront the grim possibility that their father was deliberately killed for political purposes.

And what about all the people who used to work for Wellstone many of whom work for Wellstone Action none of them want to have anything to do with you. Also you skipped answering the part about the lack of any experts who back you claims.

And never forget that this man was unique--passionate, articulate, and courageous. He is the kind of man of which the world has entirely too few.

I agree

His denial that the administration had reasons to take him out before the election when he was pulling away from Norm Coleman are beyond belief.

Beyond belief is that don't seem to understand the question, or are you pretending? HOW WOULD WELLSTONE'S DEATH BENEFIT COLEMAN? HOW WOULD IT BE EXPECTED TO INCREASE HIS CANCE OF WINNING?

We are hardly the only ones to suspect that this was an assassination. We cite the early piece by Michael Niman of Buffalo State College,

Niman wrote something a few days after the crash has he said anything since?

Christopher Bollyn of americanfreepress.com

Oh yeah your Nazi buddies don't you think it degrades you to constantly associate yourself with them aren't your worried that by citing them as reliable sources to give them credibility?

For the record the American Free Press and Bollyn believe there is a Jewish plot to take over the World and that the Holocaust was a hoax and there were no gas chambers http://www.read-all-about-it.org/archive_e...on_afp1203.html. Bollyn said on one of his various appearances on "white civil rights" leader David Duke's radio show that the Jewish media promotes interracial relationships so that "no one know who they are anymore" http://www.whitecivilrights.com/duke-inter...live-web-radio/

The author of the Sherlock Holmes books had no doubt that faries existed. <http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm>

There is a Ph.D. at Northwestern who doesn't believe the Holocaust took place and there is a Philospher of Science [just like you] who uses "the scientific method of inference to the best explanation [also just like you] who believes in intelligent design

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/v-pri...p-9179039c.html and

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter3.html

and you have a lot of nutty ideas.

He is a professional character assassin and he is practicing his craft.

As usual you make claims without any evidence

He's worth studying, since he's about as good as they get.

Thanks!!! I totally agree [LOL]

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Lamson

Oh yes..the hacks have had at it...Fetzer Costella, Four Arrows et al. 

The debunking of Fetzers falsehoods and downright lies are here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/

I agree with Fetzer on one point...do the reading and the research yourself and come to your own conclusions.

_____________

your last sentence in your post above  [finally, one beyond the 3rd grade level] a few of us can agree on-- thank you -- I'd also add, when future research is complete covering the discussed subject matter (and I certainly don't expect any from Lansom) please post with document cites supporting your theses pro and/or con... Lets see what these armchair pros are made of, shall we? The NTSB posted their results, Fetzer posted his and his teams -- we await yours and what's his name Colby's [retired attorney or is he the guy who sells souvienrs from Brazil, can't keep track of these newly risen pillars in research community] If the best you can do is point to NTSB findings ONLY, and can't take the Fetzer/Four Arrow/Costella findings point-by-point, displaying contrary support evidence, I hear nothing more than .john McAdams WCR supporting clone type rhetoric ... shall we see what you're made of... or will you be relegated to the 'noise maker hall of shame er, fame' peanut gallery?

Everyones a "hack" according to the Indiana drygoods photog. Gott'a love America, those without Wellstone subject matter credibility, overnight, become experts on his death, not to mention, additional incidents covering murder.... truck on Craigster... one should sell internet streaming tickets... if you had something, anything to show that wasn't thrown about here as opinion... so make a point-by-point case, who knows, I might learn something... Hell, you might get a book offer!

You dont read well do you rodeo boy? Everything you would ever want to know the sorry state of Fetzer and crews shoddy and falsehood filled works can be found at the link that has been posted here at least twice.

So flame on there David...and then go video some cowboys....

and BTW there rodeo boy...

drygoods

n : textiles or clothing and related merchandise [syn: soft goods]

You can't even get that right.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig - This Healy guy seems like a complete moron. As much as I jibe at Fetzer I have to admit he's not an idiot - he is just blinded by his preconceived notions!!

This guy on the other hand, only knows how to insult people who call into question the findings of his "intellectual fellow travelers" Fetzer and White. His comments don't even serve to advance his friends' ideas - he does not seem to be capable of anything beyond insults and sarcastic remarks.

Elsewhere of this forum some had this to say

And you David - you just like posting in the forum. You don't seem to add anything to the topic being discussed, and you never take a position on any of the points questioned.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=38521

I won't respond to any of his posts here if they continue to be of this low level and I suggest you do the same. Our bickering with him only serves to distract from discussion of the details of this case which is to Fetzer's advantage. So does getting into debates over the Z-film and other JFK issues

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig - This Healy guy seems like a complete moron. As much as I jibe at Fetzer I have to admit he's not an idiot - he is just blinded by his preconceived notions!!

This guy on the other hand, only knows how to insult people who call into question the findings of his "intellectual fellow travelers" Fetzer and White. His comments don't even serve to advance his friends' ideas - he does not seem to be capable of anything beyond insults and sarcastic remarks.

Elsewhere of this forum some had this to say

And you David - you just like posting in the forum. You don't seem to add anything to the topic being discussed, and you never take a position on any of the points questioned.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=38521

I won't respond to any of his posts here if they continue to be of this low level and I suggest you do the same. Our bickering with him only serves to distract from discussion of the details of this case which is to Fetzer's advantage. So does getting into debates over the Z-film and other JFK issues

Len

Healy just likes to go WOOF WOOF...he's the guard dog here for Fetzer, White and Costella. Don't ever expect him to actually offer anything of substance to the discussion, thats just not his job, nor does it seem that he is qualified to do anything more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer contends that the Wellstone crash must have been do to foul play because he finds it hard to believe that 2 "such highly rated pilots" as Conry and Guess could have simply let the plane crash.

I searched the database of airdisaster.com for the word "stall" it returned approximately 47 matches all were commercial airliners except for a few cargo flights and one Russian supersonic jet. The database does not cover on-demand charter flights like the one Wellstone was on. On demand charters are the most dangerous types of passenger flights*.

Many of the crashes were due to pilot/crew error. For many of the crashes the cause of the stall is not clear. The attached chart shows 16 accidents that were due to gross pilot error and/or there were cockpit voice recorder transcripts. In most cases the pilot seems to have "simply let the plane crash".

Since these flights were commercial airline flights [only one was a cargo flight] and all or almost all the planes were jets, the pilots would have held much higher ratings than Conry or Guess and probably had more flight hours.

For all of Fetzer's talk about Conry the truth is he had applied to various companies and the only one that hired him was Aviation Charter a company with numerous safety violations. *And they only hired him because he claimed to have professional experience he didn't* and exaggerated his flight time* [He claimed to have about 4500 hours when hired but only had about 3000]** and they only employed him part time he flew 598 hours in 17 months an average of only 35 hours a month. He was obviously at a much lower level than commercial airline pilots.

We can also presume that there were 2 -3 person flight crews even without a transcript. Where a tape transcript is available I indicate the approximate amount of time the plane was in distress and the number of flight crew members, THERE WERE NO DISTRESS CALLS for the four crashes with transcripts.

The url for the search results is

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/search_...gi?search=stall

OK Jim explain these away. 2 - 3 person flight crews, higher rated and more experienced pilots than Conry, simply letting the plane crash, no distress calls. If you can't explain ALL of them away you have to admit there is a major hole in your thesis. I compared your theory to a three legged table and said it had one wobbly leg. Well guess what that one just fell off. You should offer every one who bought your book their money back!!

Len

* I am tired. I will add links to my sources tomorrow.

**According to company records Conry had 5116 hours based on his claimed previous experience and them 598 he flew for the 5116 - 598 = 4518. The NTSB could not document 1460 of his claimed hours 4518 - 1460 = 3058

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He likes to make sarcastic remarks about what people do for a living. He did it to you and to me and to some other guy. [see previous post on the thread I cited] that must be because he not very happy about his current state of employment.

Craig - This Healy guy seems like a complete moron. As much as I jibe at Fetzer I have to admit he's not an idiot - he is just blinded by his preconceived notions!!

This guy on the other hand, only knows how to insult people who call into question the findings of his "intellectual fellow travelers" Fetzer and White. His comments don't even serve to advance his friends' ideas - he does not seem to be capable of anything beyond insults and sarcastic remarks.

Elsewhere of this forum some had this to say

And you David - you just like posting in the forum. You don't seem to add anything to the topic being discussed, and you never take a position on any of the points questioned.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=38521

I won't respond to any of his posts here if they continue to be of this low level and I suggest you do the same. Our bickering with him only serves to distract from discussion of the details of this case which is to Fetzer's advantage. So does getting into debates over the Z-film and other JFK issues

Len

Healy just likes to go WOOF WOOF...he's the guard dog here for Fetzer, White and Costella. Don't ever expect him to actually offer anything of substance to the discussion, thats just not his job, nor does it seem that he is qualified to do anything more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len Colby dronned on and on and ON

He likes to make sarcastic remarks about what people do for a living. He did it to you and to me and to some other guy. [see previous post on the thread I cited] that must be because he not very happy about his current state of employment

_____________

I do believe sir-- twas YOU who called me a moron? Are you surprised at my reaction? Just post your picture and all will be well. You and Craig can tippty-toe off through the contrails of everlasting heaven --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
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.

Well, back from the W/E to find a bucket of slops has been emptied over my head.What is it about the words "I have not as yet read Dr Fetzers book however, and reserve the right to change my mind"That you do not understand, I was simply commenting on Mr Colbys posts up to that point, I had no idea of the "history" between the two of you, and shall refrain from further postings on this subject until I have read your book.. Steve.

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Among the flimsiest of complaints is the objection that we have not

proven the existence of weapons of the kind we claim were used to

take down the Wellstone plane. There are dozens of reference and a

discussion of EM potential in the book, but of course you would not

learn of that from these hacks. I have posted many links before and

observed that, if you enter "RF", "EM", or "HERF" weaponry on google,

hundreds of thousands of items appear. One who describes himself as

a former official with NSA dismisses them on the grounds that, as I

should know, most of them are repetitive! My view is that if this

guy knows no more about the current state of EM weaponry, it may be

no wonder he is no longer with NSA! Here I am providing a variety

of links to articles and studies dealing with different aspects of

weapons of this general kind. Some of the more interesting include:

"Electromagnetic Radiation (emr) Weapons: As Powerful as the Atomic

Bomb", by Cheryl Welsh (February 2001), which includes dozens upon

dozens of citations: http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~welsh/emr13.htm

"'Non-lethal' weaons: Fascism, state terror and power abuse"

http://www.bilderberg.org/micrwaves.htm#menu

"E-Bombing Civilization" by Daniel McCarthy (6 February 2003)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy42.html

"EMP weapons are not science-fiction", IEEE (7 November 2003)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/279992.html

"EMP/HERF/Shock Pulse Generators"

http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm

_Global Guerrillas: HOMEMADE MICROWAVE WEAPONS_

(http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/journal_homemad.html)

_http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat11.pdf_

(http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat11.pdf)

The New York Review of Books (October 5, 2000)

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13896?email

TWA 800 and Electromagnetic Interference: Work Already Completed and

Work that Still Needs to be Done

By Elaine Scarry

EM Weapons used on the Challenger Space Shuttle:

www.cheniere.org/books/analysis/history.htm

-

EM Weapons used on TWA 800

www.cheniere.org/books/analysis/history.htm

Coop Radio: Electromagnetic Weapons: The Technology of Political Control

When: Monday August 8, 2005 at Noon - 1 PM Pacific Time

Where: Coop Radio: CFRO 102.7 FM Vancouver, B.C.

LISTEN LIVE: coopradio.org

Host: Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd

Guest: Leuren Moret, Environmental Commissioner, City of Berkeley, CA

http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/peaceinspace...n_moret_wa.html

International Movement for the Global Ban of Weapons

which Manipulate the Human Nervous System

http://home.comcast.net/~jmontemayor10/

For MORE on this post, the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT:

"Banning HAARP/EMF WEAPONS" - Minutes 28/01/1999

See::

http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/peaceinspace...radio_elec.html

This message is available on the Internet at http://www.WantToKnow.info/050812electromagneticbeamweapons

"For years, the U.S. military has explored a new kind of firepower that is instantaneous, precise and virtually inexhaustible: beams of electromagnetic energy. ''Directed-energy'' pulses can be throttled up or down depending on the situation, much like the phasers on ''Star Trek'' could be set to kill or merely stun. The hallmark of all directed-energy weapons is that the target -- whether a human or a mechanical object -- has no chance to avoid the shot because it moves at the speed of light. At some frequencies, it can penetrate walls. "

-- MSNBC/Associated Press, 8/12/05

August 12, 2005

Dear friends,

Electromagnetic beam weapons are yet another example of science fiction becoming science fact. The below MSNBC/Associated Press article portrays the battlefield weapons of the future--guns which blind, burn the skin, or kill using electromagnetic energy beams. These and other "non-lethal weapons," as they are called, have been around for decades. For a brief summary of the history and development of non-lethal weapons with footnotes for verification, see www.WantToKnow.info/mindcontrol10pg#nonlethal

We spend immense amounts of money each year on weapons and the military. Yet CBS reports that the Pentagon's own auditors were unable to account for $2.3 trillion of the military budget. That's almost $10,000 for every man, woman and child in the US which has disappeared from the accounting books. A highly decorated US general once wrote a devastating book exposing exactly how War is a Racket which pads the pockets of the power elite.

For an abundance of other reliable, verifiable information on cover-ups dealing with war, see our War Information Center. By each of us working to resolve conflicts on both personal and global levels, and to support all people in being the best we can be, we can collectively reduce the amount of tension in the world and build a brighter future for ourselves and future generations. Thanks for caring, and you have a good day.

With best wishes,

Fred Burks for the WantToKnow.info Team

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8516353/

Despite promise, energy-beam weapons still missing from action

Pulses could stun, kill using light or radio wave ammunition

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

ARLINGTON, Va. - For years, the U.S. military has explored a new kind of firepower that is instantaneous, precise and virtually inexhaustible: beams of electromagnetic energy. ''Directed-energy'' pulses can be throttled up or down depending on the situation, much like the phasers on ''Star Trek'' could be set to kill or merely stun. Such weapons are now nearing fruition. But logistical issues have delayed their battlefield debut -- even as soldiers in Iraq encounter tense urban situations in which the nonlethal capabilities of directed energy could be put to the test.

"It's a great technology with enormous potential, but I think the environment's not strong for it," said James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who blames the military and Congress for not spending enough on getting directed energy to the front. "The tragedy is that I think it's exactly the right time for this."

The hallmark of all directed-energy weapons is that the target -- whether a human or a mechanical object -- has no chance to avoid the shot because it moves at the speed of light. At some frequencies, it can penetrate walls.

Since the ammunition is merely light or radio waves, directed-energy weapons are limited only by the supply of electricity. And they don't involve chemicals or projectiles that can be inaccurate, accidentally cause injury or violate international treaties.

"When you're dealing with people whose full intent is to die, you can't give people a choice of whether to comply," said George Gibbs, a systems engineer for the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad Program who oversees directed-energy projects. "What I'm looking for is a way to shoot everybody, and they're all OK."

Almost as diverse as the electromagnetic spectrum itself, directed-energy weapons span a wide range of incarnations.

Among the simplest forms are inexpensive, handheld lasers that fill people's field of vision, inducing a temporary blindness to ensure they stop at a checkpoint, for example. Some of these already are used in Iraq.

Other radio-frequency weapons in development can sabotage the electronics of land mines, shoulder-fired missiles or automobiles -- a prospect that interests police departments in addition to the military.

A separate branch of directed-energy research involves bigger, badder beams: lasers that could obliterate targets tens of miles away from ships or planes. Such a strike would be so surgical that, as some designers put it at a recent conference here, the military could plausibly deny responsibility.

The flexibility of directed-energy weapons could be vital as wide-scale, force-on-force conflict becomes increasingly rare, many experts say. But the technology has been slowed by such practical concerns as how to shrink beam-firing antennas and power supplies.

Military officials also say more needs to be done to assure the international community that directed-energy weapons set to stun rather than kill will not harm noncombatants.

Such issues recently led the Pentagon to delay its Project Sheriff, a plan to outfit vehicles in Iraq with a combination of lethal and nonlethal weaponry -- including a highly touted microwave-energy blaster that makes targets feel as if their skin is on fire. Sheriff has been pushed at least to 2006.

"It was best to step back and make sure we understand where we can go with it," said David Law, science and technology chief for the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

The directed-energy component in the project is the Active Denial System, developed by Air Force researchers and built by Raytheon Co. It produces a millimeter-wavelength burst of energy that penetrates 1/64 of an inch into a person's skin, agitating water molecules to produce heat. The sensation is certain to get people to halt whatever they are doing.

Military investigators say decades of research have shown that the effect ends the moment a person is out of the beam, and no lasting damage is done as long as the stream does not exceed a certain duration. How long? That answer is classified, but it apparently is in the realm of seconds, not minutes. The range of the beam also is secret, though it is said to be further than small arms fire, so an attacker could be repelled before he could pull a trigger.

Although Active Denial works -- after a $51 million, 11-year investment -- it has proven to be a "model for how hard it is to field a directed-energy nonlethal weapon," Law said.

For example, the prototype system can be mounted on a Humvee but the vehicle has to stop in order to fire the beam. Using the vehicle's electrical power "is pushing its limits," he added.

Still, Raytheon is pressing ahead with smaller, portable, shorter-range spinoffs of Active Denial for embassies, ships or other sensitive spots.

One potential customer is the Department of Energy. Researchers at its Sandia National Laboratories are testing Active Denial as a way to repel intruders from nuclear facilities. But Sandia researchers say the beams won't be in place until 2008 at the earliest because so much testing remains.

In the meantime, Raytheon is trying to drum up business for an automated airport-defense project known as Vigilant Eagle that detects shoulder-fired missiles and fries their electronics with an electromagnetic wave. The system, which would cost $25 million per airport, has proven effective against a "real threat," said Michael Booen, a former Air Force colonel who heads Raytheon's directed-energy work. He refused to elaborate.

For Peter Bitar, the future of directed energy boils down to money.

Bitar heads Indiana-based Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems Ltd., which makes small blinding lasers used in Iraq. But his real project is a nonlethal energy device called the StunStrike.

Basically, it fires a bolt of lightning. It can be tuned to blow up explosives, possibly to stop vehicles and certainly to buzz people. The strike can be made to feel as gentle as "broom bristles" or cranked up to deliver a paralyzing jolt that "takes a few minutes to wear off."

Bitar, who is of Arab descent, believes StunStrike would be particularly intimidating in the Middle East because, he contends, people there are especially afraid of lightning.

At present, StunStrike is a 20-foot tower that can zap things up to 28 feet away. The next step is to shrink it so it could be wielded by troops and used in civilian locales like airplane cabins or building entrances.

Xtreme ADS also needs more tests to establish that StunStrike is safe to use on people.

But all that takes money -- more than the $700,000 Bitar got from the Pentagon from 2003 until the contract recently ended.

Bitar is optimistic StunStrike will be perfected, either with revenue from the laser pointers or a partnership with a bigger defense contractor. In the meantime, though, he wishes soldiers in Iraq already had his lightning device on difficult missions like door-to-door searches.

"It's very frustrating when you know you've got a solution that's being ignored," he said. "The technology is the easy part."

On the Net:

Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate: https://www.jnlwd.usmc.mil

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

As I observed, Colby will go on and on, endlessly, like the Energizer Bunny!

That's his job. Conry had 5,200 hours of experience and an Air Transport

Pilot's certification, which is the highest civilian status. He had passed his

FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight. By the government's

own standard, he was qualified to fly the plane. What this guy is not telling

you is that the NTSB only considered accident alternatives that involved the

plane, the weather, or the pilots! They did not even consider non-accident

alternatives, such as a small bomb, a gas canister, or a high-tech weapon.

It was impossible for them to conclude it might have been an assassination

because they were not allowed to explore that possibility. As I explained

before, the NTSB can only consider the possibility that a crash scene is a

crime scene if the Attorney General declares it to be the scene of a crime!

The NTSB cannot have disproven an hypothesis it never even considered.

It cannot have shown that the accident alternative is more likely than the

assassination alternative when it was not allowed to investigate any but

accident alternatives. Even I would agree that, if the only alternatives

were the plane, the weather, or the pilots, since the weather was not bad

and the plane was very good, the most plausible inference would be that

the pilots were at fault. As long as you ignore that the pilots would have

had to ignore their altitutde and air speed as well as their direction and a

loud stall warning alarm--and that it was impossible to bring the plane down

using simulations with weaker engines flying at slower speeds--then maybe

you can pull the wool over the eyes of the naive. But you are better off if

no one makes an issue of it, since this is strickly sleight-of-hand deception.

This appears to be a fool-proof method for eliminating your political oppon-

ents. Commit the crime and induce a complicit or compliant Attorney Gen-

eral to not declare it the scene of a crime. Then let hacks like Colby and

others attack and ridicule anyone who undertakes a more encompassing,

thorough, and systematic investigation to evaluate the NTSB's report. He

can ridicule and belittle anyone who dares to challenge the government,

even by repeatedly quoting the NTSB's FINAL REPORT, even though that

is the very report being challenged by his investigation. It can work. It

even worked with THE WARREN REPORT until things finally unraveled. The

American people, for the most part, are simple-minded and willing to be

taken in as long as it does not disturb their football, television, and beer.

I get a boot out of it when he goes on and on about the second log book!

He even took Christoper Bollyn's coup in interviewing Rick Wahlberg, the

Sheriff of St. Louis County, who told him that, when he arrived at 1:30,

he saw agents he knew personally from the rapid reponse team in St.

Paul. We thought that was going to be a problem, since Paul McCabe,

the FBI spokesman, said that the team only arrived at 3:30. And then

Fetzer talked with Gary Ulman who confirmed that they had arrived no

later than 1 PM! We thought we were impailed on that one, but Colby

has obfuscated the situation enough to make it look as though Fetzer,

not McCabe, is the one who has been prevaricating. That's our boy!

He can take the most obvious evidence and turn it into an odd mystery.

How many will realize that this technique depends upon their gullibility by

playing them for saps? Hell, I'll bet even on a website like that Simkin's

forum the readers will be taken in and not realize they are being duped.

They don't even understand that one of the members of the NTSB's own

team, Richard Healing, admitted they had no idea what caused the crash.

That Colby is a slick one. He will deny the obvious and twist the truth,

ignore evidence and assail character until no one will have the courage

to speak up or search for the truth! It is a method tried and true. It is

a method that worked for Hitler and it works for Bush just as well. He

is as good at it as anyone has ever been. Fetzer's right about that! In

time, we'll give him a medal for his performance on behalf of the nation!

No one will be the wiser. And we can continue to create our own reality.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...