Bin Laden died in Afghanistan in 2001, not in 2011 in Pakistan: American Scholar

by Jim Fetzer with PressTV

An American scholar says the whole Osama bin Laden issue was an “elaborate charade,” adding that the al-Qaeda leader died in December 2001 in Afghanistan, not in May 2011 in Pakistan.

James Henry Fetzer, who is also a journalist with Veterans Truth Network and a retired professor in Madison, Wisconsin, told Press TV on Wednesday that American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is only telling a half-truth about the Bin Laden's death. 

In the article published on the London Review of Books on Sunday, Hersh wrote that high-level lying “remains the modus operandi of US policy, along with secret prisons, drone attacks, Special Forces night raids, bypassing the chain of command, and cutting out those who might say no.”

The report claims that Pakistani military officers helped US helicopters enter the country and that a Pakistani security official led the American troops directly to Bin Laden without any resistance from guards.

American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh

Washington announced on May 2, 2011 that bin Laden was killed in his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by US special forces and CIA operatives. He was the founder of al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization that allegedly claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Professor Fetzer said Hersh is not telling the whole truth. “The situation is actually profoundly more disturbing, and therefore I am surprised that Seymour Hersh hasn’t understood it.”

“The fact of the matter is that Osama bin Laden died on December 15, 2001 in Afghanistan. He was buried in an unmarked grave there in accordance with Muslim traditions, with local obituaries,” he added.

“David Ray Griffin, who has ten books on 9/11, has published about it --Osama bin Laden Dead or Alive,” he noted.

“Nicholas Kollerstrom, the leading expert on the 7/7 London bombing attacks, whose book, Terror on the Tube now in its third edition, has published about it in an article entitled Osama bin Laden, 1957 – 2001,” he stated.

“Even Fox News published a notice of Osama bin Laden’s death on December 26, 2001, which you can still find online,” he pointed out.

“And Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which I founded in December 2005, published about the use of the fake audio tapes and fake Osamas, which you can find in the press release for Scholars at 911scholars.org,” the American scholar said.

Another Fake Osama bin Laden? There were several.

“What Obama was doing was attempting to wipe questions about his birth certificate off the front page, and trying to justifying” several of his other actions, Professor Fetzer stated.

“The whole thing was an elaborate charade. It worked as a political theater, as a public relations stunt, by allowing him to proclaim that he had taken out the most wanted man in the world,” he emphasized.

“But the fact of the matter is that Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with the 9/11.  He in fact died ten years earlier. So what we were receiving from the press were simply reports about the second death of Osama bin Laden,” he underlined.

“It is pathetic. But the American government has been reduced to nothing but to lying to the American people, fabricating cases.”

The September 11 attacks, also known as the 9/11 attacks, were a series of strikes in the US which killed nearly 3,000 people and caused about $10 billion worth of property and infrastructure damage.

A man stands in the rubble after the attack of 9/11.

US officials assert that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists but many experts have raised questions about the official account, saying it was a false-flag operation and that Bin Laden was just a bogeyman for the US military-industrial complex.

They believe that rogue elements within the US government orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda.

Read More

Why Ringo's Confession, "We replaced Paul!", appears to be authentic

by Jim Fetzer

[NOTE: This article was originally posted on Veterans Today on March 29, 2015. When I was sacked by Gordon Duff for speaking out about JADE HELM and his abusive treatment of Robert O'Dowd for an earlier article regarding JADE HELM, I discovered that he had taken down my four most recent articles about the Boston bombing and this article as well. In one of the most brutal media massacres of all time--where he has deleted 150 articles of mine on JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more--I am going to do my best to restore the most important. He trashed me on Kevin Barrett's "Truth Jidad Radio" for having published this, but, as I observed in the original article, if Paul McCartney, the most publicly observed person in the world, could be replaced without notice, anyone could be replaced, which also happened with Saddam Hussein, as I reported in articles that Gordon Duff has now obliterated.] 

The blunder of drawing conclusions about truth or falsity based upon sources alone is called "the genetic fallacy"

First known photo of Ringo playing drums with the Beatles (22 August 1962)

"During our “False Flag Weekly News” on 5 March 2015, I had included an interesting report about Ringo Starr having claimed that Paul McCartney had died in 1966 and been replaced. Because I had done research on this subject for at least three years  (due to Clare Kuehn’s keen interest in the subject, about which she has an extensive blog), I thought it was an extremely clear explanation of what had happened and how Paul’s replacement had come about using a look-alike by the name of Billy Shears. Kevin, however, took strong exception and would even publish an article about it in VT:




What bothered me most was that, even though I explained that I had been studying this issue for some three years and that it was like most other complex and controversial questions (where, if you haven’t looked at the evidence, a conclusion that is actually well-supported might sound rather bizarre). But Kevin was supposed to know that already on the basis of JFK (where THE WARREN REPORT is anything but authoritative) or 9/11 (THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT is likewise a work of fiction). Authoritative sources are not necessarily right or non-authoritative wrong.

I mentioned during our (rather strenuous) exchange that he really needed to look at the evidence, but a conversation between us yesterday indicated to me that he had done no such thing, which I have found to be acutely disappointing. 

Clare’s blog has quite a lot about the subject, including a most intriguing diagram that John Lennon sketched, which portrays what appears to be a young man with his head split open and brains and gore running out of it – not the sort of thing one would expect a Beatle to doodle! But it clearly raises questions. 

Clare has a great deal to say about this it and offers quite a lot of evidence –most of which is highly circumstantial – that strongly suggests that Paul may have died in 1966 and been replaced. I have been after Clare for years to provide forensic proof that Paul had been replaced, which she has done (gradually, piece by piece), over the years. 

But it was the discovery of a study by two Italian forensic scientists that made me a believer, which is why I am publishing a synopsis of their research below. I may be unable to affect Kevin in his thinking, but others may be less closed-minded.

Undoubtedly, it was because I had done research on the subject and he had not that we had such a striking disagreement on the air, which like the show was spontaneous and unrehearsed. 

The Hollywoodinquirer.com

Indeed, if you listen to it even causally, you can see that I am very pissed off, because he is paying no attention at all to what I am saying about “Ringo’s confession”, which ties together all the loose ends of the case in a very tight package that I believe is complete, accurate and true. 

Kevin, however, was preoccupied with the source of the report, which he discovered to be HollywoodInquirer.com, a shell site. No doubt, the source is not notable; but it is an elementary fallacy to judge the truth or falsity of a claim on the basis of its source. (This is known as “the genetic fallacy”, as I explained during our exchange on “False Flag Weekly News”.)

Strictly speaking, of course, we could both be correct, where a source of no reputation nevertheless offers a story that is true, which, indeed, is my position about this matter. There might have been a variety of reasons for concealing its origins, but the article itself was substantial and offers proof on its own:

Not only does this explain away the mystery, but a very straightforward comparison of the two was provided as well:

In my opinion, this photographic comparison should have caused an acute mind like that of Kevin Barrett to pause and ask if he was not committing the premature rejection of the issue at stake, where Paul’s face is rounder and has a decidedly younger appearance, while Billy’s is longer and presents a more mature countenance.  (Many more features distinguishing them are presented below.) 

According to the article, Ringo explained they had sent out many clues:

One of the most interesting aspects of the story is that Ringo also explains the cover of “Abbey Road” as among the most important clues they had transmitted, where each of the four represented a crucial participant in a funeral service: the minister, the undertaker, the corpse and the grave digger, which I only understood from reading this explanation – and I have been a huge Beatles fan for virtually all of my adult life. This is embedded in the article:

Now if Kevin Barrett can commit a blunder of this magnitude, then most certainly mere mortals can commit it, too. I therefore offer this as an advisory to avoid the genetic fallacy. If he were to come back now and say that he only meant the source was of indeterminate origin and that he did not mean to impugn the truth of the contents of the article, he ought to have made that clear. Because several times I emphasized that the story (“Ringo’s confession”) appeared to me to be accurate and authentic, but even in his own article about it, Kevin continues to alluded to “the bogus quote”.

Paul and Jane (before and after)

And just for the sake of driving the point home, who other than a Beatle would have been in the position to explain what happened? Kevin would insist that I am taking for granted that it did happen, but there is a veritable mountain of proof to substantiate that Paul McCartney before the incident in 1966 is not the same “Paul McCartney” after 1966, where I would like to believe that he could still be convinced that we are talking about two different persons, no matter how difficult it may be to comprehend. If it took me three years to sort this out, perhaps we should check back with Kevin in 2018.

Paul is Dead: Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle» 

by Anonymous Student

The cover-story Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle» (literal translation: Ask who was that “Beatle”) for the issue of Wired Italia (July 15, 2009), the Italian edition of the US magazine Wired, describes the analysis of the McCartney conspiracy theory conducted by two Italians, Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni (the man and woman in this photo):

Their purpose for analyzing this conspiracy theory was to provide indisputable, scientific evidence that would put an end to the persistent rumors that Paul McCartney had died in a car accident in 1966.

However, the results of their analysis surprised them. Instead of putting an end to the rumors, their analysis provides scientific evidence that the Paul McCartney of today is not the same man as the Paul McCartney prior to 1966.

By coincidence, on that same day that this article appeared in Italy, Paul McCartney was at the Ed Sullivan theater  in New York City to appear on the David Letterman television show and to give a free, outdoor performance on top of the marquee of the Ed Sullivan theater.

He and Letterman laughed about the silly rumor that Paul McCartney had died in 1966. We could interpret McCartney’s appearance in New York City as an attempt to distract Americans from the publication of the Italian article and to encourage Americans to laugh at the McCartney conspiracy theories.

I will use the name Paul to refer to Paul McCartney before the 1966 car accident, and Faul to refer to the Paul McCartney after the accident. So, are Paul and Faul the same person?

Who are Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni?

Gabriella Carlesi is forensic pathologist who specializes in identification of people through craniometry (i.e. comparison of certain features of the skull) and forensic odontology (i.e. analysis of the teeth), while Francesco Gavazzeni is a specialist in computer analyses. By putting their talents together, they were able to use a computer to obtain high precision measurements of Paul McCartney’s skull from various photos of his face.

Certain features of our skull, teeth, and ears are extremely effective for identifying us; some of them cannot currently be modified by surgery. In fact, in Germany, the identification of the shape of the right ear has the same legal value of that of a DNA test or fingerprints detection.

Gabriella Carlesi has been a consultant for identification of people via digital image processing for various investigations, including:

• The identification of Sergei Antonov in the scenario of the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, in relation to the “Mitrokhin Archive” (for an Italian Parliament Commission);

• The identification of Francesco Narducci, connected to the investigation of the so called “Monster of Florence”;

• The murder of journalist Ilaria Alpi and her camera operator Miran Hrovatin (for an Italian Parliament Commission); and,

• The assassination of Benito Mussolini and his mistress Claretta Petacci (for a historical reconstruction).

Forensic evidence based on photographs

The two researchers began their analysis by obtaining high quality photos of Paul McCartney before and after the car accident. Gavazzeni complained that some photos taken before 1966 were not properly dated (sometimes different photo agencies would have different dates for the same photo), and that some of the best photos were the property of photographers who were very reluctant to release them. However, they eventually found two good quality photos dated before 1966 and two after 1967.

Different photos of a human face, in order to be compared, have to be re-sized to match the same scale; to do this, one feature of the face must be used as a scaling factor . These two researchers opted for the distance between the pupils. In other words, the photos were scaled so that the distance between the pupils was exactly the same for all of them.

Once photos of a person have been scaled so that the eyes have identical locations, then if you lay the photos on top of each other, certain features will match exactly, such as the shape of the skull. The skin and hair may be very different, but the skulls should be identical.

Both of the photos taken prior to 1966 matched one another perfectly, and both of the photos taken after 1967 matched one another perfectly. However, the researchers were shocked to discover that the photos prior to 1966 did not match the photos taken after 1967.

For example, the frontal curvature of the jaw was different (i.e. the curve going from one ear to the other and passing through the chin, which you see when looking directly into a face, as in the photos on the right) and the jaw arc was also different (i.e. the curve of the jaw that you would see if looking downward at the head from above).

Gavazzeni noticed a common feature of Faul‘s early photos that is not seen in his recent photos: a dark area shadowing the external corner of the left eye. That area now shows something half-way between a scar and something that resembles skin that was stretched as a consequence of cosmetic surgery, or, as Gavazzeni suggests, of an imperfect cosmetic surgery.

Faul's head is more oblong than Paul's

Photos show that Faul’s head is more oblong than Paul’s head. Gavazzeni pointed out that some of the early printed photos of Faul must have been compressed in height in order to make his head appear shorter and more rounded. He said his conclusion is inescapable because the shape of the skull of an adult cannot be altered.

He said there was a simple trick for stretching or compressing photos during the printing process in those days before computer photo editing became available, so it would have been very easy for them to do this trick.

Carlesi pointed out that the line separating Faul’s lips is much wider, to the point that it was obvious even when Faul grew a mustache, perhaps in an attempt to hide that detail. Lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the wideness of their separating line can be altered only to a small extent.

More interesting is the position, relative to the skull, of the point where the nose detaches from the face, because it can not modified by surgery. According to Carlesi, these points for Paul and Faul are considerably different.

Some features of the ear are also useful for identification purposes because these as well are not modifiable through surgery. Carlesi and Gavazzeni determined that the ears of Paul and Faul differed significantly.

Teeth can be altered… to a certain extent

Some features of the human body can be altered, such the position and slope of teeth (dental braces do this for millions of people). Carlesi noticed that the teeth configurations for Paul and Faul do not match, but in a very curious way.

In Paul’s mouth, his upper right canine tooth is pushed out of its normal position because there is not 

enough room in his jaw for all of his teeth to fit properly.

In Faul’s mouth, that same canine tooth is also crooked, but there is plenty of room in his jaw for all of his teeth. Since no other teeth are pushing against the crooked tooth, how did that tooth become crooked?

Carlesi concludes that the crooked tooth in Faul’s mouth was the result of a dental operation to simulate the crooked tooth in Paul’s mouth.

Carlesi was even more amazed at the difference in the shape of the palate. It was so narrow in Paul that some teeth were misaligned (such as the canine tooth mentioned above), but Faul’s palate was so wide that the front teeth did not rotate with respect to their axis, or tilt, as was happening for Paul, with the only exception of that upper right canine (mentioned above) which leans outward.

Carlesi points out that altering the shape of a person’s palate, although possible in the 1960s, would have required a traumatic surgical operation (the breaking of a bone. She doesn’t say which bone, but seems to refer to the hard palate), and it would have required the wearing of fixed dental braces for more than a year. 

Therefore, if the conspiracy theories are false – i.e., if the Paul McCartney that we see today with a large palate is the original Paul McCartney with a small palate – then Paul went through some very serious dental surgeries, and he would have suffered for a long time, and it would have had an effect on his voice.

The more logical conclusion is that the Paul McCartney of today is a substitute, and that Faul went through a much simpler dental operation to make one of his teeth crooked.

A DNA test!

Carlesi and Gavazzeni commented that if McCartney really wanted to put an end to these rumors, he could have offered to take a DNA test with his father or his younger brother, Mike, but he didn’t. McCartney took a DNA test only once, but the authors of the article point out that the DNA test created more confusion and suspicion of his true identity, not less.

In 1962, when the Beatles were living in Hamburg, Germany and still unknown to most people, Paul McCartney had a brief affair with a German woman named Erika Wohlers. She gave birth to a daughter, Bettina, in December 1962, which was during the time the Beatles were starting to become famous. The Beatles soon left Germany, and McCartney abandoned Erica. Around 1967 McCartney agreed to pay 30,000 deutsche marks to support Bettina, but he was not admitting to being her father, even though she claims her German birth certificate identifies him as her father!

 

Once Bettina became an adult, she asked a German court to have McCartney recognize her as his natural daughter. McCartney had to submit to a DNA test, and the test showed that he was not her father. Interestingly, based on an autograph signed by McCartney, together with some photos taken for the occasion, Bettina accused the person who took that DNA test of being a substitute for Paul, not the real Paul McCartney! The autograph, for instance, was signed by somebody right-handed (Paul was left-handed).

Carlesi and Gavazzeni do some damage control

Both of the Italian researchers were shocked to discover that the conspiracy theories appear valid, so at the end of the article they do some damage control by pointing out that since McCartney is a famous person, more analyses should be conducted before anybody makes these accusations so that we can be 100% certain about the conclusion.

Earlier in that article, Gavazzeni admitted that the more they were pressured to release the results of their analysis, the more they tried to stall for time because the evidence was pointing in the opposite direction of what they were hoping for. Unfortunately for them, the more the time they spent analyzing the evidence, the more certain they became that Paul McCartney really did die in 1966!

It’s also amusing to note that Carlesi said that she had agreed to get involved in the analysis because she assumed it would require only a few minutes of her time to prove that Paul and Faul are the same person!

Comments from readers of the Italian article

Some readers posted interesting comments at the bottom of the on-line version of the Wired Italia article:

• Reader frabot, on August 22, 2009 at 23:42:07 suggests to watch "The Late Show with David Letterman" for July 15, 2009 (is it a coincidence that this is the same date of the publication of that article by Wired Italia?), in which McCartney jokes about the idea that Paul died in 1966. That footage is interesting because Faul seems to lie in conversation with David Letterman:



• Reader Luca, on August 1, 2009 at 13:11:29 claims to have analyzed the voices of Paul and Faul and that their timbres differ. He also points out that after that accident the Beatles significantly changed their hair styles, especially McCartney, who conveniently had slightly longer hair on the right side of his head.

• Reader easytale, on July 30, 2009 at 9:53:35 points out that Faul played live only a very few times, songs like “Yesterday”, and that he played them only after the 1980s. And once, around the year 2000, he played in Canada using his right hand!

So, recapitulating:

• Forensic evidence shows that Faul is not Paul;

• Old photos were altered to make Faul more closely resemble Paul;

• Faul went through some dental operation(s) to have some of his teeth misaligned to mimic Paul’s particular defects;

• Faul had to learn to play left-handed.

How many people have been threatened, intimidated, killed, or bribed to keep quiet about this?

Acknowledgement: Special thanks to Eric Hufschmid, who published an earlier version in 2010 with this note: “Last year the cover-story of Wired Italia, the Italian edition of the US magazine Wired, was about two Italian researchers who tried to disprove the conspiracy theory that Paul McCartney had been replaced by an impostor. 

A man in Italy considered the article to have a lot of valuable information, and so he sent me a summary of it.” Eric did a bit of editing, where we have done a bit more, including the addition of several images for publication here."

Read More

JADE HELM: Kevin Barrett and Gordon Duff move to The Dark Side

by Jim Fetzer

It was bad enough when Kevin Barrett published a blog that grossly distorted what I have reported about recent events involving Stew Webb, Jeff Rense and Gordon Duff, where Duff fired Webb while he was on the air with me and Preston James. Not long thereafter, he added an "Editor's Note" trashing an article by Robert O'Dowd, which raised questions about the military operation, JADE HELM. And when I spoke up on behalf of O'Dowd and explained why he appeared to be right, I was given the boot, too.

I subsequently took him to task for his unprofessional and offensive behavior, which included taking down my four most recent and important articles about the Boston bombing and another on (what I take to be an authentic) "confession" of Ringo Starr that Paul McCartney had died in 1966 and been replaced. Now Kevin has compounded the matter by featuring Gordon on his "Truth Jihad" radio show, where Gordon took the opportunity to issue a string of false statements, including a fabricated conversation.

During his appearance, Duff claims that I am a purposeful deceiver who cares nothing about truth or his own credentials or the reputation of Veterans Today. The facts of the matter are precisely the opposite. I am dedicated to the pursuit of truth, as anyone who knows me knows from their own experience. And it has been costly, including in this instance, because Duff appears to have deleted the 150 articles that I published with VT on JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more since 5 July 2011. 

An striking illustration of Duff's stunning duplicity is that he claims the article on "Ringo's Confession" was libelous since I am asserting that the person who identifies himself as "Paul McCartney" today is not the original "Paul McCartney". But I did not merely assert that to be the case: I included forensic evidence in the article that these are two different people (where their palates, their teeth, their ears, their faces, their skulls and even their heights are different)! And truth is an absolute defense against libel.

I doubt that Gordon even read the article and, while Kevin acknowledged that the forensic evidence "is interesting"(during a Truth Jihad Radio show about it), he seemed to be incapable of admitting that it's not simply interesting but decisive as proof we are talking about two different persons. I have learned through the years that Kevin has a hard time admitting that he is wrong, where I can recall exactly one time he has done that (which was allowing that he had let the caller to this show become verbally abusive).

Gordon, however, was another matter entirely, where he made up a story about a conversation with me that never happened, where he claims I told him that I could care less about the truth of JADE HELM or the reliability of my sources but was going with the story anyway! But that is a complete and total fabrication. Not only did the alleged conversation never take place, but from from the beginning, I have been concerned with identifying sources and reflecting the range and variety of the evidence about JADE HELM:

"The Real Deal", Episode #45 (April 20, 2015):

   

For my first show about JADE HELM, for example, I invited three other parties to join me in a mutual collaborative attempt to sort out what is going on here--Terri from Nebraska, Preston James and Dennis Cimino--to kick around the available evidence and consider alternative hypotheses. We all agreed that this involves more than 12,000 troops from the National Guard and that it is clearly not "an ordinary training drill", which is the song and dance that's been coming from Gordon Duff since the beginning.

"The Real Deal" Episode #46 (April 22, 2015):

   

The next "Real Deal", I featured Robert O'Dowd, the former Marine whose article about JADE HELM Gordon had trashed and I had defended, where I observe that an op that endures for two month is not a drill but an occupation. Duff has attacked discussion of JADE HELM as "fear porn" and an attempt to create hysteria in the public, where our concern is that there are too many signs that this is the initiation of martial law in the US, especially against the background of the PATRIOT ACT, creation of DHS, construction of 300 FEMA camps and acquisition of 2-billion rounds of .40 calibre hollow point ammo.

"False Flag Weekly News", broadcast April 23, 2015:

To watch "False Flag Weekly News" 04/23/2015, click here. 

Because Kevin was engaged in a book tour promoting his We are NOT Charlie Hebdo (2015), which I applaud, I did the show solo, as occurs from time to time. Because of my concerns over JADE HELM, I spent the first 20 minutes of the 30 minute show on that subject, where we publish links to our stories and you can find 20 links to the sources I was specifically citing. The closing of the Walmarts and their conversion, which includes installing 8-9' fences, covering their windows with dark plastic sheeting and ripping up floors to remodel them for novel purposes are among the signs that have been bothering me the most.

"False Flag Weekly News", broadcast on April 30, 2015:

To watch "False Flag Weekly News" 04/30/2015, click here.

When Kevin returned the next week, he challenged me again and again about JADE HELM. It was not a pleasant experience. I rather strongly suspect that Gordon had been talking with him about me and my "obsession" with JADE HELM which, he would have insinuated, was not only harming my credibility but that of VT and (now) of Kevin Barrett. So Kevin set out to put me in my place, which is easier said than done, and I responded because, unlike Kevin, I had done my homework, which he had not. Some listeners have written to say that they were appalled by Kevin's conduct, which was also true for me.

Kevin has repeatedly said that he does not know the sources I have been citing, where I had explained already in "Ringo's Confession" that it is the content of articles and videos and how they hang together with other available information, where the coherence of the data is our most important criterion about what is most likely to be going on. If we wait until our sources are impeccable and the situation is now certain, that may mean the operation was a success and we are clustered together in a FEMA camp:

our challenge is to take a lot of uncertain sources and figure out what's going on. If we wait for epistemic certainty, it will (in this case, for example) be too late to do anything about it. I share with the late Capt. May the position that we are better to sound the alarm (when evidence warrants) and be wrong than not sound the alarm and suffer the consequences... which could be meeting in FEMA camps or losing our heads (literally, not just figuratively). I would be glad to be proven wrong, but the risk we run is that I and many others just might be right. The handwriting is on the wall. 

After all, what "sources" does he find credible? The Warren Report (1964)? The 9/11 Commission Report (2004)? The New York Times? As I observed in my response to his blog, Kevin gets everything right--except the facts! And when Duff fabricates a story suggesting I don't care about the truth or my sources but just liked the story and wanted to tun with it, he is not talking about me but about himself, where this appears to be a classic case of projection. Compare what I have said and sourced with what he has said and sourced: the contrast could not be more striking. One of us may be a liar, but that would not be me.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota.  He hosts "The Real Deal" on MBC M/W/F from 8-10 PM/ET.

Read More

SANDY HOOK: Wolfgang Halbig goes for the jugular in FOIA Hearing

by Jim Fetzer 

Wolfgang Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper, school principal and nationally recognized school safety expert, is the leading researcher into the Sandy Hook. After filing complaint upon complaint about the failure of responses to his FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, he was granted a hearing, which was initially scheduled for March 31, 2015. Wolfgang waited, but the time came and went. It was re-booked for April 24th and has taken place. Here is an exclusive interview with Wolfgang by MBC (Media Broadcasting Center), where a video recording of the hearing and a panel discussion of what had transpired during the hearing with many serious students of Sandy Hook follow. 

For those who are less familiar with the background of the Sandy Hook hoax, here is a summary of key aspects, which include ample proof that the school had been closed by 2008, which included that it was not compliant with Connecticut laws implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (where there is a complete absence of the familiar white-and-blue parking areas and corresponding signage, where the exterior of the building is in deplorable condition and the inside was being used for storage:

Among our most important discoveries has been the FEMA manual for the Sandy Hook event, which specifies that a rehearsal will be conducted on December 13, 2012, with the event going "LIVE" on the 14th, which explains why Wolf has been unable to obtain information about the Port-A-Potties, which on its face seems very obscure, but where releasing the documents he has requested would reveal that they were delivered on the 13th, which blows the cover for the whole event. Bear in mind that, while we already know that it was a scam, but Wolf is proceeding to establish that point as a matter of law.

Photos from "The Crime Scene"

One of Wolf's successes has been to gain access to dozens and dozens of photographs taken of the school the day after the alleged shooting. MBC has included them with its broadcast, where I am offering a sample of what they tell us about the condition of the school, both inside and out. These photographs provide further substantiation of my inference that the school had been closed by 2008, which I published (with Amanda) in "Sandy Hook Elementary School: Closed an 2008, a stage in 2012". The building is covered with moss and grime, with many indications of repairs left undone:

The interior shots provide even more damning proof that the school had long-since been abandoned, with loose electrical chords dangling, unkempt offices and rooms, with materials stored everywhere. Anyone who reviews these photos should have a more profound appreciation for the points that I made in "Sandy Hook: Ten More Proofs that Vitiate the 'Official Account'" and in "Sandy Hook Elementary School: Close in 2008, a stage in 2012", at least one of which remains accessible on YouTube today:

The FOIA Hearing (April 24, 2015)

Kelley Watt has summarized the event as follows:  On Friday, April 24, 2015, Wolfgang had his long overdue and awaited hearing before the Freedom of Information Commission. The Commissioner is a Governor Malloy appointee. The discussion dealt with the consent agenda regarding the Super Bowl permission by Dawn Hochsprung ("the hoax was sprung in the dawn"), documents for which Wolf had requested. Monte Frank, an attorney, was present representing the School Board, the Newtown Police and the Town of Newtown.

Frank claimed Wolf had the documents he needed and had requested but Wolf stood firm and stated he wanted permission slips of children to sing, authorization from Dawn and the school board approving the field trip and those documents he did not receive. Wolf also took issue with documents regarding Chatfield's in regards to the Porta-A-Potties and who called for them he wanted but did not receive the documents from the school board or the school since the school would have to be the party ordering them since they are on their property.

Wolf then brought up the fact that there were no documents pertaining to communications between Connecticut Trooper One and the Newtown police. Chief Kehoe of the Newtown Police Department has claimed there were no communication logs, yet it was the Newtown police who asked for Trooper One helicopter to help search for a shooter or multiple shooters in the woods behind the school. 

Then it was the man in charge of maintenance for Sandy Hook schools who garnered laughter from the crowd when he stated he had read the work orders but didn't know if they existed. The FOIA requests that Wolf received had two unsigned signature lines at the bottom stating that the work had been done and signed off on by a supervisor; however, this man stated that they were not signed and that they just signed off verbally. 

When asked when the new security system was installed, he stated it was last updated in 2007! This was new information to all researchers and when Wolf was asked why he thought there was a new system, Wolf said every news outlet in America reported the school had a new system and the school principal, Mrs. Hochsprung had sent out letters to parents describing the new security upgrades. 

Monte said it was "hearsay" and he objected to it being in the record based on hearsay. The question also arose during the hearing why, after the first 911 calls were made, the police records indicate the incident was "moderate" rather than an emergency, where the unknown person in the vicinity was said to be "unwanted". Most of the meeting consisted of Monte Frank, objecting to things, asking that things not be put in the record, and contending that most of the items Wolf was pursuing were irrelevant.

Wolf visits with Governor Malloy    

After the meeting it was decided to take Wolf over to the state legislature in order to go to Malloy's office and ask him a question. They had to park a mile away but they went to the Governor's office and Wolf made a request of his aide, "Can you ask Malloy who spoke to him during the press conference he referenced that, 'The Lt. Governor and I have been spoken to that something like this may be played out in our state'?" And you can watch and hear the Governor make precisely that remark in this video:

Much to Wolf's amazement, the Lt. Governor and Malloy walked right by Wolf, so Wolf said, "Hello, I am Wolfgang Halbig. Can I ask you a question?" Malloy said "Sure." So Wolf asked who had spoken to him in advance apprising him that something like this might happen in your state. Governor Malloy's response was "I never said that!", which was rather astonishing, since the Governor's press conference the day of the event was recorded and widely publicized at the time. Wolf now has his denial on film!

Governor Malloy blundered here, no doubt because he did not want to admit that the person who had warned him "something like this might happen" appears to have been Attorney General Eric Holder, who visited with the governor on November 27, 2012, which was only a few weeks before the event at Sandy Hook would go down. Yet the governor made no effort to warn Connecticut school districts to enhance their security due to an imminent threat. I surmise he was in fact told they were going to take an abandoned school and conduct a drill and present it as real to promote the admin's anti-gun agenda.

Conclusion and Discussion

The room was full of Wolf's supporters. Wolf was told subpoenas were irrelevant because it was not a courtroom, where Monte Frank told Pat Llodra and the head custodian they did not have to obey the subpoenas and not to show up. It was reported that Monte was trembling. They ran out of time so the hearing will be held at a later date to finish up. I just listened to the hearing once and I think this all pretty accurate. Wolf's attorney did a great job considering she believed at first this really happened. I wonder what she thinks now! Thus concludes Kelley Watts summary of the initial hearing. But many of Wolf's supporters joined him in a round-table discussion of what he had accomplished thus far:

 

While many other photos and videos of the deplorable condition of Sandy Hook Elementary School may be found in "Sandy Hook Elementary School: Closed by 2008, a stage in 2012", I would like to offer a few examples of the photos that are now in the public domain, which illustrate the key point--reinforced by the report that the school's security system had most recently been updated in 2007!--by examples of the deplorable state of the school inside and out, where it was clearly being used for storage and was not operating at the time, one of which I have taken from that article for inclusion here:

Exhibit (1): Absence of compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act:

Exhibit (2): Presence electrical hazards for teachers, staff and students alike:

Exhibit (3): Absence of wheelchair accessibility and of proper maintenance:

Exhibit (4): Presence of stored items of every shape, kind and description:

If these are not compelling, there are many more. You will find gutters in need of repair, walls covered with moss, leaks and stains that require attention, classrooms filled with boxes and miscellaneous stuff, which have now been released because of Wolfgang's heroic actions. I have no doubt that his approach is going to drive legal nails into the coffin of the Sandy Hook hoax, where I encourage everyone to visit his site and contribute to his cause. He is a good and decent man, whom I personally support 100%.

Read More

THEY DIDN'T DO IT! Maret Tsarnaev blows apart the Boston Show Trial

by Jim Fetzer (with Maret Tsarnaeva)

As a retired university professor, former Marine Corps officer and journalist for veteranstoday.com, I have published several articles about the Boston bombing. Given my understanding that defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to provide clients with a vigorous defense, I have been stunned that Judy Clarke, the attorney of record for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has said that Dzhokhar did it, when there is a superabundance of evidence that this was a drill and that neither he nor his brother were involved.



Here is an update of the evidence in the case, including police on bullhorns announcing, "This is a drill! This is a drill!", tweets from The Boston Globe explaining that a demonstration bomb will be set of as part of bomb squad activities and a second announcing one will be set off in one minute in front of the library (where it goes of as predicted), an absence of blood which only shows up on a delayed basis (and is not real blood but Hollywood blood) and much more. But I have learned from Maret Tsarnaeva, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan's aunt, that even the footage from the scene of the crime, the Boston marathon footage, was faked: Tamerlan had a beard before and after, but is shown clean shaven in those videos.



The proof she adduced is compelling: We have photos of Tamerlan lying in bed with his cat, where his beard is apparent.  We have footage of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar working out at the Wai Kru gym on April 12th, three days before the event, where he has a well-trimmed beard. We have what purport to be photos of him at the Marathon on April 15th, where he is clean shaven. We have photos of him on April 18th, where he again has a beard. Even the photos of his arrest and of his body after he has been killed show that he was still sporting the well-trimmed beard. The corruption of local, state and federal officials in this case is overwhelming: everyone knows they are innocent except the American public!

The Arrest of Tamerlan

Maret has sent me a video she saved on my computer, which shows Tamerlan being arrested alive at 1:04ish a.m. on April 19, 2013 on Mt Auburn Street (at the intersection with Adams Street). Tamerlan is on the ground handcuffed, surrounded by Boston police agents. No gun, or explosives are seen taken from him, while the police searched him. After his pockets have been emptied, a policeman takes his wallet from his pocket, reviews it using a flashlight, then announces, "It's him". From the reaction of police agents on the scene, it looks as if they had been searching for Tamerlan in Watertown, but they had no description, where the fact that the police had to review his document to identify him confirms her suspicion, that the police were looking exactly for Tamerlan Tsarnaev, under orders from the FBI, but they (the police) had no independent description of Tamerlan to use in their search of the city:

 

Maret comments on that video: "This guy lives here, but he doesn't know who he is." These words are said by the policeman, who checked the other guy, who is laying on the ground, next to Tamerlan on his right, also handcuffed, but awfully quiet all the time. And nobody is searching him or the pockets of that other guy. After the policeman is heard saying, "This guy lives here, but he doesn't know who he (referring to Tamerlan) is", and from the distance is heard a shout (whom Merat believes is Dzhokhar) "We didn't do it!", and Tamerlan shouts back, "Podstava!", in Russian, which means, "It is a set up!"

Maret's analysis (in her own words) 

Anzor [who is their father] and I believed from the first moment we saw and heard that video (that showed up on youtube in May of 2013), that Tamerlan was shouting "podstava" in Russian (it's a set up" out of frustration and anger, when realised, that he and Dzhokhar were lured out from their home to Watertown at that night under some kind of disguise by that person (must be Russian speaking person), who is laying on the ground handcuffed next to Tamerlan's right. Tamerlan realised that that man, who brought them there, to Mt Auburn Street (intersection with Adams Street) by him, to set Tsarnaev brothers in a plot, organised by the LE and the FBI. 

That is exactly why, we, the family, believe, that Tamerlan shouted out  "podstava" (Russian speakers use of "podstava" in case, when someone uses you in some criminal deed, without your knowledge, to put blame and suspicion on you, as if you committed a wrongful deed or a crime), that is why Tamerlan is out of rage, anger and frustration (as we read it in his voice) shouted "it is a set up" in Russian, to let that guy, who had Tamerlan's trust for some reason, brought the brothers to Watertown, know that Tamerlan just realised that "that man, next to him" betrayed him and set him and Dzhokhar up. Otherwise, why would Tamerlan shout "podstava" in Russian, if there are only English speaking police man around him.

Then, after that, Tamerlan is heard shouting in English directing his requests to police officers: "Officer, can I call my wife?" None, other than Tamerlan would have known that there is only his wife, that Tamerlan can call to seek for assistance in the situation he is in (as seen and heard on that video). Tamerlan knows that there are no parents around; he knows that Dzhokhar was with him, when they both got arrested right there on Mt Auburn and Adams Streets. Tamerlan is shouting then "Officer, read me my rights", "you have to read me my rights officer". "Nope" is heard from one policeman. "Yes", Tamerlan is shouting back to him. Then, Tamerlan shouts, lifting his heavy upper body, while handcuffed to one side, addressing a bunch of officers surrounding him, demanding for his legal rights to be observed: "officers, why aren't you calling me my rights". 

Tamerlan wants to know, what he is suspected of, what he is accused of. While Tamerlan is shouting, demanding for his rights to be read to him, it is seen on that video, how one of the police man, standing behind the tree, on the left from Tamerlan, by putting his boot on the left upper body, pushing Tamerlan's body to the ground, to stop him from shouting. Then, at the very end of that short video, when, Tamerlan realised, that his legal rights are not going to be read or observed by any of those police agents around him, feeling very concerned for his younger brother, he shouts with all his might in his body, while his body pushed face down to the ground, Tamerlan shouts out for his little brother's name "Dzhokhaaaar". 

There is a shout heard back on that same video "Tamerlan" (we, the family, believe this is Dzhokhar calling his older brother's name, while he is also in custody at the police hands, not far from where Tamerlan is held on the ground on Mt Auburn). Then, again, Tamerlan's voice is heard even harder "Dzhokhaaar". We know that it is Tamerlan's voice, we recognise his voice, we have no doubts it is his voice. We know, how Tamerlan sounds, when he speaks in Russian. We know, how Tamerlan sounds, when he speaks in English. We know, how Tamerlan's voice sounds, when he is angry, frustrated, and here worried for the safety of his younger brother, Dzhokhar.

More on the arrest video

The time of the events, documented on this video had taken place, as derived from the transcripts of the police scanner and correlated with the events of recorded video, to be at 1:04ish on April 19, 2013. The place of Tamerlan, recorded on this video, to be arrested is on the corner of Mt Auburn and Adams Street.  Tamerlan on that video is seen wearing light-colored pens, and dark colored shoes. Later, recorded by the same author ("Bigheadphones", as the name of the author of the video on YouTube), there is a black cruiser, surrounded by 8 or 9 LE agents, and inside that police cruiser is seen a person, stripped off his clothes, which is Tamerlan, taken from the ground, stripped off his clothes, and put in that cruiser. It is not known from that video what the LE agents did to Dzhokhar, even though, we believe, it was Dzhokhar's voice shouting "we didn't do it" and then, at the end of that video calling for the name of his older brother "Tamerlan".



If Dzhokhar was not there with Tamerlan, at the time, when they both were arrested in Watertown, at Mt Auburn and Adams Street (Tamerlan), and Dzhokhar was somewhere, not far from the place, where Tamerlan was on the ground, WHY ELSE WOULD TAMERLAN BE SHOUTING OUT DZHOKHAR'S NAME, UNLESS HE KNEW THEY BOTH WERE TOGETHER, WHEN THEY WERE ARRESTED AND THEN SEPARATED AT THE SPOT. Tamerlan, handcuffed, stripped off his clothes, led by the police to place him in police cruiser, was seen on CNN video afterwards. As the CNN reporter commented, Tamerlan was later "very intensively questioned by the FBI for 10-15 minutes", and after that all we have seen of Tamerlan is his dead corpse. Here is a photograph:

These events, and recordings (police scanner) have a direct relation to Dzhokhar's case, since they all prove beyond reasonable doubt that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar were not shooting at the police or throwing improvised explosives on Laurel and Dexter Streets, in Watertown; that Dzhokhar did not flee from the police, after that so-called shoot out, which the brothers never been part of; that the brothers did not kill anybody at that night. Dzhokhar was in the hands of LE forces all along, since 1:04ish April 19, 2013, as this video proves, as Tamerlan shouts for his name, and Dzhokhar shouts back for Tamerlan's name. There was no manhunt after "fled from the police" Dzhokhar. It has been fabricated by people in power. While, the false manhunt was on the way, army of 9,000 was trying marshall law on American residents. The Tsarnaev brothers are not guilty of any crimes. They are innocent.    

Three proofs "They didn't do it!"

Let me close by pointing out three blatant demonstrations that the brothers were innocent and that Maret, who is herself a lawyer, is right when she asserts, "They didn't do it!" The they included that the footage of the boys at the marathon was faked, that Tamerlan was killed in police custody, and that the backpacks they were wearing (in the faked footage) were not the backpacks that exploded in Boston:

Proof 1: The footage at the marathon was faked

If you return to the second of the videos I present above, you will see that, while Tamerlan is shown as clean shaven in the marathon footage, he had been sporting a beard, which can be seen in the photos of him lying with his cat, working out at the gym, and even in the arrest video and (most stunning of all) in the photograph of his corpse!  Here is a comparison of Tamerlan with his cat and in the fake footage:

Proof 2: Tamerlan was killed while in police custody

Notice that Tamerlan's death occurs after he has been taken into police custody. There is a witness who reported observing the police drive over him repeatedly in an SUV, which was probably his own car. He was not killed by Dzhokhar but was murdered after he had been arrested. Bear in mind: his brother Dzhokhar cannot have killed him while he was in police custody! Yet Tamerlan was killed!

Proof 3: The brothers were wearing the wrong backpacks

Not only is Maret Tsaraev herself is a lawyer, but I had previously solicited the opinion of another attorney at law, John Remington Graham, who made the astute observation that the backpacks are not the backpacks that exploded. In the FBI report and the formal indictment, the backpacks are described as made of black nylon. But neither Tamerlan nor Dzhokar is shown wearing black nylon backpacks:

As Jack Graham observes, because the backpacks do not match, there was not even sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for an arrest and indictment, much less a conviction. Yet the defense team for Dzhokhar has ignored all the proof of his innocence and the jury is now deliberating whether or not to sentence him for a crime that he did not commit. This is American justice on display in Boston today.

APPENDIX: Formal Legal Opinion of John Remington Graham, Minnesota Bar (#3664)

I write to express my views while the trial in Boston is underway. Federal jurisdiction cannot be extended to the prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and views of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist. Congress has broad power to regulate commerce, but domestic crimes and use of weapons are generally reserved to the States. If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Dzhokhar for murder and mayhem, he should and can be prosecuted exclusively by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But lay this point of law aside. Available evidence against Dzhokhar is insufficient in reason or law to prove that he committed the offenses charged. Such evidence actually proves that Dzhokhar is not guilty.

The formal indictment against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (No. 13-CR-10200-GAO on the docket of the United States District Court for Massachusetts) was returned on June 27, 2013. The document is 74 pages long, and accuses Mr. Tsarnaev of heinous crimes, including many counts carrying the death penalty, on Boylston Street, in front of the Forum Restaurant, near the finish line of the Boston marathon on April 15, 2013. The most important portions of the indictment are paragraphs 6 and 7 which, read in themselves and in context, positively and unequivocally state that, acting in concert with his (now deceased) brother, Dzhokhar set down on the sidewalk one of two “black backpacks” which contained “improvised explosive devices,” these “constructed from pressure cookers, low explosive power, shrapnel, adhesive, and other materials.” The indictment goes on to say that, after distancing himself, Dzhokhar detonated one of two bombs at about 2:49 in the afternoon, and that the bombs he and his brother placed and detonated each killed at least one person, and wounded scores of others.

Facts impossible for any informed and diligent observer to overlook show that this accusation, as framed with required specificity, cannot be true. I refer to what public surveillance videos recorded on the day of these crimes, what crime lab photos on the FBI website revealed shortly after these crimes were committed, what was disseminated by a key television report on the day after the event, and what was announced by the FBI chief in Boston shortly after the event. I am not here discussing material which has been hidden from anybody or is subject to genuine dispute. I point to facts which the government and the mainstream news media of the United States have passed over in stony silence. The mainstream media have aided this prosecution by misleading omission of material facts and slanted reporting.

Public surveillance videos show Dzhokhar and his brother walking eastward on Boylston Street in the early afternoon on April 15, 2013. They are shown carrying backsacks typical of what American high school or college students use for carrying books and clothing. There are no unusual bulging, heaviness, or protrusions apparent. Dzhokhar’s brother is shown with straps over both shoulders. Dzhokhar is shown with a strap only over his right shoulder. Dzhokhar’s backsack is fairly flat, not heavy laden, and light colored. Neither backsack carried by the Tsarnaev brothers is pictured as carrying a “black backpack” mentioned in the indictment. These public surveillance videos and still frames taken from them have been used by the FBI in order to identify the suspects in these crimes.

The FBI also published two crime lab photos of critical importance:

One shows a bomb fragment after the explosions at around 2:49 in the afternoon on April 15, 2013.

The other shows a blown out backpack which was said to have contained one of the bombs, -- a black nylon bag with a characteristic white rectangle marking which is not even remotely similar to the backsacks carried by the Tsarnaev brothers as identified by the FBI in film from the public surveillance videos or still frames taken from them. This is the “dark colored bag or backpack” which the FBI chief in Boston described in his press conference on the day after the explosions when he described what was carried by the guilty parties.

From public surveillance videos used by the FBI to identify suspects, it is obvious that the backsacks carried by Dzhokhar and his brother shortly before the explosions could not have contained pressure-cooker bombs of this size. And, if such a device would have been squeezed into either backsack, it would have caused bulging or protrusions not observed in public surveillance videos which were used by the FBI to identify the suspects.

This much, without more, shows as conclusively as circumstantial evidence can prove anything in criminal litigation that the accused could not have placed and detonated a pressure-cooker bomb as alleged in the indictment.

There are also available and known public surveillance videos and still frames made from such videos, these widely published, showing that paramilitary agents in uniforms of Craft International, near the crime scene and at the time of the explosions, were carrying large black backpacks including characteristic white rectangle marking, and plainly large enough to carry pressure-cooker bombs which the FBI identified as having exploded and caused injury and death at the Boston marathon. Pubic authority has not investigated these obvious suspects. From the foregoing we may infer:

That there is no probable cause to support the indictment. From my knowledge of the evidence of this case, and from my general learning and experience, I am unable to understand how federal prosecutors could not be aware of this want of probable cause.

And that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not guilty as charged in the indictment. From my knowledge of the evidence of this case, and from my general learning and experience, I am unable to understand how counsel for the accused could not be aware of the innocence of Mr. Tsarnaev. -- John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X), March 25, 2015.

john remington graham

counselor at law

B. A. in philosophy 1963, LL. B. 1966, University of Minnesota; admitted to the Bar of the Minnesota Supreme Court, 1967; admitted to the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, 1971; Public Defender, United States District Court for Minnesota, 1969-1973; Founding professor, teaching common law pleading, judicial writs and remedies, American constitutional law, admiralty, copyrights, legal writing, conflict of laws, legal history, and modern civil procedure, and serving as chairman of the admissions committee, Hamline University School of Law, 1972-1980; Advisor on questions concerning constitutional law and equitable remedies to the Minnesota State Board of Bar Examiners, 1974-1978; Special Counsel for the City of Brainerd, 1974-1980; Crow Wing County Public Defender, 1981-1984; Crow Wing County Attorney, 1991-1995; Occasional lecturer in comparative British, American, and Canadian constitutional law at Laval University, 1989-1991, 1997, and 2000, and in public international law, 2003; and Advisor on British constitutional law and history to the court-appointed Amicus Curiae for Quebec before the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference on certain Questions concerning the Secession of Quebec from Canada, [1998] 2 S. C. R. 217.

Read More