Friday, March 30, 2007

On Fictitious Peer Review and Made Up Threats

Pat pointed out previously that one of the "Scholars" debunked their previous idiotic "Elephants"paper, nevermind that the Journal of 9/11 Debunking handled this job months ago. Now one of the original authors of the paper, Robert Moore Esq., writes a letter, basically admitting what a piece of crap the original paper was (yeah, that was some peer review process).

Not only that but Moore points out that Fetzer claimed the author of the paper was threatened, which at the time I was wondering about, considering this lame paper hardly presented a challenge to the New World Order deserving of any threats. Moore states, however, that despite his name being on the paper, he never received any threats.

Needless to say, I was quite shocked at Dr. Fetzer's response to the unsubtantiated claim, especially since my answering machine and email "inbox" remained silent. There were no threats. The whole matter sounded ridiculous.

Before the matter went to far out of hand, I sent off a letter to the founders of st911, which stated that, although I was listed by name at the bottom of the article, I had not received any threats. Moreover, the origin of the threats seemed questionable at best.

They once again demonstrate why you have to use quotes around the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth".

Correction: Robert Moore e-mails to point out that he was not listed as an "author" of the piece, but as an "advisor", my apologies if there was any confusion.

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

At 30 March, 2007 09:08, Blogger CHF said...

Don't the "scholars" know that when you're gonna lie you should all agree on a story first?

"They were threatened!"

"Ummm....no I wasn't."

So very sad.

 
At 30 March, 2007 10:50, Blogger Pat said...

You know, I wondered about the threats bit when I looked at that article again.

 
At 31 March, 2007 01:45, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

So now we've caught Fetzer indisputably fabricating something from thin air, and being rebutted by the person who he was lying about. Admittedly, he talks crap about most things, but fabricating something about another person who could (and now has) so easily called him out suggests something more than a screwy guy with some weird political beliefs - it feels like the behaviour of a pathological liar.

I hope that, the next conference or public appearance he does, someone holds his feet to the fire about this.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home