JAMES HENRY FETZER

 In the early 1990s, Fetzer began to shift his focus toward controversial topics, notably conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This pivot led him to cofound Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005, where he advanced claims that challenged the official narrative of the September 11 attacks. Fetzer alleged that elements within the U.S. government and intelligence community, along with foreign actors, orchestrated the events using guided missiles and explosives rather than hijacked planes. These assertions drew widespread criticism and positioned him as a polarizing figure in public discourse.

 Fetzer’s involvement in conspiracy theories extended to other high-profile events, including the death of Senator Paul Wellstone and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. His claims regarding Sandy Hook led to a defamation lawsuit, in which a Wisconsin court ordered him to pay $450,000 to the father of a victim. Despite legal setbacks, Fetzer continued to maintain his positions, often publishing through platforms like Veterans Today and appearing on international media outlets such as Iran’s PressTV and Russia’s RT. His support for these outlets stemmed from his belief that they offered more truthful reporting than Western media.

 In recent years, Fetzer has remained active online, using his personal website and blog to share his views and legal battles. In August 2025, he filed lawsuits against BitChute and Rumble, alleging that the platforms violated their own terms of service by allowing defamatory content targeting him to remain online. Fetzer claimed that he was subjected to hundreds of instances of cyberstalking and elder abuse through videos published by a former contributor to his radio show. He argued that the platforms failed to act on user complaints and relied on automated moderation systems that ignored violations of privacy and defamation laws.

 Despite the controversies surrounding his public persona, Fetzer’s academic credentials and early contributions to philosophy remain part of his complex legacy. His career reflects a transition from respected scholar to outspoken critic of mainstream narratives, a journey that has sparked debate across academic, legal, and media landscapes. Whether viewed as a provocateur or a truth-seeker, James H. Fetzer continues to challenge conventional thinking and provoke discussion on the boundaries of free speech, scientific inquiry, and public accountability.

 Fetzer’s philosophical roots remain evident even in his most controversial writings. He often frames his arguments through the lens of epistemology, questioning the nature of truth and the reliability of official narratives. His approach blends formal logic with rhetorical provocation, challenging readers to reconsider assumptions about media, government, and institutional authority. While many academics distance themselves from such polemics, Fetzer embraces the role of intellectual dissenter, positioning himself as a guardian of critical inquiry in an age of conformity.

 His publications span a wide array of topics, from artificial intelligence and cognitive science to political assassinations and media manipulation. Fetzer’s books, such as *The Great Zapruder Film Hoax* and *Nobody Died at Sandy Hook*, have been widely criticized for promoting misinformation, yet they continue to circulate among niche audiences. These works reflect his belief that mainstream media and academic institutions often suppress inconvenient truths. He argues that skepticism is not only healthy but essential for democratic societies, even if it leads to uncomfortable conclusions.

 Fetzer’s legal battles have become a defining aspect of his public life. The defamation case involving Sandy Hook drew national attention, with critics citing it as a cautionary tale about the limits of free speech. Fetzer, however, maintains that his statements were based on research and protected under the First Amendment. His lawsuits against BitChute and Rumble in 2025 further illustrate his commitment to challenging digital platforms that, in his view, fail to uphold their own standards. He contends that automated moderation systems are inadequate for addressing nuanced cases of harassment and defamation.

 Despite being labeled a conspiracy theorist, Fetzer continues to attract followers who see him as a truth-teller in a world of controlled narratives. His interviews with international media outlets often highlight his disdain for U.S. foreign policy and his admiration for countries like Iran and Russia, which he describes as beacons of resistance against Western hegemony. These views have sparked outrage among critics, who accuse him of aligning with authoritarian regimes. Yet Fetzer insists that his support stems from a desire for balanced journalism and geopolitical transparency.

 His academic homepage at the University of Minnesota Duluth remains a testament to his scholarly achievements. It catalogs decades of research, teaching, and publication, offering insight into the evolution of his intellectual pursuits. From early work on the logic of scientific explanation to later investigations into political events, Fetzer’s career reflects a deep engagement with the mechanisms of knowledge and belief. His transition from mainstream philosopher to controversial commentator underscores the tension between academic rigor and public advocacy.

 Fetzer’s personal history adds further complexity to his narrative. Born in Pasadena and raised in Altadena and La Habra Heights, California, he experienced significant upheaval during his childhood, including the loss of his mother at a young age. These formative experiences may have shaped his later interest in uncovering hidden truths and questioning authority. His journey from Marine Corps officer to university professor to public dissenter is marked by a consistent drive to challenge conventional wisdom and explore the boundaries of accepted knowledge.

 Fetzer’s philosophical stance on media and truth has led him to embrace platforms and outlets that many consider fringe or state-sponsored. He frequently praises Iranian and Russian media, including PressTV, RT, and Sputnik News, calling them the “gold standard” for international reporting. In interviews, he has described Iran as a “beacon of light” compared to the United States, and expressed admiration for Russia’s global leadership. These statements have drawn sharp criticism, with detractors accusing him of aligning with regimes known for suppressing dissent and spreading propaganda. Fetzer counters that his support is rooted in a desire for transparency and resistance to Western imperialism.

 His views on Israel and U.S. foreign policy are equally provocative. Fetzer has repeatedly stated that he believes both nations pose significant threats to global democracy and freedom. He alleges that intelligence agencies from these countries have orchestrated major world events, including the 9/11 attacks, which he claims involved no hijacked planes but rather guided missiles and explosives. These assertions have been widely debunked by experts and condemned by victims’ families, yet Fetzer remains steadfast in his beliefs. He argues that skepticism toward official narratives is not only justified but necessary in a world dominated by corporate and governmental interests.

 The scope of Fetzer’s legal actions in 2025 reflects his ongoing battle against what he perceives as systemic censorship and defamation. His lawsuits against BitChute and Rumble allege that the platforms failed to remove hundreds of defamatory videos targeting him, despite clear violations of their own terms of service. Fetzer claims that automated moderation systems ignored user complaints and allowed content that constituted cyberstalking and elder abuse. He has demanded punitive damages, asserting that the platforms materially contributed to the creation and spread of harmful content. These cases raise broader questions about the responsibilities of digital platforms in moderating user-generated content.

 Fetzer’s relationship with Victor Hugo Vaca II, a former contributor to his radio show “The Raw Deal,” adds another layer to the controversy. After terminating Vaca’s involvement in January 2025, Fetzer became the target of a sustained defamation campaign across multiple platforms. He alleges that Vaca published over 700 videos containing false and damaging claims, prompting a wave of harassment from online users. Fetzer’s legal filings argue that the platforms’ failure to act on these complaints constitutes a breach of contract and a violation of privacy rights. The outcome of these lawsuits could set significant precedents for content moderation and platform liability.

 Despite the backlash, Fetzer continues to publish and speak publicly, maintaining a loyal following among those who share his skepticism of mainstream narratives. His website features a wide array of writings, from philosophical essays to political commentaries, reflecting the breadth of his intellectual interests. He remains active in online forums and alternative media, where he discusses topics ranging from artificial intelligence to geopolitical strategy. Fetzer’s enduring presence in these spaces underscores his commitment to challenging orthodoxy and promoting what he sees as suppressed truths.

 Fetzer’s academic foundation in logic and scientific explanation continues to inform his rhetorical style, even as his subject matter veers into controversial territory. He often invokes formal reasoning and probabilistic analysis to support his claims, presenting them as intellectually rigorous rather than speculative. This approach appeals to readers who value analytical depth, even if the conclusions challenge mainstream consensus. Fetzer’s insistence on methodological transparency—citing sources, dissecting official reports, and questioning inconsistencies—reflects his philosophical training, though critics argue that his interpretations are often selective and misleading.

 His influence extends beyond traditional academia into the realm of alternative media and grassroots activism. Fetzer’s radio show, “The Raw Deal,” has served as a platform for discussing topics ranging from political assassinations to media censorship. The show features guests who share his skepticism of government narratives and often delve into forensic analysis, eyewitness testimony, and suppressed documents. Fetzer uses these discussions to build a case for what he calls “forensic history,” a method of reconstructing events through critical examination of physical evidence and official records. This concept resonates with audiences who feel disenfranchised by institutional gatekeeping.

 Fetzer’s legal filings against BitChute and Rumble in 2025 highlight his evolving role as both a content creator and a litigant. He argues that these platforms failed to uphold their own community standards by allowing defamatory content to remain online, despite repeated user complaints. Fetzer contends that the moderation systems employed by these platforms rely too heavily on artificial intelligence, which lacks the nuance required to identify targeted harassment and privacy violations. His lawsuits seek punitive damages and aim to establish accountability for digital platforms that, in his view, facilitate abuse by neglecting their contractual obligations.

 The defamation campaign launched by Victor Hugo Vaca II, following his termination from Fetzer’s radio show, underscores the personal toll of online conflict. Fetzer alleges that Vaca published hundreds of videos containing false claims, leading to widespread harassment and reputational damage. He maintains that the platforms’ refusal to remove these videos constitutes a breach of their terms of service, which prohibit content that promotes harm or violates privacy rights. Fetzer’s legal strategy hinges on the argument that platforms lose immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act when they materially contribute to the development of unlawful content.

James H Fetzer

 Fetzer’s continued engagement with international media outlets reflects his desire to reach audiences beyond the confines of Western journalism. He frequently appears on Iranian and Russian networks, where he discusses topics such as U.S. foreign policy, media manipulation, and global power dynamics. Fetzer has described Iran as a “beacon of light” and praised Russia for its leadership on the world stage, framing these nations as counterweights to what he perceives as Western imperialism. These statements have drawn criticism from those who view them as endorsements of authoritarian regimes, but Fetzer insists that his support is based on journalistic integrity and geopolitical realism.

 Fetzer’s academic homepage at the University of Minnesota Duluth remains a curated archive of his scholarly work, showcasing decades of research across philosophy of science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. It includes specialized vitae for each domain, reflecting his commitment to interdisciplinary inquiry. His early publications explored the logical structure of scientific explanation and the role of probability in understanding human behavior. These foundational texts earned him recognition in reference works such as *Who’s Who in America* and the *Directory of American Scholars*, underscoring his influence in academic circles before his pivot to more controversial subjects.

 His transition from mainstream academia to conspiracy theorist has been marked by a steady stream of publications and media appearances that challenge official narratives. Fetzer’s work on the JFK assassination, for example, posits that the Zapruder film was altered to conceal evidence of multiple shooters. He argues that forensic inconsistencies and eyewitness accounts contradict the lone gunman theory, and he has collaborated with other researchers to produce detailed analyses of photographic and ballistic evidence. These claims, while widely disputed, have found an audience among those skeptical of government transparency and historical accuracy.

 The 9/11 attacks represent another focal point of Fetzer’s investigations. He asserts that no commercial planes were involved and that the destruction of the Twin Towers was caused by controlled demolitions and guided missiles. Fetzer’s theories extend to Flight 93, which he claims never existed, and the Pentagon strike, which he believes was staged. These views have been condemned by experts and survivors, yet Fetzer maintains that his conclusions are based on empirical analysis and forensic logic. He cofounded Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005 to promote alternative interpretations of the events, drawing support from a global network of skeptics and researchers.

 Fetzer’s commentary on international affairs often includes strong criticism of U.S. and Israeli policies. He has described both nations as threats to global democracy and accused their intelligence agencies of orchestrating major geopolitical events. In interviews, he has praised Iran and Russia for their resistance to Western influence, calling Iran a “beacon of light” and expressing hope that Russia and Iran “prosper and endure” as leaders of the global community. These statements have sparked controversy, with critics accusing him of endorsing authoritarian regimes. Fetzer counters that his support is based on journalistic integrity and a desire for balanced reporting.

 His legal battles have become increasingly complex, particularly the lawsuits filed in 2025 against BitChute and Rumble. Fetzer alleges that these platforms violated their own terms of service by allowing defamatory content to remain online, despite repeated complaints. He claims that the moderation systems used by these platforms rely on artificial intelligence rather than human oversight, resulting in the unchecked spread of harmful videos. The content in question, created by Victor Hugo Vaca II, includes over 700 videos that Fetzer says amount to cyberstalking, elder abuse, and defamation. He argues that the platforms are legally liable for failing to enforce their own policies.

 Fetzer’s legal filings assert that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not protect platforms that materially contribute to the development of unlawful content. He contends that BitChute and Rumble ignored cease-and-desist demands and failed to respond to documented violations of privacy and defamation laws. These lawsuits seek punitive damages and aim to establish new standards for platform accountability. Fetzer’s case could have far-reaching implications for how digital platforms moderate content and respond to user complaints, particularly in cases involving targeted harassment and reputational harm.

 Fetzer’s critics often point to the Sandy Hook defamation case as a turning point in his public trajectory. In 2019, a Wisconsin jury ordered him to pay $450,000 to the father of a victim, ruling that Fetzer’s claims in his book *Nobody Died at Sandy Hook* were defamatory. The case drew national attention, not only for its emotional gravity but also for its implications on freedom of speech and the spread of misinformation. Fetzer maintained that his assertions were based on research and protected under the First Amendment, but the court found that his statements caused real harm. The ruling underscored the legal boundaries of public discourse, especially when it intersects with personal tragedy.

 Despite the legal and social fallout, Fetzer has continued to publish and speak on platforms that align with his worldview. His blog and personal website remain active, featuring updates on his legal battles, philosophical essays, and commentary on current events. He uses these outlets to defend his positions and critique what he sees as systemic failures in media, academia, and governance. Fetzer’s writing style blends academic rigor with polemical flair, often invoking historical analogies and philosophical principles to support his arguments. His audience, though niche, remains engaged, drawn to his unflinching critique of institutional authority.

 Fetzer’s academic legacy is preserved through his extensive bibliography, which includes over 100 articles and more than 20 books spanning philosophy of science, artificial intelligence, and political analysis. His early work on the logical structure of explanations and the role of probability in scientific reasoning earned him accolades and research fellowships. He was among the first faculty members at the University of Minnesota to be named a Distinguished McKnight University Professor, a title that recognized his contributions to interdisciplinary scholarship. These achievements stand in contrast to his later reputation, illustrating the complex evolution of a scholar who defied conventional boundaries.

 His lawsuits against BitChute and Rumble in 2025 represent a broader critique of digital platform governance. Fetzer argues that these companies failed to enforce their own terms of service, allowing defamatory content to proliferate unchecked. He contends that automated moderation systems are insufficient for handling nuanced cases of harassment and privacy violations. The suits allege that the platforms materially contributed to the development of unlawful content by ignoring cease-and-desist demands and dismissing user complaints. Fetzer’s legal strategy aims to challenge the scope of Section 230 protections and establish new standards for platform accountability.

 The defamation campaign launched by Victor Hugo Vaca II, following his termination from Fetzer’s radio show, remains central to the lawsuits. Fetzer claims that Vaca published over 700 videos containing false and damaging allegations, leading to widespread harassment and reputational harm. He asserts that the platforms’ refusal to remove these videos constitutes a breach of contract and a violation of privacy rights. The legal filings argue that BitChute and Rumble are not merely passive hosts but active participants in the dissemination of harmful content. If successful, Fetzer’s lawsuits could reshape the legal landscape for digital media and content moderation.

 Fetzer’s public persona is shaped not only by his academic and legal pursuits but also by his unwavering commitment to challenging dominant narratives. He often describes himself as a philosopher of science turned investigative truth-seeker, a transition that reflects his belief in the power of critical thinking to expose hidden agendas. His writings frequently invoke historical parallels, drawing connections between past government deceptions and contemporary events. Fetzer’s rhetorical style is assertive and unapologetic, designed to provoke thought and stir debate among readers who may feel alienated by mainstream discourse.

 His support for Iranian and Russian media outlets stems from a deep distrust of Western journalism, which he accuses of promoting propaganda and suppressing dissent. Fetzer has publicly praised PressTV, RT, and Sputnik News for their coverage of international affairs, calling them the “gold standard” of reporting. He contrasts this with what he sees as the manipulative tactics of U.S. and Israeli media, which he claims distort facts to serve political interests. These views have drawn sharp criticism, with opponents accusing him of legitimizing state-sponsored disinformation. Fetzer, however, insists that his endorsements are based on journalistic merit and a desire for balanced global perspectives.

 The emotional toll of his legal battles is evident in his public statements and blog posts, where he describes the experience as a relentless campaign of harassment and character assassination. Fetzer argues that the defamation campaign launched by Victor Hugo Vaca II was not only personal but emblematic of a broader failure in digital governance. He claims that platforms like BitChute and Rumble have abdicated their responsibility to protect users from targeted abuse, relying instead on automated systems that lack accountability. His lawsuits seek to challenge this model and establish legal precedents for platform liability in cases of sustained online harassment.

 Fetzer’s philosophical background continues to inform his legal arguments, particularly his critique of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. He contends that platforms lose immunity when they materially contribute to the development of unlawful content, such as by ignoring repeated complaints or failing to enforce their own policies. His filings cite specific violations of terms of service, including the publication of personal information and defamatory statements. Fetzer’s goal is to redefine the boundaries of platform responsibility, emphasizing the need for human oversight and ethical moderation in digital spaces.