Virtual Academic Freedom Conference (Saturday, 27 August 2016)

TO VIEW THE LIVE STREAM, click on here.

Jim Fetzer and Stephen Francis are very pleased to announce:

ACADEMIC FREEDOM CONFERENCE II: Are there Limits to Inquiry? 
Should faculty be restrained from or even punished for investigating 
complex and controversial events of enormous political significance?
Each speaker should have 45-50 minutes to present, leaving 10-15 
more for Q&A after each session, with general discussion at the end.

          ACADEMIC FREEDOM II: Are there limits to inquiry?

9:00 AM-10:AM/CT: Stephen Francis proposed the first Academic 
Freedom Conference on 26 April 2014, held on the campus of the 
University of Illinois-UC, where he earned a degree in sociology.  He 
promotes the exercise of critical thinking and unconventional thought.

                                 WHY DOES IT MATTER?

10:00 AM-11:00 AM/CT: Francis A. Boyle, Ph.D., noted Professor of 
International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, earned his 
A.B. in Political Science from Chicago, J.D. from Harvard Law School 
and his A.M. and Ph.D. in political Science from Harvard University. 
Noon-1:00 PM/CT: Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D., an historian of science and
the leading expert on the 7/7 London bombings, had his appointment 

at University College London terminated for undertaking scientific

research on World  War II that undermines widely-accepted accounts.

                           WITHIN THE ACADEMY
1:00-2:00 PM/CT: Leuren Moret earned her B.S. in geology at 

U.C. Davis and an M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from Berkeley. 

She completed all but her dissertation for a PhD in geosciences 

at Davis. She has conducted scientific research in 42 countries.

2:00-3:00 PM/CT: Darrell Hamamoto, Ph.D., Professor of Asian 

American Studies at the University of California, David, has published

extensively on the representation of Asian Americans in films and on

TV, especially in relation to political issues and freedom of expression.

3:00-4:00 PM/CT: Kevin McDonald, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology

at Cal State-Long Beach (retired), has 8 books on evolutionary theory 

and has focused on group selection and the significance of different 

strategies of adaptation and on social and personality development.

                                     SOME SPECIAL CASES


5:00-6:00 PM/CT:  Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D., professor of 
philosophy and attorney-at-law, has published on the moon landing 
hoax, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, including exposing the 

role of in misleading the public regarding those events.
6:00-7:00 PM/CT: Preston James, Ph.D., a social psychologist 
from a Big Ten University, will address the importance of academic

research in an era dominated by propaganda from the mass media,

where academicians are failing to expose state-sponsored terrorism.

7:00-8:00 PM/CT: Jim Fetzer, Ph.D., a philosopher of science, has 
edited a series of books that investigate the moon landing hoax, the 
atrocities of 9/11, the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, the FEMA drill at 

Sandy Hook, the fakery in Boston, and other major state deceptions. 
8:00- . . . . : General Discussion including questions from the audience

Those who would like to view the conference LIVE, should send 

an email to indicating 

desire to join. If you have questions, call Stephen Francis at 

(217) 377-2131.

Please follow and like us:

14 thoughts on “Virtual Academic Freedom Conference (Saturday, 27 August 2016)”

  1. The guy is such a fraud. I am constantly scanning for events that are politically significant and "don't add up". I do this every single day. I have a radio show, "The Raw Deal", T/Th on from 8-9 PM/ET, for example, where I am discussing the latest developments abroad and at home. Would anyone ask why I am talking about the issues I am talking about UNLESS THEY HAD A REASON TO THINK I WAS MISSING SOMETHING? And if they did, it would be because there was some other event that DID NOT ADD UP!

  2. It's called "scientific inquiry", which has four stages of PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION, ADAPTATION (of hypotheses to evidence using inference to the best explanation) and EXPLANATION. I have many books on this, such as SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (1981) and PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (1993).

    But I laid it out in an accessible fashion in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which appeared in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and is also available on-line. Do a search.

    I have done a huge amount of research on these issues, beginning with JFK in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), where I bring together experts on different aspects of the case to solve it.

    I have a new book on 9/11, AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11 (2016), which I suspect is what brought you here (in an attempt to undermine my credibility with ridiculous questions about "methodology" that have no unique answer (since what does or does not "add up" varies with each case).

    For an nice example, see AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004) with Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, where we explain what doesn't "add up" in the plane crash that took the like of Senator Paul Wellstone.

    I have done the same with multiple experts in the case of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015) and NOBODY DIED IN BOSTON, EITHER (2016). Why don't to take a look and see if you can figure out why those cases also did not "add up"? You need to be less obvious. Every scholar studies the issues that invite their attention. No one has an obligation to explain why others do not.

  3. And please note: I'm not saying any individual event is or is not a hoax or conspiracy. So save your fingers in posting some evidence about 9/11 or Sandy Hook or whatever.

    I'm getting at the validity of the METHODS. Any formal inquiry of any type MUST be clear and transparent about its METHODS.

    And those methods must stand up to scrutiny about re: their validity.

    So please don't get upset, if you really want justice and really want to convince others you need to be strong and respond to scrutiny instead of crying about it. This way your methods may be improved and accepted as valid

  4. Steve12, you need to get out of here. You will not get a good answer from these people. They are paid to obstruct the truth.

    They will just waste your time with prevarications until Fetzer retires.

    These asshole think that nukes were used on 9/11 and that holograms of airplanes can be projected onto air.

    These are ridiculous assertions.

    Just stop in and occasionally drop one of these: ?

    This is all that they deserve.

Leave a Reply