Advertisement
Home arrow 9-11 and Fake Terror arrow Articles arrow 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect – An Ace in the Hole – Part II
9/11 and The Hutchison Effect – An Ace in the Hole – Part II PDF Print E-mail

Andrew Johnson

Aug 19, 2008

 

Some time ago, I posted a series of 3 articles which attempted to document the peculiar machinations of Alexander “Ace” Baker and Prof Jim Fetzer in relation to a study posted by Dr Judy Wood regarding 9/11 evidence and Hutchison Effect Evidence. Dr. Wood also posted an article highlighting the unusual attitude that Jim Fetzer took to John Hutchison when John appeared as a guest on his “Dynamic Duo” show on 28 February 2008.

 

In the articles I wrote, I contended that the evidence collected by Dr. Wood - and the reaction to this same evidence - strongly imply that the basic thrust of the argument is correct – that some type of technology related to that used to create the Hutchison Effect was indeed employed in 9/11. 

 

Since Dr. Wood posted her original “Hutchison Effect” study in early 2008, she has posted an additional series, which includes a good deal of data regarding Hurricane Erin, which was closest to NYC during the events of 9/11. As part of this study, Dr. Wood has obtained magnetometer data, logged by instruments in Alaska during the events of 9/11. These data show very interesting variations in the earth’s magnetic field during the events of 9/11. Reaction to this study seems to have been more muted, though the data is now getting some exposure.

 

Dr. Wood and I were invited by Jim Fetzer to make two appearances in his “Dynamic Duo” show slot on GCN Live. These two appearances took place on 30th July 2008 and 31st July 2008, and will be the subject of a separate article.

 

Decoy and Distract?

 

On 18th August 2008, Dr. Wood and I received and e-mail from Ace Baker with the subject:

 

Ace Baker - $100,000 Huchison Effect Challenge

 

Ace Baker was apparently offering “$100,000 if John and/or Judy can reproduce the H-Effect.” The message contained a link to an entry on his blog, in which he set out the general terms of his challenge. Strangely, however, Ace neglected to include John in the “CC” or “To” fields.When Dr. Wood noticed this, she forwarded her copy of Ace's email to John.

 

John Hutchison is, at times, quite a prolific “blogger” himself and he contacted Dr. Wood to state that he had posted a response to Ace Baker’s challenge on Ace Baker’s own blog, but it seems as though it was not approved or posted there. John advised us of the general contents of his post, from memory, soon after he had tried to post it.

 

Some time previously, Ace had offered a sum of $5000 if he could film “Hutchison Effects” in John’s lab, but Ace never followed through, so this seemed to represent a substantially larger offer. However, I was very curious about this new offer, because Ace had previously stated “John Hutchison is a 100% fraud”. If Ace believed this, then what was the point of offering a large sum of money? I was therefore given to ask Ace Baker the following questions:

 

1) Who would he be approaching to validate the effects, and how will their qualifications compare to those of George Hathaway, Col John Alexander, Hal Puthoff and others? (They have already been involved with evaluating and documenting John Hutchison’s experiments.)

 

2) Why was Ace willing to put up this amount of money for this demonstration, as opposed to, say, putting it into a Legal Case to sue the media regarding TV fakery? (I asked Ace Baker this question because he has stated he is an expert in video fakery and has published a detailed study on the 9/11 “Chopper 5” video, in which he concludes that the video has been heavily doctored, using video compositing, to present fake images as real.)

 

3) If Hutchison-Effect-like technology was NOT employed on 9/11, then would Ace be willing to pay for research to answer questions regarding (a) Inverted cars (b) horseshoe beams (c) explosion of Scott packs (d) witness accounts of levitation effects etc.

 

In other words, I was trying to ask if Ace wanted to see the truth of 9/11 uncovered. (He did not dispute the validity of the points of evidence (a) - (d) above.) Finally, I asked him:

 

4) What were his thoughts on (a) The Hurricane's path (b) The Alaskan Magnetometer Data?

 

In the same message, I said I was very interested in alternative explanations, based on good evidence, for the effects seen on 9/11, as I thought that this is what the search for 9/11 truth was for. I stated that I was open to a different, consistent interpretation of the evidence, if it answered all the questions regarding that same evidence.

 

In Ace’s response, he answered question 1 thus:

 

1. Hutchison/Wood are free to discuss any details/clarifications should they decide to accept the challenge.

 

This was not relevant to the question I asked – I asked who would help him to validate that the effects were real. Was Ace trying to divert his answers away from dealing with the evidence?

 

2. I am willing to offer $100,000 to FOX5 to license broadcast-quality Chopper 5 footage. That challenge coming soon.

 

This also did not really answer the question I asked. I actually queried him about possibly making a legal challenge, based on his TV fakery research. Instead, he seemed to answer this by describing a proposed “bet” with FOX5. Again, it seemed as if Ace was diverting away from the evidence I was asking him about – he didn’t respond at all regarding the issue of legal action being taken.

 

In answering the third question, Ace said:

 

3. There is no Hutchison Effect to have been employed on 9/11. No, I am not willing to offer $100,000 to "some people". The purpose of this challenge is to demonstrate to the public that Hutchison and Wood are liars.

 

Here, he did not seem to interpret the spirit of my question as I had intended. I intended it to mean would he be prepared to fund research, rather than fund debunking. Would he be prepared, in principle, to fund research to advance an alternative explanation? In his answer, he seemed to be stating that he was wanting to prove that John Hutchison was a liar (and Dr. Wood was a liar, independent of the facts put before him, both in this e-mail exchange and in earlier ones. Also, it is not called "The Hutchison and Wood Effect."). This, to me, shows a disturbing lack of desire to discover what actually happened on 9/11. If Dr. Wood’s study is incomplete or inaccurate or even inappropriate, then why can’t Ace come up with a better method to find the correct explanation? How will proving John Hutchison a fraud (even though Ace was already convinced of this) help determine what did happen on 9/11? I was given to ask myself, therefore, what is Ace’s true intent and focus? Who was he doing this “stunt” for - himself?

 

In his answer to question 4, again he seems to blatantly ignore data:

 

4. The challenge has nothing whatsoever to do with hurricane Erin or the Alaskan Magnetometer data. It has to do with the scientific claims made by John Hutchison. Hutchison's claims pre-date 9/11, and continue to this day.

 

Could it be that there is a strategy to distract people away from looking at the basic data - which starts to clearly show that field effects (for example, effects on the earth’s magnetic field) did indeed play a significant role on 9/11? Is all this an exercise to create more and more forum verbiage to drown out any serious discussion of evidence? Is he trying to set up a fake exercise to test the existence of something which has already generated over 500 lbs of anomalous metal samples?

 

I must admit to being somewhat surprised at Ace Baker’s answers to these four questions – especially his apparent “blanking” of the Hurricane Erin data, so to clarify this, I sent one further e-mail with some follow-up questions. I asked him if his "Hutchison Effect challenge" really had nothing to do with 9/11 research. He replied:

 

1. Wrong. The Hutchison Effect Challenge is related to 9/11 research, in that it will require honest researchers to eliminate "Hutchison Effect" from consideration.

 

I then asked him if he thought Hurricane Erin was not relevant to what happened on 9/11. He responded:

 

2. Right. Hurricane Erin is unrelated to 9/11.

 

Finally, I asked him if he really had no interest in finding out how the towers were dustified on 9/11. He said:

 

3. Wrong. I am very interested to learn how the towers were blown up. But I'm also interested in documenting the strategy of the govern-media psy-op team.

 

So what strategy has Ace documented? On his blog, he has repeated several times that “John Hutchison is a fraud” and has simply just made some fake videos. Ace has made his own fake videos, simulating 2 or 3 of the effects (incompletely). Ace has also completed a study of TV fakery. In both cases, he has not “moved” his evidence into a legal framework, as Dr. Wood has done. He has not submitted an affidavit in a court case, as John Hutchison has done. (I also submitted an affidavit for Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam case.)

 

Ace Baker’s Double-Standard?

 

It is worth mentioning that Dr Wood is not the only person to have suggested how the WTC complex was destroyed. People such as Dr Steven E Jones have suggested thermite or thermate (or some variant thereof) was used to destroy the WTC. Ed Ward and others have previously stated that “micro-nukes” must have been used. Ace Baker has not, however, offered $100,000 to Prof Steve E Jones for a demonstration of thermite, nor has he offered Ed Ward, or anyone else to my knowledge, any sum of money for a demonstration of micro-nuke technology. If Ace was being even handed in his assessment of 9/11 research, surely he would have made such an offer when these theories were first “put on the table”. Can we conclude there is some special reason why linking 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect is so “dangerous”?

 

Observations/Conclusions

 

 

  • Ace said he was convinced that John Hutchison was a 100% fraud but Ace was still willing to offer $100,000 and travel to Vancouver at his own expense as part of this challenge. Why?

 

  • Ace seemed less interested in using his own TV fakery research in some kind of legal action than he did in attempting to debunk John Hutchison (and essentially Dr Judy Wood too).

 

  • At appearances in Seattle and Portland, John Hutchison brought some of his samples as an exhibit.  He allowed the audience to examine and photograph these samples.  (If John were a fraud, why would he do such a thing?) So, it is clear to those people who handled the samples that the things they were holding in their hands were not the result of “video fakery”.  Also, many samples have been given to other people around the world – so we have lots of physical evidence which shows the Hutchison Effect is real.

 

  • Ace Baker had previously offered to come and meet Dr. Wood in, Seattle in 2006, at a presentation she was giving then. The presentations that Dr. Wood and John Hutchison gave in Seattle and Portland in May/June 2008 were advertised weeks or even months in advance. Ace could have attended one or both of these presentations if he wanted to. He could have seen the samples for himself.  So why wasn't Ace there to ask questions and to examine the samples?

 

  • Below are a few of many photos the Dr. Wood herself took on one of her trips to see John Hutchison.

 

 

  • Ace was not interested in the relevance of the Hurricane Erin study – despite the clear evidence of field effects in relation to the Hurricane itself, 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect. Why?

 

  • Ace seemed to say he did not want to fund research into an alternative explanation for the destruction of the towers, yet he said he was interested in how they were destroyed – does this make sense? If he is genuinely interested in finding out what happened on 9/11, then why didn’t he offer or consider finding some “better” alternatives?

 

I leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about the overall meaning of this “episode”. Does it illustrate how the cover up of 9/11 truth is working?

 


Addendum – Ace Baker on Dynamic Duo - 26 Aug 2008

 

On 26th August 2008, Ace Baker appeared on the Dynamic Duo. Part of a segment in the first hour discussed Ace Baker’s “Challenge” and mentioned the posting of this article (before this addendum was posted). At time code 2:36 in this clip, he stated, in regard to this “challenge”:


 

I’ve been getting the hate correspondence from – from Andrew Johnson and so forth….

 

This was a curious statement, as all the e-mails I have recently exchanged with Baker are included in this article in their entirety. (I have deleted the actual e-mail addresses to reduce bot spamming). Why couldn’t Ace’s description have been more accurate, saying “I have been getting correspondence from Andrew Johnson” or “I have been getting critical correspondence from Andrew Johnson” or even “Andrew Johnson asked me some questions about this, to which I responded.”? Anyone reading this article, and the e-mails can clearly see there is no “hate correspondence” here. Additionally, it is not my style to indulge in such correspondence, as a study of my web postings, articles etc. will reveal.

 

He then discussed my website and how I posted the earlier articles in this series. He then referred to the e-mail that John Hutchison sent to Dr Judy Wood (which she forwarded to me) regarding John’s attempted blog entry posting. Ace incorrectly states that John Hutchison contacted me directly – he did not, as the e-mail header shows.

 

Fetzer then read out the title of this article (“Ace in the Hole Part 2”), and the “subtitle” I posted on the front page (which read: “What is the real motive behind Ace Baker's new "Hutchison Effect Challenge?”) Fetzer then stated:

 

“Oh, that’s great, I love it when people start speculating on motives”.

 

Ace then adds:

 

My motive is to get people to believe that Hutchison is a fake – that’s my motive.

 

So, are Baker and Fetzer unconcerned with the large volume of evidence that John has amassed? (It seems pointless to ask this sort of question too many times.)

 

Ace Baker then reads out John’s e-mail, but fails to mention that this text is what John Hutchison attempted to post on Ace Baker’s blog, and that it was John’s best recall of it. (An entry posted on a blog is normally “lost” if the user does not make a copy, and it is subsequently not approved.)

 

Fetzer then re-asserts that his treatment of John Hutchison, when he appeared on Fetzer’s show, was justified , because of John’s background. He then says:

 

This is something that Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson and others don’t seem to have processed.

 

I think evidence presented here shows that I, and others, have very much “processed” what Jim Fetzer has been doing – and I have documented evidence to suggest what his motive could be.

 

In the second hour, a caller (John) from Canada rightly pointed out that just because Ace has produced a video which reproduces some of the aspects of the Hutchison Effect, it does not prove that John Hutchison is a fraud (Fetzer agreed with this logic). The caller then does a quite a good job of mentioning the additional evidence such as the metal samples and Dr Wood’s comparison to the effects seen on 9/11 (but even though he appears to have read this article, he failed to mention Ace’s opportunity to meet John Hutchison in Seattle). However, Ace then responds and says:

 

I don’t think that Judy believes in it [The Hutchison Effect], unfortunately, I’ve come to the opinion that Judy Wood is… um… fits right in to the model of disinformation.

 

Curiously, Ace then re-asserts his general support for the rest of Dr Wood’s 9/11 research and study of what happened at the WTC and states that she is “absolutely right” about the effects seen - such as dustification of the towers, the bent beams etc.

 

Perhaps ironically, most of the remainder of the show is taken up with Ace’s discussion of his model of the ways disinformation can be promoted.

 

What was the purpose, if any, of this broadcast with Ace Baker and Jim Fetzer?


UPDATE: John Hutchison Accepted the Challenge, but Ace Baker Didn't Show Up

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02ocTtPYz5E

UPDATE: Ace Baker Fakes his own Suicide on Air

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=5907&st=0

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK9876dk_zg

 

E-mails

E-mail 1

 

-----Original Message-----

From: ace baker [mailto:Ace Baker]

Sent: 18 August 2008 07:55

To: Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Jim Fetzer; etc; Andrew Johnson ; etc

Subject: Ace Baker - $100,000 Huchison Effect Challenge

 

Note: John Hutchison was not included in these e-mail exchanges.  If this was deliberate, Ace did not seem to be giving John notice of this “challenge”.  If this was not deliberate then, it illustrates his failure to pay attention to detail – surely anyone sending out an offer of $100,000 would certainly check the email addresses he's sending it to.

 

$100,000 if John and/or Judy can reproduce the H-Effect.

 

 

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/08/100000-hutchison-effect-challenge.html

 

 

Good til Jan 1, 2009.

 

 

-Ace Baker

 

Blog Entry

August 17, 2008

 

To John Hutchison and Judy Wood:

 

I hereby challenge John Hutchison and/or Judy Wood to reproduce the "Hutchison Effect". If successful, according to the criteria below, I will pay a reward of $100,000.00 in U.S. currency.

 

 

1. I will travel at my own expense to Hutchison's laboratory (shown above) in the Vancouver area.

2. I will bring 3 video cameras with tripods.

3. Hutchison will describe and point out his apparatus components on video. I will have unrestricted access to the laboratory area, being allowed to video anything which piques my curiosity.

4. Hutchison will then produce the levitation of a steel wrench, as depicted in at least one of his previous videos.  The wrench must fly upwards off of the table.

5. During the levitation demonstration, I will video tape continuously on all 3 cameras. One camera will be aimed at Hutchison as he operates any controls, one camera will be aimed at the wrench, and the last camera I will hand-hold, aiming at anything I choose.

 

[What does Ace Baker want to film?]

 

E-mail 2

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:Andrew Johnson]

Sent: 18 August 2008 12:45

To: ace baker; Judy Wood; etc

Subject: RE: Ace Baker - $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

 

 

Ace,

 

Some questions if I may:

 

1) If you are willing to put up this amount of money, it must mean a lot to you to "be convinced" of the validity of John's experiments and results. Who will you be approaching to validate the effects, and how will their qualifications compare to those of George Hathaway, Col John Alexander, Hal Puthoff and others?

 

2) Why are you willing to put up this amount of money for this demonstration, as opposed to, say, putting it into a Legal Case to sue the media regarding TV fakery? Surely the study you have done would stand up in court? And if it wouldn't, what could be added to it to make it stand up in court?

 

3) Let's suppose, just for your sake, that Hutchison-Effect-like  technology was NOT employed on 9/11, then could you give the money to some people to find what DID cause (a) Inverted cars (b) horseshoe beams (c) explosion of scott packs (d) witness accounts of levitation effects etc etc?

 

4) I will say to anyone now that I think Hurricane Erin provided one of the field components for the observed destruction on 9/11 - as part of the Hutchison-Effect-like  technology used (and this is my wording of an explanation/postulation, not Dr. Wood's [[1]], by the way). Note I do NOT regard the Hurricane as a "power source" for the weapon or gizmo. However, if the Hutchison Effect is not relevant to 9/11, then why was the Hurricane there? Was it just a coincidence? What are your thoughts on (a) The Hurricane's path (b) The Alaskan Magnetometer Data?

 

Ace, I am very interested in alternative explanations, based on good evidence, for the effects seen on 9/11 - isn't this what the search for 9/11 truth is for? i.e. we know WHAT happened on 9/11, and I think we are getting to know HOW it was done -  the data and evidence tell us this.

 

However, I am open to a different, consistent interpretation if it fits an explanation of the evidence . A year ago, the evidence suggested to me that you were interested in a pursuit of truth. The evidence since about February this year, documented in the articles I have posted on http://www.checktheevidence.com/ suggests you are more interested in trying to debunk John Hutchison than searching for a truly alternative explanation which explains the evidence (this is demonstrated in the answers to the questions I asked in the article). Jim Fetzer thought one of my articles regarding your Hutchison video fakery exercises was very "even handed" . I include Jim's e-mail below, for reference.

 

Good luck!

 

Andrew

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -----Original Message-----

From: Jim Fetzer [mailto:Jim Fetzer]

Sent: 16 May 2008 16:38

To: Andrew Johnson

Cc: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Subject: Invitation to an interview . . .

 

 Andrew,

 

I have been reading through your "Ace in the Hole" piece on Judy's site and I like the even-handed way you discuss most of these issues. This is to invite you to be my guest on "The Dynamic Duo" on Tuesday, 27 May 2008, from 4-6 PM/CT. We could go thorough your piece and discuss the various possibilities involved with the Hutchison effect and all that. Let me know if this would work for you. I will need a land-line number for the station to call. We will have four ten-minute segments each of the two hours for discussion. I think this would work out very well!

 

Jim

 

E-mail 3

 

-----Original Message-----

From: ace baker [mailto:Ace Baker]

Sent: 18 August 2008 17:08

To: Andrew Johnson; Judy Wood; etc

Subject: Re: Ace Baker - $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

 

 

1. Hutchison/Wood are free to discuss any details/clarifications should they decide to accept the challenge.

2. I am willing to offer $100,000 to FOX5 to license broadcast-quality Chopper 5 footage. That challenge coming soon.

3. There is no Hutchison Effect to have been employed on 9/11. No, I am not willing to offer $100,000 to "some people". The purpose of this challenge is to demonstrate to the public that Hutchison and Wood are liars.

4. The challenge has nothing whatsoever to do with hurricane Erin or the Alaskan Magnetometer data. It has to do with the scientific claims made by John Hutchison. Hutchison's claims pre-date 9/11, and continue to this day.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Ace Baker

 

 

E-mail 4

-----Original Message-----

From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:Andrew Johnson]

Sent: 18 August 2008 17:18

To: ace baker; Judy Wood; etc

Subject: RE: Ace Baker - $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

 

 

Ace,

 

Thanks for your responses. Am I correct in concluding therefore,

 

1) That your "Hutchison Effect challenge" has nothing to with 9/11 research?

2) You don't think Hurricane Erin has any relevance to what happened on 9/11?

3) From your response to my original point (3), can I conclude you have no interest in really finding out how the towers were dustified on 9/11?

 

Thanks very much.

 

Andrew

 

E-mail 5

-----Original Message-----

From: ace baker [mailto:Ace Baker]

Sent: 18 August 2008 18:04

To: Andrew Johnson

Subject: Re: Ace Baker - $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

 

 

1. Wrong. The Hutchison Effect Challenge is related to 9/11 research, in that it will require honest researchers to eliminate "Hutchison Effect" from consideration.

2. Right. Hurricane Erin is unrelated to 9/11.

3. Wrong. I am very interested to learn how the towers were blown up. But I'm also interested in documenting the strategy of the govern-media psy-op team.

 

 

-Sincerely,

 

 

Ace Baker

 

 

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves". -Vladimir Lenin

"If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers". -Thomas Pynchon.

 

E-mail 6

 

Envelope-to: Dr Judy Wood

From: "johnhutchison" John Hutchison

To: "'Dr. Judy Wood'" Dr Judy Wood

Subject: RE: Ace Baker - $100,000 Huchison Effect Challenge

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:22:06 -0700

Thread-Index: AckBq+zChT50APXgTnmO1ggagb0xlQABpTUw

 

OK GOING BY MEMORY I SAID TO ACE........... HI ACE HOBBIT FANTASTIC IF YOU

CAN MAKE THAT CANADIAN DOLLARS AND FOR 150.000  WHAT ILL DO IS TEACH YOU HOW

TO RUN IT AND YOU CAN HAVE IT AND YOU CAN DO YOUR OWN ANTIGRAVITY IT SAVES

ME THE HASSLE OF PUTTING IT ON EBAY AGAIN  I MIGHT EVEN THROW IN THE GUN

COLLECTION IT ALL YOURS  APPOVED THREW A LAWYER PROPER LEGALEES

.................. MORE OR LESS THAT WHAT I POSTED USING MY BLOGGER ACCOUNT



[1] Note in this part of the e-mail, I was not trying to claim that this interpretation was mine, nor that I disagreed with Dr Wood’s, it’s just that due to others repeatedly misquoting her research, I was trying to be cautious not to speak for her in this respect. Dr Wood has posted the text below on one of her web pages in relation to the 22nd July Dynamic Duo radio show:

 

"Unfortunately, Jim Fetzer misrepresented my research work when he spoke about it during this show. I do hope he finds the time to read the title of my new series. The title of my new series is, "9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects" – [http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/index.html] (see above), and the series discusses field effects [http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin4.html]  and the evidence of field effects. The Hutchison Effect [http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/index.html] uses field effects on a smaller scale to produce phenomena parallel to what resulted from the field effects on 9/11/01, as presented in an earlier series."

 

 

 




*** PLEASE *** SHARE ON FACEBOOK ETC
Del.icio.us!Facebook!StumbleUpon!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites! title=
 
< Prev   Next >