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

Andrew Johnson

09 Sep 2008

 

In researching 9/11, I have tried to stay focused on aspects of “primary evidence” – analysis of what actually happened – for example, through examination of physical evidence and verified witness testimony. However, in this series of articles related to the Hutchison Effect and 9/11, I have felt the need to document communications that I have been involved with, in regard to ongoing research and the reaction to it. Analysis of these communications is, to me, quite instructive in determining the way in which the 9/11 cover up is being perpetuated and managed.

 

I (and others) have previously queried how the perpetrators might be working to sustain the 9/11 cover up. One way would be to shut down discussion or analysis of the most damning evidence pertaining to what really happened. Another way is to make repeated attempts to discredit or “trash” certain researchers - or even simply involve them in fruitless debates or “spit fights” of one kind or another – and this is precisely what seems to have happened over the last few years.

That Supposed Hate Correspondence

 

In Ace in the Hole – Part 2, I pointed out how I had been accused (live - on air) of sending hate correspondence to Ace Baker. This happened on a show I have (once) guest hosted – The Dynamic Duo on GCN Live. Now, of course, this in itself, is a very minor thing. After all, one has to be pretty “thick-skinned” to function in an environment that is populated in the way that it seems to be, so it shouldn’t be a “big deal”. Far worse things have happened to far better people, right?

 

Well, I decided to write this article to try and document how certain figures seem happy to create an injustice (however small), then fail to take responsibility for their own actions/words. They are then offered an opportunity to correct that injustice, in a dignified manner, but then they refuse, essentially stating that the person who was on the receiving end of this injustice was actually at fault in some way.

 

Request for Correction

 

This matter unfolded as follows. Following Ace Baker’s statement that I had sent him hate correspondence, I sent an e-mail to both him and Jim Fetzer (CC’d to several others), stating the following:

 

I am writing to request that you broadcast a correction to the statement that Ace Baker had received "hate correspondence" from me. I have posted all the recent correspondence I have had with Ace Baker in the "Ace in the Hole 2" article, and none of it fits this description.

 

Alternatively, if Ace Baker can produce a message attributable to me (including e-mail headers which prove that it came from an e-mail server I use), then I would like to see that message, and there will be no need for such a correction to be read out.

 

So, I was basically asking Ace Baker to provide evidence of this supposed hate correspondence I had sent, or apologise to me. I decided to request an apology because this statement went out “on air” to a particular audience, and I knew the statement was wholly untrue. Of course, on various internet postings, there are a number of remarks posted about me – but I do not know these internet posters and have not previously been involved with them in the way that I have with Ace Baker and Jim Fetzer (both people I, at one time, trusted).

 

Ace Baker initially responded, saying:

 

I don't recall the passage in question from yesterday's show. If someone will send me a recording or an accurate transcript, I will respond.

 

In the same message, bizarrely, he also said:

 

While awaiting a review of my comments yesterday, and while on the subject of hate, you may quote me as follows:

 

"I hate Judy Wood. Judy Wood is a liar, a fraud, and a despicable human being. Judy Wood knows perfectly well that there is no Hutchison Effect. In my opinion, based on the evidence, Judy Wood is a conspirator to mass murder, participating intentionally in the disinformation campaign associated with the crimes of 9/11. Judy Wood is therefore deserving of my hatred, and the hatred of all good and honest people."

 

He made some other comments in this e-mail which were not relevant to the apology I had requested from him (a comment which had somehow slipped his memory). You can read the full message by clicking the link above.

 

Round about this time, there was a sequence of e-mails (not all of which are appended here) mentioning various topics, such as the Hutchison Effect, Molten Metal and various other things, but nowhere was the matter of me sending hate correspondence discussed, neither was evidence of it produced by Ace Baker (or Jim Fetzer). In one of these e-mails, Jim Fetzer said:

 

Something has gone wrong between Judy and  me that I do not understand.  I have stood by her through thick and thin  and paid the price of ridicule and harassment.  It has not been fun.  Because I have believed in her, I have gladly borne the burden.  If you can tell me why she abandoned me, that might be worthwhile.  It's a mystery to  me.

 

By the end of this article, perhaps the mystery Jim Fetzer referred to will be solved.

 

As the discussion seemed to have gone off my “request for correction”, I sent a message providing Ace Baker with a transcript of his statement and I also repeated the request that he or Fetzer (as the show’s regular host) correct it – or, they should provide evidence of the hate correspondence I had sent. When I had read through additional e-mails, I decided to send another message, requesting that a specific statement be read out by Fetzer at the start of his next show, which read as follows:

 

"I have a statement which Andrew Johnson has asked me to read out:

 

On 26th Aug, during a discussion with Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker said:

 

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

 

Andrew Johnson has not sent Ace Baker any hate correspondence and Andrew Johnson would politely request either a written or on-air statement from Ace Baker to retract or correct his earlier statement about Andrew Johnson having sent Ace Baker hate correspondence, unless Ace Baker can provide verifiable copies of any hate correspondence which he thinks came from Andrew Johnson.

 

For further information and analysis, I request that all interested parties view the 9/11 Hutchison Effect series of articles posted at http://www.checktheevidence.com/, where they can view the contents of all e-mails pertinent to these matters and listen to the audios of the various broadcasts.

 

Thank you.

 

Somewhat curiously, Fetzer responded saying I should call in to the show (which, in calling from the UK, could be potentially costly) when Ace was next on with him – scheduled for Tuesday 2nd Sept 2008.

 

Fetzer then sent another message, responding on Ace’s behalf saying:

 

My suspicion is that Ace meant "hostile" and it came out "hate".  That would not surprise me as much as making such a mountain of a molehill. 

 

So, Fetzer was suggesting that Ace didn’t mean what he said – why couldn’t Ace speak up for himself? Fetzer then also offered various adjectives to describe the mail I had sent which are similar to “hate correspondence”. Was Fetzer trying to “muddle the issue”? I leave the reader to decide this for themselves.

 

Just Who is Sending Hate Correspondence?

 

I then responded to Fetzer that I disagreed with his ideas on this and I did not wish to argue about the very particular and clear cut-definition of “hate correspondence”. I had only sent Ace Baker e-mails, so I will now quote the definition of “hate mail” from my Chambers 20th century dictionary, 1996, CD ROM edition:

 

hate mail - correspondence containing anything from insults to death threats, etc.

 

I was asking Ace Baker to provide e-mail matching this definition (which everyone is clear about – and if they weren’t, the definition is above – and the one to which evidence in this matter should be matched). I have not sent Ace Baker any e-mails with any insults or death threats or similar types of remarks. I have just asked him a number of probing questions about his own actions, conclusions and his motivations.

 

At this point, let us revisit the earlier message sent by Ace Baker to myself and several others in which he included the words:

 

Judy Wood is a liar, a fraud, and a despicable human being.

 

I will leave readers to examine for themselves these words, contained in e-mail correspondence - sent by Ace Baker, and consider them in the light of the definition of “hate mail” given in the Chambers 20th Century dictionary, 1996, CD ROM edition, (as above). Please read all of Ace’s e-mail to check I am not quoting him out of context. The facts seem to be, then: Andrew Johnson did not send hate mail to Ace Baker and Ace Baker did send hate mail to Judy Wood. Jim Fetzer did not mention that Ace Baker had sent hate mail to Judy Wood and others. Why was Jim Fetzer struggling so much with definitions and “working out” who was doing what? He has edited many books and presumably has had to deal with such issues many times.

 

Request Denied

 

Fetzer offered me the opportunity to “call in and discuss” the issue:

 

Reading a statement that is, in my opinion, wildly out of proportion to a remark made in passing is not.  Call in and we'll see if I'm right.  OK?  Thanks for asking.

 

So he suggests that reading out a statement is “wildly out of proportion” to what was said by Ace Baker – he is therefore suggesting my request is unreasonable. In a subsequent response, Fetzer then went on to suggest that he didn’t know what the definition of “hate correspondence” was and he implied I was wrong to suggest I did know the definition of this term. (Most people in Jim Fetzer’s position do have access to various english language dictionaries). He said:

 

I am beginning to get the impression of a child throwing a tantrum. This is not becoming, Andrew.  Even your fans may be a bit dismayed. Your demands are excessive and grossly out of line.  In a word, "No!"

 

Here, he starts to call me a child (again), suggests my “fans” (who are they?) will not be impressed, and then he says my “demands” are “excessive and grossly out of line”. What I made were actually 2 requests, not demands – see the subject of the original message. Fetzer then - point blank - refuses my request. In the process, he tries to muddle what I said and suggest I am being unreasonable – all because I asked him to read out a 90-second statement to correct a false statement about my actions that was made on his broadcast with Ace Baker.

 

It should be noted that in a previous broadcast of the Dynamic Duo on 31st July, where Dr. Wood and I had discussed the idea the Jim Fetzer was misquoting Dr. Wood’s research and attempting to “take ownership” of it (in the sense that he could “steer it” or more easily mix it up with other things – which is not the same as “taking credit” for it), Jim Fetzer took much of the first segment of the programme to read out his own statement about what was said. (This will be the subject of a separate article.) In other words, Fetzer gave himself the same “right of reply” that he refused me i.e. he did not offer to come on and “debate” the issue, he made a statement about what he thought. Why did he refuse me this same opportunity?

 

Ace Baker’s next e-mail then seems to go further by asking me to make corrections to my original “Part 1” article (to which I had already added a section at the bottom to include Baker’s responses to questions I posed in the article). Was his strategy to try and cover up or distract from his own false statements about me sending hate correspondence, as well as not making an apology? Why would I want to spend time making supposed corrections suggested by someone who has made fake videos, said I sent him hate correspondence and sent hate mail himself? What’s wrong with this picture?

 

Andrew Johnson – Redefined!

 

In a later e-mail from Ace Baker, he did not correct his statement and did not apologise to Andrew Johnson. He decided, apparently to redefine “Andrew Johnson” thus:

 

"On Dynamic Duo August 26, I was speaking about my challenge to John Hutchison, offering him $100,000 to reproduce his alleged 'Hutchison Effect' levitation. In sorting my thoughts, I began a sentence with 'I've been getting hate correspondence - from Andrew Johnson and so forth . . .'  I should have said, 'from Andrew Johnson and company'. 

 

So, to try and avoid apologising to me, Ace has now re-defined “Andrew Johnson” to be any group of people Andrew Johnson is seen to be associating with. This seems to pair up “nicely” with Jim Fetzer trying to redefine the meaning of “hate correspondence”. With such fluid and muddlesome (a new word) definitions - of both people and well-known phrases - we could be faced with endless possibilities for redefining reality and truth!

 

I have included several other e-mails below, to allow people to see a fuller context of the remarks made, but have not included the entire thread, because it would be very long, and include many statements and remarks not relevant to the central issue in this article, which I have attempted to describe in the summary below.

 

Summary and Conclusion

 

1)      Ace Baker made a false statement about me sending hate correspondence to him.

2)      Ace Baker sent hate correspondence to Dr. Judy Wood.

3)      I requested an opportunity to set the record straight on the Dynamic Duo, on terms I DEFINED (reading out a 90-second or so statement).

4)      Fetzer suggested I call in to “discuss” it - I refused, because there was nothing to discuss.

5)      Fetzer tried to say I did not understand the English language (or words to that effect). He tried to muddle the definition of "hate correspondence".

6)      Fetzer redefined the word “request” to be “demand”.

7)      Ace Baker did not initially respond to my request for an apology.

8)      Ace Baker responded to redefine "Andrew Johnson" to include any group Andrew Johnson seemed to be associated with - so that Ace's refusal to apologise was (apparently) justified.

 

I would therefore suggest Ace Baker and Jim Fetzer allowed themselves to cause a small injustice to me by Ace lying about something I hadn't done. I offered them a simple opportunity to correct that injustice (twice). They refused the opportunity, tried to say they hadn't really done anything wrong and suggested it was completely inappropriate for me to request an apology. This is a bit like saying “Well, I don’t agree with your definition of ‘gun’ and ‘fired’ and in any case, even if I did, it was your fault for not moving out of the way when the gun went off”.

 

Perhaps Andrew Johnson should make a $100,000 challenge to Ace Baker to produce the non-existent “hate correspondence”. Perhaps this would “win me some fans” as people would surely suggest to Ace Baker that he takes up my challenge?

 

If this is how Jim Fetzer and Ace Baker deal with such a miniscule injustice (i.e. their accusation that I sent hate correspondence), should we consider carefully the way in which they appear to dealing with a much larger injustice – i.e. the crimes associated with 9/11?

 

I do not like writing articles that focus on matters such as this, but I have tried to write this in a clear, focused and dispassionate manner. This is very difficult to do when there is so much at stake.

 

If people reading this article cannot now understand the behaviour of Ace Baker and Jim Fetzer with regard to Hutchison Effect being linked to 9/11, then there seems to be little hope they ever will. Therefore, I do hope that there is some truth in the phrase “Those who have eyes will see and those who have ears will hear”.

 

Update (30.12.2008) Fetzer and Baker
on Sofia’s Expansion Show 29 Aug 2008

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Fetzer/Fetzer%20on%20Hate%20Mail%20-%20Expansion%20-%20Sofia%2029%20Aug%202008.mp3

I was recently alerted to this audio, where, in response to some comments from a caller about infighting in the “9/11 truth movement”, Fetzer briefly mentioned how Republicans had attacked a recent speech by Obama, then he said:

When I had Ace Baker last on my show, he made a remark in passing about having received from hate mail from… and he mentioned the name of Andrew Johnson, who happens to be a close associate of Judy’s and Andrew just laughs on that and denied he had [sent] any hate mail and [I said] and you want to come on the show and make this big, big formal statement about it and I said well what is hate mail? And he refused to define it and said he’s not going to get drawn into definitions but if you can’t define what hate mail is then how in the world can you know you haven’t sent it.

 Again, Fetzer is reporting things somewhat inaccurately. I actually asked Fetzer to provide evidence of the hate mail I sent. I implied in my messages that the definition of hate mail is commonly known – and neither he nor Ace was able to provide evidence I had sent any mail matching any common definition. Fetzer continued:

I said, well have you sent any stuff to Ace that is err that is defensive or hypercritical or hostile? And he wouldn’t even answer the question, because that would all be borderline hate mail which doesn’t require specifically that you be denigrating somebody on the basis of racial or ethnic or whatever grounds – it’s any form of really hostile or harassing kind of mail, so it may well be he actually sent it… but he was making a big deal out of it when the real issues had to do with video fakery … remote planes…

Here, Fetzer mentions “borderline hate mail”, so he claimed to know the definition, but was still not, at the time able to produce any evidence of Andrew Johnson having sent it. Of course, Fetzer also, in relation to this matter, entirely failed to mention Ace’s important later correction which was to “redefine” Andrew Johnson thus:

I should have said, 'from Andrew Johnson and company'. 

This “redefinition” probably happened because neither of them were able to produce any copies of correspondence that matched any known definition of hate mail. It is interesting to consider why Fetzer even brought this up.

Full show here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Jim%20Fetzer%20-%20Ace%20Baker%20-%209-11%20Disinfo%20etc%20-%20Expansions%20-%20Sofia%2029%20Aug%202008.mp3

E-mails

 

Some emphasis has been added to highlight key statements.

 

Email 1

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

From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:Andrew Johnson]

Sent: 27 August 2008 20:47

To: ace baker; Jim Fetzer

Cc: Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst; Cb_Brooklyn

Subject: Request for Correction

 

Jim/Ace,

 

I listened to yesterday's DD broadcast regarding Ace Baker's video fakery research and the new "Hutchison Effect Challenge".

 

I am writing to request that you broadcast a correction to the statement that Ace Baker had received "hate correspondence" from me. I have posted all the recent correspondence I have had with Ace Baker in the "Ace in the Hole 2" article, and none of it fits this description.

 

Alternatively, if Ace Baker can produce a message attributable to me (including e-mail headers which prove that it came from an e-mail server I use), then I would like to see that message, and there will be no need for such a correction to be read out.

 

If you can broadcast such an apology, I can then add it as a further note to my article, which has now been updated with the new information presented in your broadcast of 26th Aug 2008.

 

Thank you.

 

Andrew Johnson

UK

 

Email 2

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

From: ace baker [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 28 August 2008 00:51

To: Andrew Johnson; Jim Fetzer

Cc: Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst; Cb_Brooklyn

Subject: Re: Request for Correction

 

Jim/Andrew/Judy,

 

I don't recall the passage in question from yesterday's show. If someone will send me a recording or an accurate transcript, I will respond.

 

I too am interested in correcting the record. I have repeatedly requested that Judy Wood correct the false and defamatory statements about me on her website, and she has refused to do so. Specifically:

 

1. I have supplied Judy Wood with quite a few more photos for her webpage on my debunking of the Hutchison Effect. She has refused to include them, in an obvious case of scientific fraud.

2. Judy Wood refers to me as a "plagiarist" with regard to my parody song "Blown to Kingdom Come". Plagiarism (copyright infringement) is, in fact, a criminal offense under U.S. Federal law. "Blown to Kingdom Come" is not plagiarism, and I have not infringed upon anyone's copyright. Falsely accusing a person of a crime is libel per se.

 

While awaiting a review of my comments yesterday, and while on the subject of hate, you may quote me as follows:

 

"I hate Judy Wood. Judy Wood is a liar, a fraud, and a despicable human being. Judy Wood knows perfectly well that there is no Hutchison Effect. In my opinion, based on the evidence, Judy Wood is a conspirator to mass murder, participating intentionally in the disinformation campaign associated with the crimes of 9/11. Judy Wood is therefore deserving of my hatred, and the hatred of all good and honest people."

 

Sincerely,

 

Ace Baker

 

E-mail 3

 

----Original Message-----

From:Jim Fetzer [mailto:Jim Fetzer]

Sent: 28 August 2008 05:11

To: CB Brooklyn

Cc:Jim Fetzer; Andrew Johnson; Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst; ace baker

Subject: Re: Request for Correction

 

Judy cut off contact with me, not I with her.  I still send her, Morgan, and Jerry any item I run across that I think might interest her.  That  is something they can confirm.  Something has gone wrong between Judy and  me that I do not understand.  I have stood by her through thick and thin  and paid the price of ridicule and harassment.  It has not been fun.  Because I have believed in her, I have gladly borne the burden.  If you can tell me why she abandoned me, that might be worthwhile.  It's a mystery to  me.

 

E-mail 4

 

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

From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:Andrew Johnson]

Sent: 28 August 2008 08:43

To: ace baker; Jim Fetzer

Cc: Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst; Cb_Brooklyn

Subject: RE: Request for Correction

 

 

Hello Jim/Ace,

 

Oops - looks like we've gone off topic here a bit (I have only just woken up and just skimmed some of the e-mails).

 

Jim/Ace here for you again is the main issue that needs to be resolved:

 

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….

 

If this particular one is not resolved (it is nothing to do with the validity of the Hutchison effect, so please don't divert onto something else), I will be writing to GCN to ask their view of what I should do about getting this broadcast statement corrected in a later broadcast (perhaps Ted Anderson will be able to read it out before the start of a DD show or something if you refuse to do it yourself).

 

Can you present me with the evidence of the hate correspondence I  have sent? If not, then I am requesting that this remark is corrected/retracted on air.

 

The other remarks you refer to are not relevant to this issue - all you seem to have done is repeated just about everything already said in e-mail or on websites (I wasn't talking about what was said on websites - I was talking about what was said on air - about me having sent hate correspondence).

 

As usual, I will be posting all this evidence and documenting it on my website and elsewhere,

 

I will be trying to read the other e-mail shortly

 

Thanks.

 

Andrew

 

E-mail 5

 

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

From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:Andrew Johnson]

Sent: 28 August 2008 10:31

To:Jim Fetzer; CB Brooklyn

Cc: Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst; ace baker

Subject: RE: Request for Correction

 

Here is a suitable statement I would like to be read out - preferably at the start of each hour, as it was quite a serious statement made by Ace Baker:

 

======================================

"I have a statement which Andrew Johnson has asked me to read out:

 

On 26th Aug, during a discussion with Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker said:

 

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

 

Andrew Johnson has not sent Ace Baker any hate correspondence and Andrew Johnson would politely request either a written or on-air statement from Ace Baker to retract or correct his earlier statement about Andrew Johnson having sent Ace Baker hate correspondence, unless Ace Baker can provide verifiable copies of any hate correspondence which he thinks came from Andrew Johnson.

 

For further information and analysis, I request that all interested parties view the 9/11 Hutchison Effect series of articles posted at http://www.checktheevidence.com/, where they can view the contents of all e-mails pertinent to these matters and listen to the audios of the various broadcasts.

 

Thank you.

 

E-mail 6

 

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

From:Jim Fetzer [mailto:Jim Fetzer]

Sent: 28 August 2008 13:25

To: CB Brooklyn;Jim Fetzer

Cc: Andrew Johnson; ace baker; Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood;

Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst

Subject: RE: Request for Correction

 

The show should be archived on Scholars later today.  Ace will be my guest again next Tuesday.  If anyone wants to call in and ask about his last appearance, including Andrew, they are welcome to do that.

 

E-mail 7

 

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

From:Jim Fetzer [mailto:Jim Fetzer]

Sent: 28 August 2008 14:05

To: Andrew Johnson; ace baker;Jim Fetzer

Cc: CB Brooklyn; Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds;

Russ Gerst

Subject: RE: Request for Correction

 

Andrew, call in to the show if you like.  My suspicion is that Ace meant "hostile" and it came out "hate".  That would not surprise me as much as making such a mountain of a molehill.  I find it curious that the only issue being raised has nothing to do with research on video fakery, planes/no planes, or even the destruction of the WTC, but a comment in passing the significance of which is obscure.  Not to be insensitive, but GOP operatives attack Obama in a manner that strikes me as similar:  No matter how magnificent his speech, the spinmeisters will find something to carp about, no matter how minor. True or false:  Some of your emails have been rather intemperate? forceful? defensive? critical? hypercritical? the least bit hostile?

 

A principle of interpretation (or of translation), the principle of charity, says that, in attempting to understand what someone says, you should try to find an interpretation that makes it come out true. Another, called the principle of humanity, says that you should also attribute to others motives and concerns that are the same for us all. I think it is reasonable to ask Ace what he meant and why he said it. You will have that opportunity in the same venue in which the alleged offense occurred.  That is appropriate.  Reading a statement that is, in my opinion, wildly out of proportion to a remark made in passing is not.  Call in and we'll see if I'm right.  OK?  Thanks for asking.

 

E-mail 8

 

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

From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:Andrew Johnson]

Sent: 28 August 2008 15:07

To:Jim Fetzer; ace baker

Cc: CB Brooklyn; Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds;

Russ Gerst

Subject: RE: Request for Correction

 

Jim,

 

"Hate correspondence" has a particular meaning. Let's not argue definitions.

 

If I can call in, then I would like it to be in the 1st segment of each hour tonight, so that I can use my right of response. Please can you advise me of the call in number.

 

Therefore, these are the acceptable options:

 

1) You read out the statement I wrote on your next broadcast.

2) The station calls me at the start of each hour and I read out the statement.

 

Anyway, why are you speaking for Ace's interpretation? I am sure he can express himself, can he not?

 

I am not bothered about GOP, Obama or any of that stuff. I am bothered about what Ace Baker said in relation to e-mails I have not sent.

 

Whatever the outcome of this, it will be posted in the appropriate section(s) of my website - including an absence of apology by Ace Baker within a reasonable time frame, which would likely expire at the end of his next appearance on DD.

 

Thank you.

 

Andrew

 

 

E-mail 9

 

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

From:Jim Fetzer [mailto:Jim Fetzer]

Sent: 28 August 2008 15:22

To: Andrew Johnson;Jim Fetzer

Cc: ace baker; CB Brooklyn; Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood;

Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst

Subject: RE: Request for Correction

 

I'm glad you know the meaning of "hate correspondence" so effortlessly, since I don't, and the study of language is one of my specializations. So what, precisely, is the meaning of that phrase, according to you?

 

I am beginning to get the impression of a child throwing a tantrum. This is not becoming, Andrew.  Even your fans may be a bit dismayed. Your demands are excessive and grossly out of line.  In a word, "No!"

 

Am I not supposed to notice that you haven't answered my questions? True or false:  Some of your emails have been rather intemperate? forceful? defensive? critical? hypercritical? the least bit hostile?

 

Your gross distortion of my email, by the way, which is evident to anyone who reads it below, suggests to me that understanding what people write or say is not your strong suit.  And I am being kind.

 

E-mail 10

 

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

From: ace baker [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 28 August 2008 01:39

To: Andrew Johnson; Jim Fetzer

Cc: Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst; Cb_Brooklyn

Subject: Re: Request Corrections in "Ace in the Hole Article"

 

Andrew,

 

1. Your "Ace In The Hole" article states: " . . .latterly he [John Hutchison] is able to produce [the Hutchison] effects very reliably . . ."

 

This is false, and you know it. The best you could say is that Hutchison CLAIMS to be able to produce his effect very reliably". Please correct this statement.

 

2. In reference to the Hutchison Boat video, the article also states the following:

 

"Ace then discusses the strange fires which skip around the boat and then says they disappear within one frame and the water goes calm. This description is inaccurate, as the water is moving and flames are seen approximately 10 seconds into the video."

 

This is a misleading non-sequitur which requires correction. Hutchison's boat video does indeed have fires which appear and disappear within one video frame. The water also goes from wavy to calm across the exact same frame. This has nothing at all to do with WHEN during the course of the video this occurs, as you confuse. Rather, it has to do with the fact that the video has obviously been edited. Editing is a very simple, ordinary explanation for having objects change abruptly on video. You know this.

 

Please correct the passage. If you really wanted to have an accurate article, you should mention the fact that the boat video has a very low frame rate. Why? Even YouTube can run 30 fps. You might also mention that Hutchison has repeatedly refused my request to see high-quality versions of his videos. Shouldn't Hutchison release a 30 fps, full sized version of the boat video?

 

3. The article contains numerous questions you ask of me, to which I was not allowed to respond. I'd like to respond to all of the questions you pose to me, because unanswered, it appears that I avoid them, which is the furthest thing from the truth.

 

SIncerely,

 

Ace Baker

 

E-mail 11

 

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

From: ace baker [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 30 August 2008 01:59

To: Russ Gerst; CB Brooklyn;  John Hutchison;Jim Fetzer

Cc: Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Cb_Brooklyn; Andrew Johnson

Subject: Re: FedEx delivers on Sundays, since 1998

 

Of course you knew they were fake videos. Everyone except completely gullible idiots understands that when we see objects falling upwards, it's an upside down camera.

 

There are two categories of people who claim Hutchison's videos are real:

 

1. Completely gullible idiots

2. Liars protecting mass murderers.

 

My offer to Hutchison is still wide open, all I need to proceed is a date and and John Hutchison's address. An interpreter for Mr. Hutchison would also be helpful. Jerry Leaphart has experience in this area, as I have read the Hutchison affidavit.

 

-Ace Baker

 

E-mail 12

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

From: ace baker [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 28 August 2008 20:12

To: Andrew Johnson;Jim Fetzer

Cc: Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst; Cb_Brooklyn

Subject: Re: Repeat Request to Correct Andrew Johnson Article

 

Andrew,

 

You have not responded to my repeated requests to correct your "Ace in the Hole" article. In addition to the errors, you ask of me a number of questions which I have answered, and am willing to answer. I request that you correct your errors, and publish my complete responses.

 

E-mail 13

 

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

From: ace baker [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ]

Sent: 28 August 2008 18:06

To: Andrew Johnson; Jim Fetzer

Cc: Jerry Leaphart; Judy Wood; Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst; Cb_Brooklyn

Subject: Re: Ace Baker's Correction

 

Jim, Andrew

 

You may quote me as follows:

 

"On Dynamic Duo August 26, I was speaking about my challenge to John Hutchison, offering him $100,000 to reproduce his alleged 'Hutchison Effect' levitation. In sorting my thoughts, I began a sentence with 'I've been getting hate correspondence - from Andrew Johnson and so forth . . .'  I should have said, 'from Andrew Johnson and company'. 

 

In this case, the 'and so forth' refers to a group of individuals that includes John Hutchison, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Jerry Leaphart, Russ Gerst, and Andrew Johnson. In my opinion, this group works in concert, so I often think of them collectively. In this case, I was speaking of them collectively.

 

John Hutchison has, without question, expressed hatred and violent intentions toward me in retaliation for having exposed him as a fraud, and lately, as a conspirator in the 9/11 coverup. John Hutchison, in writing, said to me that such disputes as ours were once settled with 'fists and weapons'.

 

Judy Wood has most certainly engaged in publishing hateful, false, defamatory material about me. For example, she falsely accuses me of a Federal crime (copyright infringement), and has repeatedly refused to remove this content. Judy has also refused to include many photographs I sent to her for inclusion in my debunking of Hutchison.

 

Andrew Johnson has written about these events, and is well aware of the hateful, violent, threatening, and false content deliberately issued by his group, in particular by Judy Wood and John Hutchison. Andrew Johnson deliberately and cleverly contributes to his group's agenda of perpetrating a hateful smear campaign against me. He accomplishes this by engaging me in email questionnaires, publishing selected answers, but refusing to publish the answers to other questions which I have answered, thus making it appear as though I have avoided answering. Andrew Johnson also falsely misrepresented my comments regarding the editing of a Hutchison video.

 

Russ Gerst has also issued positively hateful comments in various emails to me, but since Mr. Gerst has not, to my knowledge, contributed anything whatsoever to 9/11 research, I dismiss him as irrelevant.

 

I must admit, openly, based on personal experience, that I harbor intense hatred toward Judy Wood, [names deleted as they are not relevant to this article] and others, as I firmly believe they are conspirators in the coverup of mass murder."

 

Sincerely,

 

Ace Baker




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