9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Replies to Ace Baker, Ken Jenkins, and Joe Keith . . .

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:18:29 -0500 [04:18:29 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Joseph Keith" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction

Joe,

I have always felt kindly toward you and think you are a good guy. My
problem with your reasoning is that you suppose the boundaries of your
imagination impose constraints on the development of technology that
transcends them. I am making four assumptions you are free to contest:

(1) whatever it was, it looked like a real plane;

(2) whatever it was, it did not behave like a real plane;

(3) pilots at nearby airports watched as it hit the South Tower;

(4) many, including Ken Jenkins, believe that the videos are authentic.

If we assume (1) though (4) to be true, then the only explanation that
appears to be capable of explaining all the data--where I have already
enumerated ten data points, including no proof that any hijackers were
aboard any of the planes, no "envelopes" for any of the planes and no
uniquely identifiable parts from any of the planes and much, much more
--appears to be (a) that it looked like a real plane, (b) it did not
behave like a real plane, (c) even pilots were taken in by the image,
and (d) it was caught in many video recordings, where the only way I
can imagine that this could have been done is with some new form of
holographic technology, which does not require a screen but can be
projected onto (what appears to be open space), possibly by the use
of multiple image projectors. I do not know exactly how it was done,
but for any explanation to satisfy these constraints, it has to be of
this (holographic image) general kind. Maybe a new model! Egad, Joe,
you know technology is running unbelievably fast and that we are often
the last to know! So, yes, in terms of your argument--which seems to
have been crafted in absence of having read my response to Ken Jenkins
below--it is less probable to me that these pilots are mistaken than it
is that a new technology for holographic projection has been produced!
I would like to think you would find this hypothesis worthy of respect.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I invite you, as I have Ken Jenkins, to advance a
more adequate explanation that confers a higher likelihood on the data.

Jim
_____________________________

Ken,

And I explained--a long time ago!--that Rick Rajter had discovered that
Salter had used two different frames of reference, which meant that his
inference was mistaken. Not only that, but how many times do I have to
observe that the velocity of more than 50% of the plane should have gone
to zero? I have pointed out that Flight 175 would have intersected with
not one, not two, but eight of the floors, which were composed of 4" of
concrete poured onto steel trusses, which were bolted and welded to the
external support columns and welded to the core columns. It would have
been impossible for those parts of that plane to have penetrated the ST,
unless, of course, we are viewing the image of a real plane rather than
a real plane itself. I don't want to suggest that the heat is getting
to you, but it is not reasonable to discontinue this thread unless you
are conceding the point. I have laid out more than ten data points we
need to explain. You and yours want to focus on one of those, namely:
the footage per se, where it should be apparent that we are witnessing
impossible things! The video is a fantasy, Ken, yet pilots at nearby
airports SAW WHAT LOOKED LIKE A PLANE! Because it did not ACT LIKE A
REAL PLANE, it is safe to concluded that IT WAS NOT A REAL PLANE, yet
you insist--with arguments that many find compelling!--that THE VIDEOS
ARE AUTHENTIC. Well, the only hypothesis that can account for all of
these points--IT LOOKED LIKE A REAL PLANE, IT DID NOT ACT LIKE A REAL
PLANE, YET THE VIDEOS ARE AUTHENTIC (which I take to be your premise)
--is that IT WAS SOMETHING THAT LOOKED LIKE A REAL PLANE BUT WAS NOT A
REAL PLANE AND COULD VIOLATE LAWS OF AERODYNAMICS, OF ENGINNERING AND
OF PHYSICS--which fits a holographic projection better than any alter-
native of which I am aware. So please tell us all what hypothesis you
prefer that can explain the data better than a HOLOGRAPHIC PROJECTION?
If you bail out now, Ken, you will have conceded my point, de facto. I
take it that is not what you want to do. So give us your alternative.
I have been very open-minded during this exchange and have even found
myself changing my mind about which alternatives are the most adequate.
I will not accept your insinuation that I have a closed-mind, which is
clearly false. Show us the depth of your thinking with an alternative.

Jim

Quoting KenJenkins@aol.com:

Jim,

In a message dated 6/27/09 1:01:57 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
if there is an alternative that provides a better explanation of all of
the data, then I have yet to see one.
Other explanations have been offered in abundance over the years. It seems that you
have concluded that you find none of them compelling or
convincing (to use your word "better"), but you have at least seen them.

For example, fairly recently I brought to your attention that years ago
Eric Salter did a careful analysis of the deceleration of the plane upon
entering the tower, arriving at a figure of about 10%. It seems you do not find his
analysis to be better than the theories you favor.

My point is that there are alternative explanations of the data, but you
say they are not "better" explanations. So what more can be said that would
be in any way productive or worth spending any time on? You have looked at
both sides, and drawn your conclusions. It seems it is time to close this
thread.

Ken
_____________________________

Quoting "Joseph Keith" :

[Hide Quoted Text]
Hi, Jim,
and everybody else,
I have always admired your logic in coming up with the solution that best agrees
with Occam's razor. I am now attempting to use what logic I have learned from you. Let
me first introduce two examples:
In the Bible,Mathew 19:24 Jesus states:
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man
to enter heaven.
In your email you imply:
It is easier for a hologram to be projected through thin air depicting an aircraft
melding into a steel and concrete building than it is to believe that multiple witness
could lie about seeing the aircraft enter the tower.

First, let us examine Mathew 19:24:
In the Holy Bible we find many alleged errors. Psalms 19;6 and Ecclesiastes 1:5
both imply that the sun orbits around the Earth. Galileo was put on the rack for
denying this claim. This Bible also states in Psalms 93:1, 96:10, and 104:5 that the
Earth is fixed and cannot move. Jesus says in Mathew 16:28, Mark 13:30, and Luke 9:27
that he will return with his fathers kingdom in the lifetime of those around him. I
logically elect to call these anomalies mistranslations rather than errors. Therefore, I
am going to change Mathew 19:24 to what I logically think it should be, based upon my
interpretation of Occam's razor, which is also known as The Law of Parsimony:

Mathew 19:24, correct translation:
It is easier for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle.

Coming to this conclusion for Mathew 19:24 was very simple, that is, logically.
Everybody with a three digit IQ knows that a camel can't possibly pass through the eye
of a needle. They also know that the heaven is described as the attainment of 72
virgins. (I would prefer, if the option presented itself, to attain, instead, 72
experienced very horny maidens.) Everybody also knows that rich men may attain many more
than 72 virgins.

Now, Jim, let's move on to your implication, which I prefer to call 'Jim Fetzer's
delirium': It is easier for a hologram to be projected through thin air depicting an
aircraft melding into a steel and concrete building than it is to believe that multiple
witnesses could lie about seeing the aircraft enter the tower:
First off, everybody with a three digit IQ knows that a hologram has to be projected
upon some medium that can reflect light. (I recommend that you use your dictionary for
this one.) And, secondly, everybody with at least a two digit IQ knows that you can't
project something upon nothing. You must have some medium that can reflect enough light
so that images can be recognized. And, lastly, every investigative agency in the World
knows about the utter abject unreliability of eye witness accounts.
Based on the above, I'm going to have to question your use of logic regarding
9/11/01 truth. Instead of Occam's razor, in your delirium, you must have used Occam's
sledgehammer, better known as The Law of Liberality.
In ending, I must comment on Ace Baker's faked suicide. All, I can say is:
"Brilliant". Everybody believed that Ace had killed himself. That was a tremendous
convincing act. It put your show on the map and made you famous. Now, what you need is
some old guy to announce you with a blusterous "Heeeeeeeeeeeeer's Jimmy." I volunteer!!!

Joe Keith

----- Original Message ----- From:
To: "Rasga Saias" ;
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction

All,

Let's see. I have treated Ace kindly since his stunt, since I suspect he is
not quite emotionally and mentally stable. That is as kind as I can be. He
is brilliant, however, and I have great respect for his work, in general. In
this instance, he commits a stunning blunder by taking for granted that any
fakery of the videos has to have been done by COMPOSITING. If it has been
done by compositing, of course, then he may be correct in this instance. But
that does not mean there is no logical distinction between "video fakery" and
planes or not planes. To demonstrate his blunder, let us count the ways:

(1) original footage with real planes: half the frames are cut from the
approach to create an artificial impression of "impossible speed";

(2) original footage with real planes: the underside of the plane is altered
by adding a "pod" to create confusion about what plane this could have been;

(3) original footage with real planes: a "flash" is added to the frames just
as the nose makes contact with the building to lead students on a chase;

(4) original footage with real planes: the interaction of the plane with the
building is smoothed out to create additional distractions for the unwary;

(5) original footage with real planes: . . . (name your poison)

There is a delay of as much as 17 seconds between the real time events and
the broadcast of their images, as I have previously explained. It may have
been a process of compositing, but that would not have been necessary if,
for example, a homographic image had been projected that could be seen from
miles away, even by pilots at airports. A logical possibility arises when
the truth of one sentence is consistent with the falsity of another. Here,
it should be obvious, the truth of planes is consistent with video fakery.
This man is an extreme narcissist who thinks only he holds the key to 9/11!

I am not saying that his account has been proven to be wrong, since it would
also account for most of the available data. But what stuns me is that all
of the data appears to be explainable only on the hypothesis that there were
no planes at Shanksville, at the Pentagon, or in New York. If that means we
are confronted with two alternatives--compositing and holograms--then that is
an enormous step in the right direction. The strongest reason for preferring
holograms over compositing, I think, is the existence of multiple videos OF A
PLANE IMAGE and testimony of multiple witnesses to SEEING SOME KIND OF PLANE.

If Ace is right, all of that has to be explained away, which is a question
that has arisen in the past. But since compositing would not project the
image of a plane for witnesses in the public to observe APART FROM IMAGES
BROADCAST OVER TELEVISION, where some of those witnesses include pilots at
airports in the vicinity, it seems to me that the weight of the evidence is
on the side of holograms, not compositing, although, of course, I agree that
compositing is a possible explanation. It simply does not explain as much of
the evidence as does the hologram alternative with an equally high likelihood.

No doubt, there is going to be a rear-guard action to salvage some semblance
of the official account. In my opinion, however, the desperation of those who
want to preserve real planes AND authentic videos is going to increase, as it
becomes more and more apparent to a wider and wider audience that the only way
to account for all of the evidence--without appealing to a host of tiny ad hoc
explanations for each mistaken witness, and so on--is to admit that, what they
were seeing was a real image that was really caught on real film, but that the
image was of a hologram, which could perform feats unavailable to real planes.

This, I believe, has the potential to blow the case wide open for the public!

Jim

P.S. I appreciate Ace's suggetion that I am "no nutcase". Given his past
his past behavior (in faking his "suicide" on my radio program, when I have
been his most prominent and consistent supporter) and his incapacity to draw
an obvious distinction between "video fakery" and "no planes", I am worried
that he has gone off the deep end. There turns out to be more than one kind
of "video fakery", where he has done brilliant work on compositing, one of
the two alternatives that retains any viability. The most brilliant that I
can imagine, however, combines projected images with authentic footage of a
phantom plane! Given the impossible speed, the melting of the plane into
the tower and violations of Newton's laws, combined with eyewitness reports
of seeing WHAT LOOKED LIKE a plane, it should not be that hard to explain.

Quoting "Rasga Saias" :

And after answering Jeff, Ace, I'd really really want you to name some well
known events from which you can find original quality footage available to
the public. Your avoidance to this question makes me scratch my head.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:37 AM, SHURE Dj wrote:
Sorry Ace, I don't understand you last email!!! What evidence, if any,
even one point, do you have that proves the videos are fake?

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:28:25 -0700
From: acebaker1234@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction
To: shure_dj@hotmail.com; jfetzer@d.umn.edu; rasgasaias@gmail.com

Jeff, so far all I have seen is evidence that other people have called 9/11
videographers. Can you give your top 3 points of evidence or even 1 that
proves your "phone calls"?

Good Grief.

Ace Baker

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry
about answers". - Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow".

------------------------------
*From:* SHURE Dj
*To:* ace baker ; jfetzer@d.umn.edu; Rasga Saias <
rasgasaias@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2009 4:57:26 PM
*Subject:* RE: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction

Ace,

So far all I have seen is evidence that indicates the plane cannot be real.
Can you give your top 3 points of evidence or even 1 that proves "*video*"
fakery?

------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:08:34 -0700
From: acebaker1234@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu; rasgasaias@gmail.com
CC: KenJenkins@aol.com; jwjfk@flash.net; brucerideout@yahoo.com;

"I was the first to emphasize the distinction between video fakery
and planes/no planes."

- Jim Fetzer

James Fetzer, allegedly a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science, continues to
maintain a hideously illogical position. Fetzer claims to be making a
"logical distinction" between the "video fakery" which may have been
employed in the 9/11 airplane videos, and the issue of "planes/no planes".
Despite my repeated attempts to educate him on the subject, Fetzer ignores
the relevant fact:

Live video compositing rules out a real flying object and a real flying
object rules out live video compositing. The two are mutually exclusive. The
details of why this must be true are here:

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/06/no-flying-object.html

Fetzer's position is like saying a person could be at the Angels game in
Anaheim while also on vacation in Hawaii. After all, attending a baseball
game is different than going to Hawaii.. If a person was alleged to have
been in both places at the same time, would we expect an investigator to
emphasize a "logical distinction" between "being in Anaheim" and "being in
Hawaii", as if the person could be two places at one time? Of course not.

At any given time, a person must be either in Hawaii, or in Anaheim (if not
somewhere else altogether). What would we make of an investigator trumpeting
a "logical distinction" between going to a ballgame, and going/not going on
vacation in Hawaii? We would dismiss him as a nutcase, or conclude he is
trying to confuse the issue.

Jim Fetzer is no nutcase.. He is trying to confuse the issue. I must say,
he's very good at it.

Ace Baker

Views: 56

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on June 28, 2009 at 11:26am
quoting Ken: "You have looked at both sides, and drawn your conclusions. It seems it is time to close this
thread."

I'm afraid what he really is saying is that he is closing his mind.

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service