9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

The Judy Wood/John Hutchison Cult, Part I

Rather to my astonishment, the republication of the color-insert section of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) by Jack White precipitated. It is now on my blog at this URL:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-... Since Tracy is another true-believer in the Judy Wood/John Hutchison cult, I wanted to share this with all of you. I think it clarifies the standing of that association and the intensity of their beliefs!

10 COMMENTS:

Andrew Johnson said...
These photos were gathered by Dr Judy Wood - posted by her over 3 years ago. They
indicate the use of "Hutchision Effect-like" technology in the destruction. Why is this
blog posting them in relation to Jack White (another photo researcher who has not been
involved in this investigation?

JANUARY 30, 2010 1:49 AM
Jim Fetzer said...
This bizarre comment from Andrew Johnson has the hallmarks distinctive of the members of
a cult. That Judy Wood has collated photographs about 9/11 in New York does not mean that
she controls them. That Jack White included some of the same photographs in his
color-photo chapter in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY was entirely appropriate. That book, by the
way, was published in 2007, which suggests that Andrew Johnson literally does not know
what he is talking about. Morever, I dare say that Jack White has been studying 9/11 at
least as long as Judy Wood. Jack's site, by the way, can be found at
http://www.911studies.com/.

Whether or not "Hutchison effects" even exist remains a matter of contention, as even
Andrew Johnson has to understand. His zeal to defend Judy would be admirable apart from
its excess. When I organized the Madison conference, "What's Controversial, What's Not",
I featured Judy and gave her a three-hour session, unparalled in the history of the study
of these events. And anyone can verify what I am saying in relation to the DVD, "The
Science and Politics of 9/11", where the entire conference proceedings appears. When
Andrew Johnson has something worth saying, I hope he will come back for a return
engagement. But this is not it.

JANUARY 30, 2010 10:33 AM
John Hutchison said...
SORRY THE HUTCHISON EFFECT IS WELL KNOWN AND ACCEPTED SCIENCES IN THE MILLITARY BLCK WORL
SEE PAPERS ON IT CHEERS JOHN

JANUARY 30, 2010 5:56 PM
Jim Fetzer said...
As a student of the history and philosophy of science, you must forgive me if I am not
entirely persuaded of your claims. Let me enumerate a few of the reasons why.

(1) Scientific claims are typically advanced in the form of studies authored by those who
propose them. Since you mention published "papers", do they explain what you have
discovered and, if so, where can they be accessed by the public?

(2) What are the principles that define them? Galileo, for example, formulated a law for
falling bodies, d = 1/2 Gt2, Newton his inverse square law of universal gravitational
attraction and so forth. What are the laws for Hutchison Effects?

(3) While you appear to lack a scientific background, that does not rule out the
possibility that you may have made remarkable, if unlikely, discoveries. Such claims as
you advance require support in the form of empirical experiments:

(a) Early on, you offered a video as documentation of your discoveries, but Ace Baker was
able to reproduce what was seen in your video, which appeared to be a form of fakery.
What are the conditions required to test "Hutchison Effects"?

(b) Ace Baker offered a substantial sum of money, $50,000, as I recall, if you would
invite him and me to visit your lab to observe the replication of your "effects", but you
declined to accept the offer. Could you please explain why?

(c) Since the military shows interest even in the work of crackpots that it not overlook
some development of potential military significance, why should we take your assertions
that the military has shown interest in yours to be significant?

If you are able to offer appropriate replies to these questions, it would no doubt reduce
skepticism about your claims, which, of course, require proof.

JANUARY 31, 2010 5:25 AM
conrado said...
Hi. I must say I have not read the full blog posting, but I must intervene in defense of
Andrew Johnson. Jim Fetzer's classing his arguments as "cult"-like reeks of psy-ops. The
word "cult", like "conspiracy theory", is a deliberately killed word designed to provoke
a knee-jerk reaction of instant, reflex discredit of the person or ideas labeled with
such a word. Putting credit where it's due and highlighting the flagrant despise of Judy
Wood's research re the Hutchison effect and hurricane Erin connection is the proper
scientific response, not an act of cultish fervor. Mr. Fetzer, I have strong suspicions
that you are an agent paid to silence the free energy implications of 9/11, thereby
performing a sort of "damage control" since the massive public realization that 9/11 was
an inside job is sort of inevitable in the long run. With regard to John Hutchison, he
has offered plenty of evidence for those who bother to study it. The burden of proof is
not on the claimant, sorry. That's another misconception floated as a discrediting,
intimidating tactic by the "Skeptics". John has already done enough in telling us about
his findings: YOU are the one who can look for more evidence and scientific explanations
if you feel curious. This posting heeds no purpose anymore other than exacting further
energy and time from people like me. This conversation belongs in a spoken forum, not a
written one, and with CNN cameras. .- Conrado Salas Cano, http://conrado.50gigs.net

JANUARY 31, 2010 6:07 AM
Andrew Johnson said...
Hello, for those that want to get "inside the cult" that Mr Fetzer describes, please
download my free e-book (now also available as a free audio book).

http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

It should explain why this bizarre blog does not link the WTC part of the photo study to
Dr Judy Wood.

All the best

Andrew

FEBRUARY 1, 2010 8:55 AM
Jim Fetzer said...
Part I: On the Nature of Cults

As I use the word "cult", it refers to a group (formal or informal) typified by (a) core
dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those
who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with
well-founded criticism. Examples that come to mind include the Branch Davidians (David
Koresh) and, even more appropriately, Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard), with its pretensions
toward science.

Among their characteristics are their members' excessively zealous, unquestioning
commitment to the identity and leadership of the group; the exploitative manipulation of
group members; and harm or the threat of harm to those who are perceived to threaten the
group, which can be directed inward or directed outward depending on the source of the
threat, as Jonestown (Jim Jones) exemplifies.

In fashioning these definitions, I have reviewed sources on the internet and even had the
benefit of discussions with a social psychologist. The series of comments from Andrew
Johnson, John Hutchison, and (now) Conrado Salas Cano afford appropriate illustrations in
the present instance, especially by their rejection of rational criticism, dedication to
the core beliefs of the group, and placing loyalty before logic, which are common cult
practices.

That Andrew Johnson attacked the use of photographs simply because they had appeared on
Judy Wood's site is a nice case of zealotry overwhelming rationality. Not only does her
use of those photographs not give her control over them but he was oblivious of the fact
that they had appeared in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), along with a chapter by none other
than Judy Wood! In his eagerness to respond to a blog he obviously had not bothered to
study, he allowed his loyalty to take precedence over the exercise of reason.

John Hutchison and Conrado Salas Cano's replies display other cult-like aspects.
Hutchison's is the more rational by alluding to "papers" that substantiate his position,
but when invited to identify their source and accessibility, he has no response. If he is
speaking the truth, then it should be effortless for him to cite publications that
present the principles that define his "effects" that they might be subject to
replication by other students of physics. That he has not done that suggests to me that
such "papers" as may exist do not actually address these points.

Views: 197

Comment

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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on February 3, 2010 at 10:40am
Excellent comment, Thoth II. You are exactly right. We are seeing one cult pitted against another! Very nice!
Comment by Thoth II on February 2, 2010 at 4:51pm
"As I use the word "cult", it refers to a group (formal or informal) typified by (a) core
dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those
who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with
well-founded criticism."

I'm afraid that these are apt descriptions of what has happened in this case, around first Steve Jones, and then Judy Wood. The "leaders" are so now identified with their hypothesis, that rationality over the likelihood of the hypothesis to explain the evidence has disappeared. That is why I learned from internet talks and books by Jim Fetzer about the IBE technique. That technique, when properly applied, will not degenerate into "cultism". Too bad people don't understand this, but Jim, being a professional philosopher , does. As I can see it now, we in no way can infer that "Hutchison effect" has the highest likelihood to explain the data set: massive dustification and destruction throughout the WTC complex, versus say the mini-nuke and DEW hypotheses (if "hutchison effect" is even a scientifically recognized effect, I doubt it).

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service