Re: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction

[James H. Fetzer]

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:16:28 -0500 [09:16:28 AM CDT]
From: [e-mail]
To: "Rasga Saias" , [e-mail]

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: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

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 ; [e-mail]; Rasga Saias <
[e-mail]>
*Cc:* [e-mail]; Jack & Sue White ;
*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: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Jim Fetzer and the (Ill) Logical Distinction
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];

"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

[Thoth II]

quoting Jim: "If that means we are confronted with two alternatives--compositing and holograms--then that is
an enormous step in the right direction"

In my opinion, looking at the data I've seen, I think those are exactly the 2 possibilities where research should be directed by experts. Those are the remaining 2 possibilities given all the evidence

Not be an expert in videos, all I can do is give my hunch. To me, a clue as to how an expert can tell things in a video is given by John Costella's work on the Z-film . There, he was able to see features internal to the film which tipped him off as to the details as to what was exactly done in recreating the film. Maybe there are such clues internal to the available twin tower films that could tell an expert exactly what was done also.