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 30^th July 2008 (mp3)(12.6 MB) and 31^st July 2008 (mp3)(13.1 MB), and will be the subject of a separate article.

Decoy and Distract?

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

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 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:

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:

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:

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?

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:

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:

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:

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

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

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?
  
  
  

 E-mails Top