Thursday, February 9, 2012
Thursday, May 7, 2009
STALKERS AUDIO STRIPPED THIS VIDEO THIS IS ORIGINAL
STALKERS GOT A HOLD OF THIS AND STRIPPED THE AUDIO YEARS AGO CAUSING TRUOBLE AND LOSS THE MAIN STALKER DEID AERRIELLE LOUISE SERBAN 2007 OTHER STALKERS AND CYBERPSYCHOTICS OUT THERE STILL LIKE ACE BAKER WHO SHOT HIMSELF ON RADIO AFTER HE DID NOT SHOW UP HERE TO MEET HIS 100.000 CHALLENGE I SIGNED HIS PAPERS THAT ARE ON THIS BLOGGER CNN SHOWED UP WITH DR WILSON WE HAD OUR DEMONSTRATION NOV 1 2008 SUCCESFULL AIRED I DONT KNOW ANYWAY AT LARGE IS WEB SITES THAT ARE USEING MY NAME IN IDENTITY THEFT MY OFFICIAL SITES ARE HTTP://JOHNKHUTCHISON.BLOGSPOT.COM BLOGGER HTTP://WWW.MYSPACE.COM/JOHNKHUTCHISON AND http://www.youtube.com/user/johnkhutchison2008 ANYTHING ELSE REPRESENTING ME AS A WEBSITE IS BOGUS AND TAKEING DONATIONS TO SUPPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IF YOU WANT TO DONATE ASK JOHNKH25@YAHOO.COM THANKS PLEASE ANY RADIO OR TV GRUOPS REPORT ANY STRANGE HATE EMAILS ASI HAVE A FBI RCMP FILE TO DUMP THEM IN
Saturday, May 2, 2009
STALKERS
[i]reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread448616/pg1#pid6048630]post by TravisT[/url][/i]
[more]
Not too long after beginning research on this topic I realized that this was becoming too large and perhaps was better off as a new topic.
Later I found another post proclaiming John to be a proven fraud while digging through posts mentioning John Hutchison on ATS-
[i]reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread426529/pg8#pid5671480]post by Intothepitwego[/url][/i]
[more]
For the most part I agree about Billy Meier, even if he had something legit early on he destroyed any "street cred" he had by perpetrating multiple fakes. His ex-wife making the statement that he produced fakes/hoaxes doesn't help his case. The "wedding cake ufo”; faked photos and misleading photos taken of television shows, dinosaur books and other things; and the "ray gun"; don't inspire much faith from me in Billy Meier. This is my strong opinion that, at least his later stuff was very suspicious and enough things were clearly exposed to be fraudulent that there is little question left in my mind concerning Mr. Meier's credulity His early UFO pictures, to the best of my knowledge, still pass analysis by photo experts and no one has been able to produce/duplicate what is shown in his early photos with technology available at the time. It has been a couple years since I've given Billy any thought or research so my information could be dated and or completely incorrect concerning him.
I realize that there are still some die-hard supporters of Mr. Meier around, you are welcome to contact, debate or flame me via U2U but please don't confuse the topic of this post with anything concerning Billy Meier or other unrelated topics.
Ok back to the topic at hand:
If any group of individuals can shed some light on this subject, perhaps even answer this question, I believe it is the members here at ATS that can deny ignorance and get the job done. That question is:
[b]Has John Hutchison been [u]proven [/u] to be a fraud? [/b]
to be more specific
[b] Have all, or even a substantial portion, of his varied demonstrations and results been disproven and/or exposed as hoaxes beyond any reasonable doubt? Is there any evidence condemning John other than the debate over the “ufo on a string video” (he clearly points out the wire/string in the original video before and during the demonstration, he wasn't trying to hide it, by definition this is not an attempt to deceive or defraud [3],) Can anyone reference anything new? Something better than the few attempts to duplicate a small portion of the reported effects with optical trickery that still don't completely duplicate what is seen in the videos? Has anyone detected a string, a string attachment point, editing techniques, other obvious or even subtle indications, perhaps even proof of a hoax while analyzing his videos? [/b]
Now in reply to the posters above...
Am I to take what was said as a truth statement that John Hutchinson is a proven fraud or is it merely your opinion that I mistakenly took as a truth statement? Is the lumping of Billy Meier and John Hutchison an attempt at associative fallacy? If it was a truth statement, then please enlighten me. Share with me your evidence that proves he is fraud. If it was just your opinion then by all means you are entitled to it, but please in the future don't attempt to pass along thoughts, ideas, theories and opinion as proven fact. Perhaps someone has or you have effectively debunked or disproven all of his results or proven several clear and intentional hoaxes that I am not aware of. If this is the case then you have my apologies.
Introduction:
I am asserting that claims of a hoaxing or fraud are extremely strong and clear claims, that need to be supported by very strong evidence.
Any substantial evidence or information supporting any point of view in this debate will be considered and appreciated by myself and hopefully everyone else. Please attempt to keep basic opinions, emotion, and especially hatred, flames, prejudice, insults and especially ignorance to a minimum. If someone simply does not believe John , doesn't want to believe in the possibilities if his effect is legitimate, simply hates John and other “hippies” or similar thoughts and opinions and you have no facts to add then please, just be cool, sit back and see what happens here; or move on. If it is really “nagging” you to include your thoughts then do so, but I am asking the moderators to please keep a close watch on this topic.
I suggest three main hypotheses in this case: (we aren't attempting to prove any of these in this thread expect for 3, but supporting evidence for the others is welcome.)
1. Everything John Hutchinson produces is a genuine, if not always predicable and as yet may be unproven, not generally accepted , completely understood or easily repeatable.
2. Some of John Hutchinson's results have been genuinely produced. Other results have been exaggerated, incorrectly represented and/or poorly understood or .
3. Everything John Hutchison has presented as experiments and results are fraudulent and have been perpetrated as an intentional hoax. He decided to attempt to fool the world long ago and has done a rather impressive job of it.
Still, again, remember the primary goal of this forum topic is to logically and honestly answer the questions “Is John Hutchinson currently a proven fraud?”
To my knowledge, considering my somewhat limited yet expanding research concerning John Hutchison:
Summary:
There is a good deal of controversy and debate. So far I have read a substantial amount of poorly researched, negative and /or ignorant debunkers, disbelievers, and pseudo-skeptics proposing how he [b]might [/b] have faked his videos, some ad hominem and otherwise deceptive arguing, but nobody has fully reproduced or adequately explained to me how he faked his results or perpetrated a hoax, hoaxes or fraud. I have also reviewed quite a bit of material and testimony in support of Mr. John Hutchison, although I would like to see some more evidence of individuals and scientists speaking on his behalf, witnessing his experiments, doing peer reviews and duplicating results from his experiments..
Examination and observation:
The super-strong electromagnet/upside down camera[4] does not explain what a lot of non-metallic objects do in the videos. Nor have they explained what many metallic samples have exhibited. Metals appear to liquefy, twist, break apart and/or bend in some videos. Analysis of some of his metal samples indicate aging, spontaneous rusting and changes to molecular structure [3][12][17]. The attempted debunking of these results have not effectively and fairly explained the majority of these alleged frauds. Many of the reported effects have not been duplicated on video, even using 'Hollywood' trickery. (Personally, I would like to see a debunker duplicate the metal bar breaking apart and then one half flipping over while the other stays in place and/or duplicate other similar observations, especially the ones with water, other liquids and metals.)
How large of an electromagnet consuming how many watts of energy would it take to suspend a 70lb. canon ball? Someone please do the math on this one, my primary assumptions are leading me to think that John Hutchison wouldn't have been able to afford his power bills back in the '80s if he is producing what is in many of his video with large and powerful electromagnets alone.
Many results that John has reported have not been explained completely [12]. Almost everyone likes complete explanations, solid evidence and repeatable experiments; but this goes for all sides, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. For example, if no person was able to provide proof of a hoax it doesn't empirically prove that Mr. Hutchinson is genuine either.
The science community, in general, don't like his methods because he “tinkers” and “tweaks” with stuff, doesn't follow scientific method and sometimes doesn't or isn't able to completely explain how and what he is doing, how he is doing it, the theories behind it and his results. Sometimes John has trouble reproducing results from his own experiments and when they do work they can behave and succeed seemingly at random with anomalous and unexpected behavior and results. Other entities have problems reproducing his results. Some people seem to lash out at him simply because he has long hair, doesn't wear a lab coat or a suit, and/or at his mannerisms and personality don't meet their expectations about what he “should” be, among other interpersonal and social reasons. This doesn't disprove or debunk him, it just shows that there is a social prejudice against him in certain circles and by some individuals.
Results produced can not be dismissed simply because someone doesn't follow the established scientific method to produce them. Results also do not have to be replicated every time on demand to be results; to be "scientific" and generally accepted as "proven", yes, to be results, no. Just because people have trouble replicating his experiments and results it doesn't necessarily make him a fraud either. One does not have to understand results or believe them to be possible in an experiment for those results to be valid. Lack of scientific recognition is not proof of fraud.
Scientists from places like Lockheed Martin, the US Army and NASA, among other organizations, have visited him trying to figure out what he is doing and how he is doing it. The Canadian Government seized all of his equipment in 1989 and classified it, denying the return of this equipment to John thus forcing him to start over. Boyd Bushman, a retired senior scientist from Lockheed Martin acknowledges the theft of his equipment [2]. The Japanese have invested in some of his experiments and to the best of my knowledge they have not accused him of being fraudulent. [2][3] John maintains a vast amount of video data for anyone to examine for themselves [12] and reports that one of the effects named after him recently has been accidentally reproduced during a university experiment [11]. John strikes me as a very agreeable and fair person, I believe he would be willing to attempt to show you the effect in person if approached with the respect any being deserves.
So far I have found no evidence that proves, or even strongly indicates to me, that John Hutchinson is a “proven fraud.” Although I have noticed, as a result of my research so far, what seems to be a concerted effort to discredit John for some reason, I have “plowed” through a tremendous number of individuals offering no evidence of fraud or a hoax at all, but clearly and proudly pronouncing John Hutchinson to be a fraud. Then I have witnesses a lesser number of individuals claiming evidence of fraud but not producing anything close to proof yet, at least no where near to my satisfaction. I shall refer to these entities as “The Cult of Disbelief” from now on.
At least one individual has even used underhanded tactics, deliberate trickery and propaganda against him. An edited video [10] was dubiously posted on YouTube.com that shows John doing the experiment with the”toy ufo” attached to a wire with all sound and explanations removed, this does appear to be intentionally cut from the video; in what looks an attempt to make John appear to be obviously and intentionally perpetrating a hoax then being caught in the act. Then the poster claims that only after John was “caught” that he offered the wire explanation. This source is the only original one stating anything similar to my note on [2] by saying “Later he actually admitted the fakery.”
I believe this is the same individual in [3]) So far this apparently immoral and perhaps malicious individual strongly appears to be the original source, or closely tied to the source, responsible for so many people believing that the “ufo on a string” is an intentional hoax and proven. Could this individual also be the original source for the so far unreferenced statement in the wikipedia [2] claiming John admitted to being “creative” with that experiment?
Then I observed a social effect of many self proclaimed “skeptics” and their “fanboys” having jumped on this bandwagon with their battle cry basically being 'look theres a string! Everything he has ever done is fake! YouTube dude says it is so! Case solved! Nothing to see here, he has been debunked, move along!' This video when considered in its original form may be still be controversial but in no way proves that John Hutchison is a hoaxer or a fraud. The experiment was originally done by a well respected T.T. Brown [3][12].
Editorial:
I find it interesting that with roughly 40 years of John Hutchinson experiments on videos not a single person, skeptic, debunker, scientist, video expert, basement troll or computer expert/analyst has found evidence of a single string or other obvious sign of a hoax in a single frame of his videos. I also find it hard to believe that with so many individuals obviously wanting to discredit John, that if they had found the proof of fraud or even a shred of evidence, that some reference or link to it would appear in some of the material I have already researched.
Some scientists may consider his ideas plausible or possible but stay away from him and don't openly support him in fear of ridicule and the loss of their oh so precious grant money. I propose this as a reason why there isn't a large body of accredited experts clamoring to validate his work.
I went through several pages of ATS links after searching for “John Hutchison”. I have found quite a few topics either containing or concerning John Hutchinson and his self-named effects here on ATS in the science, conspiracy, mysterious and other forums, but and I haven't found one yet that is in Skunk Works or that has been “stamped” with “HOAX.” I am using this as my primary circumstantial indication that Mr. John Hutchinson has not been effectively debunked or proven a HOAX by the community at www.abovetopsecret.com to date.
I'm not claiming or making any truth statements here that John Hutchinson has discovered anything or not. I am not making the assertion that he isn't a fraud. I'm not directly attempting to defend John, but at least so far, I have been forced to do some John defending due to some ignorant John hating.
Why do some individuals put so much effort into being a pseudo-skeptics? Is it so they can sleep better at night “knowing” that there can't possibly be anything unknown out there to afraid of or worry about? Why do so many people seem to be terrified of what might be possible? Do they simply enjoy being ignorant and arguing just for the sake of arguing? Libel, slander and defamation of character is fun and exciting for them?
It appears that some individuals and groups are threatened by him somehow. There seem to be people that don't like to have to include all the extra possibilities his reported results bring to the table in science discussions and debate. Some people simply appear to enjoy hating on him and calling him lots of colorful names. There may also be an entity or entities that have a vested interest in discrediting him.
Those of you who have been supporting these proud and self proclaimed skeptics, the “piggy-back” skeptics and “fanboys” that haven't even bothered to do any investigation or research of their own, those of you who based your judgments, flames, disbelief, defamations and worse on the “ufo on a string hoax” slam campaign, those of you who openly, loudly and vehemently proclaimed your “truth”, really should be ashamed of yourselves. In my lifetime, I have born witness to some very despicable and nasty behavior, and the damage after, from people proclaiming absolute truth in support of a blatant and/or purposeful lie. Perhaps this lie has caused some amount of damage that can not be entirely reversed. Is this cool, is this funny, is this fair? Don't flame me or lash out at me for exposing you, if you are guilty of being described in this paragraph then I suggest you take some time to go rethink your misguided and ignorant actions and your life in general. Perhaps even go back and retract all unproven truth statements so boldly and assuredly posted.
The preceding statement is not directed at anyone who is suspicious, undecided or genuinely skeptical that has merely expressed their thoughts, misgivings, honest debate or opinions. Having an opinion and expressing it as such is perfectly acceptable, professing an opinion as “truth” can and does cause damage to other and is most definitely ignorant. Publicly and intentionally spreading half truths and/or lies about someone else, especially with intent to injure or discredit them, is immoral and illegal for a good reason. Supporting someone in the act of these dirty deeds makes one guilty by association.
Ok enough chastising and back to the topic at hand...
Why am I noticing such a strong effort to discredit Mr. Hutchinson recently? Does it have anything to do with Dr. Judy Wood's research and legal efforts concerning 911?
Personally, I would like to see more of the scientific community, other groups and the general public spend less time, effort and thought on what 'absolutely can not be possible' and bit more time pondering what just might be possible. Examples of the past- at one time many individuals in the science community insisted that it was “impossible” to broadcast radio waves over the Atlantic and later that it was “impossible” to break the sound barrier because the results would somehow violate the “laws” of science that they “knew” at the time.
Links, References and Evidence:
Neutral (at least they claim or attempt to be)-
[1} http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/John_Hutchison - Astronomers are scientists, and scientists are expected to be trustworthy, honest and follow a strict set of rules and laws right? Plagiarism is illegal and morally wrong right? Then why does this page appears to be plagiarized almost entirely, except for references being removed, from this wikipedia.org page -
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchison Note: I have been unable to find any legitimate reference to the quote stating “Hutchison later admitted to being "creative" with the footage, citing pressure from the Discovery Channel to create material for the show and an inability to legally reproduce the original effect, according to Tim Ventura of American Antigravity” First off this statement is hearsay and the stated reference does not contain this quote. Also, Google search returned no results with someone directly quoting John or Tim Ventura saying this, only links to [1] or [2] and websites linking to [1] or [2].
[13] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8059605424836315724&hl=en Google video link
Pro/supporting-
[3] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ_troll_challenge.html
[11] http://hutchisoneffectreproduced.blogspot.com/ independent report of H-effect being reproduced
[12] (John's site here)
[14] http://www.rexresearch.com/hutchisn/hutchisn.htm
[15] http://www.truthforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=382 sites names of individuals who have validated the work of John Hutchinson. Mentions metal samples from the video taped experiments being handed out for public examination and other support.
[16} http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Hathaway_George_664533045.aspx
[17] http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-hutch.asp
Con/Skeptical- (with my explanation of lack of evidence where applicable)
[4] http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2005/05/the-discovery-channel-is-bogus-2/ actually there are pros and cons in the forum posts on this page. Every con I noticed while skimming through claimed, stated or referenced the same questionable “proof” of hoaxing already discussed.
[5] http://www.csicop.org/sb/2007-09/nickell.html This page strikes me as more pseudo-debunking-
“Because evidence available only on film or tape can easily be faked, I enlisted the help of Center for Inquiry colleague Thomas Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry and an experienced photographer and videographer. We decided that what we were seeing might easily have been staged. One video sequence showed an empty one-liter plastic soft-drink bottle wobbling, then shooting suddenly upward. Tom laughed at the suspicious fact that the handheld camera did not follow the flying object, an indication that there was perhaps something up there that the camera should not see. We concluded that the movement of the bottle was consistent with it having been controlled by an “invisible” thread—or rather threads: frame-by-frame study showed that two attachment points would be required. We then reproduced the effect on a similar bottle using the necessary two lengths of monofilament line with which we caused the bottle to wobble and then soar. I was the hidden puppeteer to Tom’s camera. (See figure 2.) “
Note: “Figure 2 “is a small black and white still picture that doesn't show enough detail to evaluate anything.
“Of more interest to National Geographic was Hutchison’s production of “electronic fog.” Tom and I were unimpressed with this effect which we readily simulated by jiggling a jumble of metallic wire, backlit by a suitable lightbulb, before the video camera’s lens.
Our videotaped results—along with clips showing us making our experiments and commenting on them—subsequently aired on the National Geographic Channel (Is It Real? 2006). The similarity of our effects to Hutchison’s are readily apparent. We see no need to give the supposed wizard further attention”
I have been unable to find any reference to this reproduction video or even the series “Is It Real?” via searches on YouTube, Google video or Google search engine.
I also find it humorous that these guys claims that John makes up scientific sounding terms, “Despite Hutchison’s use of pseudoscientific terminology—he bandies about made-up terms like “cronons” and “gravitons”—his work seems anything but scientific. “ Like ZOMG he used the word “pseudoscientific” that must mean like these guys are totally smart and John is a complete loon and a fraud right? Well considering that cronons and gravitrons are both recognized and/or accepted as theoretically possible in and defined by generally accepted schools of (example: string theories and M-theory) quantum mechanics, who really winds up looking ignorant here?
I would have been absolutely convinced of a hoax, if our experienced videographer could have found any evidence in John's videos of a string or attachment points or evidence of video editing to cover their proposed fishing line, but I am going to assume that he was unable to do so. I would like to be able to evaluate their video or at least still pictures captured from their video to see if attachment points or strings were detectable in their reproduction. Until then I am simply going to cop-out and use a classic pseudo-debunkers tactic on these pseudo-debunkers. Even if they did completely reproduce what is seen in the related videos, that doesn't necessarily invalidate or prove anything. But again, video, or it didn't happen.
[6] http://www.trailerparkscience.com/Experiments.html I have been unable to get this site to open on this link or the homepage for over a week now. Is it abandoned? John haters have professed that this site also proves JH to be fraudulent. Once again, video, or it didn't happen.
[7] http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/Hutchison/hutchison.html this page made me laugh because it's author went to a tremendous amount of effort to prove that there was a wire attached to the toy ufo, and did a very thorough and impressive job of it for the most part (I personally didn't like the conclusion). Maybe he should have done a little research like I did and watched the parts where John clearly pointed this fact out multiple times in the original video [3] He might have saved himself much effort and time. .
[8] http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103565 Still more cries citing the “ufo on a string” and assertions that JH is a fraud, with no supporting evidence. I have evidence of the “Amazing” Randi being selective about who he allows to take his “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge,” basically if he can't cheat the applicant or reproduce the result of their claim with slight of hand; he attacks them via ad hominem and other fallacy tactics in an attempt excuse his choice to not allow a challenge. I will provide this evidence but please request via U2U and do not pollute this thread with that topic.
[9] http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2007/01/crackpot-in-canada.html This guy goes into more detail on different effects reported by JH, unfortunately his amount of research and detail is limited to observations including but not limited to “looks like”, “looks to me”, “what appears to be”, while throwing in a heaping dose of ad hominem argument. Once again, no evidence of any fraudulent activity is presented. He also swears a lot during his article about JH. To be fair, I do swear sometimes in friendly and sometimes not so friendly “buddy-type” conversations, but I strongly believe that swearing like this guy does in the written language shows character somewhere around low class and an extreme lack of tact. But watch out everyone, this guy is an “action” skeptic, he also pitches “woo.” At least he didn't mention “ufo on a string”, he accuses John of using lots of string but he did not expressly say “ufo on a string”
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yABGpiYONmo&feature=channel_page The adulterated 'toy ufo” video
Conclusion:
At this point I am still open to possibilities on all sides of this debate. I am honestly attempting to be neutral and fair to both sides here. I am stating that so far as a result of what I have researched; the examples, actions, attitudes and yes even blatant and/or intentional ignorance of the skeptical point of view here have been disappointing at best and have not proven a hoax or fraud. Some individuals may have even gone so far in their attempts to debunk John's results that they have opened themselves up to legal recourse. The pro John Hutchinson side doesn't so far appear to be the clear champion in this debate either, many people require complete scientific method validation, but they do have some evidence and testimony that is valid.
If anyone finds any references that are currently missing or has supplemental, new or relevant information please contribute to this topic. If I have made any mistakes in my research, constructive criticism is welcome. Again if he has been proven John Hutchison a fraud, please enlighten me, but do it with logic, evidence and some facts.
[more]
Not too long after beginning research on this topic I realized that this was becoming too large and perhaps was better off as a new topic.
Later I found another post proclaiming John to be a proven fraud while digging through posts mentioning John Hutchison on ATS-
[i]reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread426529/pg8#pid5671480]post by Intothepitwego[/url][/i]
[more]
For the most part I agree about Billy Meier, even if he had something legit early on he destroyed any "street cred" he had by perpetrating multiple fakes. His ex-wife making the statement that he produced fakes/hoaxes doesn't help his case. The "wedding cake ufo”; faked photos and misleading photos taken of television shows, dinosaur books and other things; and the "ray gun"; don't inspire much faith from me in Billy Meier. This is my strong opinion that, at least his later stuff was very suspicious and enough things were clearly exposed to be fraudulent that there is little question left in my mind concerning Mr. Meier's credulity His early UFO pictures, to the best of my knowledge, still pass analysis by photo experts and no one has been able to produce/duplicate what is shown in his early photos with technology available at the time. It has been a couple years since I've given Billy any thought or research so my information could be dated and or completely incorrect concerning him.
I realize that there are still some die-hard supporters of Mr. Meier around, you are welcome to contact, debate or flame me via U2U but please don't confuse the topic of this post with anything concerning Billy Meier or other unrelated topics.
Ok back to the topic at hand:
If any group of individuals can shed some light on this subject, perhaps even answer this question, I believe it is the members here at ATS that can deny ignorance and get the job done. That question is:
[b]Has John Hutchison been [u]proven [/u] to be a fraud? [/b]
to be more specific
[b] Have all, or even a substantial portion, of his varied demonstrations and results been disproven and/or exposed as hoaxes beyond any reasonable doubt? Is there any evidence condemning John other than the debate over the “ufo on a string video” (he clearly points out the wire/string in the original video before and during the demonstration, he wasn't trying to hide it, by definition this is not an attempt to deceive or defraud [3],) Can anyone reference anything new? Something better than the few attempts to duplicate a small portion of the reported effects with optical trickery that still don't completely duplicate what is seen in the videos? Has anyone detected a string, a string attachment point, editing techniques, other obvious or even subtle indications, perhaps even proof of a hoax while analyzing his videos? [/b]
Now in reply to the posters above...
Am I to take what was said as a truth statement that John Hutchinson is a proven fraud or is it merely your opinion that I mistakenly took as a truth statement? Is the lumping of Billy Meier and John Hutchison an attempt at associative fallacy? If it was a truth statement, then please enlighten me. Share with me your evidence that proves he is fraud. If it was just your opinion then by all means you are entitled to it, but please in the future don't attempt to pass along thoughts, ideas, theories and opinion as proven fact. Perhaps someone has or you have effectively debunked or disproven all of his results or proven several clear and intentional hoaxes that I am not aware of. If this is the case then you have my apologies.
Introduction:
I am asserting that claims of a hoaxing or fraud are extremely strong and clear claims, that need to be supported by very strong evidence.
Any substantial evidence or information supporting any point of view in this debate will be considered and appreciated by myself and hopefully everyone else. Please attempt to keep basic opinions, emotion, and especially hatred, flames, prejudice, insults and especially ignorance to a minimum. If someone simply does not believe John , doesn't want to believe in the possibilities if his effect is legitimate, simply hates John and other “hippies” or similar thoughts and opinions and you have no facts to add then please, just be cool, sit back and see what happens here; or move on. If it is really “nagging” you to include your thoughts then do so, but I am asking the moderators to please keep a close watch on this topic.
I suggest three main hypotheses in this case: (we aren't attempting to prove any of these in this thread expect for 3, but supporting evidence for the others is welcome.)
1. Everything John Hutchinson produces is a genuine, if not always predicable and as yet may be unproven, not generally accepted , completely understood or easily repeatable.
2. Some of John Hutchinson's results have been genuinely produced. Other results have been exaggerated, incorrectly represented and/or poorly understood or .
3. Everything John Hutchison has presented as experiments and results are fraudulent and have been perpetrated as an intentional hoax. He decided to attempt to fool the world long ago and has done a rather impressive job of it.
Still, again, remember the primary goal of this forum topic is to logically and honestly answer the questions “Is John Hutchinson currently a proven fraud?”
To my knowledge, considering my somewhat limited yet expanding research concerning John Hutchison:
Summary:
There is a good deal of controversy and debate. So far I have read a substantial amount of poorly researched, negative and /or ignorant debunkers, disbelievers, and pseudo-skeptics proposing how he [b]might [/b] have faked his videos, some ad hominem and otherwise deceptive arguing, but nobody has fully reproduced or adequately explained to me how he faked his results or perpetrated a hoax, hoaxes or fraud. I have also reviewed quite a bit of material and testimony in support of Mr. John Hutchison, although I would like to see some more evidence of individuals and scientists speaking on his behalf, witnessing his experiments, doing peer reviews and duplicating results from his experiments..
Examination and observation:
The super-strong electromagnet/upside down camera[4] does not explain what a lot of non-metallic objects do in the videos. Nor have they explained what many metallic samples have exhibited. Metals appear to liquefy, twist, break apart and/or bend in some videos. Analysis of some of his metal samples indicate aging, spontaneous rusting and changes to molecular structure [3][12][17]. The attempted debunking of these results have not effectively and fairly explained the majority of these alleged frauds. Many of the reported effects have not been duplicated on video, even using 'Hollywood' trickery. (Personally, I would like to see a debunker duplicate the metal bar breaking apart and then one half flipping over while the other stays in place and/or duplicate other similar observations, especially the ones with water, other liquids and metals.)
How large of an electromagnet consuming how many watts of energy would it take to suspend a 70lb. canon ball? Someone please do the math on this one, my primary assumptions are leading me to think that John Hutchison wouldn't have been able to afford his power bills back in the '80s if he is producing what is in many of his video with large and powerful electromagnets alone.
Many results that John has reported have not been explained completely [12]. Almost everyone likes complete explanations, solid evidence and repeatable experiments; but this goes for all sides, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. For example, if no person was able to provide proof of a hoax it doesn't empirically prove that Mr. Hutchinson is genuine either.
The science community, in general, don't like his methods because he “tinkers” and “tweaks” with stuff, doesn't follow scientific method and sometimes doesn't or isn't able to completely explain how and what he is doing, how he is doing it, the theories behind it and his results. Sometimes John has trouble reproducing results from his own experiments and when they do work they can behave and succeed seemingly at random with anomalous and unexpected behavior and results. Other entities have problems reproducing his results. Some people seem to lash out at him simply because he has long hair, doesn't wear a lab coat or a suit, and/or at his mannerisms and personality don't meet their expectations about what he “should” be, among other interpersonal and social reasons. This doesn't disprove or debunk him, it just shows that there is a social prejudice against him in certain circles and by some individuals.
Results produced can not be dismissed simply because someone doesn't follow the established scientific method to produce them. Results also do not have to be replicated every time on demand to be results; to be "scientific" and generally accepted as "proven", yes, to be results, no. Just because people have trouble replicating his experiments and results it doesn't necessarily make him a fraud either. One does not have to understand results or believe them to be possible in an experiment for those results to be valid. Lack of scientific recognition is not proof of fraud.
Scientists from places like Lockheed Martin, the US Army and NASA, among other organizations, have visited him trying to figure out what he is doing and how he is doing it. The Canadian Government seized all of his equipment in 1989 and classified it, denying the return of this equipment to John thus forcing him to start over. Boyd Bushman, a retired senior scientist from Lockheed Martin acknowledges the theft of his equipment [2]. The Japanese have invested in some of his experiments and to the best of my knowledge they have not accused him of being fraudulent. [2][3] John maintains a vast amount of video data for anyone to examine for themselves [12] and reports that one of the effects named after him recently has been accidentally reproduced during a university experiment [11]. John strikes me as a very agreeable and fair person, I believe he would be willing to attempt to show you the effect in person if approached with the respect any being deserves.
So far I have found no evidence that proves, or even strongly indicates to me, that John Hutchinson is a “proven fraud.” Although I have noticed, as a result of my research so far, what seems to be a concerted effort to discredit John for some reason, I have “plowed” through a tremendous number of individuals offering no evidence of fraud or a hoax at all, but clearly and proudly pronouncing John Hutchinson to be a fraud. Then I have witnesses a lesser number of individuals claiming evidence of fraud but not producing anything close to proof yet, at least no where near to my satisfaction. I shall refer to these entities as “The Cult of Disbelief” from now on.
At least one individual has even used underhanded tactics, deliberate trickery and propaganda against him. An edited video [10] was dubiously posted on YouTube.com that shows John doing the experiment with the”toy ufo” attached to a wire with all sound and explanations removed, this does appear to be intentionally cut from the video; in what looks an attempt to make John appear to be obviously and intentionally perpetrating a hoax then being caught in the act. Then the poster claims that only after John was “caught” that he offered the wire explanation. This source is the only original one stating anything similar to my note on [2] by saying “Later he actually admitted the fakery.”
I believe this is the same individual in [3]) So far this apparently immoral and perhaps malicious individual strongly appears to be the original source, or closely tied to the source, responsible for so many people believing that the “ufo on a string” is an intentional hoax and proven. Could this individual also be the original source for the so far unreferenced statement in the wikipedia [2] claiming John admitted to being “creative” with that experiment?
Then I observed a social effect of many self proclaimed “skeptics” and their “fanboys” having jumped on this bandwagon with their battle cry basically being 'look theres a string! Everything he has ever done is fake! YouTube dude says it is so! Case solved! Nothing to see here, he has been debunked, move along!' This video when considered in its original form may be still be controversial but in no way proves that John Hutchison is a hoaxer or a fraud. The experiment was originally done by a well respected T.T. Brown [3][12].
Editorial:
I find it interesting that with roughly 40 years of John Hutchinson experiments on videos not a single person, skeptic, debunker, scientist, video expert, basement troll or computer expert/analyst has found evidence of a single string or other obvious sign of a hoax in a single frame of his videos. I also find it hard to believe that with so many individuals obviously wanting to discredit John, that if they had found the proof of fraud or even a shred of evidence, that some reference or link to it would appear in some of the material I have already researched.
Some scientists may consider his ideas plausible or possible but stay away from him and don't openly support him in fear of ridicule and the loss of their oh so precious grant money. I propose this as a reason why there isn't a large body of accredited experts clamoring to validate his work.
I went through several pages of ATS links after searching for “John Hutchison”. I have found quite a few topics either containing or concerning John Hutchinson and his self-named effects here on ATS in the science, conspiracy, mysterious and other forums, but and I haven't found one yet that is in Skunk Works or that has been “stamped” with “HOAX.” I am using this as my primary circumstantial indication that Mr. John Hutchinson has not been effectively debunked or proven a HOAX by the community at www.abovetopsecret.com to date.
I'm not claiming or making any truth statements here that John Hutchinson has discovered anything or not. I am not making the assertion that he isn't a fraud. I'm not directly attempting to defend John, but at least so far, I have been forced to do some John defending due to some ignorant John hating.
Why do some individuals put so much effort into being a pseudo-skeptics? Is it so they can sleep better at night “knowing” that there can't possibly be anything unknown out there to afraid of or worry about? Why do so many people seem to be terrified of what might be possible? Do they simply enjoy being ignorant and arguing just for the sake of arguing? Libel, slander and defamation of character is fun and exciting for them?
It appears that some individuals and groups are threatened by him somehow. There seem to be people that don't like to have to include all the extra possibilities his reported results bring to the table in science discussions and debate. Some people simply appear to enjoy hating on him and calling him lots of colorful names. There may also be an entity or entities that have a vested interest in discrediting him.
Those of you who have been supporting these proud and self proclaimed skeptics, the “piggy-back” skeptics and “fanboys” that haven't even bothered to do any investigation or research of their own, those of you who based your judgments, flames, disbelief, defamations and worse on the “ufo on a string hoax” slam campaign, those of you who openly, loudly and vehemently proclaimed your “truth”, really should be ashamed of yourselves. In my lifetime, I have born witness to some very despicable and nasty behavior, and the damage after, from people proclaiming absolute truth in support of a blatant and/or purposeful lie. Perhaps this lie has caused some amount of damage that can not be entirely reversed. Is this cool, is this funny, is this fair? Don't flame me or lash out at me for exposing you, if you are guilty of being described in this paragraph then I suggest you take some time to go rethink your misguided and ignorant actions and your life in general. Perhaps even go back and retract all unproven truth statements so boldly and assuredly posted.
The preceding statement is not directed at anyone who is suspicious, undecided or genuinely skeptical that has merely expressed their thoughts, misgivings, honest debate or opinions. Having an opinion and expressing it as such is perfectly acceptable, professing an opinion as “truth” can and does cause damage to other and is most definitely ignorant. Publicly and intentionally spreading half truths and/or lies about someone else, especially with intent to injure or discredit them, is immoral and illegal for a good reason. Supporting someone in the act of these dirty deeds makes one guilty by association.
Ok enough chastising and back to the topic at hand...
Why am I noticing such a strong effort to discredit Mr. Hutchinson recently? Does it have anything to do with Dr. Judy Wood's research and legal efforts concerning 911?
Personally, I would like to see more of the scientific community, other groups and the general public spend less time, effort and thought on what 'absolutely can not be possible' and bit more time pondering what just might be possible. Examples of the past- at one time many individuals in the science community insisted that it was “impossible” to broadcast radio waves over the Atlantic and later that it was “impossible” to break the sound barrier because the results would somehow violate the “laws” of science that they “knew” at the time.
Links, References and Evidence:
Neutral (at least they claim or attempt to be)-
[1} http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/John_Hutchison - Astronomers are scientists, and scientists are expected to be trustworthy, honest and follow a strict set of rules and laws right? Plagiarism is illegal and morally wrong right? Then why does this page appears to be plagiarized almost entirely, except for references being removed, from this wikipedia.org page -
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchison Note: I have been unable to find any legitimate reference to the quote stating “Hutchison later admitted to being "creative" with the footage, citing pressure from the Discovery Channel to create material for the show and an inability to legally reproduce the original effect, according to Tim Ventura of American Antigravity” First off this statement is hearsay and the stated reference does not contain this quote. Also, Google search returned no results with someone directly quoting John or Tim Ventura saying this, only links to [1] or [2] and websites linking to [1] or [2].
[13] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8059605424836315724&hl=en Google video link
Pro/supporting-
[3] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ_troll_challenge.html
[11] http://hutchisoneffectreproduced.blogspot.com/ independent report of H-effect being reproduced
[12] (John's site here)
[14] http://www.rexresearch.com/hutchisn/hutchisn.htm
[15] http://www.truthforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=382 sites names of individuals who have validated the work of John Hutchinson. Mentions metal samples from the video taped experiments being handed out for public examination and other support.
[16} http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Hathaway_George_664533045.aspx
[17] http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-hutch.asp
Con/Skeptical- (with my explanation of lack of evidence where applicable)
[4] http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2005/05/the-discovery-channel-is-bogus-2/ actually there are pros and cons in the forum posts on this page. Every con I noticed while skimming through claimed, stated or referenced the same questionable “proof” of hoaxing already discussed.
[5] http://www.csicop.org/sb/2007-09/nickell.html This page strikes me as more pseudo-debunking-
“Because evidence available only on film or tape can easily be faked, I enlisted the help of Center for Inquiry colleague Thomas Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry and an experienced photographer and videographer. We decided that what we were seeing might easily have been staged. One video sequence showed an empty one-liter plastic soft-drink bottle wobbling, then shooting suddenly upward. Tom laughed at the suspicious fact that the handheld camera did not follow the flying object, an indication that there was perhaps something up there that the camera should not see. We concluded that the movement of the bottle was consistent with it having been controlled by an “invisible” thread—or rather threads: frame-by-frame study showed that two attachment points would be required. We then reproduced the effect on a similar bottle using the necessary two lengths of monofilament line with which we caused the bottle to wobble and then soar. I was the hidden puppeteer to Tom’s camera. (See figure 2.) “
Note: “Figure 2 “is a small black and white still picture that doesn't show enough detail to evaluate anything.
“Of more interest to National Geographic was Hutchison’s production of “electronic fog.” Tom and I were unimpressed with this effect which we readily simulated by jiggling a jumble of metallic wire, backlit by a suitable lightbulb, before the video camera’s lens.
Our videotaped results—along with clips showing us making our experiments and commenting on them—subsequently aired on the National Geographic Channel (Is It Real? 2006). The similarity of our effects to Hutchison’s are readily apparent. We see no need to give the supposed wizard further attention”
I have been unable to find any reference to this reproduction video or even the series “Is It Real?” via searches on YouTube, Google video or Google search engine.
I also find it humorous that these guys claims that John makes up scientific sounding terms, “Despite Hutchison’s use of pseudoscientific terminology—he bandies about made-up terms like “cronons” and “gravitons”—his work seems anything but scientific. “ Like ZOMG he used the word “pseudoscientific” that must mean like these guys are totally smart and John is a complete loon and a fraud right? Well considering that cronons and gravitrons are both recognized and/or accepted as theoretically possible in and defined by generally accepted schools of (example: string theories and M-theory) quantum mechanics, who really winds up looking ignorant here?
I would have been absolutely convinced of a hoax, if our experienced videographer could have found any evidence in John's videos of a string or attachment points or evidence of video editing to cover their proposed fishing line, but I am going to assume that he was unable to do so. I would like to be able to evaluate their video or at least still pictures captured from their video to see if attachment points or strings were detectable in their reproduction. Until then I am simply going to cop-out and use a classic pseudo-debunkers tactic on these pseudo-debunkers. Even if they did completely reproduce what is seen in the related videos, that doesn't necessarily invalidate or prove anything. But again, video, or it didn't happen.
[6] http://www.trailerparkscience.com/Experiments.html I have been unable to get this site to open on this link or the homepage for over a week now. Is it abandoned? John haters have professed that this site also proves JH to be fraudulent. Once again, video, or it didn't happen.
[7] http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/Hutchison/hutchison.html this page made me laugh because it's author went to a tremendous amount of effort to prove that there was a wire attached to the toy ufo, and did a very thorough and impressive job of it for the most part (I personally didn't like the conclusion). Maybe he should have done a little research like I did and watched the parts where John clearly pointed this fact out multiple times in the original video [3] He might have saved himself much effort and time. .
[8] http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103565 Still more cries citing the “ufo on a string” and assertions that JH is a fraud, with no supporting evidence. I have evidence of the “Amazing” Randi being selective about who he allows to take his “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge,” basically if he can't cheat the applicant or reproduce the result of their claim with slight of hand; he attacks them via ad hominem and other fallacy tactics in an attempt excuse his choice to not allow a challenge. I will provide this evidence but please request via U2U and do not pollute this thread with that topic.
[9] http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2007/01/crackpot-in-canada.html This guy goes into more detail on different effects reported by JH, unfortunately his amount of research and detail is limited to observations including but not limited to “looks like”, “looks to me”, “what appears to be”, while throwing in a heaping dose of ad hominem argument. Once again, no evidence of any fraudulent activity is presented. He also swears a lot during his article about JH. To be fair, I do swear sometimes in friendly and sometimes not so friendly “buddy-type” conversations, but I strongly believe that swearing like this guy does in the written language shows character somewhere around low class and an extreme lack of tact. But watch out everyone, this guy is an “action” skeptic, he also pitches “woo.” At least he didn't mention “ufo on a string”, he accuses John of using lots of string but he did not expressly say “ufo on a string”
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yABGpiYONmo&feature=channel_page The adulterated 'toy ufo” video
Conclusion:
At this point I am still open to possibilities on all sides of this debate. I am honestly attempting to be neutral and fair to both sides here. I am stating that so far as a result of what I have researched; the examples, actions, attitudes and yes even blatant and/or intentional ignorance of the skeptical point of view here have been disappointing at best and have not proven a hoax or fraud. Some individuals may have even gone so far in their attempts to debunk John's results that they have opened themselves up to legal recourse. The pro John Hutchinson side doesn't so far appear to be the clear champion in this debate either, many people require complete scientific method validation, but they do have some evidence and testimony that is valid.
If anyone finds any references that are currently missing or has supplemental, new or relevant information please contribute to this topic. If I have made any mistakes in my research, constructive criticism is welcome. Again if he has been proven John Hutchison a fraud, please enlighten me, but do it with logic, evidence and some facts.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
STALKER 2 JOE CARMAN YORK S.C 106
THIS ONE A FALLING DOWN DRUNK SORRY TO SAY IS MAD AT ME AS THE LAB DID NOT SELL LIKE A TRUE ALCOHOLIC HE SPENDS HIS LIFE ON THE INTERNET BREAKING INTO ACCOUNTS WE WHERE FRIENDS ONE TIME ; ACE BAKER IS INSANE AND COPYIES THIS OLD FOOL RANDY WELL THEY KEEP PICKING AT WIKEYPEDIAS OUTDATED TRASH ON ME LOTS OF LAUGHTS TRYING TO MAKE IT WORSE JACKALS OF INSANITY AND SELF HATRED LIKE AEIRRIEL LOUISE SERBAN MY LAST HORRIFIC INTERNET PERSON CYBERSTALKER DIED SORRY I DONT WISH ANYBODY THAT BUT THESE FOLKS ARE MENTALY ILL AND LIVE IN THE INTERNET BUT THEY BREAK INTO ACCOUNTS 1C3 THEM A LOT
GEEZ I GOT A NEW CYBER STALKER THIS NUT i told him off with rought language
OptionsDisable Get Free Shots
The Anti-Truth Movement
Telling You What They WANT You to Know!Home About Anti-Truth About Rahne Everson Whenever I think "Ace Baker" I think "Red Dwarf"
August 1, 2007
“Blown to Kingdom Come” teh rock version
Rimmer: For a start, don’t call me “Rimmer.”
Lister: Why not?
Rimmer: Because you always put the emphasis on “Rim” in “Rimmer.” Makes me sound like a lavatory disinfectant.
Lister: Well what do you want me to call you? “Rim-MER?”
Rimmer: I don’t know. Um, “Arnie,” “Arn,” uh, something with a little more… I don’t know. How about “Big Man?”
Lister: “Big Man?”
Rimmer: Or what about the nickname I had at school?
Lister: What? “Bonehead?”
Rimmer: How did you know my nickname was “Bonehead”?
Lister: I was only guessing.
Rimmer: I didn’t mean that. I meant the other one.
Lister: What other one?
Rimmer: “Ace”!
Lister: Get out of town! Your nickname was never “Ace”! Maybe “Ace-hole.”
The fact that there are three minutes of end credits is hilariously mind-hurting.
I long ago wrote up a rebuttal to this piece of shlock because, on his site, Baker’s got links to conspiracy crap sites littered in the lyrics. Since Screw Loose Change posted the above video (something which I happily shoved from my mind, damn them), I took the excuse to post my version of the lyrics here.
———————————
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.”
– George W. Bush, November 11, 2001
I hear people knockin’
9/11 truth.
They call us tin foil
Hat wearin’ kooks, but
What about the jet planes
flyin’ all around
While “our” mighty air defenses
were standin’ down?
They say that we should blindly
Believe “our” government
Before you start your preaching
Let me ask you this my friend…
Have you forgotten
What we saw as one?
Oh those towers turned to dust
They were blown to kingdom come.
Have you forgotten
Just how fast they fell?
Office fires can’t do that
No there ain’t no way in hell
And you try to blame it all
upon bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is–is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
– Larry Silverstein, “America Rebuilds” (PBS) September 10, 2002
They destroyed the molten metal
From the WTC
It’s too incriminating
For you to see
That would blow the cover
That would solve the crime
The biggest inside job
Of all time
Some see a police state
Comin’ into view
After 9/11 man
I’d have to say that’s true
Have you forgotten
What we saw as one?
Oh those towers turned to dust
They were blown to kingdom come
Have you forgotten
Just how fast they fell?
Office fires can’t do that
No there ain’t no way in hell.
The “confession tape”
Looks nothing like bin Laden.
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous conspiracy theories…”)
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous…”)
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous…”)
They got their new Pearl Harbor
To justify their wars.
The power and the money
That’s what they did it for.
*record skip*
“A year ago, my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, and my Vice President had shot someone. Ahhh, those were the good old days.”
— George W. Bush, 2007 Radio-TV Correspondents’ Dinner
Have you forgotten
All the people killed?
As the empire marches on
Down to the oil fields.
Have you forgotten
About “our” Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost
To the Neo-Cons.
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?
Face the truth.
Forget about bin Laden.
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous conspiracy theories…”)
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous conspiracy theories…”)
Forget about (”…outrageous…”)
Forget about bin Laden
Forget about (”…conspiracy theories…”)
Forget about bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
No, have you?
1 Comment
Ace Baker
Permalink
Posted by antitruthmovement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are currently browsing the The Anti-Truth Movement weblog archives for the day Wednesday, August 1st, 2007.
August 2007 M T W T F S S
« Jul Feb »
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Archives
July 2008
March 2008
February 2008
August 2007
July 2007
Category Cloud
9/11 Ace Baker AIDS Angus Kress Gillespie anti-truth antivaccination Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Ben Stein books creationism creation science fair education Endgame evolution Expelled global warming Hoagland JFK lorry vandalism Monkey Girl moon shard Reclaiming History Robert Toggweiler TCCSA Texas trial Twin Towers Uncategorized Vincent Bugliosi weather control
Tags
Recent Posts
Well
Oklahoma, the First Amendment, and That Battle for America’s Soul Everyone Keeps Referring To
THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN AM WINNING AGAIN!
Battlegrounds of Evolution: Texas
John McCain and Autism
Recent Comments
Ace Baker on Whenever I think "Ace Bak…
Dil Egitimi on Oklahoma, the First Amendment,…
Baloney Detection
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience
Logical Fallacies
Propoganda and Debating Techniques
The Baloney Detection Kit
Blogs
Bad Astronomy
Denialism
NeuroLogica
Panda’s Thumb
Pharyngula
RealClimate
Respectful Insolence
Science Based Medicine
Scientific American blog
Screw Loose Change
Skepchick
Podcasts
Astronomy Cast
Skepticality
Skeptoid
The Amazing Show
The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe
Websites
9/11 Myths
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Fact Check
James Randi Educational Foundation
James Randi Lecture Series
QuackWatch
Secular Coalition for America
Snopes, Urban Legend Reference Pages
The New England Skeptical Society
The Nizkor Project
The Skeptic’s Dictionary
The Skeptic’s Society and Skeptic Magazine
The Straight Dope
The TalkOrigins Archive
Support!
Science Debate 2008: "A Presidential Debate on Science and America’s Future"
The Skeptologists!: "We are The Skeptologists. We're not willing to just accept stories of the paranormal or supernatural. We want proof."
Blog Stats
237 hits
Meta
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.org
Theme: Contempt by Vault9.
Blog at WordPress.com.YOUR NEGATIVE COMMENTS ARE NOTED YOU FUCKING LITTLE SHITHEAD YOU BEND OVER AND KISS MY ASS WOULD BE JUST PERFECT ;; PUT THE MONEY IN ESCROW AS WELL YOU GET YOUR DEMO THAT'S MY RULES ON THIS IF YOU KEEP CHANGING THEM I WILL LAUNCH A LAWSUITE ON YOU AS WELL AS FILE A REPORT ON YOU AND THAT SHITHEAD IN SOUTH CAROLINIA JOE CARMAN YOUR BOTH MENTALY ILL NOT ONLY THAT ILL BRING IN TOP WITNESES TO KEEP YOU IN HAND I DON'T TRUST SLIMEY LITTLE PSYCHOTIC MANIPULATORS LIKE YOU AT ALL WHEN I COME TO LOS ANGELES DO NOT COME WITHIN A MILE OF ME ILL HAVE YOU ARRESTED BREACHING STALKING LAWS BY THE WAY YOU HAVE OTHERS TO WORRY ABOUT WHO DEVELOPED THE HUTCHISON EFFECT GO SUCK YOUR HERO RANDY;S ASS YOU INSIPID LITTLE FRUITCAKE YOU HAVE NO INSIDER PRIVLEDGES TO LOCKHEED OR THE USA GOVERNMENT ; FIRE REALY NOW WELL WHAT WAS ALL THAT SMOKE AND FIRE IN THE PENTAGON AND THOSE TOWERS? FUCKING TRULY STUPID FUCKING SHIT BS NO CONSIDERATION OF LOSS OF LIFE SOME WHERE FANS YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED ALSO OF THE AFTERMATH GOING ON THREW THE CONTROL FREAKS OF OUR FREEDOMS YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF 911 WAS AND AFTERMATH OF IT!!!!!! SO FUCK OFF PUT MONEY IN ESCROW COME UP AND VIDEO TAPE AND FUCK OFF OK I GOT LIFE TO LIVE YOU LIVE IN THE PAST IN A HALLICINATION WITHOUT REGARD TO OUR ARMY FIGHTING FOR YOUR FREEDOM AGAINST A BUNCH OF INSANE KILLERS
From: ace baker [mailto:acebaker1234@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:44 PM
To: johnhutchison; Gryphon Productions
Cc: Judy Wood; Cb_Brooklyn; jfetzer@d.umn.edu; Russ Gerst; Jerry Leaphart; econrn@suddenlink.net
Subject: Re: Licensing HI-Quality Boat Experiment
John,
My pay schedule on what?
I will pay you $100,000 if and only if you demonstrate levitation of a steel wrench in my presence with video rolling. If you accept the challenge, and there are any details (pay schedule, other witnesses, broadcast rights, etc) requiring clarification, you or your representative are free to negotiate with me prior to the demonstration. We can put it all down in writing, using standard English (with punctuation, and lower case letters!).
On licensing your boat experiment video? I am interested in licensing your boat video if and only if it is 30 fps, with no frames edited out. I'm extremely interested in what may be on all those missing frames. Perhaps you could answer my questions.
I simply don't believe your claims of "military applications" or any of your alleged witnesses. I don't care about your book, and I don't care who wrote it. There are "scientists" who say the world trade center "collapsed" because of fire. I don't believe them either. If H-Effect is real, then demonstrate it to me. It ought to be easy. And very, very rewarding to you. Unless you're the filthy fraudulent liar that I think you are.
-Sincerely,
Ace Baker
The Anti-Truth Movement
Telling You What They WANT You to Know!Home About Anti-Truth About Rahne Everson Whenever I think "Ace Baker" I think "Red Dwarf"
August 1, 2007
“Blown to Kingdom Come” teh rock version
Rimmer: For a start, don’t call me “Rimmer.”
Lister: Why not?
Rimmer: Because you always put the emphasis on “Rim” in “Rimmer.” Makes me sound like a lavatory disinfectant.
Lister: Well what do you want me to call you? “Rim-MER?”
Rimmer: I don’t know. Um, “Arnie,” “Arn,” uh, something with a little more… I don’t know. How about “Big Man?”
Lister: “Big Man?”
Rimmer: Or what about the nickname I had at school?
Lister: What? “Bonehead?”
Rimmer: How did you know my nickname was “Bonehead”?
Lister: I was only guessing.
Rimmer: I didn’t mean that. I meant the other one.
Lister: What other one?
Rimmer: “Ace”!
Lister: Get out of town! Your nickname was never “Ace”! Maybe “Ace-hole.”
The fact that there are three minutes of end credits is hilariously mind-hurting.
I long ago wrote up a rebuttal to this piece of shlock because, on his site, Baker’s got links to conspiracy crap sites littered in the lyrics. Since Screw Loose Change posted the above video (something which I happily shoved from my mind, damn them), I took the excuse to post my version of the lyrics here.
———————————
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.”
– George W. Bush, November 11, 2001
I hear people knockin’
9/11 truth.
They call us tin foil
Hat wearin’ kooks, but
What about the jet planes
flyin’ all around
While “our” mighty air defenses
were standin’ down?
They say that we should blindly
Believe “our” government
Before you start your preaching
Let me ask you this my friend…
Have you forgotten
What we saw as one?
Oh those towers turned to dust
They were blown to kingdom come.
Have you forgotten
Just how fast they fell?
Office fires can’t do that
No there ain’t no way in hell
And you try to blame it all
upon bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is–is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
– Larry Silverstein, “America Rebuilds” (PBS) September 10, 2002
They destroyed the molten metal
From the WTC
It’s too incriminating
For you to see
That would blow the cover
That would solve the crime
The biggest inside job
Of all time
Some see a police state
Comin’ into view
After 9/11 man
I’d have to say that’s true
Have you forgotten
What we saw as one?
Oh those towers turned to dust
They were blown to kingdom come
Have you forgotten
Just how fast they fell?
Office fires can’t do that
No there ain’t no way in hell.
The “confession tape”
Looks nothing like bin Laden.
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous conspiracy theories…”)
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous…”)
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous…”)
They got their new Pearl Harbor
To justify their wars.
The power and the money
That’s what they did it for.
*record skip*
“A year ago, my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, and my Vice President had shot someone. Ahhh, those were the good old days.”
— George W. Bush, 2007 Radio-TV Correspondents’ Dinner
Have you forgotten
All the people killed?
As the empire marches on
Down to the oil fields.
Have you forgotten
About “our” Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost
To the Neo-Cons.
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?
Face the truth.
Forget about bin Laden.
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous conspiracy theories…”)
Have you forgotten? (”…outrageous conspiracy theories…”)
Forget about (”…outrageous…”)
Forget about bin Laden
Forget about (”…conspiracy theories…”)
Forget about bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
No, have you?
1 Comment
Ace Baker
Permalink
Posted by antitruthmovement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are currently browsing the The Anti-Truth Movement weblog archives for the day Wednesday, August 1st, 2007.
August 2007 M T W T F S S
« Jul Feb »
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Archives
July 2008
March 2008
February 2008
August 2007
July 2007
Category Cloud
9/11 Ace Baker AIDS Angus Kress Gillespie anti-truth antivaccination Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Ben Stein books creationism creation science fair education Endgame evolution Expelled global warming Hoagland JFK lorry vandalism Monkey Girl moon shard Reclaiming History Robert Toggweiler TCCSA Texas trial Twin Towers Uncategorized Vincent Bugliosi weather control
Tags
Recent Posts
Well
Oklahoma, the First Amendment, and That Battle for America’s Soul Everyone Keeps Referring To
THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN AM WINNING AGAIN!
Battlegrounds of Evolution: Texas
John McCain and Autism
Recent Comments
Ace Baker on Whenever I think "Ace Bak…
Dil Egitimi on Oklahoma, the First Amendment,…
Baloney Detection
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience
Logical Fallacies
Propoganda and Debating Techniques
The Baloney Detection Kit
Blogs
Bad Astronomy
Denialism
NeuroLogica
Panda’s Thumb
Pharyngula
RealClimate
Respectful Insolence
Science Based Medicine
Scientific American blog
Screw Loose Change
Skepchick
Podcasts
Astronomy Cast
Skepticality
Skeptoid
The Amazing Show
The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe
Websites
9/11 Myths
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Fact Check
James Randi Educational Foundation
James Randi Lecture Series
QuackWatch
Secular Coalition for America
Snopes, Urban Legend Reference Pages
The New England Skeptical Society
The Nizkor Project
The Skeptic’s Dictionary
The Skeptic’s Society and Skeptic Magazine
The Straight Dope
The TalkOrigins Archive
Support!
Science Debate 2008: "A Presidential Debate on Science and America’s Future"
The Skeptologists!: "We are The Skeptologists. We're not willing to just accept stories of the paranormal or supernatural. We want proof."
Blog Stats
237 hits
Meta
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.org
Theme: Contempt by Vault9.
Blog at WordPress.com.YOUR NEGATIVE COMMENTS ARE NOTED YOU FUCKING LITTLE SHITHEAD YOU BEND OVER AND KISS MY ASS WOULD BE JUST PERFECT ;; PUT THE MONEY IN ESCROW AS WELL YOU GET YOUR DEMO THAT'S MY RULES ON THIS IF YOU KEEP CHANGING THEM I WILL LAUNCH A LAWSUITE ON YOU AS WELL AS FILE A REPORT ON YOU AND THAT SHITHEAD IN SOUTH CAROLINIA JOE CARMAN YOUR BOTH MENTALY ILL NOT ONLY THAT ILL BRING IN TOP WITNESES TO KEEP YOU IN HAND I DON'T TRUST SLIMEY LITTLE PSYCHOTIC MANIPULATORS LIKE YOU AT ALL WHEN I COME TO LOS ANGELES DO NOT COME WITHIN A MILE OF ME ILL HAVE YOU ARRESTED BREACHING STALKING LAWS BY THE WAY YOU HAVE OTHERS TO WORRY ABOUT WHO DEVELOPED THE HUTCHISON EFFECT GO SUCK YOUR HERO RANDY;S ASS YOU INSIPID LITTLE FRUITCAKE YOU HAVE NO INSIDER PRIVLEDGES TO LOCKHEED OR THE USA GOVERNMENT ; FIRE REALY NOW WELL WHAT WAS ALL THAT SMOKE AND FIRE IN THE PENTAGON AND THOSE TOWERS? FUCKING TRULY STUPID FUCKING SHIT BS NO CONSIDERATION OF LOSS OF LIFE SOME WHERE FANS YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED ALSO OF THE AFTERMATH GOING ON THREW THE CONTROL FREAKS OF OUR FREEDOMS YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF 911 WAS AND AFTERMATH OF IT!!!!!! SO FUCK OFF PUT MONEY IN ESCROW COME UP AND VIDEO TAPE AND FUCK OFF OK I GOT LIFE TO LIVE YOU LIVE IN THE PAST IN A HALLICINATION WITHOUT REGARD TO OUR ARMY FIGHTING FOR YOUR FREEDOM AGAINST A BUNCH OF INSANE KILLERS
From: ace baker [mailto:acebaker1234@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:44 PM
To: johnhutchison; Gryphon Productions
Cc: Judy Wood; Cb_Brooklyn; jfetzer@d.umn.edu; Russ Gerst; Jerry Leaphart; econrn@suddenlink.net
Subject: Re: Licensing HI-Quality Boat Experiment
John,
My pay schedule on what?
I will pay you $100,000 if and only if you demonstrate levitation of a steel wrench in my presence with video rolling. If you accept the challenge, and there are any details (pay schedule, other witnesses, broadcast rights, etc) requiring clarification, you or your representative are free to negotiate with me prior to the demonstration. We can put it all down in writing, using standard English (with punctuation, and lower case letters!).
On licensing your boat experiment video? I am interested in licensing your boat video if and only if it is 30 fps, with no frames edited out. I'm extremely interested in what may be on all those missing frames. Perhaps you could answer my questions.
I simply don't believe your claims of "military applications" or any of your alleged witnesses. I don't care about your book, and I don't care who wrote it. There are "scientists" who say the world trade center "collapsed" because of fire. I don't believe them either. If H-Effect is real, then demonstrate it to me. It ought to be easy. And very, very rewarding to you. Unless you're the filthy fraudulent liar that I think you are.
-Sincerely,
Ace Baker
Saturday, January 26, 2008
james randi the fake
nothing but a fraud
Who's Who of Media
Skeptics Examining Skeptics Skeptical Organisations
& Magazines The Demkina File Anomalistics Secrets of the Skeptics The Skeptical Observer
Intelligent Design Media Bias Skeptics in the Media Debates Energy Research Cosmology Extraterrestrials
Pioneering Investigators Current Research Organisations promoting open-minded research
Corporate Bias
Flawed Evidence
Bogus Skepticism
Experimenter Effects
Fraud
Email List
Bookshop
Links
About Skeptical
Investigations
Home > Investigating Skeptics > Examining Skeptics > Beware Pseudo-Skepticism
Beware Pseudo-Skepticism - The Randi Challenge
by Sean (aka Peebrain)
Reproduced from PsiPog.net
Back to...
Examining Skeptics
On January 29th, 2005, we were talking about the James Randi $1 Million Paranormal Challenge in the chat room. If you don't know what the Challenge is, the short version is that this ex-magician, James Randi, is willing to give a million dollars to anyone who can prove something paranormal. It's common for people to ask us why we don't take the Challenge with all the stuff we talk about on PsiPog. Clearly we qualify for the paranormal, and it would seem like easy money. While talking in the chat room, annie made the observation that the prize was in the form of bonds, and not cash. She tried to explain to me how bonds can be "worth" a million dollars legally, but in reality could be completely worthless.
So I decided to do some research on what might be going on. I had thought about taking the Challenge, and I know some of my friends have thought about it too... million bucks seems pretty sweet. But I've heard of stories about how Randi is dishonest, and it's all a scam. Either way, I figured researching would be the best way to figure out what the deal was.
I started by e-mailing Randi, and everything just went downhill from there. For me to type out everything that happened, it would take me forever, and it would be really boring to read. So this is what I'm going to do; I'm going to summarize what happened. Now obviously I am biased because I played a key role in this situation. I will try to summarize without being biased. But, you don't have to trust me... I will post the logs of what actually happened at the end, and if you want to take the time to read through it all and confirm my summary, then go right ahead. Also, because I am aware that I am biased, I am open for any discussion and questions on what happened. The best way to get in contact with me would be the chat room, the Q&A, or as a last resort, you can e-mail me at peebrain@psipog.net.
What is a bond, and why is it different than cash?
First, you have to understand how bonds work. I was really confused at first - I mean, if Randi is offering a million dollars, how can it be "worthless"? It seems very clear cut.
Bonds are certificates of debt. That means that a bond is basically an IOU. Corporations or governments need money to fund projects, so they go to rich people and say, "hey, give us some money, and we'll pay you some interest, and then after a while, we'll give you all your money back". Bonds have four key elements: who issued them, what the interest rate is, when they'll give the money back, and how much money was borrowed to begin with. The best way to show how it works is just to give you an example.
Let's say Bob's Bakery needs some money to buy baking equipment. Now, once they have the equipment, they can bake and make money - but they don't have any startup money to get the gears in motion. So they go to a rich guy and say, "Hey, if you give us $10,000, we'll pay you $100 every month for 24 months, then we'll give you your $10,000 back to you". This is appealing to Bob's Bakery because they can get their company started, and once it gets going, they'll start making money. From their profits, they'll take $100 each month and give it to the rich guy. Then after 24 months, they have a successful business, and pay the entire debt back to the rich guy. Bob's Baker keeps growing and making more money, and Bob is happy. The rich guy is also happy, because he just gives $10,000 to Bob, and doesn't have to do anything. The rich guy doesn't have to bake, or buy equipment, or hire employees, or any of that garbage. He just invests a small amount of his money, and in return gets $100 more a month, and all his money back after 24 months.
So, that's why and how bonds exist. Rich people want more money, and poor entrepreneurs want a successful business. (Of course, I'm simplifying this entire situation just to get the point across; in reality it's a little more complicated).
How can bonds be legally worth money, but be worthless?
Where is the problem? Well, what if Bob's Baker doesn't succeed, and goes bankrupt? What happens to the $10,000? Basically: it's lost. Rich guy doesn't get his $100 a month, and rich guy loses out on $10,000.
How does this all translate to the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge?
The prize isn't cash. The prize is bonds that are WORTH a million dollars. So, there are a lot of Bob's Baker people running around with the money, and they all gave Randi an IOU. And all these IOU's total to a million dollars.
Since the prize money is in the form of bonds, then it is possible that the bonds are worthless. For example, maybe a lot of the bonds are from corporations that are on the verge of going bankrupt? Or maybe the corporations don't have to pay off the bonds for another 40 years? In our example, Bob had to pay everything back in 24 months... this is called the "maturity" of the bond. Some bonds don't mature for a few years, others don't mature for a few decades. If Randi awards the prize of a bond that doesn't mature for 40 years, then legally I do have a million dollars... but I can't USE the million dollars until the bonds mature! As you can see, there are a lot of different scenarios where the bonds could be LEGALLY worth a million dollars, but in reality they could be worthless.
Does the Challenge have worthless bonds?
The next logical step is to find out what the bonds are really worth. To do that, I e-mailed Randi at the address he provided on his website. I politely pointed out where it said the prize was in bonds in the Challenge rules, and then I asked what corporations issued the bonds, what the interest rates were, and when the maturity dates are. These are the main factors at determining if the bonds are worthless or not.
Randi replied with, "Apply, or go away."
I explained to him that I wanted clarification on what he was offering. That this had nothing to do with my claim, but they were questions aimed at getting more information about the Challenge.
Randi replied with, "Immediately convertible into money. That's all I'm going to get involved in. Apply, or disappear."
Obviously that doesn't answer my question at all. Immediately convertible into how much money? Convertible through who?
Enter Kramer
I e-mailed Randi again, asking for clarification. I didn't mean to be annoying, but they weren't answering the question. Why would I apply if the bonds were worthless? The Challenge rules state that I am responsible for all costs incurred in the pursuit of the prize money... so it's quite possible that I could jump through all the hoops, spend my own money, and only have a pile of worthless bonds to show for it.
Randi passed me off to Kramer. Kramer's job is to handle all paranormal claims. Kramer introduced himself in an e-mail, "Randi has directed me to correspond with you directly regarding your inquiries into the JREF Challenge. [...] I handle all Challenge-related activities, so write to me here if you have more questions."
Ok, fair enough. So, I politely explained my situation to Kramer, and asked the same questions again. Kramer replied with, "So far, you're just full of shit. That's OUR perspective. Apply or go away. We don't have to prove anything to you. If you really have a claim, you'll apply."
Wow.
Enter JREF Forums
I'm not dumb... before e-mailing them, I had suspicion that things would get ugly. That's why I painfully tried to stay as polite, logical, and consistent from the start. Before emailing them, I noticed that Kramer would post e-mail conversations in the forums on their website, and comment about how the person e-mailing them is a moron. Now that I was the moron e-mailing them, I searched the forums for Kramer's new thread on the idiot asking about the bonds.
And I found it.
I expected to find a bunch of pseudo-skeptics making fun of me. And I did. What I didn't expect to find is that Kramer EDITED the e-mails before posting. All of the sudden, his "full of shit" comment was translated to "full of baloney." And Randi's "Apply, or disappear" was translated to "Apply, or don't apply." Similar minor translations were made to convert rude text, into stern but polite text.
Now, is that a big deal? Not really. Obviously it was a big deal to Kramer though, or he wouldn't have taken the time to edit it.
Luckily, my message was still getting across on the public log in the forum. Perhaps he edited the logs to make Randi and himself look better, but my questions were still there. To my surprise, some of the forum members sided with me. They thought my questions were legitimate.
Misinformation and misdirection
Since the other members agreed with my questions, Kramer decided to post an answer to them. This answer never made it back to my e-mail, and the only reason I found it was because I knew Kramer would try to make me look like an idiot on the forum (like he did with everyone else who e-mailed him privately). Kramer's answer was that the prize was CASH, and not bonds.
Whoa, ok, that's a surprise. The rules state: "...JREF will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York..." This can be read either way. Personally, I read it to say the prize is bonds. Kramer decided to interpret it that the prize is CASH (based on the "US$1,000,000" quote).
So I'm the idiot, right? Luckily, there were others who saw it my way. Maybe they didn't believe in the paranormal, but they were logical enough to see that I brought up a legitimate issue. If Kramer says the prize is cash, then the rules page should be changed.
During this time period, I began posting on the forums to clarify my position (and to point out that Kramer had edited the e-mails). The arguments were pretty interesting, but the meat of the matter still was: the rules aren't clear that the prize is cash, and if the prize is bonds, then what are the details about the bonds.
The next thing that happened absolutely blew me away. Kramer posted on the forums that he received an e-mail from me. In this e-mail, I complimented Kramer's hard work, and told him the issue was resolved. The only problem is: I never wrote or sent that e-mail.
A false e-mail?
I was in shock when I read what Kramer had posted. This wasn't minor edits to sway people one way or the other - this was blatant fabrication. To be fair, Kramer could have been a victim of someone posing as me. But let's look at the evidence.
I e-mailed both Randi and Kramer from a private account. I had not used that account for anything else. Nobody on the forums, nobody on PsiPog, and not even my close friends know what the account is. Only myself, Randi, and Kramer. For a third party to fake the e-mail, they would have to either e-mail Kramer from another account (which should make Kramer suspicious), or they would have had to fake an e-mail from my private account (which only myself, Randi, and Kramer know about).
On top of that, Kramer had already shown that he's willing to edit e-mails. I attempted to ask for a way to look into this fake e-mail situation more, but it quickly got brushed away under all the other arguments. Kramer certainly didn't care.
A noble idea
All the fraud aside, most members agreed that something should be done because things weren't clear from the start. A poster offered to write up an FAQ about the Challenge that could be posted on the website. The idea is that Kramer could direct people to the FAQ when they ask common questions, and this could save Kramer time.
In the drafting of the FAQ, the poster put a question about the form of the money. We had concluded on the forum that it was in cash, and not bonds. Remember? In the FAQ, the poster added the question:
"If someone wins, how will they be paid?
Although the prize money is held in bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist, the bonds will be converted to US dollars before being paid. The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules. The usual method for paying an amount as large as the remaining $990,000 is via electronic transfer, and it is reasonable to assume that that is how this prize money will be paid as well."
This is what Kramer had been telling us all along, and this was identified early as the source of "my confusion". Kramer loved the FAQ, and decided to officially post it on the website so he could refer people to it. Of course, he made a few edits to the draft. The final version of the FAQ is below:
"If I pass the formal test and win the Challenge, how will I be paid?
The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules, immediately upon the successful demonstration of their claim. The prize money is held in the form of bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist. These immediately convertible bonds will be awarded to the Challenge winner within 10 days of passing the formal test. The manner of transfer of these bonds will be at the discretion of the JREF and the Challenge winner, in accordance with acceptable legal standards."
It turns out the prize IS THE BONDS.
Wow.
So my original assumption was right after all. The prize is the bonds. And my questions have still gone unanswered. What is there to say? Well, the most obvious thing I've learned from this is that Kramer certainly isn't trustworthy. He edited the e-mails, and told everyone the prize was in cash. And no one knows where the false e-mail came from (and Kramer hasn't provided anyone with information that could help us figure it out). At the time of writing this, he hasn't addressed the original issues which sparked this entire fiasco (who issued the bonds, what are the interest rates, and when are the maturity dates?). And he hasn't addressed the issue of misleading EVERYONE on the forums, by stating that the prize is cash.
While the members of the forums show different levels of skepticism, Kramer certainly does not show anything relating to real skepticism. His mentality is that of a fundamentalist - he is right, everyone else is wrong, and it's ok to "bend" the truth to convince others. This is the exact opposite of healthy skepticism. If you are seriously considering taking the James Randi $1 Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, it would be very naive to think it's as clear cut and simple as they portray it. When you put your signature on that application, you are signing a contract with them. If they have a hard time playing fair when it's just a few e-mails, imagine how they'll act when a million dollars is on the line (assuming that the bonds are actually worth anything to begin with, of course).
The Randi Prize
A Big So What? to
Randi's Challenge
Top of Page
Back to...
Examining Skeptics
If you have any comments or suggestions on this website please email... morphlist@aol.com
Copyright © The Association for Skeptical Investigations
Who's Who of Media
Skeptics Examining Skeptics Skeptical Organisations
& Magazines The Demkina File Anomalistics Secrets of the Skeptics The Skeptical Observer
Intelligent Design Media Bias Skeptics in the Media Debates Energy Research Cosmology Extraterrestrials
Pioneering Investigators Current Research Organisations promoting open-minded research
Corporate Bias
Flawed Evidence
Bogus Skepticism
Experimenter Effects
Fraud
Email List
Bookshop
Links
About Skeptical
Investigations
Home > Investigating Skeptics > Examining Skeptics > Beware Pseudo-Skepticism
Beware Pseudo-Skepticism - The Randi Challenge
by Sean (aka Peebrain)
Reproduced from PsiPog.net
Back to...
Examining Skeptics
On January 29th, 2005, we were talking about the James Randi $1 Million Paranormal Challenge in the chat room. If you don't know what the Challenge is, the short version is that this ex-magician, James Randi, is willing to give a million dollars to anyone who can prove something paranormal. It's common for people to ask us why we don't take the Challenge with all the stuff we talk about on PsiPog. Clearly we qualify for the paranormal, and it would seem like easy money. While talking in the chat room, annie made the observation that the prize was in the form of bonds, and not cash. She tried to explain to me how bonds can be "worth" a million dollars legally, but in reality could be completely worthless.
So I decided to do some research on what might be going on. I had thought about taking the Challenge, and I know some of my friends have thought about it too... million bucks seems pretty sweet. But I've heard of stories about how Randi is dishonest, and it's all a scam. Either way, I figured researching would be the best way to figure out what the deal was.
I started by e-mailing Randi, and everything just went downhill from there. For me to type out everything that happened, it would take me forever, and it would be really boring to read. So this is what I'm going to do; I'm going to summarize what happened. Now obviously I am biased because I played a key role in this situation. I will try to summarize without being biased. But, you don't have to trust me... I will post the logs of what actually happened at the end, and if you want to take the time to read through it all and confirm my summary, then go right ahead. Also, because I am aware that I am biased, I am open for any discussion and questions on what happened. The best way to get in contact with me would be the chat room, the Q&A, or as a last resort, you can e-mail me at peebrain@psipog.net.
What is a bond, and why is it different than cash?
First, you have to understand how bonds work. I was really confused at first - I mean, if Randi is offering a million dollars, how can it be "worthless"? It seems very clear cut.
Bonds are certificates of debt. That means that a bond is basically an IOU. Corporations or governments need money to fund projects, so they go to rich people and say, "hey, give us some money, and we'll pay you some interest, and then after a while, we'll give you all your money back". Bonds have four key elements: who issued them, what the interest rate is, when they'll give the money back, and how much money was borrowed to begin with. The best way to show how it works is just to give you an example.
Let's say Bob's Bakery needs some money to buy baking equipment. Now, once they have the equipment, they can bake and make money - but they don't have any startup money to get the gears in motion. So they go to a rich guy and say, "Hey, if you give us $10,000, we'll pay you $100 every month for 24 months, then we'll give you your $10,000 back to you". This is appealing to Bob's Bakery because they can get their company started, and once it gets going, they'll start making money. From their profits, they'll take $100 each month and give it to the rich guy. Then after 24 months, they have a successful business, and pay the entire debt back to the rich guy. Bob's Baker keeps growing and making more money, and Bob is happy. The rich guy is also happy, because he just gives $10,000 to Bob, and doesn't have to do anything. The rich guy doesn't have to bake, or buy equipment, or hire employees, or any of that garbage. He just invests a small amount of his money, and in return gets $100 more a month, and all his money back after 24 months.
So, that's why and how bonds exist. Rich people want more money, and poor entrepreneurs want a successful business. (Of course, I'm simplifying this entire situation just to get the point across; in reality it's a little more complicated).
How can bonds be legally worth money, but be worthless?
Where is the problem? Well, what if Bob's Baker doesn't succeed, and goes bankrupt? What happens to the $10,000? Basically: it's lost. Rich guy doesn't get his $100 a month, and rich guy loses out on $10,000.
How does this all translate to the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge?
The prize isn't cash. The prize is bonds that are WORTH a million dollars. So, there are a lot of Bob's Baker people running around with the money, and they all gave Randi an IOU. And all these IOU's total to a million dollars.
Since the prize money is in the form of bonds, then it is possible that the bonds are worthless. For example, maybe a lot of the bonds are from corporations that are on the verge of going bankrupt? Or maybe the corporations don't have to pay off the bonds for another 40 years? In our example, Bob had to pay everything back in 24 months... this is called the "maturity" of the bond. Some bonds don't mature for a few years, others don't mature for a few decades. If Randi awards the prize of a bond that doesn't mature for 40 years, then legally I do have a million dollars... but I can't USE the million dollars until the bonds mature! As you can see, there are a lot of different scenarios where the bonds could be LEGALLY worth a million dollars, but in reality they could be worthless.
Does the Challenge have worthless bonds?
The next logical step is to find out what the bonds are really worth. To do that, I e-mailed Randi at the address he provided on his website. I politely pointed out where it said the prize was in bonds in the Challenge rules, and then I asked what corporations issued the bonds, what the interest rates were, and when the maturity dates are. These are the main factors at determining if the bonds are worthless or not.
Randi replied with, "Apply, or go away."
I explained to him that I wanted clarification on what he was offering. That this had nothing to do with my claim, but they were questions aimed at getting more information about the Challenge.
Randi replied with, "Immediately convertible into money. That's all I'm going to get involved in. Apply, or disappear."
Obviously that doesn't answer my question at all. Immediately convertible into how much money? Convertible through who?
Enter Kramer
I e-mailed Randi again, asking for clarification. I didn't mean to be annoying, but they weren't answering the question. Why would I apply if the bonds were worthless? The Challenge rules state that I am responsible for all costs incurred in the pursuit of the prize money... so it's quite possible that I could jump through all the hoops, spend my own money, and only have a pile of worthless bonds to show for it.
Randi passed me off to Kramer. Kramer's job is to handle all paranormal claims. Kramer introduced himself in an e-mail, "Randi has directed me to correspond with you directly regarding your inquiries into the JREF Challenge. [...] I handle all Challenge-related activities, so write to me here if you have more questions."
Ok, fair enough. So, I politely explained my situation to Kramer, and asked the same questions again. Kramer replied with, "So far, you're just full of shit. That's OUR perspective. Apply or go away. We don't have to prove anything to you. If you really have a claim, you'll apply."
Wow.
Enter JREF Forums
I'm not dumb... before e-mailing them, I had suspicion that things would get ugly. That's why I painfully tried to stay as polite, logical, and consistent from the start. Before emailing them, I noticed that Kramer would post e-mail conversations in the forums on their website, and comment about how the person e-mailing them is a moron. Now that I was the moron e-mailing them, I searched the forums for Kramer's new thread on the idiot asking about the bonds.
And I found it.
I expected to find a bunch of pseudo-skeptics making fun of me. And I did. What I didn't expect to find is that Kramer EDITED the e-mails before posting. All of the sudden, his "full of shit" comment was translated to "full of baloney." And Randi's "Apply, or disappear" was translated to "Apply, or don't apply." Similar minor translations were made to convert rude text, into stern but polite text.
Now, is that a big deal? Not really. Obviously it was a big deal to Kramer though, or he wouldn't have taken the time to edit it.
Luckily, my message was still getting across on the public log in the forum. Perhaps he edited the logs to make Randi and himself look better, but my questions were still there. To my surprise, some of the forum members sided with me. They thought my questions were legitimate.
Misinformation and misdirection
Since the other members agreed with my questions, Kramer decided to post an answer to them. This answer never made it back to my e-mail, and the only reason I found it was because I knew Kramer would try to make me look like an idiot on the forum (like he did with everyone else who e-mailed him privately). Kramer's answer was that the prize was CASH, and not bonds.
Whoa, ok, that's a surprise. The rules state: "...JREF will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York..." This can be read either way. Personally, I read it to say the prize is bonds. Kramer decided to interpret it that the prize is CASH (based on the "US$1,000,000" quote).
So I'm the idiot, right? Luckily, there were others who saw it my way. Maybe they didn't believe in the paranormal, but they were logical enough to see that I brought up a legitimate issue. If Kramer says the prize is cash, then the rules page should be changed.
During this time period, I began posting on the forums to clarify my position (and to point out that Kramer had edited the e-mails). The arguments were pretty interesting, but the meat of the matter still was: the rules aren't clear that the prize is cash, and if the prize is bonds, then what are the details about the bonds.
The next thing that happened absolutely blew me away. Kramer posted on the forums that he received an e-mail from me. In this e-mail, I complimented Kramer's hard work, and told him the issue was resolved. The only problem is: I never wrote or sent that e-mail.
A false e-mail?
I was in shock when I read what Kramer had posted. This wasn't minor edits to sway people one way or the other - this was blatant fabrication. To be fair, Kramer could have been a victim of someone posing as me. But let's look at the evidence.
I e-mailed both Randi and Kramer from a private account. I had not used that account for anything else. Nobody on the forums, nobody on PsiPog, and not even my close friends know what the account is. Only myself, Randi, and Kramer. For a third party to fake the e-mail, they would have to either e-mail Kramer from another account (which should make Kramer suspicious), or they would have had to fake an e-mail from my private account (which only myself, Randi, and Kramer know about).
On top of that, Kramer had already shown that he's willing to edit e-mails. I attempted to ask for a way to look into this fake e-mail situation more, but it quickly got brushed away under all the other arguments. Kramer certainly didn't care.
A noble idea
All the fraud aside, most members agreed that something should be done because things weren't clear from the start. A poster offered to write up an FAQ about the Challenge that could be posted on the website. The idea is that Kramer could direct people to the FAQ when they ask common questions, and this could save Kramer time.
In the drafting of the FAQ, the poster put a question about the form of the money. We had concluded on the forum that it was in cash, and not bonds. Remember? In the FAQ, the poster added the question:
"If someone wins, how will they be paid?
Although the prize money is held in bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist, the bonds will be converted to US dollars before being paid. The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules. The usual method for paying an amount as large as the remaining $990,000 is via electronic transfer, and it is reasonable to assume that that is how this prize money will be paid as well."
This is what Kramer had been telling us all along, and this was identified early as the source of "my confusion". Kramer loved the FAQ, and decided to officially post it on the website so he could refer people to it. Of course, he made a few edits to the draft. The final version of the FAQ is below:
"If I pass the formal test and win the Challenge, how will I be paid?
The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules, immediately upon the successful demonstration of their claim. The prize money is held in the form of bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist. These immediately convertible bonds will be awarded to the Challenge winner within 10 days of passing the formal test. The manner of transfer of these bonds will be at the discretion of the JREF and the Challenge winner, in accordance with acceptable legal standards."
It turns out the prize IS THE BONDS.
Wow.
So my original assumption was right after all. The prize is the bonds. And my questions have still gone unanswered. What is there to say? Well, the most obvious thing I've learned from this is that Kramer certainly isn't trustworthy. He edited the e-mails, and told everyone the prize was in cash. And no one knows where the false e-mail came from (and Kramer hasn't provided anyone with information that could help us figure it out). At the time of writing this, he hasn't addressed the original issues which sparked this entire fiasco (who issued the bonds, what are the interest rates, and when are the maturity dates?). And he hasn't addressed the issue of misleading EVERYONE on the forums, by stating that the prize is cash.
While the members of the forums show different levels of skepticism, Kramer certainly does not show anything relating to real skepticism. His mentality is that of a fundamentalist - he is right, everyone else is wrong, and it's ok to "bend" the truth to convince others. This is the exact opposite of healthy skepticism. If you are seriously considering taking the James Randi $1 Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, it would be very naive to think it's as clear cut and simple as they portray it. When you put your signature on that application, you are signing a contract with them. If they have a hard time playing fair when it's just a few e-mails, imagine how they'll act when a million dollars is on the line (assuming that the bonds are actually worth anything to begin with, of course).
The Randi Prize
A Big So What? to
Randi's Challenge
Top of Page
Back to...
Examining Skeptics
If you have any comments or suggestions on this website please email... morphlist@aol.com
Copyright © The Association for Skeptical Investigations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)