Friday, January 26, 2007

Judy Wood, Anti-Gravity, and the Search for "Truth"

I found out Judy Wood was on Fetzer's radio show yesterday. Since those two are always good for a laugh I found an MP3 of it and gave it a listen. I was not disappointed. First of all, from a bit where Fetzer is quoting a letter he received from a woman concerning a History Channel documentary on building collapse:


Fetzer: “They had their experts, their structural design engineers and other kinds of engineers such as Mathis Leavy and Wiliam Baker giving their government shill commentary supporting the principles given as the governments official story as to why the towers fell. I have a feeling the same engineer shill experts are wheeled out and recycled for all the PBS and Discovery channel and History channel 9/11 disinformation. pieces“ She herself tries to avoid the words “fell” and “collapse” and “came down” because it certainly looked to her that the towers were blown or blown to kingdom come.

Wood: Yeah, the majority of the material went up rather than down.

Fetzer: Right, pulverization is taking place here.

I am not sure what more I can add to that part.

Later on, Fetzer gives his reason why their theory must be right:


Fetzer:Well Jack White, who is a legendary photoanalyst, who has done brilliant work, not only on JFK but on 9/11 and many other topics that are controversial has developed the principle that the more you are being attacked the more probably that you are right on the money, or getting very close to the truth. So there is like a direct correlation by the extent and severity to how close you are to the truth that they are trying to suppress. And by that yardstick I think that you and Morgan must be really close to being on the money here about the fact that some kind of directed energy had to be to take out the twin towers. There is no other way to account for the phenomena. Which means that we have to look at the possibility that HARP or solar energy or lasers or masers, or even plasmoids may have been employed here.

Wood: Correct.

OK, first of all, I am not sure what he means by "attack". The "Star Wars Death Beam" theory is hardly being attacked by any official sources, it is so silly that it hasn't even been mentioned outside of the conspiracy theory community. Not even Bill O'Reilly has had anyone on his show to discuss this.

The fact that their theories are too stupid for members of their own community, many of whom will believe almost anything to begin with, should hardly be held up as any type of proof. I have a proposal for Wood and Fetzer, why don't they propose the theory that the World Trade Centers were brought down by thousands of Keebler Elves with nail files. That will draw even more scorn and ridicule, proving that hypothesis even more truthier!

23 Comments:

At 26 January, 2007 13:58, Blogger troy said...

Anyone think Fetzer and Wood are doin' the hibbidy dibbidy?

 
At 26 January, 2007 14:18, Blogger Alex said...

Well Jack White, who is a legendary photoanalyst, who has done brilliant work, not only on JFK but on 9/11 and many other topics that are controversial has developed the principle that the more you are being attacked the more probably that you are right on the money, or getting very close to the truth.

I guess by this logic they must also believe that George W. Bush is the greatest president of all time.

 
At 26 January, 2007 14:50, Blogger CHF said...

Holy crap.

When a good chunk of twoofers think you're nuts...well, I don't think there is a word for just how sad that is.

 
At 26 January, 2007 15:03, Blogger shawn said...

Fetzer:Well Jack White, who is a legendary photoanalyst, who has done brilliant work, not only on JFK but on 9/11

Let's recall that Fetzer believes the Zapruder film is fake and that Kennedy was shot six times.

 
At 26 January, 2007 15:09, Blogger tripntraveler said...

When a good chunk of twoofers think you're nuts...well, I don't think there is a word for just how sad that is.

Dunno about that! I wear it as a badge of honor!

 
At 26 January, 2007 15:22, Blogger texasjack said...

Woods/Fetzer were forced to go Star Wars when they realized a CD was impossible. I really want to see a live debate between the CD people and the Laser Beamers--that would be very entertaining.

 
At 26 January, 2007 15:34, Blogger Richard said...

Even though there are experts out there it's not like they keep their methods a secret. Everyone has access to information about physics, chemistry etc, and there are numerous resources that provide information on critical thinking and reasoning. CDI is more than welcome to share statistics and other information about what they do. Saying "I don't believe it because the government said so" is an intellectual cop-out. If these people had half a brain and the most basic logic skills they would see past this truther bs.

 
At 26 January, 2007 19:05, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

All I have to say, is compared to the Reynolds/Wood SWBT, Stephen Jones paper on thermite is like Darwin.

Sorry, but they are so far out there, sending them back in time, and putting them aboard one of the hijacked flights would not change their minds.

TAM

 
At 26 January, 2007 19:43, Blogger texasjack said...

Do you think they believe "Star Wars" is a documentary?

 
At 27 January, 2007 08:38, Blogger Rob said...

"Jack White, who is a legendary photoanalyst... Let's recall that Fetzer believes the Zapruder film is fake..."

Fetzer's written a book about that, based in part on the work of supposed "legendary photoanalyst" Jack White. Jack White also claims that the Apollo lunar photographs are faked. Some idea of the extent of his photo-analysis skills can be gained by his answers when questioned about his claims that a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle was faked:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?
Mr. WHITE. No.
[...]
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?
Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----
Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions.


Legendary!

 
At 27 January, 2007 15:49, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Rob, that picture is a fake. I own that issue and you can clearly see the crop mark in the photograph and you can also clearly tell that it is not his chin along with the shadows in the picture.

 
At 27 January, 2007 17:22, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

This is the best thread EVER!

 
At 27 January, 2007 18:00, Blogger FatOllie said...

SD:
Rob, that picture is a fake. I own that issue and you can clearly see the crop mark in the photograph and you can also clearly tell that it is not his chin along with the shadows in the picture.

You can tell no such thing from looking at a retouched photograph printed on a magazine cover. If you want to prove it's fake, you have to deal with the House Select Committee's analysis. If you want to prove it's a fake, you have to use recognized reliable photographic analysis techniques (which the legendary Jack White did not do) and you have to do it with the negative or a print made directly from the negative.

Go ahead and read the transcript of White's testimony before the Committee and see if you don't think he's a clown.

 
At 27 January, 2007 22:53, Blogger shawn said...

Rob, that picture is a fake. I own that issue and you can clearly see the crop mark in the photograph and you can also clearly tell that it is not his chin along with the shadows in the picture.

Whenever a conspiracy theorist says something like "clearly" or "obviously" it means they are clearly or obviously pulling the following statement out of their ass.

 
At 28 January, 2007 04:46, Blogger Rob said...

you can clearly see the crop mark in the photograph and you can also clearly tell that it is not his chin along with the shadows in the picture.

You might be able to see a crop mark, but I can't and neither did the (real) expert analysts who examined it for the House Select Committee. Ditto with the chin, and the shadows in the picture show every sign of being genuine and no sign of having being composited or altered (here, and preceding & following pages).

 
At 28 January, 2007 07:42, Blogger FatOllie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 January, 2007 08:12, Blogger FatOllie said...

Rob

What do you suppose can motivate these people to say things such as that the photos were faked? Clearly, competent examination reveals absolutely no evidence that they were. And this Jack White guy: seems to me that the transcript from the Committee hearings demonstrates that he was completely humiliated and exposed as a fraud. And yet these many years later, Fetzer gushes about the "legendary" Jack White and Jack White's website touts the very appearance that shows him to be a fraud as evidence of his expertise. How can any sane person hope to counter such monumental and willful ignorance?

 
At 28 January, 2007 09:43, Blogger Rob said...

Ollie,

My best guess is that the motivation is either a deep personal conviction that they are correct, or a shrewd marketing thing - filling an otherwise vacant niche in the market. Either reason makes the person immune to evidence. Evidence against their... alternative viewpoint must have been fabricated, any lack of evidence in favour of their alternative must be because of a powerful effort to suppress it, and all witnesses and experts who speak against their alternative must be corrupt liars: everything becomes further evidence - to their eyes - that they're right. Please note there seems to be no limit to how far this can be taken : for example there are still people who maintain that the Earth is stationary in the centre of the universe and all of Astronomy since at least Gallileo's time is a gigantic fraud.

 
At 28 January, 2007 10:40, Blogger Triterope said...

What do you suppose can motivate these people to say things such as that the photos were faked?

Mental rigidity.

People like Swing Dangler are so convinced of the rightness of their own position that their brains are incapable of processing information to the contrary.

There's a scene in Tin Cup where Kevin Costner's character asks his redneck drinking buddies, "A man and his son get into a car crash, and are taken to the hospital. The surgeon says, 'I cannot operate on this boy, he is my son.' How is this possible?" The other characters concoct all kinds of convoluted scenarios, failing to realize that the surgeon is the boy's mother (until Rene Russo enters and points it out).

That's mental rigidity. If you're not open to certain possibilities, your problem-solving skills will be hindered.

And so it is with all 9/11 conspiracy thinking. The people we talk about in this blog, the leaders of the movement, are all in a mental state where the widely-accepted version of events -- the whole hijacked planes thing -- can't possibly be right. The real causes of 9/11 must have been something else. And as the more reasonable alternate explanations (controlled demolition) are defeated, their grasps at the "real" story only get more and more ridiculous (Star Wars Death Beam).

So the Truth movement is really just the last handful of people who can't accept the real story about 9/11. They claim to be investigators, but can't agree on even the most basic facts of what an alternative story would be. It's fitting that their chant is "9/11 was an inside job." Because that's all they know about it.

 
At 31 January, 2007 06:52, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

You can tell no such thing from looking at a retouched photograph printed on a magazine cover. If you want to prove it's fake, you have to deal with the House Select Committee's analysis.

Or better yet, you can pick the picture up in your own hands as I have done as I own the magazine, place it side by side with a picture of Lee Harvey. The Time photograph does not have the same chin and you can see the crop line where the chin is different. If you want to do the same and believe the two faces are the same person, then that is your perogative and clearly proves you are on mind numbing dungs. They are not of the same chin, it is clear and simple, nor do the shadows match. Even LHO said the same thing which is contrary to the the OS theory that LHO was a lone gun nutjob who was seeking attention. If the photo was that of him, he would be screaming from the rooftops that it was. Nice try but I have the items and your theory doesn't match the OS MO of LHO.

 
At 31 January, 2007 08:54, Blogger Triterope said...

mind numbing dungs

There's such a thing as mind-numbing dung? Wow. And I thought toad-licking was weird. What animal does it come from? Do you roll up it and smoke it, or what? And is this what Cheech and Chong meant when they were talking about "Labrador"?

 
At 06 February, 2007 12:58, Blogger Jon said...

To texasjack: I've been looking for the goods on Judy Wood. You said that they were forced to admit that a CD was impossible? Where can I find that?

Thanks,

Jon.

 
At 09 February, 2007 20:25, Blogger Alex said...

You want goods on Judy Wood? I've got them: she's a certifiable nut case. I had her as a professor at Clemson in 2005. Back then she was pushing the controlled demolition nonsense. As a professor she sucked, she would get half way through an example and then get side-tracked by WTC stuff and nobody learned anything. From what I've gathered, she's now on an "indefinite sabbatical" from Clemson. I've also heard that she was in a comma for several years and took up engineering when she woke up. I'm not convinced she made a full recovery. There may be some damage to her higher brain function.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home