Ace baker filming Hutchison's work? [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

View Full Version : Ace baker filming Hutchison's work?

masonfree party

20-10-2008, 03:27 PM

masonfree party

20-10-2008, 03:42 PM

11 and The Hutchison Effect – An Ace in the Hole – Part II
by Andrew Johnson on Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:55 pm

For full version with correct formatting, hyperlinks etc see:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60

9/11 and The Hutchison Effect – An Ace in the Hole – Part II
Andrew Johnson

Aug 19, 2008

Some time ago, I posted a series of 3 articles which attempted to document the peculiar machinations of Alexander “Ace” Baker and Prof Jim Fetzer in relation to a study posted by Dr Judy Wood regarding 9/11 evidence and Hutchison Effect Evidence. Dr. Wood also posted an article highlighting the unusual attitude that Jim Fetzer took to John Hutchison when John appeared as a guest on his “Dynamic Duo” show on 28 February 2008.

In the articles I wrote, I contended that the evidence collected by Dr. Wood - and the reaction to this same evidence - strongly imply that the basic thrust of the argument is correct – that some type of technology related to that used to create the Hutchison Effect was indeed employed in 9/11.

Since Dr. Wood posted her original “Hutchison Effect” study in early 2008, she has posted an additional series, which includes a good deal of data regarding Hurricane Erin, which was closest to NYC during the events of 9/11. As part of this study, Dr. Wood has obtained magnetometer data, logged by instruments in Alaska during the events of 9/11. These data show very interesting variations in the earth’s magnetic field during the events of 9/11. Reaction to this study seems to have been more muted, though the data is now getting some exposure.

Dr. Wood and I were invited by Jim Fetzer to make two appearances in his “Dynamic Duo” show slot on GCN Live. These two appearances took place on 30th July 2008 and 31st July 2008, and will be the subject of a separate article.

Decoy and Distract?

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

Ace Baker - $100,000 Huchison Effect Challenge

Ace Baker was apparently offering “$100,000 if John and/or Judy can reproduce the H-Effect.” The message contained a link to an entry on his blog, in which he set out the general terms of his challenge. Strangely, however, Ace neglected to include John in the “CC” or “To” fields.When Dr. Wood noticed this, she forwarded her copy of Ace's email to John.

John Hutchison is, at times, quite a prolific “blogger” himself and he contacted Dr. Wood to state that he had posted a response to Ace Baker’s challenge on Ace Baker’s own blog, but it seems as though it was not approved or posted there. John advised us of the general contents of his post, from memory, soon after he had tried to post it.

Some time previously, Ace had offered a sum of $5000 if he could film “Hutchison Effects” in John’s lab, but Ace never followed through, so this seemed to represent a substantially larger offer. However, I was very curious about this new offer, because Ace had previously stated “John Hutchison is a 100% fraud”. If Ace believed this, then what was the point of offering a large sum of money? I was therefore given to ask Ace Baker the following questions:

1) Who would he be approaching to validate the effects, and how will their qualifications compare to those of George Hathaway, Col John Alexander, Hal Puthoff and others? (They have already been involved with evaluating and documenting John Hutchison’s experiments.)

2) Why was Ace willing to put up this amount of money for this demonstration, as opposed to, say, putting it into a Legal Case to sue the media regarding TV fakery? (I asked Ace Baker this question because he has stated he is an expert in video fakery and has published a detailed study on the 9/11 “Chopper 5” video, in which he concludes that the video has been heavily doctored, using video compositing, to present fake images as real.)

3) If Hutchison-Effect-like technology was NOT employed on 9/11, then would Ace be willing to pay for research to answer questions regarding (a) Inverted cars (B) horseshoe beams © explosion of Scott packs (d) witness accounts of levitation effects etc.

In other words, I was trying to ask if Ace wanted to see the truth of 9/11 uncovered. (He did not dispute the validity of the points of evidence (a) - (d) above.) Finally, I asked him:

4) What were his thoughts on (a) The Hurricane's path (B) The Alaskan Magnetometer Data?

In the same message, I said I was very interested in alternative explanations, based on good evidence, for the effects seen on 9/11, as I thought that this is what the search for 9/11 truth was for. I stated that I was open to a different, consistent interpretation of the evidence, if it answered all the questions regarding that same evidence.

In Ace’s response, he answered question 1 thus:

1. Hutchison/Wood are free to discuss any details/clarifications should they decide to accept the challenge.

This was not relevant to the question I asked – I asked who would help him to validate that the effects were real. Was Ace trying to divert his answers away from dealing with the evidence?

2. I am willing to offer $100,000 to FOX5 to license broadcast-quality Chopper 5 footage. That challenge coming soon.

This also did not really answer the question I asked. I actually queried him about possibly making a legal challenge, based on his TV fakery research. Instead, he seemed to answer this by describing a proposed “bet” with FOX5. Again, it seemed as if Ace was diverting away from the evidence I was asking him about – he didn’t respond at all regarding the issue of legal action being taken.

In answering the third question, Ace said:

3. There is no Hutchison Effect to have been employed on 9/11. No, I am not willing to offer $100,000 to "some people". The purpose of this challenge is to demonstrate to the public that Hutchison and Wood are liars.

Here, he did not seem to interpret the spirit of my question as I had intended. I intended it to mean would he be prepared to fund research, rather than fund debunking. Would he be prepared, in principle, to fund research to advance an alternative explanation? In his answer, he seemed to be stating that he was wanting to prove that John Hutchison was a liar (and Dr. Wood was a liar, independent of the facts put before him, both in this e-mail exchange and in earlier ones. Also, it is not called "The Hutchison and Wood Effect."). This, to me, shows a disturbing lack of desire to discover what actually happened on 9/11. If Dr. Wood’s study is incomplete or inaccurate or even inappropriate, then why can’t Ace come up with a better method to find the correct explanation? How will proving John Hutchison a fraud (even though Ace was already convinced of this) help determine what did happen on 9/11? I was given to ask myself, therefore, what is Ace’s true intent and focus? Who was he doing this “stunt” for - himself?

In his answer to question 4, again he seems to blatantly ignore data:

4. The challenge has nothing whatsoever to do with hurricane Erin or the Alaskan Magnetometer data. It has to do with the scientific claims made by John Hutchison. Hutchison's claims pre-date 9/11, and continue to this day.

Could it be that there is a strategy to distract people away from looking at the basic data - which starts to clearly show that field effects (for example, effects on the earth’s magnetic field) did indeed play a significant role on 9/11? Is all this an exercise to create more and more forum verbiage to drown out any serious discussion of evidence? Is he trying to set up a fake exercise to test the existence of something which has already generated over 500 lbs of anomalous metal samples?

I must admit to being somewhat surprised at Ace Baker’s answers to these four questions – especially his apparent “blanking” of the Hurricane Erin data, so to clarify this, I sent one further e-mail with some follow-up questions. I asked him if his "Hutchison Effect challenge" really had nothing to do with 9/11 research. He replied:

1. Wrong. The Hutchison Effect Challenge is related to 9/11 research, in that it will require honest researchers to eliminate "Hutchison Effect" from consideration.

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

2. Right. Hurricane Erin is unrelated to 9/11.

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

3. Wrong. I am very interested to learn how the towers were blown up. But I'm also interested in documenting the strategy of the govern-media psy-op team.

So what strategy has Ace documented? On his blog, he has repeated several times that “John Hutchison is a fraud” and has simply just made some fake videos. Ace has made his own fake videos, simulating 2 or 3 of the effects (incompletely). Ace has also completed a study of TV fakery. In both cases, he has not “moved” his evidence into a legal framework, as Dr. Wood has done. He has not submitted an affidavit in a court case, as John Hutchison has done. (I also submitted an affidavit for Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam case.)

Ace Baker’s Double-Standard?

It is worth mentioning that Dr Wood is not the only person to have suggested how the WTC complex was destroyed. People such as Dr Steven E Jones have suggested thermite or thermate (or some variant thereof) was used to destroy the WTC. Ed Ward and others have previously stated that “micro-nukes” must have been used. Ace Baker has not, however, offered $100,000 to Prof Steve E Jones for a demonstration of thermite, nor has he offered Ed Ward, or anyone else to my knowledge, any sum of money for a demonstration of micro-nuke technology. If Ace was being even handed in his assessment of 9/11 research, surely he would have made such an offer when these theories were first “put on the table”. Can we conclude there is some special reason why linking 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect is so “dangerous”?

Observations/Conclusions

Ace said he was convinced that John Hutchison was a 100% fraud but Ace was still willing to offer $100,000 and travel to Vancouver at his own expense as part of this challenge. Why?

Ace seemed less interested in using his own TV fakery research in some kind of legal action than he did in attempting to debunk John Hutchison (and essentially Dr Judy Wood too).

At appearances in Seattle and Portland, John Hutchison brought some of his samples as an exhibit. He allowed the audience to examine and photograph these samples. (If John were a fraud, why would he do such a thing?) So, it is clear to those people who handled the samples that the things they were holding in their hands were not the result of “video fakery”. Also, many samples have been given to other people around the world – so we have lots of physical evidence which shows the Hutchison Effect is real.

Ace Baker had previously offered to come and meet Dr. Wood in, Seattle in 2006, at a presentation she was giving then. The presentations that Dr. Wood and John Hutchison gave in Seattle and Portland in May/June 2008 were advertised weeks or even months in advance. Ace could have attended one or both of these presentations if he wanted to. He could have seen the samples for himself. So why wasn't Ace there to ask questions and to examine the samples?

Below are a few of many photos the Dr. Wood herself took on one of her trips to see John Hutchison.

Ace was not interested in the relevance of the Hurricane Erin study – despite the clear evidence of field effects in relation to the Hurricane itself, 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect. Why?

Ace seemed to say he did not want to fund research into an alternative explanation for the destruction of the towers, yet he said he was interested in how they were destroyed – does this make sense? If he is genuinely interested in finding out what happened on 9/11, then why didn’t he offer or consider finding some “better” alternatives?

I leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about the overall meaning of this “episode”. Does it illustrate how the cover up of 9/11 truth is working?

cb_brooklyn

21-10-2008, 04:13 AM

Because of Baker's insults to Mr Hutchison, he is not welcome to film the HE.

mynameis

21-10-2008, 04:18 AM

Because of Baker's insults to Mr Hutchison, he is not welcome to film the HE.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Awww! Powah Johnee's grwn ups feelins gawts hurt. Dat's rel scincey...

Put up or shut up time John Hutchison aka conman.

onourwayto2012

21-10-2008, 04:20 AM

Amen Brothers!!!

onourwayto2012

21-10-2008, 04:22 AM

Woops...mister contrary got in before me...
shoulda known he'd show up!

onourwayto2012

21-10-2008, 04:35 AM

So Professor Smartypants...just how did those cars get toasted and flipped over?

john white

21-10-2008, 04:39 AM

Baker has said he will pay out $100k if Hutchison effect proves to be genuine..he says he will film the effects but do you trust him...afterall we know these hollywood zionists are pretty good at faking the evidence.Personally i would like an independent film maker with no vested interest..no Dondaz you are not eligible,sorry.

Your saying Hutchinson is a Holywood Zionist? Sorry, the amount of mental loops there, its hard to be sure

And I'm sure Dondaz would not be welcome!

He'd film the truth and call bullshit bullshit if he saw it

I know you want to believe MFP, and I know nothing I say will make the slightest difference, but the facts are if Hutchinson wanted to prove his effect it would be pathetically easy

He never will, because he can't: and that's the end of the story

I've recently come to the conclusion though that perhaps its better if everyone who wants to settle for faith and not truth does clump together around figureheads like Johnson and Wood: it keeps them out of the way so the rest of us can get on with the work

And you never know, Ace might actually come round to realising that Planes did hit those towers after all! Having seen through Woods and Hutchinson, he's half way there

mynameis

21-10-2008, 04:40 AM

So Professor Smartypants...just how did those cars get toasted and flipped over?

I have an idea in mind, but that is implausible, so I'm keeping it to myself for now. I have discussed it before here, but it hasn't got a viable concern to the PTB as being a realistic weapon.

So:

A.) The implausible weapons exists and is being kept secret at the highest level
B.) The implausible weapon does not exist.

Choice

A.) Is another good reason not to discuss it.

krakhead

21-10-2008, 05:18 AM

Not even at the end of the first page and it has already run into personal insults and resulted in deleted posts.

Calm it down please, and stay on topic.

Cheers

onourwayto2012

21-10-2008, 05:21 AM

I have an idea in mind, but that is implausible, so I'm keeping it to myself for now. I have discussed it before here, but it hasn't got a viable concern to the PTB as being a realistic weapon.

So:

A.) The implausible weapons exists and is being kept secret at the highest level
B.) The implausible weapon does not exist.

Choice

A.) Is another good reason not to discuss it. Great answer... I can rest in peace now

mynameis

21-10-2008, 05:37 AM

Great answer... I can rest in peace now

Another good reason not to discuss it.

acebaker

27-10-2008, 03:07 AM

masonfree party

27-10-2008, 11:34 AM

I'm not sure what the policy is here with regard to insults. The OP refers to me as a "zionist". I am no such thing, and resent that. If you would like to hang a label on me, please make it "anarchist" or more specifically "anarcho-capitalist".

I offer no support for Israeli governmental activities any more than government activities in general. Government, as currently understood, is an illegal, illegitimate, immoral institution.

Ace..i was referring to the zionist infiltration of hollywood/US MEDIA in general...thought maybe your wife had worked for them in the past..or maybe i'm mistaken

"Clair Marlo is a Croatian-American songwriter, record producer, and composer. She has produced such artists as Harry Chapin (posthumously), Kilauea, Grant Geissman, and had her music in films such as The Firm and The Swimming Pool. She has also had music on major American television networks including CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Marlo

So, not only is Ace Baker's wife linked to the production of some movies, she is also linked to CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX. All of them, with the exception of CBS, either are or are owned by CFR corporate members. All of them also have connections to the Vatican. For example, CBS is run by Viacom. Viacom is owned by Summer Redstone, who attended the Jesuit Georgetown University.

john white

27-10-2008, 11:47 AM

Ah I see... so Ace Baker would lie and commit fraud to hide the "truth" of Hutchinson's work because his Wife has written some songs and twiddled buttons in a recording studio producing music which has appeared in some films

Well that's clear

I still maintain the person who could prove Hutchinson's work genuine is not Ace Baker, but John Hutchinson

I wonder why he doesn't do that swiftly, directly, and easily?

Oh hang on... I CAN see one possible reason....

acebaker

07-11-2008, 03:42 AM

The $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

This agreement is between Alexander “Ace” Baker (hereafter “Baker”) and John Hutchison (hereafter “Hutchison”), (collectively “the parties”). The purpose of the agreement is to settle a scientific dispute between Baker and Hutchison. Toward that end, Baker and Hutchison agree to arrange and document a demonstration of the so-called Hutchison Effect (hereafter “H-Effect”).

Background

Hutchison claims to have discovered a previously unknown energy effect capable of, among other things, levitating solid objects. Hutchison claims to have a laboratory of equipment in his Vancouver-area home capable of producing the H-Effect under his control. Hutchison has produced various videos purporting to depict various manifestations of the H-Effect, including one in which a steel wrench suddenly moves upwards, off of a table, into the air, flying out of the picture.

Baker claims that Hutchison is a fraud. Baker claims that Hutchison’s videos depict ordinary events, cleverly photographed in such a way as to make them appear unusual. According to Baker, the “levitating” steel wrench is an effect achieved with an upside-down camera. The wrench is held in place on an upside-down table, via an unseen magnet, then released and allowed to fall down, thus appearing to fall upwards, claims Baker.

Hutchison denies all accusations of fraud, states that his videos are legitimate, and that the H-Effect has been witnessed by many, including military personnel.

Challenge

Hutchison agrees to demonstrate a levitating steel wrench in the presence of Baker. Baker will, at his own expense, travel to Hutchison’s home/laboratory, arriving at a mutually agreed upon day and time.

Time: _____________ AM/PM

Date: ______________________ 2008

Hutchison agrees to be home at this time, and prepared for the demonstration.

The demonstration is said to begin the moment Baker arrives, and will last not more than 1 hour. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to make audio/video recordings at all times during the demonstration. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to observe and record audio/video wherever Baker wants, including under things, behind things, etc.

Hutchison agrees to then place a steel wrench on a table.

Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to verify to his own satisfaction that it is an ordinary steel wrench, allowing Baker to lift it, and examine it.

Hutchison agrees to then allow Baker to stand next to Hutchison during the time in which Hutchison operates any necessary controls.

Hutchison will then cause the wrench to move upwards off of the table, into the air at least 12 inches above the table. This levitation is to occur without anyone touching the wrench, and without any other normal means of lifting a solid object, e.g. by means of an attached string or wire.

After the completion of at least one levitating steel wrench, Hutchison will confirm that Baker was able to make a recording of the spectacular event. Hutchison will ask Baker, “Did you get that?” or words to that effect.

Baker agrees to, at that time, and under those circumstances, stop his recording, access the audio/video file, play it, and make sure that he “got it”. Baker agrees to then say to Hutchison, “Yes, I got it!” or words to that effect.

The demonstration is over when Baker says, “Yes, I got it!”, or one hour has elapsed since Baker’s arrival, whichever comes first.

Judgment

It is anticipated by both parties that the results of the demonstration will be self-evident, and obvious, one way or the other. Either Hutchison can levitate a steel wrench, making it fly upwards off the table, or else he cannot. It is anticipated that, after the demonstration, both parties will be in agreement as to whether or not the demonstration was successful.

However, in the event of a disagreement, e.g. if Hutchison claims the demonstration was successful, while Baker claims it was not successful, then both parties agree to be bound by the decision of a British Columbia Provincial Court proceeding. That is, if Hutchison believes he was wrongly denied his $100,000 prize after a successful demonstration under these terms, he can sue Baker in British Columbia. Nothing in this agreement precludes such a lawsuit.

In the event of litigation arising from a disputed result, both parties agree that the losing party shall pay all court costs, attorney’s fees, and reasonable expenses incurred, in an amount to be determined by the court.

Upon request by Hutchison, Baker agrees to make available to Hutchison a high-quality digital copy of all audio/video recordings made by Baker at the demonstration. Baker and Hutchison agree to stipulate that said recording will be admissible evidence in any litigation that may arise from this demonstration.

Payment

Within 30 days after a successful demonstration, Baker will pay Hutchison $100,000.00 (U.S.) Baker warrants that he has a line of credit in excess of $100,000. In the event of a successful demonstration, Hutchison agrees to make available to Baker his bank account deposit information, for purposes of conducting a standard bank transfer of funds.

If the demonstration is not successful, Hutchison gets precisely nothing.

Further Considerations

Furthermore, if Hutchison is unsuccessful at levitating a steel wrench, Hutchison will give to Baker a digital video copy of the so-called “Boat Experiment”. This digital video shall be dimensions 720 x 480 in size, 29.97 frames per second, and will not contain any duplicated frames. It is to be delivered to Baker no more than 7 days after the demonstration.

Witnesses

Hutchison agrees that Baker will bring one witness of Baker’s choice. The witness will be allowed to observe the demonstration along with Hutchison and Baker.

Baker agrees that Hutchison will be allowed to invite as many witnesses as Hutchison would like, and that the size of his home/laboratory will accommodate.

Ownership of audio/video

Hutchison agrees that, whatever the outcome of the demonstration, Baker will, in perpetuity, own all intellectual property in the audio/video recording made by Baker. Other witnesses who choose to make recordings of their own, will each own their respective recordings.

Baker agrees to publish and make available for download his complete and unedited recording of the demonstration.

Hutchison agrees to never interfere with the publication and dissemination of the demonstration recordings.

Alexander “Ace” Baker ________________________________ date _______________

John Hutchison ______________________________________ date________________

mynameis

12-11-2008, 04:55 AM

This thread gets a much needed Bump.

Prior to Woods and Hutchison's disinformation claims. Prove prior to 911 that the molecular disassociation of steel is a proven fact. Via evidence prove the claim through a scientific patent, a school of engineering or laboratory research paper on the subject, a news story that is well documented.

The $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

This agreement is between Alexander “Ace” Baker (hereafter “Baker”) and John Hutchison (hereafter “Hutchison”), (collectively “the parties”). The purpose of the agreement is to settle a scientific dispute between Baker and Hutchison. Toward that end, Baker and Hutchison agree to arrange and document a demonstration of the so-called Hutchison Effect (hereafter “H-Effect”).

Background

Hutchison claims to have discovered a previously unknown energy effect capable of, among other things, levitating solid objects. Hutchison claims to have a laboratory of equipment in his Vancouver-area home capable of producing the H-Effect under his control. Hutchison has produced various videos purporting to depict various manifestations of the H-Effect, including one in which a steel wrench suddenly moves upwards, off of a table, into the air, flying out of the picture.

Baker claims that Hutchison is a fraud. Baker claims that Hutchison’s videos depict ordinary events, cleverly photographed in such a way as to make them appear unusual. According to Baker, the “levitating” steel wrench is an effect achieved with an upside-down camera. The wrench is held in place on an upside-down table, via an unseen magnet, then released and allowed to fall down, thus appearing to fall upwards, claims Baker.

Hutchison denies all accusations of fraud, states that his videos are legitimate, and that the H-Effect has been witnessed by many, including military personnel.

Challenge

Hutchison agrees to demonstrate a levitating steel wrench in the presence of Baker. Baker will, at his own expense, travel to Hutchison’s home/laboratory, arriving at a mutually agreed upon day and time.

Time: _____________ AM/PM

Date: ______________________ 2008

Hutchison agrees to be home at this time, and prepared for the demonstration.

The demonstration is said to begin the moment Baker arrives, and will last not more than 1 hour. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to make audio/video recordings at all times during the demonstration. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to observe and record audio/video wherever Baker wants, including under things, behind things, etc.

Hutchison agrees to then place a steel wrench on a table.

Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to verify to his own satisfaction that it is an ordinary steel wrench, allowing Baker to lift it, and examine it.

Hutchison agrees to then allow Baker to stand next to Hutchison during the time in which Hutchison operates any necessary controls.

Hutchison will then cause the wrench to move upwards off of the table, into the air at least 12 inches above the table. This levitation is to occur without anyone touching the wrench, and without any other normal means of lifting a solid object, e.g. by means of an attached string or wire.

After the completion of at least one levitating steel wrench, Hutchison will confirm that Baker was able to make a recording of the spectacular event. Hutchison will ask Baker, “Did you get that?” or words to that effect.

Baker agrees to, at that time, and under those circumstances, stop his recording, access the audio/video file, play it, and make sure that he “got it”. Baker agrees to then say to Hutchison, “Yes, I got it!” or words to that effect.

The demonstration is over when Baker says, “Yes, I got it!”, or one hour has elapsed since Baker’s arrival, whichever comes first.

Judgment

It is anticipated by both parties that the results of the demonstration will be self-evident, and obvious, one way or the other. Either Hutchison can levitate a steel wrench, making it fly upwards off the table, or else he cannot. It is anticipated that, after the demonstration, both parties will be in agreement as to whether or not the demonstration was successful.

However, in the event of a disagreement, e.g. if Hutchison claims the demonstration was successful, while Baker claims it was not successful, then both parties agree to be bound by the decision of a British Columbia Provincial Court proceeding. That is, if Hutchison believes he was wrongly denied his $100,000 prize after a successful demonstration under these terms, he can sue Baker in British Columbia. Nothing in this agreement precludes such a lawsuit.

In the event of litigation arising from a disputed result, both parties agree that the losing party shall pay all court costs, attorney’s fees, and reasonable expenses incurred, in an amount to be determined by the court.

Upon request by Hutchison, Baker agrees to make available to Hutchison a high-quality digital copy of all audio/video recordings made by Baker at the demonstration. Baker and Hutchison agree to stipulate that said recording will be admissible evidence in any litigation that may arise from this demonstration.

Payment

Within 30 days after a successful demonstration, Baker will pay Hutchison $100,000.00 (U.S.) Baker warrants that he has a line of credit in excess of $100,000. In the event of a successful demonstration, Hutchison agrees to make available to Baker his bank account deposit information, for purposes of conducting a standard bank transfer of funds.

If the demonstration is not successful, Hutchison gets precisely nothing.

Further Considerations

Furthermore, if Hutchison is unsuccessful at levitating a steel wrench, Hutchison will give to Baker a digital video copy of the so-called “Boat Experiment”. This digital video shall be dimensions 720 x 480 in size, 29.97 frames per second, and will not contain any duplicated frames. It is to be delivered to Baker no more than 7 days after the demonstration.

Witnesses

Hutchison agrees that Baker will bring one witness of Baker’s choice. The witness will be allowed to observe the demonstration along with Hutchison and Baker.

Baker agrees that Hutchison will be allowed to invite as many witnesses as Hutchison would like, and that the size of his home/laboratory will accommodate.

Ownership of audio/video

Hutchison agrees that, whatever the outcome of the demonstration, Baker will, in perpetuity, own all intellectual property in the audio/video recording made by Baker. Other witnesses who choose to make recordings of their own, will each own their respective recordings.

Baker agrees to publish and make available for download his complete and unedited recording of the demonstration.

Hutchison agrees to never interfere with the publication and dissemination of the demonstration recordings.

Alexander “Ace” Baker ________________________________ date _______________

John Hutchison ______________________________________ date________________

drael

12-11-2008, 06:15 AM

Hutchison has been around for awhile. Is he developing a product? (or is there some reason it hasnt got any further than internet videos). And is there some reason he isnt dead, or his tech stolen by companies wanting to profit?

Does he have a website?

banoyes

16-11-2008, 03:28 PM

If you think you're going to find some kind of "official" confirmation that this technology exists,even today
you're dreaming .. might as well ask for a pass into Area 51

Molecular Disassociation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE

Slowed Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ

P.S.
There is no such thing as "willfull Cognitive Dissonance "
who would say such a thing??

mynameis

16-11-2008, 04:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILdA1vYva_0