I suppose I should say a few words before the shows are released, while the impressions formed during almost an hour-and-a-half of close interaction are still fresh.
First, let me allay any qualms about Mark's ability to destroy all of the arguments put forward by Jim Fetzer (c'mon, who had any qualms?). Mark was, as always, in complete command of all the relevant data, although I found his own comment about goalposts in a tornado to be particularly apt. I'm going to have to amplify this concept a bit at a later date.
One thought kept crossing my mind during the debates. On this forum devoted to conspiracy theories, I have expressed my exasperation with Ace Baker in no uncertain terms. I confess that reproaching him produces twinges of guilt, as Ace has treated me with courtesy in our e-mail exchanges and is, I gather, a highly talented musician. I called him a nut because, frankly, I don't know what else to make of him. I mean, he isn't stupid (my irritation with the nonsensical positions he espouses notwithstanding), and he isn't--I don't regard him as-- a liar. I realize that it is the latter contention that will strike some of you as highly debatable, but let me finish.
Jim Fetzer is an affable guy and I thought he made a colorful, entertaining guest. He says many things that are flatly untrue. Now, is he lying?
Fetzer addressed this question in an e-mail exchange with, I think, beachnut: if he believes what he's saying, he can't be lying whether he's wrong or not.
My own thoughts are inchoate, so I'm asking for input to help me sort it all out.
With Ace Baker and Jim Baker, something strange happens at a very basic level of cognition. For most of us, the process goes something like this: we advance a proposition; someone presents evidence that, if it doesn't refute our proposition entirely, is at least extremely inconvenient. Now, we pause. In terms of a flow chart, we come to the first divergence. We must either a) deal with the evidence or b) process it and admit that we were wrong. The first alternative branches off into a1) attempting to discredit the evidence by intellectually honest means, i.e., assembling a counter-argument that we can actually get behind, and a2) attempting to discredit the evidence by dishonest means, i.e., acknowledging to ourselves that the evidence really did destroy our proposition and we are reduced to blowing smoke to obscure the picture. Selecting a2 has been and remains, of course, the choice of charlatans. The key here is that they understand that they're wrong. The second alternative, b, requires the most of us and can be selected by only the rarest of minds. It has no relevance to this discussion.
Moving from the general to the specific, Baker and Baker contend that WTC steel was "dustified"; they are shown photos of enormous heaps of steel, representing the tons of steel recovered at Ground Zero and eventually shipped overseas. Here is that first divergence. Okay, it's hard to "deal with" the evidence: they're saying the steel turned to dust and it just didn't. It's not possible to rescue the original proposition: the steel did not "evaporate" or turn to dust. Choosing a1 is not an option.
The big question is, are they really choosing a2? I always thought so, but perhaps it's not quite so simple. Consider the possibility that they aren't selecting anything. The process goes something like, the steel was "dustified; No, it wasn't; ZIP!----right back to, the steel was dustified. Something got short-circuited. The process was anything but a process
Review the exchanges between Ace and R. Mackey. Mackey explains in painstaking detail why Ace's theories are fantastic and lack any basis in reality. Ace doesn't generally resort to rhetorical tricks such as distorting his opponent's words and he is completely incapable of accommodating his own views to them--he treats opposing arguments as if they don't exist.
After being pounded into the ground on a particular point, he will calmly repeat, word-for-word, in a different thread, or in the same thread, the exact argument that was dismantled! After watching this sort of thing, one eventually gets the idea that the laws of logic have started to operate, well, differently.
So it is with Jim Fetzer. I don't want to provide too many clues or spoil anyone's fun. I'll keep quiet until everyone has had the opportunity of watching the debates. But, check my observations against Fetzer's performance. Is he merely a charlatan who knows he's peddling snake oil or is something else going on? Note, in particular, his reaction to the Osama Conundrum.
First, let me allay any qualms about Mark's ability to destroy all of the arguments put forward by Jim Fetzer (c'mon, who had any qualms?). Mark was, as always, in complete command of all the relevant data, although I found his own comment about goalposts in a tornado to be particularly apt. I'm going to have to amplify this concept a bit at a later date.
One thought kept crossing my mind during the debates. On this forum devoted to conspiracy theories, I have expressed my exasperation with Ace Baker in no uncertain terms. I confess that reproaching him produces twinges of guilt, as Ace has treated me with courtesy in our e-mail exchanges and is, I gather, a highly talented musician. I called him a nut because, frankly, I don't know what else to make of him. I mean, he isn't stupid (my irritation with the nonsensical positions he espouses notwithstanding), and he isn't--I don't regard him as-- a liar. I realize that it is the latter contention that will strike some of you as highly debatable, but let me finish.
Jim Fetzer is an affable guy and I thought he made a colorful, entertaining guest. He says many things that are flatly untrue. Now, is he lying?
Fetzer addressed this question in an e-mail exchange with, I think, beachnut: if he believes what he's saying, he can't be lying whether he's wrong or not.
My own thoughts are inchoate, so I'm asking for input to help me sort it all out.
With Ace Baker and Jim Baker, something strange happens at a very basic level of cognition. For most of us, the process goes something like this: we advance a proposition; someone presents evidence that, if it doesn't refute our proposition entirely, is at least extremely inconvenient. Now, we pause. In terms of a flow chart, we come to the first divergence. We must either a) deal with the evidence or b) process it and admit that we were wrong. The first alternative branches off into a1) attempting to discredit the evidence by intellectually honest means, i.e., assembling a counter-argument that we can actually get behind, and a2) attempting to discredit the evidence by dishonest means, i.e., acknowledging to ourselves that the evidence really did destroy our proposition and we are reduced to blowing smoke to obscure the picture. Selecting a2 has been and remains, of course, the choice of charlatans. The key here is that they understand that they're wrong. The second alternative, b, requires the most of us and can be selected by only the rarest of minds. It has no relevance to this discussion.
Moving from the general to the specific, Baker and Baker contend that WTC steel was "dustified"; they are shown photos of enormous heaps of steel, representing the tons of steel recovered at Ground Zero and eventually shipped overseas. Here is that first divergence. Okay, it's hard to "deal with" the evidence: they're saying the steel turned to dust and it just didn't. It's not possible to rescue the original proposition: the steel did not "evaporate" or turn to dust. Choosing a1 is not an option.
The big question is, are they really choosing a2? I always thought so, but perhaps it's not quite so simple. Consider the possibility that they aren't selecting anything. The process goes something like, the steel was "dustified; No, it wasn't; ZIP!----right back to, the steel was dustified. Something got short-circuited. The process was anything but a process
Review the exchanges between Ace and R. Mackey. Mackey explains in painstaking detail why Ace's theories are fantastic and lack any basis in reality. Ace doesn't generally resort to rhetorical tricks such as distorting his opponent's words and he is completely incapable of accommodating his own views to them--he treats opposing arguments as if they don't exist.
After being pounded into the ground on a particular point, he will calmly repeat, word-for-word, in a different thread, or in the same thread, the exact argument that was dismantled! After watching this sort of thing, one eventually gets the idea that the laws of logic have started to operate, well, differently.
So it is with Jim Fetzer. I don't want to provide too many clues or spoil anyone's fun. I'll keep quiet until everyone has had the opportunity of watching the debates. But, check my observations against Fetzer's performance. Is he merely a charlatan who knows he's peddling snake oil or is something else going on? Note, in particular, his reaction to the Osama Conundrum.
Last edited:
