Monday, March 3, 2008

Ace Baker Declaration in 9/11 Lawsuits

Since my publicly exposing John Hutchison and the "Hutchison Effect" as mere video fakery, Judy Wood has been silent. Now she has suggested that perhaps the defendants in her 9/11 lawsuit would appreciated my testimony. I highly doubt that. Honest truthseekers love what I have to say, which obviously excludes the defense contractor defendants in Wood's Qui Tam lawsuit.

Here's what I would declare under oath, if ever I got the chance. You can bet this stuff will be in my movie. Copies sent to Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Jim Fetzer, Rosalee Grable (Webfairy), Nico Haupt, Killtown (whoever he turns out to be), Steve Jones, Richard Gage, Stephen Goodale (my executive producer), and Russ Gerst.

It also includes Judy Wood's email stating her current (yet evidently malleable) position on Hutchison Effect, and my previous email that triggered it.

Dear all,

Please ask yourself why 1-18 are not in evidence in either Reynolds v the world, or Wood v the world, or Steven Jones v the world.

I highly doubt any defendants would be desirous of my testimony in your case, Judy, but if called, by any party, I would testify as follows:

1. I, Alexander Collin "Ace" Baker am a 47 year old professional musician living in Sherman Oaks, California.
2. I have expertise in video production, editing, and special effects processing.
3. I have broad general knowledge of the events of 9/11/01.
4. I have produced the world's leading scientific analysis of the apparent motion of the airplane image in the WNYW FOX 5 live news broadcast at 9:02-9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001, footage otherwise known as "Chopper 5".
5. Based on my research, the motion of the airplane image in Chopper 5 becomes more unstable after the video sequence is stabilized.
6. In authentic airplane videos, the motion of an airplane image must become more stable after the video sequence is stabilized.
7. Based on my research, a real airplane would be present in the opening 170 video frames of the Chopper 5 video.
8. There is no airplane visible in the opening 170 frames of the Chopper 5 video.
9. Based on my research, the nose of the airplane appears to emerge from the back side of WTC2 in the Chopper 5 video.
10. It is physically impossible for the nose of a real airplane to emerge from the back side of WTC2, or any steel framed hi-rise building. Also, there was no "exit wound" present on the back side of WTC2 where an airplane nose would have come out.
11. A "layer mask" is a video software tool which allows one area in a video to become transparent, making any video object which enters this "layer mask" area invisible. A false airplane image escaping a layer mask is the only reasonable explanation for the "nose out" observation in the Chopper 5 video.
12. Based on my research, a video technician faded the picture to black after realizing the the nose of a false airplane image escaped the "layer mask".
13. The Chopper 5 footage was never replayed, indicating "mens rea" (a guilty mind).
14 The Chopper 5 footage was replaced on the official government archive with completely different footage, indicating "mens rea" (a guilty mind).
15. The CNN - Michael Hezarkhani footage shows a plane entering a tower with no damage, to either the plane or the tower.
16. A later frame in the same video shows a clearly visible hole in the tower.
17. Therefore, in light of 15 and 16, the tower damage was created at a later point in time than when the airplane image appeared to pass effortlessly through the wall.
18. Therefore, something besides the airplane image caused the observed damage to WTC2.
19. I have studied the many videos produced by John Hutchison involving the so-called "Hutchison Effect".
20. In my opinion, the Hutchison Effect videos are fake. That is, they depict ordinary physical events photographed in such a way as to deceive the viewer in to thinking that something highly unusual is taking place.
21. Many Hutchison videos depict objects flying upwards. In reality, they are objects falling downwards, photographed upside down.
22. Many Hutchison videos depict objects wiggling around, and appearing to defy gravity. In reality, they are typically objects photographed upside down, and manipulated via hidden magnets and/or hidden strings.
23. One Hutchison video depicts a toy UFO moving up and down, and a control string is clearly visible on the upper left side of the screen.
24. One Hutchison video depicts a toy battleship floating in a tub of water. It appears to move spontaneously, ripples of water appear and disappear spontaneously, and flames appear and disappear spontaneously upon the deck of the toy ship. In my expert opinion, the movement of the ship is caused by a human hand out of view, the flames are caused by the ignition of "flash powder" or similar, the water ripples are caused by a vibrator touching the tub, and that all these explanatory activities have been detectably edited out of the video sequence. Video editing is indicated by the instantaneous changes in flame, water, etc.
25. Various Hutchison videos depict metal objects changing shape instantly. Given time and temperature, the shape changes are not unusual at all, per se. The instantaneous nature of the changes is most easily explained by video editing.
26. I have produced several videos reproducing many of the same type of video trickery as John Hutchison. In my opinion, considering my published explanations of how my videos, and also Hutchison's videos were made, this convincingly and permanently dispels the notion of any and all "Hutchison Effect".
27. In my opinion, based on overwhelming evidence, the events of 9/11 were "an inside job", perpetrated by the U.S. government and the mainstream news media, not Islamic terrorists.
28. In my opinion, based on publicly available photos and videos, the World Trade Center was demolished with very powerful explosives or weapons of some sort.
29. I do not know what sort of explosives or weapons were used on 9/11.
30. In my opinion, the so-called "official story" of 9/11 is not only false, it is physically impossible, and provably so.


Ace Baker

On Mar 3, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Judy Wood wrote:

Group, and Ace Baker,

Ace Baker challenges the validity of some of the videos originated by John Hutchison in demonstration of aspects of the "Hutchison Effect" and Ace considers some of us to have failed a test that he sought to put us through surreptitiously.

John asserts Ace's claims are false and I am choosing to side with John, notwithstanding Ace's certainty of his position.

An affidavit from John Hutchison has been filed in the case entitled Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA v ARA et al (1:07cv3314) (GBD) as of this date, 3/3/08, all as more fully confirmed in the court notice incorporated below.

If a a later date a change in my reliance is warranted I will do so. Ace can feel free to contact the lawyers for ARA and SAIC and other defendants if he'd like to work in their behalf and against me in my case.
Judy Wood

U.S. District Court

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Leaphart, Jerry on 3/3/2008 at 10:48 AM EST and filed on 3/3/2008
Case Name: Wood v. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al Case Number:1:07-cv-3314 Filer:Judy Wood Document Number: 61

Docket Text:
AFFIDAVIT of John Hutchison in Opposition re: [13] MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 9(b)., [42] MOTION to Dismiss Complaint., [37] FIRST MOTION to Dismiss., [46] MOTION to Dismiss., [52] MOTION to Dismiss., [25] MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6)., [18] MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction., [55] MOTION to DismissComplaint.. Document filed by Judy Wood. (Leaphart, Jerry)

1:07-cv-3314 Notice has been electronically mailed


At 03:49 PM -0800 3/2/08, Ace Baker wrote:

Q & A for you.
Interesting. We figured you for an op back in the fall shortly
after we were in NY. Always throwing out flares trying to get
everyone upset.

LIke what?
We realized after the first one that all you were
trying to do was get everyone distracted, so we just let them

Like what?
That was the reason no one responded to your hoax video.
Not because we all were willing to follow John H. over a cliff, but
because we had smelled you out.

I'm explaining how Hutchison's videos are made, and that makes me a rat?

Hutchison makes provable, obvious fake videos, and he's fine?

You ARE following Hutchison over a cliff. That's a great way to put it, perfect metaphor. The only question is whether it's an accident, or on purpose.
Your behavior just as Judy is
trying to finish her Qui Tam work was quite expected and if you
notice, she has ignored your carrying on.

I know, I know, it's CB Brooklyn that's replying.

I didn't know about it at the time, but it turns out, my intervention on H-Effect was IN TIME to prevent the filing of Hutchison's affidavit. Now you have an obvious, provable video faker in evidence in Judy's case. Nothing could be worse. This was a terrible move. Unless you're trying to discredit energy weapons, and 9/11 truth in general, in which case it's a great move.
There is nothing more
important to her and the rest of us than doing the right thing to
expose 9/11. That you would try to continue the charade with near
hysterics has been most comical, if I may say so myself.

What charade?
What is
another hit-piece on Judy? She's had them before, we expected this
from you. As the three little pigs said to the Wolf while sitting
safely inside the house of bricks: "Blow your brains out." It
really won't affect what she is doing. We realize what she is up
against. All the odds are against her work, but she may be so
close to solving this thing that all the stops are being taken from
the agents provocateur.

That's how I feel too, Russ. I think the fake plane videos are really the key to the whole deal, because no-planes proves demolition. Everybody, including Judy and Morgan, have been trying to throw me off track in solving video fakery. Perhaps you don't know about the phone call that Morgan and Judy made to me in mid-December. It was VERY important to both of them that they convince me that there were missiles projecting holograms. Judy said she had evidence for this. I find the idea ridiculous, and a clear effort to protect WNYW.

Seems like SOMEBODY (read: Morgan Reynolds and Jerry Leaphart) should sue WNYW, and subpoena a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5 (Ace Baker repeated for the 5th time).

Russ, I'd be curious to get your take on missiles projecting holograms. I'm also still waiting for evidence that Judy may have on this.
Maybe the H-effect is not quite it, but
something similar did this that obviously no one understands.

I agree, something exotic did the towers. But there is NO H-Effect. It doesn't exist. It's video fakery. Hutchison hasn't discovered energy effects any more than I have. You all had me going until Christmas. Hutchison Effect! LOL. Good one.
someone with your background could be so schooled in physics,
economics, and virtually anything else that might be discussed
seems a bit amazing.

Thank you.
Just as Stephen has contacts with everyone
and anyone related to 9/11 and any other potential conspiracy ever
dreamed up. It was just too good to be true, but the behavior
always gave you two away. Don't know what you are being paid, but
obviously, they didn't get their money's worth.

I don't really know Stephen Goodale any better than you do. As far as I can tell, he's exactly who he says he is. He introduced himself to me at the conference. He followed through with what he said. We spent time talking in the car driving around Indiana and Toronto. He seems like a nice, progressive liberal left-wing kinda guy, divorced, looking for love, and interested in producing documentaries on things like 9/11 and Chemtrails.

Russ Gerst

-----Original Message-----
From: Ace Baker []
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:42 PM
Cc: Judy Wood; Russell Gerst; stephen goodale; Jerry Leaphart
Subject: Re: May All This Be Sorted Out.

On Feb 29, 2008, at 9:47 AM, wrote:

> May all this be sorted out.

I'll sort all this out right now.

1. No, we don't have a deal. There is no meeting of the minds, no
contract, no agreement of any kind controlling this film.
2. I've deleted everything I had on the film. Flushed down the memory
hole. I have all the raw files, but all the edits are gone
permanently. If you want to know what is was like, it mostly matched
the script. I've thrown the script out too.
3. I am making a 9/11 documentary film. My desire is to make it the
best 9/11 documentary in history.
4. I will send Steve a copy of the film when it's done.
5. Steve, I am a man of my word. If, having seen the film I make, you
like it, you and I can be partners. If you don't like it, I will give
you back every dime of your money that I have taken. Every dime. My
only request is that I finish the film before you see it and make
your decision.
6. Hutchison is a fraud.
7. It's still a movie about Judy's work, in part. It's about 9/11.
8. Hutchison is in the movie, for sure, with a sit-com laugh track.
It will lighten the mood, in contrast to . . .
9. I am going on camera and personally accusing WNYW television
executives of treason and conspiracy to commit mass murder. Why
Morgan and Judy are suing the defense contractors but not WNYW is
frustrating. People can argue physics and energy weapons til the
cows die. There's no freaking plane in Chopper 5 wide shot. The nose
comes out. They fade to black. The motion is unstable. They never
replayed it. They cleansed it. It's unarguable. I would think
somebody would subpoena a broadcast quality copy of Chopper 5.
> To paraphrase "What's My Line?," Will the real charlatan please
> stand?

My little tesla coil hoax was a well-crafted information gathering
experiment. It's my second one, the first being the Engineer Ed Hoax.
Engineer Ed was patterned after the Sokal Affair, and it proved the
profound bias of Wikipedia administartors. I only let it run about
two weeks. Hutch-Hoax 2008 only ran a month or so. Then I came right
out and laid the cards on the table. Engineer Ed got me permanently
banned from Wikipedia. Will busting Hutchison get me banned from
Scholars? We'll see. I hope not.

You guys didn't answer when I brought the anti-gravity video because
you couldn't. Of course, you all knew it was fake, just like you know
damn well Hutchison's videos are fake. What you didn't know was my
mind. Was Ace going to admit the fakery, or was he actually going to
claim to have produced the effect? Ahhh, that's was a dilemma, wasn't
it? Well, now you know.


Ace Baker


Anonymous said...

"I am an outlaw, I was born an outlaw's son."

u2r2h said...

study the nose-out again. The exit-fireball is a two-dimensional egg-shaped disc NOT VISIBLE from the front!! From
my posts you can gain additional knowledge.

The following logic is inescapable:

noplanes + tv-fakery + ONE SINGLE authentic 767 film/photo



Yes, I know you have BIG problems even touching this... you think the technology is not possible, but think again, someone left us a hint on how the technology works here.

I guess it it was a hardened missile (white-fireball-exiting!) that carried the "screen" (atomic-vapor? liquid?) and it was intact enough upon exit and the "illuminating/activating" laser aboard the 747 in the distance was not switched off in time.

Ondrovic described a fireball in the distant sky!

David Thom took a photo of the 747 light-source!!

remember the eye-witness who said "DAMN! I HAVE NEVER SEEN A PLANE LIKE THAT"

the hologram is not perfect. From various viewing angles it looks different. Dark-featureless, strangly luminous, distorted, amputee-wings etc. Maybe this is because the perps did not have the computing power to real-time calculate ALL angles.

The fire-ball-upon-impact points to a missile.

I share your scepticism about the hutchisonEffect... but the toasted cars are just too weird. I have investigated it a bit ....

If you need to discuss, please do it

Ace Baker said...

There's no fireball upon impact, that's for sure. Both Naudet 1st hit, and all the 2nd hit videos show white explosions upon "impact".

The fireball happens about 1-2 seconds later.

u2r2h said...

i meant the white flashes, too.

Ace Baker said...

Well wait a minute. There is a very brief flash, 1/30 of a second. It's yellowish.

Then, there were white explosions. Many discreet explosions formed small white clouds in the shape of an airplane.

Then, there was a huge orange and black explosion from within the tower.

Anonymous said...

I am a "nobody" so to speak, but been following you guys for a couple of years and completely convinced no planes ever hit the towers.

However an idea I came upon sometime back:

Both cartoon planes emit flashes before hitting right?

Most of people in the truth movement, have sidetracked on explosions and missiles preparing the hole.

I think it is an effect expected in somebody faking the impact of the nose of the plains, knowing this exact second would be very difficult to fake, because of the action reaction that should be present, he added a spark flash just before contact to hide the nose blending perfectly with the buildings.

Problem solved, and better yet, another proof on tv fakery. How about that?

Ace Baker said...

I think the flash was used as a sync pop. See this:

Yes, you're certainly right, a side benefit of the flash is to conceal the nose impact.