The Strange Case of CB Brooklyn

Andrew Johnson

02 Oct 2008

This is a hastily-written piece (you may understand why I am posting it by the end). It may be revised and augmented soon, but it is posted now for the sake of expediency.

Some time ago, I became involved with a group of researchers who were looking at the evidence that some extremely unusual things happened on 9/11. This group included Dr Judy Wood, Dr Morgan Reynolds, Attorney Jerry Leaphart, Prof Jim Fetzer, Russ Gerst and others. One person who seemed to make some good contributions to the group was CB Brooklyn. He was somewhat mysterious – we understood that he lived in New York, but we got to know precious little else about him. Dr Wood and I agreed to meet him in New York at about 2pm on January 17th 2008, but he did not give us a contact telephone number and, though we were about 30 mins late, he did not wait for us, or show up, though afterwards, in e-mail, he said he thought he saw Dr Wood walking around.

I have tried over time to document the main areas of research that this group has concerned itself with and readers can see how this CB Brooklyn person has contributed some excellent summary articles covering how 9/11 is linked to the energy cover up and how, for example, former BYU Physics Professor Steven E Jones fits in to this story.

In a series of 5 articles posted on www.checktheevidence… , I tried to carefully document the reaction of Jim Fetzer and Ace Baker to the linking of 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect. Due to the strong correspondence between 9/11 Evidence and “Hutchison Effects”,  we were confident enough that we were on the right track. John Hutchison was therefore asked to submit an Affidavit in support of Dr Judy Wood’s Qui Tam case against some of NIST’s WTC report contractors – John did this.

As this matter unfolded, I was accused of sending hate correspondence to Ace Baker – by the man himself. This was the subject of “Ace in the Hole Part III”.

In ongoing e-mail correspondence with CB Brooklyn, I repeatedly pointed out why I thought Fetzer was acting to help keep important truths of what happened on 9/11 covered up – I also pointed out the implications of this to him – that Fetzer was, ultimately, helping to pervert the course of justice, for example.

For some reason, CB Brooklyn would not really properly debate the evidence contained in the later “Hutchison Effect” articles and felt that Fetzer was just “being dumb”. We received a number of curious e-mails from CB Brooklyn. Then, he decided he would suddenly try to reduce his level of anonymity by revealing his first name – “Chester”. He still maintained Fetzer was doing nothing wrong and not deliberately hiding anything or covering for the 9/11 perps. I suggested he go on the Dynamic Duo to discuss things with Fetzer, rather than discussing them with us on Skype. He asked Fetzer and Fetzer agreed to have CB Brooklyn on the Dynamic Duo on the 16th of October. In a message to us, CB Brooklyn then said:

What I will want to discuss is the 9/11-energy connection, free energy suppression, and Ace Baker’s use of Steven Jones-type disinfo tactics to discredit the Hutchison Effect. Also I need to inform your audience that Andrew Johnson did not send "hate correspondence" to Baker, and that it was the other way around. I will read, on air, excerpts from some of the emails Ace sent, such as (paraphrased) "I hate Judy Wood, she’s a liar", "John Hutchison is a fraud", etc. Also I must mention on air that Judy and the others don’t wish to be on your show because you support someone who sent them hate correspondence.

This sounded very promising. However, the next paragraph was the most peculiar:

I will also mention that Andrew and Russ have sent me hate-type correspondence for my refusal to state that you are a paid operative. And that Judy will not respond to me at all, not even to my apologetic emails

Once again, someone is accusing me of sending hate correspondence (alright, alright “hate type” correspondence – but you get the idea). Additionally, I never stated to CB Brooklyn that Fetzer is a “Paid Op” because I have no firm evidence that this is true. Additionally, CB states:

Also I must mention on air that Judy and the others don’t wish to be on your show because you support someone who sent them hate correspondence.

This is false, we stated on air (on 31st July 2008) what we thought Fetzer was doing – he was trying to “take ownership” of Dr Wood’s research. We both thought that what he was trying to do was be seen to act as a “spokesperson” for Dr Wood’s research. We did not say we refused to go on Fetzer’s show because of him supporting someone who sent “hate correspondence”. Indeed, this incident (i.e. the false accusation of me sending hate correspondence) did not even occur until 26th August 2008. It seems that CB Brooklyn has not taken this into account (why, after all his carefully referenced earlier articles). In any case, does the truth of what happened on 9/11 depend on who is friends with whom?

I therefore sent a message to CB Brooklyn stating that I looked forward to him reading out, verbatim, the hate type correspondence I had sent him. He responded:

Andrew, you need not worry about that.

I am really just posting this to give notice that I wait with baited breath to see what hate-type correspondence I have sent to CB Brooklyn and how long CB Brooklyn and Jim Fetzer debate the definition of hate correspondence, as Jim Fetzer did not know what that definition was last time it was discussed in e-mails with me. Of course, it’s so important that these things be discussed on air, isn’t it? After all, once the definition of “hate correspondence” has been settled upon – and who has and hasn’t sent some – they can then move on to a detailed discussion of how Free Energy was used to destroy the WTC and the role of Hurricane Erin and Weather Control technology in that same event. Then they can decide what needs to be done in future…?

Update

Since first posting these articles, I received a few more e-mails from CB Brooklyn, stating his view and feelings about my conclusions about Jim Fetzer and also giving his reaction to the posting of this short article.

Basically, I thanked him for posting the earlier articles and helping to promote awareness of Mars Anomalies etc. However, I said I could not accept that he had made false statements about my actions (i.e. the sending of hate-type correspondence and him implying that we were trying to somehow coerce him into agreeing with us about Jim Fetzer. In any case, what would either of us really gain from his agreement?)

In the final e-mail, however, CB Brooklyn states:

After some thought regarding Jerry’s letter to Alex Jones, I understand more clearly the importance regarding false accusations about attacking or hate-type email. I, of course, (as I have said) made those comments in the heat of the moment. Therefore I now retract them.

Too bad Andrew believes he has no mistakes to admit.

I leave the reader, again, to form their view of what is going on here – whether it is meaningless, trivial or whether I have acted sensibly in exposing what has happened.

Forum Posting

 CB Brooklyn has made a posting here – which I have copied – with my response – below the e-mails:

forum.911movement.or…

Radio Broadcast With Ace Baker and Jim Fetzer

CB Brooklyn – 911 Research Group – Ace Baker – Jim Fetzer – 16 Oct 2008.mp3 (12.2 MB)

E-mails

—–Original Message—–

From: cb_brooklyn

Sent: 02 October 2008 22:54

To: jfetzer

Cc: Andrew Johnson; Morgan Reynolds; Russ Gerst; Jery Leaphart; Judy Wood; Frank Fergusion;John Hutchison;Jeff Strahl

Subject: Re: Invitation to an interview . . .

 

Jim,

That date is good. What I will want to discuss is the 9/11-energy connection, free energy suppression, and Ace Baker’s use of Steven Jones-type disinfo tactics to discredit the Hutchison Effect. Also I need to inform your audience that Andrew Johnson did not send "hate correspondence" to Baker, and that it was the other way around. I will read, on air, excerpts from some of the emails Ace sent, such as (paraphrased) "I hate Judy Wood, she’s a liar", "John Hutchison is a fraud", etc. Also I must mention on air that Judy and the others don’t wish to be on your show because you support someone who sent them hate correspondence. Jim, I am disappointed that you had him on again on Sept 9. He is bad news. He mirrors Steven Jones disinfo tactics to discourage people from checking the evidence. People say that you are purposely covering up the Hutchison Effect and it’s relation to free energy suppression.

I will also mention that Andrew and Russ have sent me hate-type correspondence for my refusal to state that you are a paid operative. And that Judy will not respond to me at all, not even to my apologetic emails. I will mention Judy changed her sitemeter password thereby removing my ability to track visits to her site from my posts, and that she is slowing my ability to expose 9/11. I will reveal to all, the paranoia and denial that exists, and that they shut a person out for having their own opinion of things.

The above is definitely the current state of affairs in 9/11 research, as I see it. Unless things change by Oct 16.

My first name is below.

Thanks.

Chester

 

—– Original Message —–

From: jfetzer

To: cb_brooklyn, jfetzer

Subject: Invitation to an interview . . .

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:25:01 -0500

 

cb,

Actually, the situation has changed and we are being scaled back to one

hour but at the same start time during November, according to the latest

report from the network. I would like to have you on, however, to dis-

cuss the state of 9/11 research as you see it. How about Thursday, 16

October 2008? Let me know if this works. I’ll need a land-line number.

Thanks.

Jim

—–Original Message—–

From: cb_brooklyn

Sent: 02 October 2008 23:44

To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….; jfetzer

Cc: Morgan Reynolds; rdgerst; Jsleaphart; Judy Wood; FRANKFERG johnhutchison; jstrahl

Subject: RE: Invitation to an interview . . .

Jim, I sent my phone # to you separately.

Andrew, you need not worry about that.

—– Original Message —–

From: "Andrew Johnson"

To: cb_brooklyn, jfetzer

Subject: RE: Invitation to an interview . . .

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:57:53 +0100

CB,

 

I hope you will be defining the terms "hate-type correspondence" clearly on air, and then reading out VERBATIM the messages from ME that match this definition.

 

If you can do this, that will be just fine!

 

Have a wonderful show, as I said!

 

 

I will also mention that Andrew and Russ have sent me hate-type correspondence for my refusal to state that you are a paid operative. And that Judy will not respond to me at all, not even to my apologetic emails. I will mention Judy changed her sitemeter password thereby removing my ability to track visits to her site from my posts, and that she is slowing my ability to expose 9/11. I will reveal to all, the paranoia and denial that exists, and that they shut a person out for having their own opinion of things.

Later e-mails from CB Brooklyn

—–Original Message—–
From: cb_brooklyn
Sent: 04 October 2008 06:03
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….; rdgers; ‘Morgan Reynolds’; Jsleaphart; ‘Judy Wood’; FRANKFERG; ‘johnhutchison’
Cc: James Fetzer
Subject: The Strange Case of CB Brooklyn (by Andrew Johnson)

RE: The Strange Case of CB Brooklyn
www.checktheevidence…
Andrew Johnson
02 Oct 2008

Andrew,

Due to your violation of my trust by publishing personal emails designed for a limited number of people, including my email address, I will no longer consider you trustworthy in any way, and will not communicate with you anymore.

This may change if you decide to apologize and admit your wrongdoings.

I understand Jim Fetzer’s reaction to you. You are "childish", just as Fetzer said.

Judy Wood has lost it, and can’t find it. I can understand because her student and intructors were murdered. The way I see it, she has brainwashed you and Russ in the process. You and Russ are being taken for suckers. You don’t have the guts to see the obvious regarding Fetzer. You are doing a tremendous disservice to Judy and the truth of 9/11.

For you to publish something when in an emotional state of mind shows you don’t know right from wrong.

If you want to obsess and nitpick over unimportant details in emails (definition of "hate correspondence", etc), that is your choice. I choose to spend my time with important issues.

In case it’s not obvious to you what your problem is, I will explain: You, Russ, and Judy need me to go along with your "Fetzer is in on it" thesis because you know it’s nonsense. If you were so confident in it yourself, you wouldn’t need my approval now would you. After all, what does it have to do with the 9/11 evidence? You need my reasurance due to your own insecurities.

I look forward to speaking with Jim about this on his show. I don’t know how much detail about the 9/11 evidence I will go into, as I will feel awkard promoting Judy’s work when she doesn’t even respond to me, not to mention the way her attack dogs (you and Russ) come after me.

Chester

 

—–Original Message—–
From: cb_brooklyn
Sent: 04 October 2008 08:39
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….; rdgerst; ‘Morgan Reynolds’; Jsleaphart; ‘Judy Wood’; FRANKFERG; ‘johnhutchison’
Subject: RE: Fetzer and Baker

Andrew,

I will give you the respect of responding more appropriately to your email below than last time.

I did not "put out" false information. It was a private email to a limited number of people. In addition, it was in an emotional moment, which is why I chose the words "hate-type". I understand your sensitivity regarding Ace’s hate messages and don’t believe your emails to me were hateful. This is a big difference from Ace’s on air comments about Judy and John, and false information about you sending hate mail. But you took this a step further and posted my emails on a public website. Do you think this appropriate?

"In on it", "paid op", "deliberate action on his part"… sounds like all the same thing to me. The differences are minute in this context and unimportant. Red herrings. Why do you concentrate on these?

The idea that "The actions of Jim Fetzer in the last 12 months are consistent with someone who is attempting to keep important parts of the cover up in place." is based on faulty analysis. In other words, you are ignoring the fact that he continuously invites Judy on the show, and goes out of his way to have you guest host because Judy won’t go with Fetzer hosting. He has promoted her work at his presentations. Unfortunately he fell for Ace’s faulty analysis. Paying close attention to the difference between "power sources" are "field effects" is not his expertise and he doesn’t see the relevance. As I’ve said before, I didn’t know the relevance either until Judy explained it to me. And that’s one reason I modified my Global Elite Agenda post, to make it as accurate as possible.

This is what you and others need to understand: Fetzer is not part of this group. He does not understand the relevance/importance of exposing the energy issue. He does not understand that Judy knows what happens on 9/11 and that her 9/11 research is accurate. Instead, he concentrates on a broad array of topics, including JFK. Is he really "in on it"?

No one ever explained (to me) how Fetzer tried to "own" Judy’s work. And I don’t see how that relates to this anyway. He invites you and Judy on his show. He goes out of his way to let you guest host.

Perhaps you can augment The Strange Case of CB Brooklyn and explain to people your reasoning for needing me to agree with you on this issue. I’m sure you do agree that you were attacking me and arguing about a point (Fetzer) that is of no relevance to us exposing the truth of 9/11. And that Judy cut me off due to the Fetzer issue.

I was at the Path station, waited a while, then took a walk around the GZ complex, saw trucks being hosed down. It would have been nice to meet you too, and I wanted to, but it did not happen this time. Perhaps someday it will, and if it does I hope we will both be in good spirits.

You seem to be changing the issue from "attack CB because he won’t agree with me on Fetzer", to "attack CB by posting on a public site because I am angry at CB’s emails". Do you see the difference?

I know my anonymity has caused much difficulties and am sorry about that. Hopefully going on Fetzer’s show will help fix things.

I am glad you appreciate my numerous articles, as I did spend a lot of time putting them together, not to mention exposing them.

So, how am I covering up 9/11? I know, you’re not accusing me of that. So then, what is this whole thing about? And why did Judy cut me off, especially when I have been exposing her work all over the planet?

Chester

—– Original Message —–
From: "Andrew Johnson"
To: cb_brooklyn, rdgerst, "’Morgan Reynolds’" , Jsleaphart, "’Judy Wood’" , FRANKFERG, "’johnhutchison’"
Subject: RE: Fetzer and Baker (formerly "Is the bailout the payoff source of that Wanta situation?")
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:12:21 +0100

CB,

 

I just want to add a final point here:

 

There is a difference between coming to different conclusions and knowingly putting out false information.

 

We disagree about Fetzer’s motives and intent – and that is, of course, part and parcel of life. However, when you put out false information, that is different.

 

In the e-mail to Jim Fetzer, you made at least these false statements:

 

1) That I had sent you hate-type correspondence

2) You stated that we (Dr Wood and I) had refused to go on Fetzer’s programme because he supported someone who sent hate correspondence.

3) You stated in relation to Jim Fetzer that Andrew and Russ had sent you hate-type correspondence for your refusal to state that Fetzer was a paid operative.

 

What I actually said was that I concluded that Jim Fetzer was helping to cover up what the perps did on 9/11 and what I meant was that this would be classed as a crime if all the evidence did ever make it into a court of law etc. I said that it was very likely a deliberate action on Fetzer’s part. I certainly did not say he was a "paid op", nor did I ask you to say it. This is rather different to what you implied (I can’t remember what Russ said, you’ll have to take that up with him)

 

The actions of Jim Fetzer in the last 12 months are consistent with someone who is attempting to keep important parts of the cover up in place.

 

For someone who has done some excellent summary articles, with attention to detail, this is surprising. How is this different to what Ace Baker has done? (This is rhetorical question, by the way).

 

And, I have no idea what a blog (i.e. the link you sent) has to do with our recent e-mails and their civility or lack thereof. The blog is what someone else said and not a gauge of whether CB Brooklyn has knowingly put out false information.

 

Do not make the mistake of thinking I am ungrateful for your work in compiling and posting articles which have generated a lot of traffic to "checkev" and remain largely unchallenged (from what I can tell) in their content. Do not make the mistake of thinking I am ungrateful for your work in posting round forums information about Mars etc. But, when you make false statements about me, as Ace Baker has and  Jim Fetzer has, when I was so comfortable that your goal was the truth, then I become  disappointed and mystified and my gratitude tends to evaporate.

 

Perhaps if we’d met in person and I’d shaken your hand, shared a joke or something, I would feel differently and things would’ve turned out differently – but at the moment, I am once again disappointed at the way someone seems to be putting out false information as a reaction to a disagreement – and this is a pattern that has become all too familiar in my time in trying to speak about and get to the truth of 9/11.

 

The last time this happened, I requested that someone correct this promulgation of false information – they refused – and insulted me. What will you do?

 

Andrew

—–Original Message—–
From: cb_brooklyn
Sent: 03 October 2008 10:01
To: ad.johnson; rdgers; ‘Morgan Reynolds’; Jsleaphart; ‘Judy Wood’; FRANKFERG; ‘johnhutchison’
Subject: RE: Fetzer and Baker (formerly "Is the bailout the payoff source of that Wanta situation?")

One of the biggest honors of my life was working directly with the one scientist on the planet who’s actually doing something about 9/11. But because of severe friction in the group she has shut me out. I have no idea how she feels because she won’t communicate with me. It is my intention to help her and everyone else by discussing this rationally on Fetzer’s show. I hope to show her how much I enjoy being involved, and that she has gone way overboard on the Fetzer issue. I also hope to share the exposure of the truth of 9/11 with her and everyone else. If this will happen, it will be this year, possibly this month. If it doesn’t happen this year, it will never happen. But it will happen.

Read the following quotes from the truthaction troll farm. Then read our emails the past few days. Who’s more civil?
www.bloglines.com/bl…

JohnA
Tue Sep 30, 2008
".the issue of space weaponry has indeed been discussed and thoroughly debunked.."

Danse
Wed Oct 01, 2008
"..There is no evidence whatsoever that space beams or video morphology were employed on 911..
..However, there is another layer to the Onion: both space weapons and video morphology are indeed being pursued by the maniacs at the Pentagon. Check out Gagnon on the militarization of space and the Pentagon’s own "Revolution in Military Affairs" for a discussion on video morphology.."

chrisc
Wed Oct 01, 2008
"…I agree that Bruce Gagnon is well worth listening to on the militarisation of space.."

Dem Bruce Lee Stylez!
Wed Oct 01, 2008
"…Yea there is a space program that involves space based weapons, but that’s completely separate from "Space Beams brought down the Towers" disinfo garbage…"

siddhartha
Thu Oct 02, 2008
"..And of course the topics of depleted uranium and the weaponization of space are very important.."

Non Believer
Thu Oct 02, 200
"…I think the DU speakers were legit, and Fitrakis is legit on other subjects.."

chrisc
Thu Oct 02, 2008
"…You misunderstood what I wrote — I think most the "arguments" we are all having here are due to misunderstandings.." 

 

—–Original Message—–
From: cb_brooklyn
Sent: 04 October 2008 15:59
To: ad.johnson rdgerst; ‘Morgan Reynolds’; Jsleaphart; ‘Judy Wood’; FRANKFERG; ‘johnhutchison’
Subject: RE: Fetzer and Baker

Andrew,

It is so unfortunate that you chose to nitpick at minute details instead of admitting your own mistakes, as I have. I conclude you are not very strong.

Chester

—– Original Message —–
From: "Andrew Johnson"
To: cb_brooklyn, rdgerst, "’Morgan Reynolds’" , Jsleaphart, "’Judy Wood’" , FRANKFERG, "’johnhutchison’"
Subject: RE: Fetzer and Baker
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:21:01 +0100

CB,

 

I have pasted your last 2 messages into this one for ease of reference

[as above]

 

 

—–Original Message—–
From: cb_brooklyn
Sent: 04 October 2008 17:06
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….; rdgerst; ‘Morgan Reynolds’; Jsleaphart; ‘Judy Wood’; FRANKFERG; ‘johnhutchison’
Subject: RE: Fetzer and Baker

Oh really? You should check the emails you sent.

Note: the Truth Movement’s end is certainly near when the core group (Qui Tam cases) starts to fall apart. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It is up to you, Russ and Judy, not me.

I will be making a public post about this entire issue today.

—– Original Message —–
From: "Andrew Johnson"
To: cb_brooklyn, rdgerst, "’Morgan Reynolds’" , Jsleaphart, "’Judy Wood’" , FRANKFERG, "’johnhutchison’"
Subject: RE: Fetzer and Baker
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:21:01 +0100

 

In your first response you called me "childish" – this is a view not based on evidence. You implied I was an "attack dog". I have not attacked or insulted you. I have posted an e-mail you sent, which included several false statements and I have highlighted them. This is neither an insult or an attack. It a posting of evidence of your specific actions.

 

Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

 

—–Original Message—–

From: cb_brooklyn [mailto:cb_brooklyn]

Sent: 04 October 2008 19:49

To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….; rdgerst; ‘Morgan Reynolds’; Jsleaphart; ‘Judy Wood’; FRANKFERG; ‘johnhutchison’

Subject: RE: Fetzer and Baker

 

After some thought regarding Jerry’s letter to Alex Jones, I understand more clearly the importance regarding false accusations about attacking or hate-type email. I, of course, (as I have said) made those comments in the heat of the moment. Therefore I now retract them.

Too bad Andrew believes he has no mistakes to admit.

 


CB_Brooklyn

Posted: Oct 5 2008, 07:06 AM

Report Post

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 198
Member No.: 55
Joined: 5-June 07



Paranoia, the destroyer

truth movement trouble

Paranoia
by The Kinks

www.lyricsfreak.com/…

Met a girl called lola and I took her back to my place
Feelin guilty, feelin scared, hidden cameras everywhere
Stop! hold on. stay in control

Girl, I want you here with me
But Im really not as cool as Id like to be
cause theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little yellow man in my head
And theres a true blue inside of me
That keeps stoppin me, touchin ya, watchin ya, lovin ya

Paranoia, the destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer.

Well I fell asleep, then I woke feelin kinda queer
Lola looked at me and said, ooh you look so weird.
She said, man, theres really something wrong with you.
One day you’re gonna self-destruct.
Youre up, youre down, I cant work you out
You get a good thing goin then you blow yourself out.

Silly boy ya self-destroyer. silly boy ya self-destroyer

Silly boy you got so much to live for
So much to aim for, so much to try for
You blowing it all with paranoia
Youre so insecure you self-destroyer

(and it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(here it goes again)
Paranoia, the destroyer

Dr. dr. help me please, I know youll understand
Theres a time device inside of me, Im a self-destructin man
Theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little green man in my head
And he said, youre not goin crazy, youre just a bit sad
cause theres a man in ya, knawin ya, tearin ya into two.

Silly boy ya self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer

Self-destroyer, wreck your health
Destroy friends, destroy yourself
The time device of self-destruction
Light the fuse and start eruption

(yea, it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(heres to paranoia)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(hey hey, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(and it goes like this)

Paranoia, the destroyer
(and it goes like this.)

==================================================

The 9/11 truth movement is entering its next phase.

I am no saint, and know my anonymity has caused difficulties. Because of this, I have decided to go on Jim Fetzer’s show and am scheduled for Oct 16.

The reason for me making this post today is due to Andrew Johnson’s recent post:
The Strange Case of CB Brooklyn
www.checktheevidence……d=204&Itemid=60

The story goes like this:

I have been working closely (and honored to do so) with Dr Judy Wood for a few years now. Of recent times however, she needed me to agree with her on a certain point: the idea that Jim Fetzer is purposely, knowingly and willingly hiding certain aspects of the truth of 9/11. I have tried to get her to see otherwise, and even stressed that we can have different opinions on those items. But she was very uncomfortable with this.

Ace Baker sends a rash of insulting emails to Judy and John Hutchison in an email list with several other individuals. He said to the effect: “I hate Judy Wood, she is a liar”, “John Hutchison is a fraud”, and numerous other things. Ace’s comments were due to his faulty analysis of the Hutchison Effect. Ace believes that John makes “silly upside videos”, but Ace refuses to address all of the evidence, such as, but not limited to, the jellification of metals and news/documentary footage of John’s work on TV. Also, Ace used faulty analysis by assuming John’s Toy UFO experiment was attached to a string to make it appear to levitate. The truth is that the “string” was a wire to conduct electricity and it was not a levitation experiment. As far as I know, Ace has made no admissions of this error on his part.

Ace uses the same type of disinfo tactics as Steven Jones. In 1989, Jones called free energy Cold Fusion “crazy, impossible”. Last year (or the year before) at an Arizona Truth conference, Jones called the 9/11 directed energy weapon evidence “crazy, impossible”. Ace Baker calls John Hutchison’s work “silly upside-down videos”. Jones does not address all the evidence, and neither does Ace. The different between the two, however, is that Jones is a professional con artist, while Baker is a brainwashed fool.

Jim Fetzer is a strong supporter of Ace. He knows Ace is an expert in digital processing and trusts his opinion of the Hutchison Effect. But Fetzer does not understand Ace’s errors.

I decided to step in and try to fix things. Remarkably, on Aug 30, in an email to many people including Jim Fetzer, Ace admitted he disrupted the group with his insults. (Unfortunately his rude insults returned later, but that is not the scope of this article.) Thinking I did good, I also thought Fetzer understood the truth about Baker’s analysis, due to the information in my emails regarding the faulty analysis.

On Sept 10, Judy asked me (privately) why I (still) seem to be protecting Jim.

On Sept 29, Russ Gerst (in the group) suggested that I and Fetzer both spread disinfo, and that I won’t “denounce” Fetzer. This started an email argument in the group between Andrew, Russ, and myself.

Little did I know, however, that Fetzer had Ace Baker on his show again on Sept 9, which was shortly before Judy’s email I mention above. Learning this had upset me and had expressed to the group how much of a “fool” I felt. They even got me to say that Jim was hiding the Hutchison Effect due to not understanding it. But that was not good enough for Andrew and Russ. They insisted that Jim was purposely/knowingly/willingly hiding the Hutchison Effect.

On Oct 2, Andrew said “There is no need for you to feel like a fool because you still think Fetzer is not helping the perps willingly” and suggested I go on Jim Fetzer’s show to discuss this: “It will give the rest of a chance to hear what you have to say as well, which will be great.”

As anyone can plainly see by my articles, I support all the issues of the group, including directed energy weapons, Hurricane Erin, Magnetometer Data (virtual proof of HAARP), the Hutchison Effect, TV Fakery, holograms:
www.checktheevidence……d=199&Itemid=60
www.checktheevidence……d=182&Itemid=60
www.checktheevidence……d=163&Itemid=60
www.checktheevidence……d=151&Itemid=60
www.checktheevidence……id=91&Itemid=60
www.checktheevidence……id=95&Itemid=60

Not to mention numerous works on 911researchers.com.

Judy has cutoff all communication with me. She does not respond to my apologetic emails. In addition, she changed her sitemeter password preventing me monitoring visits from my forum posts.

So, what happened here? I, with the best of intentions, try to patch things up in the group. And now I get put down and shutout. (It should be noted that Judy had been upset with my opinion of Jim before Ace admitted his disruptive behavior.)

A little paranoia might help keep one on their toes, but when it approaches a certain point, the negative effects outweigh the positive, which is why I wanted to help Judy out. I understand her frustrations of not knowing who to trust. Her student at Clemson was murdered, her instructors at Virginia Tech were murdered. So, it might be easier for her to assume someone is disinfo when they are not. But I fear this may affect her ability to do top-of-the-line 9/11 research, as she has always done.

I feel Andrew and Russ have allowed Judy to brainwash them into thinking that Fetzer is “in on it”, simply to remain on her good side. But I cannot do that. Because of this, Russ and Andrew have taken a very confrontational tone with me. True, their rudeness was no where near Ace Baker’s disgraceful comments, but their behavior is not something I (or anyone else for that matter) would take lying down.

One of the reasons Judy is so popular these days is due to Jim’s support. Yet Judy, Andrew, and Russ ignore that fact. Andrew repeatedly states that his view of Fetzer is based on evidence. I had asked the group, specifically:

If, hypothetically, Fetzer was “in on it”, why would he continuously invite Judy on his show? On top of that, why would Jim go out of his way to let Andrew guest-host the show, just so that Judy would go on the show?

The following is Andrew’s response to the email group:

=================================================
We already covered this – in a phrase – "perceived ownership" of said research. Read this from Shakespeare (Henry IV Part 1). It applies to Fetzer as well as to many politicians and leaders. Same sh*t different day. This makes more sense to me now than when we first studied it in class perhaps 28 years ago. The key part is highlighted:

www.online-literatur…

PRINCE HENRY
I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness:
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That, when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wonder’d at,
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But when they seldom come, they wish’d for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
So, when this loose behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glittering o’er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I’ll so offend, to make offence a skill;
Redeeming time when men think least I will.

=================================================

Something is seriously wrong when one needs to refer to centuries-old literature to explain their point.

Andrew brought the truth movement to its next phase by posting my emails on his website. I cannot, therefore, continue to promote his site, including my own articles on his site. In addition, I cannot support Judy because she won’t respond to me, and cut me out of sitemeter.

Perhaps I should use this and retire from 9/11 work. My articles have put things in context for many many people, in and out of the Truth Movement, and hope they have been beneficial.

Detailing the visits to my articles and to Judy’s site (from my forum posts) might hinder a positive outcome, therefore I will be silent. What I will say though, is that this and this is nothing compared to who I’ve brought in. I hope someday to share the details.

Andrew said the reason for him posting my private group emails on his site was to protect himself from false accusations. The accusations in question being me stating he sent me “attacking emails” and “hate-type correspondence”. I later admitted my mistake making those accusations, but he makes no admissions regarding his need for me to hold his view of things.

In one of the earlier emails, he follows my comment:

“This group has really gone to the dogs. I’m approaching my breaking point.”

with:

“Woof! Woof! Poor you!”

I will conclude by saying this: If the truth movement fails, it will be due to peoples’ pride, ego, envy, greed, and anger. The perps are counting on this. I wonder who will win? I hope the information I post here will encourage a positive outcome.

This post has been edited by CB_Brooklyn on Oct 5 2008, 07:12 AM

Mini Profile

Top

Andrew Johnson

Posted: Oct 5 2008, 08:05 AM

Report Post

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 71
Member No.: 103
Joined: 11-June 07

Warn: (0%) -----

Thanks CB!

The disagreement with CB over the motives behind Jim Fetzer’s actions has been going on for most of this year, but it came to a head because of what CB Brooklyn did. (I did not have a problem leaving it as a disagreement and was glad CB kept posting links and articles etc)

For those without the time to read all the article I posted, I would just like to point the following, as a summary. :

1) CB Brooklyn has done some excellent work in posting round articles and links raising awareness of 9/11 Issues and I am truly grateful for this (and I said this to him).

2) Being grateful does not permit me to stay quiet when people send out false information about my actions (i.e. sending hate-type correspondence and supposedly coercing someones behaviour).

3) As people can find out in the article I wrote about Jim Fetzer’s threat to Judy wood ("Handling the Truth") I do taunt people once they start to do this sort of thing, or if they start to "play the victim".

4) CB states we insisted he agree with us about Fetzer – this is not true – and he has presented no evidence that it is true. I have posted all the evidence about Fetzer and if CB doesn’t agree with it, that’s fine – and I disagree with him. If we were "forcing him to agree", then what were we going to "give him" or "let him in on" if he did? CB doesn’t say this (because we made no such offer or arrangement).

I am sorry that CB Brooklyn has chosen to react the way he has – perhaps if I knew him better and we had met in New York, on Jan 17th 2008, as Dr Wood and I had offered to do, things would have turned out differently. (For someone who has been honoured at working with Dr Wood I am puzzled why he passed up the chance to meet her – when the trip was made at her expense).

As it is, those dispassionately evaluating what has unfolded will see much (if not all) of the pattern with Jim Fetzer and Ace Baker’s actions and statements fairly closely repeated, here, I think.

It’s all about "playing the man, not the ball".

In all of this, please rememeber that the evdence shows:

1) Weather Modification technology is real and was used on 9/11

2) Free energy is real and was part of the mechanism or process which destroyed the WTC complex

3) The cover up of these basic truths is very subtle in some cases and if you can be as disspassionate an observer as possible, I think it becomes easier to see this.

Whatever you think of Andrew Johnson, CB Brooklyn, Judy Wood et al, 1 & 2 are the key points which can be borne in mind in changing our future.

This post has been edited by Andrew Johnson on Oct 5 2008, 08:41 AM

Mini Profile

Top

Andrew Johnson

Posted: Oct 5 2008, 10:24 AM

Report Post

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 71
Member No.: 103
Joined: 11-June 07

Warn: (0%) -----

In relation to this thread, please see this post:

forum.911movement.or……0#entry15251963

Thank you.

Related articles...

Comments are closed.