Maxwell C. Bridges: Distrust but Verify

2012-02-10 at 12:31 pm

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I agree with your statements:

Indeed, the Razor can be more or less abused. However there is the point of complexity, and that as it applies to the proposition that all of the visual imagery from 9/11 is digitally manufactured. The idea that this is even remotely possible is staggering. We are not simply dealing with TV footage, we are dealing with footage from people from many angles and POVs that never appeared on TV, but were subsequently put up on You Tube. In other words we are dealing with unmanageable complexity.

Whereas Mr. Shack provides us many nuggets of truth in his efforts, you have stumbled upon some dross of disinformation in his postings, because it is he himself who wants us -- nudges us, urges us -- to extrapolate and hold up all 9/11 footage and imagery as products of digital manipulation and thus unreal. In particular, his zany responses seem to target Dr. Wood, because he seems to

not want

to review Dr. Wood's textbook "out of intellectual honesty"; he implies that because her textbook stands upon the shoulders of tainted images, it follows the computer principle of "garbage in / garbage out."

I take the paraphrased "Ronald Ray-Gun" (pun intended) approach: "Distrust but verify."

Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

And I would add that it is ludicrous to propose that such digital fakery would be done which proves the towers exploded – rather than ‘collapsing’ into their footsteps and the mantra went. If such footage was computer generated it would have made more sense to show a ‘gravity’ driven collapse – which these images clearly do not.

Agreed. This ends up being another area where potentially the dross of disinformation in Mr. Shack's work is visible.

Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

There is the point of whether Shack actually proves anything with his side by side expositions. You feel that he does. I don’t see that. He claims never to have been debunked. Perhaps those who might have the expertise to do so see it as so ludicrous that it is a waste of time to take it serious enough to do so {?}

No. Allow me to clarify. I feel Mr. Shack has made a convincing case that some level of digital manipulation occurred. It is highly conceivable FOR THE INSTANCES HE DOCUMENTED. I do NOT believe Mr. Shack has by any means taken all imagery off of the table as being fake products; he's simply raised the "distrust but verify" flag.

As was stated in the "When did they know?" thread [that Mr. McKee had to post for me, because the blog was inexplicably not letting me post anything], if all of the footage are products of digital faking, they should have at least gotten the collapse footage closer to Hollywood standards for being real and in agreement with Newtonian physics.

Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

As far as “energy requirements” Dr. Wood has a problem with such as well. Where does the energy come from that she claims drives this unknown weapon? See the article by Dr. Jenkins on the energy requirements for such a weapon, and the problems of hiding the other atmospheric effects that would need be present in their use.

Thank you for that excellent segue, Mr. HybridRogue1, and such an accurate & keen eye you have for Dr. Wood's problem. It should be pointed out that Dr. Wood's textbook only hints at what the energy sources could be. One option was free energy from Hurricane Erin. Another option could be cold fusion nuclear "generators" (my term) which then supposedly yields Hutchison side-effects. I have high hopes that Mr. Shack's crack team will view some of those side-effect images (e.g., fireman stepping right over a localized fire on one end of some aluminum cladding that miraculously wasn't burning any of the paper that littered the street) and discover the artifacts of digial manipulation.

My speculation was milli-nuclear generators powered the DEW devices due to the hot-spots that satillites captured and burned for many weeks.

Always bringing out the Dr. Jenkins, eh, Mr. HybridRogue1. (Do you have a link?) How much of Dr. Jenkin's old article even applies to Dr. Wood's new textbook? When Dr. Jenkins writes a book review -- chapter by chapter -- of Dr. Wood's textbook, then maybe he'll be applicable. I won't dwell on the problems that Dr. Jenkins himself has, like the irony of his research and employers being in the very area he tries to debunk Dr. Wood on.

What's it going to take to get you on the same page to be reading Dr. Wood's actual words from her textbook and then determining their validity and applicability?