STALKERS
Forum title: Ok ATS, is John Hutchison a proven fraud?
I originally was going to post a fairly brief reply to this post:
[i]reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread448616/pg1#pid6048630]post by TravisT[/url][/i]
[more]
Not too long after beginning research on this topic I realized that this was becoming too large and perhaps was better off as a new topic.
Later I found another post proclaiming John to be a proven fraud while digging through posts mentioning John Hutchison on ATS-
[i]reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread426529/pg8#pid5671480]post by Intothepitwego[/url][/i]
[more]
For the most part I agree about Billy Meier, even if he had something legit early on he destroyed any "street cred" he had by perpetrating multiple fakes. His ex-wife making the statement that he produced fakes/hoaxes doesn't help his case. The "wedding cake ufo”; faked photos and misleading photos taken of television shows, dinosaur books and other things; and the "ray gun"; don't inspire much faith from me in Billy Meier. This is my strong opinion that, at least his later stuff was very suspicious and enough things were clearly exposed to be fraudulent that there is little question left in my mind concerning Mr. Meier's credulity His early UFO pictures, to the best of my knowledge, still pass analysis by photo experts and no one has been able to produce/duplicate what is shown in his early photos with technology available at the time. It has been a couple years since I've given Billy any thought or research so my information could be dated and or completely incorrect concerning him.
I realize that there are still some die-hard supporters of Mr. Meier around, you are welcome to contact, debate or flame me via U2U but please don't confuse the topic of this post with anything concerning Billy Meier or other unrelated topics.
Ok back to the topic at hand:
If any group of individuals can shed some light on this subject, perhaps even answer this question, I believe it is the members here at ATS that can deny ignorance and get the job done. That question is:
[b]Has John Hutchison been [u]proven [/u] to be a fraud? [/b]
to be more specific
[b] Have all, or even a substantial portion, of his varied demonstrations and results been disproven and/or exposed as hoaxes beyond any reasonable doubt? Is there any evidence condemning John other than the debate over the “ufo on a string video” (he clearly points out the wire/string in the original video before and during the demonstration, he wasn't trying to hide it, by definition this is not an attempt to deceive or defraud [3],) Can anyone reference anything new? Something better than the few attempts to duplicate a small portion of the reported effects with optical trickery that still don't completely duplicate what is seen in the videos? Has anyone detected a string, a string attachment point, editing techniques, other obvious or even subtle indications, perhaps even proof of a hoax while analyzing his videos? [/b]
Now in reply to the posters above...
Am I to take what was said as a truth statement that John Hutchinson is a proven fraud or is it merely your opinion that I mistakenly took as a truth statement? Is the lumping of Billy Meier and John Hutchison an attempt at associative fallacy? If it was a truth statement, then please enlighten me. Share with me your evidence that proves he is fraud. If it was just your opinion then by all means you are entitled to it, but please in the future don't attempt to pass along thoughts, ideas, theories and opinion as proven fact. Perhaps someone has or you have effectively debunked or disproven all of his results or proven several clear and intentional hoaxes that I am not aware of. If this is the case then you have my apologies.
Introduction:
I am asserting that claims of a hoaxing or fraud are extremely strong and clear claims, that need to be supported by very strong evidence.
Any substantial evidence or information supporting any point of view in this debate will be considered and appreciated by myself and hopefully everyone else. Please attempt to keep basic opinions, emotion, and especially hatred, flames, prejudice, insults and especially ignorance to a minimum. If someone simply does not believe John , doesn't want to believe in the possibilities if his effect is legitimate, simply hates John and other “hippies” or similar thoughts and opinions and you have no facts to add then please, just be cool, sit back and see what happens here; or move on. If it is really “nagging” you to include your thoughts then do so, but I am asking the moderators to please keep a close watch on this topic.
I suggest three main hypotheses in this case: (we aren't attempting to prove any of these in this thread expect for 3, but supporting evidence for the others is welcome.)
1. Everything John Hutchinson produces is a genuine, if not always predicable and as yet may be unproven, not generally accepted , completely understood or easily repeatable.
2. Some of John Hutchinson's results have been genuinely produced. Other results have been exaggerated, incorrectly represented and/or poorly understood or .
3. Everything John Hutchison has presented as experiments and results are fraudulent and have been perpetrated as an intentional hoax. He decided to attempt to fool the world long ago and has done a rather impressive job of it.
Still, again, remember the primary goal of this forum topic is to logically and honestly answer the questions “Is John Hutchinson currently a proven fraud?”
To my knowledge, considering my somewhat limited yet expanding research concerning John Hutchison:
Summary:
There is a good deal of controversy and debate. So far I have read a substantial amount of poorly researched, negative and /or ignorant debunkers, disbelievers, and pseudo-skeptics proposing how he [b]might [/b] have faked his videos, some ad hominem and otherwise deceptive arguing, but nobody has fully reproduced or adequately explained to me how he faked his results or perpetrated a hoax, hoaxes or fraud. I have also reviewed quite a bit of material and testimony in support of Mr. John Hutchison, although I would like to see some more evidence of individuals and scientists speaking on his behalf, witnessing his experiments, doing peer reviews and duplicating results from his experiments..
Examination and observation:
The super-strong electromagnet/upside down camera[4] does not explain what a lot of non-metallic objects do in the videos. Nor have they explained what many metallic samples have exhibited. Metals appear to liquefy, twist, break apart and/or bend in some videos. Analysis of some of his metal samples indicate aging, spontaneous rusting and changes to molecular structure [3][12][17]. The attempted debunking of these results have not effectively and fairly explained the majority of these alleged frauds. Many of the reported effects have not been duplicated on video, even using 'Hollywood' trickery. (Personally, I would like to see a debunker duplicate the metal bar breaking apart and then one half flipping over while the other stays in place and/or duplicate other similar observations, especially the ones with water, other liquids and metals.)
How large of an electromagnet consuming how many watts of energy would it take to suspend a 70lb. canon ball? Someone please do the math on this one, my primary assumptions are leading me to think that John Hutchison wouldn't have been able to afford his power bills back in the '80s if he is producing what is in many of his video with large and powerful electromagnets alone.
Many results that John has reported have not been explained completely [12]. Almost everyone likes complete explanations, solid evidence and repeatable experiments; but this goes for all sides, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. For example, if no person was able to provide proof of a hoax it doesn't empirically prove that Mr. Hutchinson is genuine either.
The science community, in general, don't like his methods because he “tinkers” and “tweaks” with stuff, doesn't follow scientific method and sometimes doesn't or isn't able to completely explain how and what he is doing, how he is doing it, the theories behind it and his results. Sometimes John has trouble reproducing results from his own experiments and when they do work they can behave and succeed seemingly at random with anomalous and unexpected behavior and results. Other entities have problems reproducing his results. Some people seem to lash out at him simply because he has long hair, doesn't wear a lab coat or a suit, and/or at his mannerisms and personality don't meet their expectations about what he “should” be, among other interpersonal and social reasons. This doesn't disprove or debunk him, it just shows that there is a social prejudice against him in certain circles and by some individuals.
Results produced can not be dismissed simply because someone doesn't follow the established scientific method to produce them. Results also do not have to be replicated every time on demand to be results; to be "scientific" and generally accepted as "proven", yes, to be results, no. Just because people have trouble replicating his experiments and results it doesn't necessarily make him a fraud either. One does not have to understand results or believe them to be possible in an experiment for those results to be valid. Lack of scientific recognition is not proof of fraud.
Scientists from places like Lockheed Martin, the US Army and NASA, among other organizations, have visited him trying to figure out what he is doing and how he is doing it. The Canadian Government seized all of his equipment in 1989 and classified it, denying the return of this equipment to John thus forcing him to start over. Boyd Bushman, a retired senior scientist from Lockheed Martin acknowledges the theft of his equipment [2]. The Japanese have invested in some of his experiments and to the best of my knowledge they have not accused him of being fraudulent. [2][3] John maintains a vast amount of video data for anyone to examine for themselves [12] and reports that one of the effects named after him recently has been accidentally reproduced during a university experiment [11]. John strikes me as a very agreeable and fair person, I believe he would be willing to attempt to show you the effect in person if approached with the respect any being deserves.
So far I have found no evidence that proves, or even strongly indicates to me, that John Hutchinson is a “proven fraud.” Although I have noticed, as a result of my research so far, what seems to be a concerted effort to discredit John for some reason, I have “plowed” through a tremendous number of individuals offering no evidence of fraud or a hoax at all, but clearly and proudly pronouncing John Hutchinson to be a fraud. Then I have witnesses a lesser number of individuals claiming evidence of fraud but not producing anything close to proof yet, at least no where near to my satisfaction. I shall refer to these entities as “The Cult of Disbelief” from now on.
At least one individual has even used underhanded tactics, deliberate trickery and propaganda against him. An edited video [10] was dubiously posted on YouTube.com that shows John doing the experiment with the”toy ufo” attached to a wire with all sound and explanations removed, this does appear to be intentionally cut from the video; in what looks an attempt to make John appear to be obviously and intentionally perpetrating a hoax then being caught in the act. Then the poster claims that only after John was “caught” that he offered the wire explanation. This source is the only original one stating anything similar to my note on [2] by saying “Later he actually admitted the fakery.”
I believe this is the same individual in [3]) So far this apparently immoral and perhaps malicious individual strongly appears to be the original source, or closely tied to the source, responsible for so many people believing that the “ufo on a string” is an intentional hoax and proven. Could this individual also be the original source for the so far unreferenced statement in the wikipedia [2] claiming John admitted to being “creative” with that experiment?
Then I observed a social effect of many self proclaimed “skeptics” and their “fanboys” having jumped on this bandwagon with their battle cry basically being 'look theres a string! Everything he has ever done is fake! YouTube dude says it is so! Case solved! Nothing to see here, he has been debunked, move along!' This video when considered in its original form may be still be controversial but in no way proves that John Hutchison is a hoaxer or a fraud. The experiment was originally done by a well respected T.T. Brown [3][12].
Editorial:
I find it interesting that with roughly 40 years of John Hutchinson experiments on videos not a single person, skeptic, debunker, scientist, video expert, basement troll or computer expert/analyst has found evidence of a single string or other obvious sign of a hoax in a single frame of his videos. I also find it hard to believe that with so many individuals obviously wanting to discredit John, that if they had found the proof of fraud or even a shred of evidence, that some reference or link to it would appear in some of the material I have already researched.
Some scientists may consider his ideas plausible or possible but stay away from him and don't openly support him in fear of ridicule and the loss of their oh so precious grant money. I propose this as a reason why there isn't a large body of accredited experts clamoring to validate his work.
I went through several pages of ATS links after searching for “John Hutchison”. I have found quite a few topics either containing or concerning John Hutchinson and his self-named effects here on ATS in the science, conspiracy, mysterious and other forums, but and I haven't found one yet that is in Skunk Works or that has been “stamped” with “HOAX.” I am using this as my primary circumstantial indication that Mr. John Hutchinson has not been effectively debunked or proven a HOAX by the community at www.abovetopsecret.com to date.
I'm not claiming or making any truth statements here that John Hutchinson has discovered anything or not. I am not making the assertion that he isn't a fraud. I'm not directly attempting to defend John, but at least so far, I have been forced to do some John defending due to some ignorant John hating.
Why do some individuals put so much effort into being a pseudo-skeptics? Is it so they can sleep better at night “knowing” that there can't possibly be anything unknown out there to afraid of or worry about? Why do so many people seem to be terrified of what might be possible? Do they simply enjoy being ignorant and arguing just for the sake of arguing? Libel, slander and defamation of character is fun and exciting for them?
It appears that some individuals and groups are threatened by him somehow. There seem to be people that don't like to have to include all the extra possibilities his reported results bring to the table in science discussions and debate. Some people simply appear to enjoy hating on him and calling him lots of colorful names. There may also be an entity or entities that have a vested interest in discrediting him.
Those of you who have been supporting these proud and self proclaimed skeptics, the “piggy-back” skeptics and “fanboys” that haven't even bothered to do any investigation or research of their own, those of you who based your judgments, flames, disbelief, defamations and worse on the “ufo on a string hoax” slam campaign, those of you who openly, loudly and vehemently proclaimed your “truth”, really should be ashamed of yourselves. In my lifetime, I have born witness to some very despicable and nasty behavior, and the damage after, from people proclaiming absolute truth in support of a blatant and/or purposeful lie. Perhaps this lie has caused some amount of damage that can not be entirely reversed. Is this cool, is this funny, is this fair? Don't flame me or lash out at me for exposing you, if you are guilty of being described in this paragraph then I suggest you take some time to go rethink your misguided and ignorant actions and your life in general. Perhaps even go back and retract all unproven truth statements so boldly and assuredly posted.
The preceding statement is not directed at anyone who is suspicious, undecided or genuinely skeptical that has merely expressed their thoughts, misgivings, honest debate or opinions. Having an opinion and expressing it as such is perfectly acceptable, professing an opinion as “truth” can and does cause damage to other and is most definitely ignorant. Publicly and intentionally spreading half truths and/or lies about someone else, especially with intent to injure or discredit them, is immoral and illegal for a good reason. Supporting someone in the act of these dirty deeds makes one guilty by association.
Ok enough chastising and back to the topic at hand...
Why am I noticing such a strong effort to discredit Mr. Hutchinson recently? Does it have anything to do with Dr. Judy Wood's research and legal efforts concerning 911?
Personally, I would like to see more of the scientific community, other groups and the general public spend less time, effort and thought on what 'absolutely can not be possible' and bit more time pondering what just might be possible. Examples of the past- at one time many individuals in the science community insisted that it was “impossible” to broadcast radio waves over the Atlantic and later that it was “impossible” to break the sound barrier because the results would somehow violate the “laws” of science that they “knew” at the time.
Links, References and Evidence:
Neutral (at least they claim or attempt to be)-
[1} http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/John_Hutchison - Astronomers are scientists, and scientists are expected to be trustworthy, honest and follow a strict set of rules and laws right? Plagiarism is illegal and morally wrong right? Then why does this page appears to be plagiarized almost entirely, except for references being removed, from this wikipedia.org page -
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchison Note: I have been unable to find any legitimate reference to the quote stating “Hutchison later admitted to being "creative" with the footage, citing pressure from the Discovery Channel to create material for the show and an inability to legally reproduce the original effect, according to Tim Ventura of American Antigravity” First off this statement is hearsay and the stated reference does not contain this quote. Also, Google search returned no results with someone directly quoting John or Tim Ventura saying this, only links to [1] or [2] and websites linking to [1] or [2].
[13] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8059605424836315724&hl=en Google video link
Pro/supporting-
[3] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ_troll_challenge.html
[11] http://hutchisoneffectreproduced.blogspot.com/ independent report of H-effect being reproduced
[12] (John's site here)
[14] http://www.rexresearch.com/hutchisn/hutchisn.htm
[15] http://www.truthforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=382 sites names of individuals who have validated the work of John Hutchinson. Mentions metal samples from the video taped experiments being handed out for public examination and other support.
[16} http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Hathaway_George_664533045.aspx
[17] http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-hutch.asp
Con/Skeptical- (with my explanation of lack of evidence where applicable)
[4] http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2005/05/the-discovery-channel-is-bogus-2/ actually there are pros and cons in the forum posts on this page. Every con I noticed while skimming through claimed, stated or referenced the same questionable “proof” of hoaxing already discussed.
[5] http://www.csicop.org/sb/2007-09/nickell.html This page strikes me as more pseudo-debunking-
“Because evidence available only on film or tape can easily be faked, I enlisted the help of Center for Inquiry colleague Thomas Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry and an experienced photographer and videographer. We decided that what we were seeing might easily have been staged. One video sequence showed an empty one-liter plastic soft-drink bottle wobbling, then shooting suddenly upward. Tom laughed at the suspicious fact that the handheld camera did not follow the flying object, an indication that there was perhaps something up there that the camera should not see. We concluded that the movement of the bottle was consistent with it having been controlled by an “invisible” thread—or rather threads: frame-by-frame study showed that two attachment points would be required. We then reproduced the effect on a similar bottle using the necessary two lengths of monofilament line with which we caused the bottle to wobble and then soar. I was the hidden puppeteer to Tom’s camera. (See figure 2.) “
Note: “Figure 2 “is a small black and white still picture that doesn't show enough detail to evaluate anything.
“Of more interest to National Geographic was Hutchison’s production of “electronic fog.” Tom and I were unimpressed with this effect which we readily simulated by jiggling a jumble of metallic wire, backlit by a suitable lightbulb, before the video camera’s lens.
Our videotaped results—along with clips showing us making our experiments and commenting on them—subsequently aired on the National Geographic Channel (Is It Real? 2006). The similarity of our effects to Hutchison’s are readily apparent. We see no need to give the supposed wizard further attention”
I have been unable to find any reference to this reproduction video or even the series “Is It Real?” via searches on YouTube, Google video or Google search engine.
I also find it humorous that these guys claims that John makes up scientific sounding terms, “Despite Hutchison’s use of pseudoscientific terminology—he bandies about made-up terms like “cronons” and “gravitons”—his work seems anything but scientific. “ Like ZOMG he used the word “pseudoscientific” that must mean like these guys are totally smart and John is a complete loon and a fraud right? Well considering that cronons and gravitrons are both recognized and/or accepted as theoretically possible in and defined by generally accepted schools of (example: string theories and M-theory) quantum mechanics, who really winds up looking ignorant here?
I would have been absolutely convinced of a hoax, if our experienced videographer could have found any evidence in John's videos of a string or attachment points or evidence of video editing to cover their proposed fishing line, but I am going to assume that he was unable to do so. I would like to be able to evaluate their video or at least still pictures captured from their video to see if attachment points or strings were detectable in their reproduction. Until then I am simply going to cop-out and use a classic pseudo-debunkers tactic on these pseudo-debunkers. Even if they did completely reproduce what is seen in the related videos, that doesn't necessarily invalidate or prove anything. But again, video, or it didn't happen.
[6] http://www.trailerparkscience.com/Experiments.html I have been unable to get this site to open on this link or the homepage for over a week now. Is it abandoned? John haters have professed that this site also proves JH to be fraudulent. Once again, video, or it didn't happen.
[7] http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/Hutchison/hutchison.html this page made me laugh because it's author went to a tremendous amount of effort to prove that there was a wire attached to the toy ufo, and did a very thorough and impressive job of it for the most part (I personally didn't like the conclusion). Maybe he should have done a little research like I did and watched the parts where John clearly pointed this fact out multiple times in the original video [3] He might have saved himself much effort and time. .
[8] http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103565 Still more cries citing the “ufo on a string” and assertions that JH is a fraud, with no supporting evidence. I have evidence of the “Amazing” Randi being selective about who he allows to take his “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge,” basically if he can't cheat the applicant or reproduce the result of their claim with slight of hand; he attacks them via ad hominem and other fallacy tactics in an attempt excuse his choice to not allow a challenge. I will provide this evidence but please request via U2U and do not pollute this thread with that topic.
[9] http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2007/01/crackpot-in-canada.html This guy goes into more detail on different effects reported by JH, unfortunately his amount of research and detail is limited to observations including but not limited to “looks like”, “looks to me”, “what appears to be”, while throwing in a heaping dose of ad hominem argument. Once again, no evidence of any fraudulent activity is presented. He also swears a lot during his article about JH. To be fair, I do swear sometimes in friendly and sometimes not so friendly “buddy-type” conversations, but I strongly believe that swearing like this guy does in the written language shows character somewhere around low class and an extreme lack of tact. But watch out everyone, this guy is an “action” skeptic, he also pitches “woo.” At least he didn't mention “ufo on a string”, he accuses John of using lots of string but he did not expressly say “ufo on a string”
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yABGpiYONmo&feature=channel_page The adulterated 'toy ufo” video
Conclusion:
At this point I am still open to possibilities on all sides of this debate. I am honestly attempting to be neutral and fair to both sides here. I am stating that so far as a result of what I have researched; the examples, actions, attitudes and yes even blatant and/or intentional ignorance of the skeptical point of view here have been disappointing at best and have not proven a hoax or fraud. Some individuals may have even gone so far in their attempts to debunk John's results that they have opened themselves up to legal recourse. The pro John Hutchinson side doesn't so far appear to be the clear champion in this debate either, many people require complete scientific method validation, but they do have some evidence and testimony that is valid.
If anyone finds any references that are currently missing or has supplemental, new or relevant information please contribute to this topic. If I have made any mistakes in my research, constructive criticism is welcome. Again if he has been proven John Hutchison a fraud, please enlighten me, but do it with logic, evidence and some facts.
I originally was going to post a fairly brief reply to this post:
[i]reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread448616/pg1#pid6048630]post by TravisT[/url][/i]
[more]
Not too long after beginning research on this topic I realized that this was becoming too large and perhaps was better off as a new topic.
Later I found another post proclaiming John to be a proven fraud while digging through posts mentioning John Hutchison on ATS-
[i]reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread426529/pg8#pid5671480]post by Intothepitwego[/url][/i]
[more]
For the most part I agree about Billy Meier, even if he had something legit early on he destroyed any "street cred" he had by perpetrating multiple fakes. His ex-wife making the statement that he produced fakes/hoaxes doesn't help his case. The "wedding cake ufo”; faked photos and misleading photos taken of television shows, dinosaur books and other things; and the "ray gun"; don't inspire much faith from me in Billy Meier. This is my strong opinion that, at least his later stuff was very suspicious and enough things were clearly exposed to be fraudulent that there is little question left in my mind concerning Mr. Meier's credulity His early UFO pictures, to the best of my knowledge, still pass analysis by photo experts and no one has been able to produce/duplicate what is shown in his early photos with technology available at the time. It has been a couple years since I've given Billy any thought or research so my information could be dated and or completely incorrect concerning him.
I realize that there are still some die-hard supporters of Mr. Meier around, you are welcome to contact, debate or flame me via U2U but please don't confuse the topic of this post with anything concerning Billy Meier or other unrelated topics.
Ok back to the topic at hand:
If any group of individuals can shed some light on this subject, perhaps even answer this question, I believe it is the members here at ATS that can deny ignorance and get the job done. That question is:
[b]Has John Hutchison been [u]proven [/u] to be a fraud? [/b]
to be more specific
[b] Have all, or even a substantial portion, of his varied demonstrations and results been disproven and/or exposed as hoaxes beyond any reasonable doubt? Is there any evidence condemning John other than the debate over the “ufo on a string video” (he clearly points out the wire/string in the original video before and during the demonstration, he wasn't trying to hide it, by definition this is not an attempt to deceive or defraud [3],) Can anyone reference anything new? Something better than the few attempts to duplicate a small portion of the reported effects with optical trickery that still don't completely duplicate what is seen in the videos? Has anyone detected a string, a string attachment point, editing techniques, other obvious or even subtle indications, perhaps even proof of a hoax while analyzing his videos? [/b]
Now in reply to the posters above...
Am I to take what was said as a truth statement that John Hutchinson is a proven fraud or is it merely your opinion that I mistakenly took as a truth statement? Is the lumping of Billy Meier and John Hutchison an attempt at associative fallacy? If it was a truth statement, then please enlighten me. Share with me your evidence that proves he is fraud. If it was just your opinion then by all means you are entitled to it, but please in the future don't attempt to pass along thoughts, ideas, theories and opinion as proven fact. Perhaps someone has or you have effectively debunked or disproven all of his results or proven several clear and intentional hoaxes that I am not aware of. If this is the case then you have my apologies.
Introduction:
I am asserting that claims of a hoaxing or fraud are extremely strong and clear claims, that need to be supported by very strong evidence.
Any substantial evidence or information supporting any point of view in this debate will be considered and appreciated by myself and hopefully everyone else. Please attempt to keep basic opinions, emotion, and especially hatred, flames, prejudice, insults and especially ignorance to a minimum. If someone simply does not believe John , doesn't want to believe in the possibilities if his effect is legitimate, simply hates John and other “hippies” or similar thoughts and opinions and you have no facts to add then please, just be cool, sit back and see what happens here; or move on. If it is really “nagging” you to include your thoughts then do so, but I am asking the moderators to please keep a close watch on this topic.
I suggest three main hypotheses in this case: (we aren't attempting to prove any of these in this thread expect for 3, but supporting evidence for the others is welcome.)
1. Everything John Hutchinson produces is a genuine, if not always predicable and as yet may be unproven, not generally accepted , completely understood or easily repeatable.
2. Some of John Hutchinson's results have been genuinely produced. Other results have been exaggerated, incorrectly represented and/or poorly understood or .
3. Everything John Hutchison has presented as experiments and results are fraudulent and have been perpetrated as an intentional hoax. He decided to attempt to fool the world long ago and has done a rather impressive job of it.
Still, again, remember the primary goal of this forum topic is to logically and honestly answer the questions “Is John Hutchinson currently a proven fraud?”
To my knowledge, considering my somewhat limited yet expanding research concerning John Hutchison:
Summary:
There is a good deal of controversy and debate. So far I have read a substantial amount of poorly researched, negative and /or ignorant debunkers, disbelievers, and pseudo-skeptics proposing how he [b]might [/b] have faked his videos, some ad hominem and otherwise deceptive arguing, but nobody has fully reproduced or adequately explained to me how he faked his results or perpetrated a hoax, hoaxes or fraud. I have also reviewed quite a bit of material and testimony in support of Mr. John Hutchison, although I would like to see some more evidence of individuals and scientists speaking on his behalf, witnessing his experiments, doing peer reviews and duplicating results from his experiments..
Examination and observation:
The super-strong electromagnet/upside down camera[4] does not explain what a lot of non-metallic objects do in the videos. Nor have they explained what many metallic samples have exhibited. Metals appear to liquefy, twist, break apart and/or bend in some videos. Analysis of some of his metal samples indicate aging, spontaneous rusting and changes to molecular structure [3][12][17]. The attempted debunking of these results have not effectively and fairly explained the majority of these alleged frauds. Many of the reported effects have not been duplicated on video, even using 'Hollywood' trickery. (Personally, I would like to see a debunker duplicate the metal bar breaking apart and then one half flipping over while the other stays in place and/or duplicate other similar observations, especially the ones with water, other liquids and metals.)
How large of an electromagnet consuming how many watts of energy would it take to suspend a 70lb. canon ball? Someone please do the math on this one, my primary assumptions are leading me to think that John Hutchison wouldn't have been able to afford his power bills back in the '80s if he is producing what is in many of his video with large and powerful electromagnets alone.
Many results that John has reported have not been explained completely [12]. Almost everyone likes complete explanations, solid evidence and repeatable experiments; but this goes for all sides, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. For example, if no person was able to provide proof of a hoax it doesn't empirically prove that Mr. Hutchinson is genuine either.
The science community, in general, don't like his methods because he “tinkers” and “tweaks” with stuff, doesn't follow scientific method and sometimes doesn't or isn't able to completely explain how and what he is doing, how he is doing it, the theories behind it and his results. Sometimes John has trouble reproducing results from his own experiments and when they do work they can behave and succeed seemingly at random with anomalous and unexpected behavior and results. Other entities have problems reproducing his results. Some people seem to lash out at him simply because he has long hair, doesn't wear a lab coat or a suit, and/or at his mannerisms and personality don't meet their expectations about what he “should” be, among other interpersonal and social reasons. This doesn't disprove or debunk him, it just shows that there is a social prejudice against him in certain circles and by some individuals.
Results produced can not be dismissed simply because someone doesn't follow the established scientific method to produce them. Results also do not have to be replicated every time on demand to be results; to be "scientific" and generally accepted as "proven", yes, to be results, no. Just because people have trouble replicating his experiments and results it doesn't necessarily make him a fraud either. One does not have to understand results or believe them to be possible in an experiment for those results to be valid. Lack of scientific recognition is not proof of fraud.
Scientists from places like Lockheed Martin, the US Army and NASA, among other organizations, have visited him trying to figure out what he is doing and how he is doing it. The Canadian Government seized all of his equipment in 1989 and classified it, denying the return of this equipment to John thus forcing him to start over. Boyd Bushman, a retired senior scientist from Lockheed Martin acknowledges the theft of his equipment [2]. The Japanese have invested in some of his experiments and to the best of my knowledge they have not accused him of being fraudulent. [2][3] John maintains a vast amount of video data for anyone to examine for themselves [12] and reports that one of the effects named after him recently has been accidentally reproduced during a university experiment [11]. John strikes me as a very agreeable and fair person, I believe he would be willing to attempt to show you the effect in person if approached with the respect any being deserves.
So far I have found no evidence that proves, or even strongly indicates to me, that John Hutchinson is a “proven fraud.” Although I have noticed, as a result of my research so far, what seems to be a concerted effort to discredit John for some reason, I have “plowed” through a tremendous number of individuals offering no evidence of fraud or a hoax at all, but clearly and proudly pronouncing John Hutchinson to be a fraud. Then I have witnesses a lesser number of individuals claiming evidence of fraud but not producing anything close to proof yet, at least no where near to my satisfaction. I shall refer to these entities as “The Cult of Disbelief” from now on.
At least one individual has even used underhanded tactics, deliberate trickery and propaganda against him. An edited video [10] was dubiously posted on YouTube.com that shows John doing the experiment with the”toy ufo” attached to a wire with all sound and explanations removed, this does appear to be intentionally cut from the video; in what looks an attempt to make John appear to be obviously and intentionally perpetrating a hoax then being caught in the act. Then the poster claims that only after John was “caught” that he offered the wire explanation. This source is the only original one stating anything similar to my note on [2] by saying “Later he actually admitted the fakery.”
I believe this is the same individual in [3]) So far this apparently immoral and perhaps malicious individual strongly appears to be the original source, or closely tied to the source, responsible for so many people believing that the “ufo on a string” is an intentional hoax and proven. Could this individual also be the original source for the so far unreferenced statement in the wikipedia [2] claiming John admitted to being “creative” with that experiment?
Then I observed a social effect of many self proclaimed “skeptics” and their “fanboys” having jumped on this bandwagon with their battle cry basically being 'look theres a string! Everything he has ever done is fake! YouTube dude says it is so! Case solved! Nothing to see here, he has been debunked, move along!' This video when considered in its original form may be still be controversial but in no way proves that John Hutchison is a hoaxer or a fraud. The experiment was originally done by a well respected T.T. Brown [3][12].
Editorial:
I find it interesting that with roughly 40 years of John Hutchinson experiments on videos not a single person, skeptic, debunker, scientist, video expert, basement troll or computer expert/analyst has found evidence of a single string or other obvious sign of a hoax in a single frame of his videos. I also find it hard to believe that with so many individuals obviously wanting to discredit John, that if they had found the proof of fraud or even a shred of evidence, that some reference or link to it would appear in some of the material I have already researched.
Some scientists may consider his ideas plausible or possible but stay away from him and don't openly support him in fear of ridicule and the loss of their oh so precious grant money. I propose this as a reason why there isn't a large body of accredited experts clamoring to validate his work.
I went through several pages of ATS links after searching for “John Hutchison”. I have found quite a few topics either containing or concerning John Hutchinson and his self-named effects here on ATS in the science, conspiracy, mysterious and other forums, but and I haven't found one yet that is in Skunk Works or that has been “stamped” with “HOAX.” I am using this as my primary circumstantial indication that Mr. John Hutchinson has not been effectively debunked or proven a HOAX by the community at www.abovetopsecret.com to date.
I'm not claiming or making any truth statements here that John Hutchinson has discovered anything or not. I am not making the assertion that he isn't a fraud. I'm not directly attempting to defend John, but at least so far, I have been forced to do some John defending due to some ignorant John hating.
Why do some individuals put so much effort into being a pseudo-skeptics? Is it so they can sleep better at night “knowing” that there can't possibly be anything unknown out there to afraid of or worry about? Why do so many people seem to be terrified of what might be possible? Do they simply enjoy being ignorant and arguing just for the sake of arguing? Libel, slander and defamation of character is fun and exciting for them?
It appears that some individuals and groups are threatened by him somehow. There seem to be people that don't like to have to include all the extra possibilities his reported results bring to the table in science discussions and debate. Some people simply appear to enjoy hating on him and calling him lots of colorful names. There may also be an entity or entities that have a vested interest in discrediting him.
Those of you who have been supporting these proud and self proclaimed skeptics, the “piggy-back” skeptics and “fanboys” that haven't even bothered to do any investigation or research of their own, those of you who based your judgments, flames, disbelief, defamations and worse on the “ufo on a string hoax” slam campaign, those of you who openly, loudly and vehemently proclaimed your “truth”, really should be ashamed of yourselves. In my lifetime, I have born witness to some very despicable and nasty behavior, and the damage after, from people proclaiming absolute truth in support of a blatant and/or purposeful lie. Perhaps this lie has caused some amount of damage that can not be entirely reversed. Is this cool, is this funny, is this fair? Don't flame me or lash out at me for exposing you, if you are guilty of being described in this paragraph then I suggest you take some time to go rethink your misguided and ignorant actions and your life in general. Perhaps even go back and retract all unproven truth statements so boldly and assuredly posted.
The preceding statement is not directed at anyone who is suspicious, undecided or genuinely skeptical that has merely expressed their thoughts, misgivings, honest debate or opinions. Having an opinion and expressing it as such is perfectly acceptable, professing an opinion as “truth” can and does cause damage to other and is most definitely ignorant. Publicly and intentionally spreading half truths and/or lies about someone else, especially with intent to injure or discredit them, is immoral and illegal for a good reason. Supporting someone in the act of these dirty deeds makes one guilty by association.
Ok enough chastising and back to the topic at hand...
Why am I noticing such a strong effort to discredit Mr. Hutchinson recently? Does it have anything to do with Dr. Judy Wood's research and legal efforts concerning 911?
Personally, I would like to see more of the scientific community, other groups and the general public spend less time, effort and thought on what 'absolutely can not be possible' and bit more time pondering what just might be possible. Examples of the past- at one time many individuals in the science community insisted that it was “impossible” to broadcast radio waves over the Atlantic and later that it was “impossible” to break the sound barrier because the results would somehow violate the “laws” of science that they “knew” at the time.
Links, References and Evidence:
Neutral (at least they claim or attempt to be)-
[1} http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/John_Hutchison - Astronomers are scientists, and scientists are expected to be trustworthy, honest and follow a strict set of rules and laws right? Plagiarism is illegal and morally wrong right? Then why does this page appears to be plagiarized almost entirely, except for references being removed, from this wikipedia.org page -
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchison Note: I have been unable to find any legitimate reference to the quote stating “Hutchison later admitted to being "creative" with the footage, citing pressure from the Discovery Channel to create material for the show and an inability to legally reproduce the original effect, according to Tim Ventura of American Antigravity” First off this statement is hearsay and the stated reference does not contain this quote. Also, Google search returned no results with someone directly quoting John or Tim Ventura saying this, only links to [1] or [2] and websites linking to [1] or [2].
[13] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8059605424836315724&hl=en Google video link
Pro/supporting-
[3] http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ_troll_challenge.html
[11] http://hutchisoneffectreproduced.blogspot.com/ independent report of H-effect being reproduced
[12] (John's site here)
[14] http://www.rexresearch.com/hutchisn/hutchisn.htm
[15] http://www.truthforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=382 sites names of individuals who have validated the work of John Hutchinson. Mentions metal samples from the video taped experiments being handed out for public examination and other support.
[16} http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Hathaway_George_664533045.aspx
[17] http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-hutch.asp
Con/Skeptical- (with my explanation of lack of evidence where applicable)
[4] http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2005/05/the-discovery-channel-is-bogus-2/ actually there are pros and cons in the forum posts on this page. Every con I noticed while skimming through claimed, stated or referenced the same questionable “proof” of hoaxing already discussed.
[5] http://www.csicop.org/sb/2007-09/nickell.html This page strikes me as more pseudo-debunking-
“Because evidence available only on film or tape can easily be faked, I enlisted the help of Center for Inquiry colleague Thomas Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry and an experienced photographer and videographer. We decided that what we were seeing might easily have been staged. One video sequence showed an empty one-liter plastic soft-drink bottle wobbling, then shooting suddenly upward. Tom laughed at the suspicious fact that the handheld camera did not follow the flying object, an indication that there was perhaps something up there that the camera should not see. We concluded that the movement of the bottle was consistent with it having been controlled by an “invisible” thread—or rather threads: frame-by-frame study showed that two attachment points would be required. We then reproduced the effect on a similar bottle using the necessary two lengths of monofilament line with which we caused the bottle to wobble and then soar. I was the hidden puppeteer to Tom’s camera. (See figure 2.) “
Note: “Figure 2 “is a small black and white still picture that doesn't show enough detail to evaluate anything.
“Of more interest to National Geographic was Hutchison’s production of “electronic fog.” Tom and I were unimpressed with this effect which we readily simulated by jiggling a jumble of metallic wire, backlit by a suitable lightbulb, before the video camera’s lens.
Our videotaped results—along with clips showing us making our experiments and commenting on them—subsequently aired on the National Geographic Channel (Is It Real? 2006). The similarity of our effects to Hutchison’s are readily apparent. We see no need to give the supposed wizard further attention”
I have been unable to find any reference to this reproduction video or even the series “Is It Real?” via searches on YouTube, Google video or Google search engine.
I also find it humorous that these guys claims that John makes up scientific sounding terms, “Despite Hutchison’s use of pseudoscientific terminology—he bandies about made-up terms like “cronons” and “gravitons”—his work seems anything but scientific. “ Like ZOMG he used the word “pseudoscientific” that must mean like these guys are totally smart and John is a complete loon and a fraud right? Well considering that cronons and gravitrons are both recognized and/or accepted as theoretically possible in and defined by generally accepted schools of (example: string theories and M-theory) quantum mechanics, who really winds up looking ignorant here?
I would have been absolutely convinced of a hoax, if our experienced videographer could have found any evidence in John's videos of a string or attachment points or evidence of video editing to cover their proposed fishing line, but I am going to assume that he was unable to do so. I would like to be able to evaluate their video or at least still pictures captured from their video to see if attachment points or strings were detectable in their reproduction. Until then I am simply going to cop-out and use a classic pseudo-debunkers tactic on these pseudo-debunkers. Even if they did completely reproduce what is seen in the related videos, that doesn't necessarily invalidate or prove anything. But again, video, or it didn't happen.
[6] http://www.trailerparkscience.com/Experiments.html I have been unable to get this site to open on this link or the homepage for over a week now. Is it abandoned? John haters have professed that this site also proves JH to be fraudulent. Once again, video, or it didn't happen.
[7] http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/Hutchison/hutchison.html this page made me laugh because it's author went to a tremendous amount of effort to prove that there was a wire attached to the toy ufo, and did a very thorough and impressive job of it for the most part (I personally didn't like the conclusion). Maybe he should have done a little research like I did and watched the parts where John clearly pointed this fact out multiple times in the original video [3] He might have saved himself much effort and time. .
[8] http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103565 Still more cries citing the “ufo on a string” and assertions that JH is a fraud, with no supporting evidence. I have evidence of the “Amazing” Randi being selective about who he allows to take his “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge,” basically if he can't cheat the applicant or reproduce the result of their claim with slight of hand; he attacks them via ad hominem and other fallacy tactics in an attempt excuse his choice to not allow a challenge. I will provide this evidence but please request via U2U and do not pollute this thread with that topic.
[9] http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2007/01/crackpot-in-canada.html This guy goes into more detail on different effects reported by JH, unfortunately his amount of research and detail is limited to observations including but not limited to “looks like”, “looks to me”, “what appears to be”, while throwing in a heaping dose of ad hominem argument. Once again, no evidence of any fraudulent activity is presented. He also swears a lot during his article about JH. To be fair, I do swear sometimes in friendly and sometimes not so friendly “buddy-type” conversations, but I strongly believe that swearing like this guy does in the written language shows character somewhere around low class and an extreme lack of tact. But watch out everyone, this guy is an “action” skeptic, he also pitches “woo.” At least he didn't mention “ufo on a string”, he accuses John of using lots of string but he did not expressly say “ufo on a string”
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yABGpiYONmo&feature=channel_page The adulterated 'toy ufo” video
Conclusion:
At this point I am still open to possibilities on all sides of this debate. I am honestly attempting to be neutral and fair to both sides here. I am stating that so far as a result of what I have researched; the examples, actions, attitudes and yes even blatant and/or intentional ignorance of the skeptical point of view here have been disappointing at best and have not proven a hoax or fraud. Some individuals may have even gone so far in their attempts to debunk John's results that they have opened themselves up to legal recourse. The pro John Hutchinson side doesn't so far appear to be the clear champion in this debate either, many people require complete scientific method validation, but they do have some evidence and testimony that is valid.
If anyone finds any references that are currently missing or has supplemental, new or relevant information please contribute to this topic. If I have made any mistakes in my research, constructive criticism is welcome. Again if he has been proven John Hutchison a fraud, please enlighten me, but do it with logic, evidence and some facts.
Labels: ALL OUR YESTERDAYS, H, http://www.myspace.com/johnkhutchison, john kenneth hutchison
posted by Unknown at 11:34 PM
<< Home