https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wag2XVRR5Dc [youtube 2015]
[The whole 6 part interview originally appeared in 2010 here ]
Post update: [ 06/18/17]: Whoops! It appears I made a mistake with these recent two posts about the Hall/ Johnson interviews. My mistake was to assume that the 2015 video I saw on Youtube was the original. That being the case, I had then thought "well, there is hope for messrs. Hall/ Johnson, yet", as they both seemed quite fair in their analysis of "September Clues" In other words, I assumed that Hall had now changed his mind and rejected his own 2012 "holographic plane image" theory.
However , further research has revealed that the 2015 Youtube video had actually been originally posted at Hall's site in 2010, meaning that while at first he had in fact first pretty much accepted Simon Shack's various observations, later [2012] he'd decided that Mr Shack was wrong.
His later retraction can be seen/heard here. All I have to say about Hall's 2012 retraction is that it is far from satisfactory, more of an obfuscation than anything else, as he hardly even bothers to address Shack's primary observations that he [Hall] had earlier agreed with. For example, the "matrix shot" issue, which he conveniently dismisses while only referencing NBC's contradictory Fl.175 footage, when the "matrix shot " issue involves all five stations, not just one. In conclusion, whereas before I'd wrongly held out hope for Hall/Johnson, I now understand that both of them are "way beyond help". And so it goes :-) ,Obf.
Richard Hall Eats His Own Words ?
Starting at 3:58 of the above video [first published on 06/18/2010 on his own site, and then at Youtube June 9th. 2015], and using clips taken directly from Simon Shacks "September Clues" series, Mr Hall along with interviewee Andrew Johnson, revealed the different, contradictory flight paths of Flight 175 shown in the various MSM and "amateur" videos, to his viewing audience.
At around 4:40 in this interview with Mr Johnson we have him [Johnson] stating:
"....you get different trajectories for the plane....If this is the same plane, then you should be able to determine what the trajectory is from the video clip".
Hall then agrees with Johnson, and in doing so directly contradicts his very own, subsequent "holographic plane image" hypothesis first aired publicly in his own May 19th 2012 "NEW 9/11 Video and Radar Analysis"
Some Recent History:
On November the 18th of November 2012 I published an exhaustive [tedious?] 4 part refutation of Mr Hall's hypothesis that a holographic plane image had been used on 9/11.
Mr Hall's "Reasoning" = Matching Flight Paths:
Briefly, his whole hypothesis rested on the idea that if all of the plane trajectories in the various 9/11 videos showing Fl.175's approach and strike on WTC2 matched, then that "proved" that :
1] The videos were all genuine.
2] if the flight paths matched, that because the plane images in some of the videos defied known laws of physics , then they could not have been of a real plane, so "therefore" [he, Hall, assumed "logically"] , a single, fake, moving plane image was projected holographically by a "cloaked" [i.e. invisible to the live camera] plane flying close alongside the projected holographic image. [Yes, really :-) ]
Mr. Hall then tried to demonstrate in his video that all of the flight paths for 20 odd video clips of fl. 175 matched ["therefor" all of that footage was genuine].
{Hint: the flight paths he so carelessly analyzed never did match}.
What My Refutation of the Hall Hypothesis Tries To Demonstrate:
If you bother to go back and look at my own, long, 4 page refutation of the Hall hypothesis, you will clearly see that I demonstrate [ as Messrs Hall and Johnson originally appeared to agree], that the flight paths of Fl.175 do not match even within his own video presentation of his theory.
Hall Eats His Own Words
So now it seems that Mr Hall agreed with Mr Shack and myself back in 2010 [when this interview was first aired on Hall's site], but later [2012] "ate his own words" to come out with his own grandiose, wholly contradictory, holographic plane image idea of 2012
Is Hall's Backpedaling Important?
Why did Messrs Hall and Johnson originally publicly state [2010] that the plane paths did not match, only to later [2012] emerge with a bogus holographic plane theory which almost exclusively relied on Hall "proving" that the plane paths matched, even when it had been obvious to themselves back in 2010, that they did not in fact match?
What's Next?
So what's next? Are we ever going to witness the gloriously comical sight of Messrs Fetzer and Reynolds, the two most prominent supporters of the Hall hypothesis, publicly "eating their own words" regarding Hall's 2012 holographic plane hypothesis?. Let alone Messrs Hall and Johnson, who certainly do not seem eager to draw attention to their entirely contradictory statements on the issue.
Will Pigs Fly?
Personally, I would love to see this. However, if my own personal experience with these persons is anything to go by, the egos of at least two of these three "gentlemen" are way to big to ever acknowledge publicly that the whole holographic plane hypothesis was bunk right from the "git go", so I'm not holding my breath on this issue, that's for sure :-) .
But maybe, just maybe..... "pigs will fly", after all, it's happened before, as this photo clearly shows :-) :
And so it goes.......
Regards, onebornfree[atyahoodotcom]
Related articles:
"ABC's Magic "Spinning Towers"
"So Exactly Where Did Flight 175 Strike WTC 2 ?"
"911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method"
"Why Jim Fetzer /Richard Hall/Ace Baker etc. Are Wrong About This Fl.175 Video [Hezarkhani]]"
"Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All""
"9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof"
"9/11 Scams: "Scientific" Lies of 9/11- A Laymans Guide"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete