"Disinformation by Proxy"?
Marcus Icke takes on Gerard Holmgren and The Webfairy.
While much of the article slams Holmgren and The Webfairy, there is some interesting info about video fakery in there.
Icke seems to think Holmgren and The Webfairy are disinfo agents -- an old charge, in fact, that many people have leveled. My personal feeling is that they are people who have had some good ideas and done some good 9/11 research but who also can be very sloppy, not to mention very cranky and crabby to people who disagree with them. But the fact is that it is always hard to tell about the legimitacy of people you only know through the internet -- what they are really all about and whether they are "ops" or not.
Certainly there is lots of suspicion about almost everyone who does 9/11 research-- that they are an operative or a disinfo agent. I'm sure some 9/11 people think I am a disinfo agent for promoting "no planes". For what it's worth, I will say for the record I have no contact with any intelligence or law enforcement agency, and I have never received any money from such agencies or their representatives. And I have NEVER intentionally tried to mislead anyone with anything I write.
In any case, the "Disinformation by Proxy" article is worth a look.
UPDATE 1/3/06: I realize this article is very much "inside baseball", since Icke, Holmgren and Webfairy have all done research on video fakery and promote the idea of video fakery on 9/11. Yet here we have Icke accusing Webfairy and Holmgren of disinformation on video fakery. As to that general idea-- that Webfairy and Holmgren are disinformation artists-- I don't think it is the case that they do sloppy work in order to discredit the field of 9/11 video fakery (although I can't rule that out either). I do know that generally Icke is much more careful in his analyses than Webfairy and I trust his work much more. But on the larger issue of video fakery, I still think Webfairy was key in breaking down the Ghostplane (CNN "Best Angle") footage and showing how unreal it was-- which has convinced many people of video fakery. I do not think it is the case that Webfairy and Holmgren are operatives who are promoting video fakery because it is a bogus idea (which is usually how Webfairy and Holmgren are portrayed by the "mainstream 9/11 truth movement". Rather, I think the problem with Webfairy and Holmgren is more in the details of what they say and how they go about doing it.
If Webfairy and Holmgren are operatives of some sort, I think their plan is to have such caustic and abusive personalities that they purposefully drive people away from video research-- people who might otherwise look into it and see the truth in it. And this is clearly the reason Webfairy and Holmgren are disliked by so many 9/11 skeptics. That you have to toe their line or you are a traitor or a sell-out or an idiot. I have long thought that Webfairy and Holmgren would be more effective in promoting video fakery if they stuck to the facts and didn't spew insults so easily. Personally, I still tend to think that Webfairy and Holmgren are just crabby people rather than disinfo operatives. And I don't mind saying that about Webfairy and Holmgren because I have been on the receiving end of their abuse.
While much of the article slams Holmgren and The Webfairy, there is some interesting info about video fakery in there.
Icke seems to think Holmgren and The Webfairy are disinfo agents -- an old charge, in fact, that many people have leveled. My personal feeling is that they are people who have had some good ideas and done some good 9/11 research but who also can be very sloppy, not to mention very cranky and crabby to people who disagree with them. But the fact is that it is always hard to tell about the legimitacy of people you only know through the internet -- what they are really all about and whether they are "ops" or not.
Certainly there is lots of suspicion about almost everyone who does 9/11 research-- that they are an operative or a disinfo agent. I'm sure some 9/11 people think I am a disinfo agent for promoting "no planes". For what it's worth, I will say for the record I have no contact with any intelligence or law enforcement agency, and I have never received any money from such agencies or their representatives. And I have NEVER intentionally tried to mislead anyone with anything I write.
In any case, the "Disinformation by Proxy" article is worth a look.
UPDATE 1/3/06: I realize this article is very much "inside baseball", since Icke, Holmgren and Webfairy have all done research on video fakery and promote the idea of video fakery on 9/11. Yet here we have Icke accusing Webfairy and Holmgren of disinformation on video fakery. As to that general idea-- that Webfairy and Holmgren are disinformation artists-- I don't think it is the case that they do sloppy work in order to discredit the field of 9/11 video fakery (although I can't rule that out either). I do know that generally Icke is much more careful in his analyses than Webfairy and I trust his work much more. But on the larger issue of video fakery, I still think Webfairy was key in breaking down the Ghostplane (CNN "Best Angle") footage and showing how unreal it was-- which has convinced many people of video fakery. I do not think it is the case that Webfairy and Holmgren are operatives who are promoting video fakery because it is a bogus idea (which is usually how Webfairy and Holmgren are portrayed by the "mainstream 9/11 truth movement". Rather, I think the problem with Webfairy and Holmgren is more in the details of what they say and how they go about doing it.
If Webfairy and Holmgren are operatives of some sort, I think their plan is to have such caustic and abusive personalities that they purposefully drive people away from video research-- people who might otherwise look into it and see the truth in it. And this is clearly the reason Webfairy and Holmgren are disliked by so many 9/11 skeptics. That you have to toe their line or you are a traitor or a sell-out or an idiot. I have long thought that Webfairy and Holmgren would be more effective in promoting video fakery if they stuck to the facts and didn't spew insults so easily. Personally, I still tend to think that Webfairy and Holmgren are just crabby people rather than disinfo operatives. And I don't mind saying that about Webfairy and Holmgren because I have been on the receiving end of their abuse.
posted by spooked at 10:43 PM
18 Comments:
So Icke thinks Holmgren's article is mistaken. Why does he not just critique it then? Why the gratuitous allegation of intentional mistakes?
Icke explains that "disinformation by proxy" was Web Fairy hacking up the video using VirtualDub, and her "purpose was apparently to make Holmgren look like an idiot."
But then he he says that both Web Fairy and Holmgren are being used to pass bad video, here:
'Neither Holmgren nor Webfairy seem to have noticed [the suspicious coexistence of what looks like unmodified PAL and NTSC versions of the same video], a point of which strongly indicates video forgery and the sole purpose of the “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” article.'
If you are going to accuse people of disinformation, at least be clear about who you are accusing.
If one can show that bad video was used, then it is valid to say be more careful. That has always been a concern of mine -- how are thse videos authenticated? Icke may have shown bad video was used; I do not know.
I don't understand this video frame analysis and anamoly detection that seems to be the basis of the TV Fakery arguments, and frankly, my eyes tend to glaze over at these arguments, including those at Icke's website. Therefore, for all I know, Holmgren's article is completely wrong, and based on bad video. If Icke thinks that, he should say that, and say be more careful.
But why the allegation of disinformation, particularly when Icke is not even clear on who is doing it?
If it is unintentional use of bad video from some malevolent source, then a polite admonition to be more careful is all that is needed.
Ironically, Icke say Web Fairy's use of this video is suspicous because Web Fairy has done good work in the past. How diabolical and insidious!!!
The rest of the criticism is that Holmgren's work on crash physics is inferior to that of Jeff King and Morgan Reynolds, and therefore he should not have published at all.
Here, I do feel qualified to comment, not because I have any expertise but simply because I have reviewed the data myself and made my own determination. This determination is that the image of the plane sliding into the South Tower (the Cheney video, I think it's called) has to be faked because it depicts a physically impossible event, and that decides it for me.
Here, I'm not as worried about the authenticity of the video because there seems to be no dispute that the plane disappeared inside the building, with NIST saying this occurred in 0.5 seconds.
I guess Icke would criticize me for publishing this on my blog. Oh well.
I credited him as an influence on the development of my thinking on the no planes issue.
Holmgren makes the same argument that the plane could not have slid into the towers. Icke seems to agree, yet critizes Holmgren for: (1) not addressing the Sandia video; (2) not having an engineering degree like Jeff King and not sounding like he has an engineering degree like Jeff King; (3) not being as convincing as Morgan Reynolds and not linking to Morgan Reynolds; (4) not linking to his own article about WTC forensics, which is somehow "strange".
As I said, I have no way of judging Icke's or Holmgren's arguments on anlysis of the videos. All I can say is that my understanding of the crash physics tells me that there would have significant deceleration and deformation of the plane that is not evident in the video, and the video is therefore faked.
These are my words, which I have written elsewhere, but they are consistent with what Jeff King says as cited by Icke.
So Holmgren the musician uses a cat metaphor that Icke thinks is inferior to the more conventional explanation of Jeff King the physician. So what! And while it is true that Dr. King studied electrical engineering at MIT and worked in engineering for some time, and not to denigrate this obviously relevant experience, to say that Holmgren should have cited King as an expert is not reasonable, and for a 9/11 debunker, King might as well be a dog catcher because he is not a practicing engineer in the specific field of impact engineering.
As to (1), the Sandia video is incomplete and does not merit refuting , and even if should have been addressed, failure to anticipate a possible counterargument is not grounds for an accusation of disinformation.
(2), (3), and (4) are just ridiculous. Read King and Reynolds if you want -- so what if someone has another take?
It would be appropriate, at the end of a critique, to politely suggest that a writer be more careful, and even to suggest that since there is other work that the writer should have deferred to that other work because his weaker lessens the impact of the stronger work.
But the fact that other works exist that Icke prefers is not an independent reason why Holmgren's work is wrong.
The "toilet papering" analogy fell flat, and Wikipedia didn't help.
It's a shame that Icke pissed on his own arguments with these unsubstantiated allegations of disinformation.
Spooked, I guess it's a dilemna because of your assessment that Icke's blog contains some interesting information on TV Fakery, and you have to take the bad with the good. However, I am disappointed by how you dealt with it, because you recognize that allegations of disinfo are common in 9/11 research, and that it is hard to know who is coming from where. Yet you seem to endorse this baseless allegation by turning it on yourself, saying that you are not an agent or on the take and have never intentionally tried to mislead anyone. This non sequiter contains the duel implications that Holmgren and Web Fairy might be guilty of such actions, and that its OK to make such accusations because even you face them.
You also make no specific showing of sloppiness by Holmgren and Web Fairy, whcih is not to say that you do not have a basis for such a belief, but that you should not state such a "feeling" without being specific so the reader can evaluate your position.
Sorry to go on about this, but I have strong feelings about allegations of disinformation, which I think should rarely be expressed. My general view is that disinformation should be addressed by refutation and admonition to be more careful, along with criticism of personal attacks, which is what I am doing here.
: tyour observation that allegations of disinformation are common n 9/11 research, and the non sequiter of your statements you are not an agent or on the take or and have never intentionally tried to mislead anyone, have intentionally
hought that your unspecific feeling of sloppiness by Holmgrem and Web Fairy,
unexplained criticisms I wish you , and so . Rather than desc
Finally, it seems fair for Icke to turn on comments and allow responses.
whoops, stray drafts at the end, which are obvious. I meant to leave the part about allowing responses. I also meant to preview and edit the whole comment. Oh well.
I don't want to go one and on, but since I've been critical, I guess that I think it would have been better to give your post a more neutral title, not "disinformation by proxy," and
expressed some disapproval of the practice of making unsubstantiated allegations of disinformation.
I am laughing my freaking ASS off! You idiots are like a bunch of children playing in a sand box -a bunch of babies whining about each other because you don't like what toys the others have or they have something you don't.
It doesn't GET any better than this!
all 3 of them have done a great job re: the 9/11 planes in general and the images of ua175 in particular. without the work of these 3, 9/11 research would not be where it is today.
if they dwell too much on whether or not one of the other 3 agrees with them then so be it.
maybe they just need a hug.
Ningen-- I totally agree with everything you say. Really-- I had the same exact thoughts. I wasn't thrilled about the very same aspects of the article you raise, but I had told Marcus that I would link to it and thus felt obligated to do so.
I guess part of it is that I had some very rude treatment from Webfairy and Holmgren, and therefore had no problem with linking to the piece.
And I think "used rugs" sums it up very well!
No worries, Spooked. I just think the idea of Holmgren being insincere doesn't make sense, because he writes at his web about critical thinking and not trusting anyone but yourself.
I agree the Holmgren and Web Fairy need a hug, but I'm not so sure about Icke anymore. He seems to be pushing a hologram idea that doesn't make sense to me, which is fine if that's what he really thinks, but now he's trashing other researchers for no good reason. The combo lessens my trust.
He's the one that is dwelling here, by the way.
I'm hoping all the disinfo accusations become a thing of the past. People have a pretty good idea of what's what and who's who and can judge for themselves. By your works ye shall be known, and all that. Barry Zwicker seemed a little paranoid about seeing an agent behind every tree, but he made a great point -- the fewer people making accusations of disinfo, the easier it is to identify disinformationists as the ones still making disinfo accusations.
StillDiggin just wrote about Icke and Grossmann, but he was low key about the disinfo accusations (still too much for my taste), and as far as I could tell, seemed to do a careful analytic critique.
http://911logic.blogspot.com/
He seems to be pushing a hologram idea that doesn't make sense to me, which is fine if that's what he really thinks, but now he's trashing other researchers for no good reason. The combo lessens my trust.
He's the one that is dwelling here, by the way.
Not sure what you're referring to here, Ningen. What holograms? What do you mean "dwelling here"?
To clarify-- as far as I know, Icke does NOT promote holograms now. At one point he did in collaboration with Grossman. But Webfairy promoted holograms early on as well. Holograms are fine as a hypothesis, but the explanation doesn't hold up. Both Icke and Webfairy now believe it was pure video fakery.
I don't know what Grossman believes in. Grossman never seemed quite right to me, and has allied himself with apparent frauds such as Stew Webb and Tom Heneghan.
The only major problem I have had with Icke is that he is allied with Grossman and seems overly deferential to him.
You can read Webfairy's take on Icke above. I don't buy it myself.
Used rugs said:
"if they dwell too much on whether or not one of the other 3 agrees with them then so be it. maybe they just need a hug."
so I meant that Icke was the one dwelling on whether the others agreed with him. I guess "seems to be dwelling on" would be more accurate, because I'm just basing it on this article.
He can have a hug, I guess, if he promises to quit making unsubstantiated "disinfo" claims.
Hi Spooked. More inside baseball.
First, I really appreciate and admire your work, so don't take this personally. You've raised a meta-issue I feel strongly about, and I think Web Fairy and Holmgren have done important work, so I can't let this go.
You have given plenty of examples of why you respect Icke's work, which is fine, but as far as I can tell you have give only one example of where you disagree with Holmgren and/or Web Fairy, yet you continue to call their work "sloppy."
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/
2006/02/frame-by-frame-analysis-extreme.html
In your update, you state a few times that you don't think they are operatives.
Why do you keep going on about this?
"I can't rule out that he beats his wife."
And the only reason you give for thinking they might be operatives is that they are caustic and abusive and turn people off.
You didn't seem to have a problem with Holmgren criticizing Ruppert, Hoffman, and Rabinowitz, saying he said "very revealing and damning things" about them, and about Holmgren's critique of the "truth movement" in general:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/
2005/09/destroying-911-truth-movement.html
Or "ripping" Steven Jones:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/07/
his-work-is-rubbish.html
Holmgren didn't drive Jones away from video research -- he ripped Jones a new one for calling it "junk science" without any basis. Jones coming in with his physics professorship and saying this - that's what would drive people away from video research. Holmgren fought back, after giving Jones a chance to recant.
And you have repeatedly given high praise (deserved, I think, which is why I bother with this) of Holmgren's analyses of a variety of issues. The fact that Icke's video work might be better than Web Fairy and Holmgren's, which I cannot judge, is no reason to cast aspersions on all their work and on their intent.
I'm sorry to keep going on about this, but your update bothered me even more.
The fact that you "have been on the receiving end of their abuse" is all the more reason to be careful, and warranted a disclosure that your objectivity might have been affected. And people that would disregard evidence because they don't like the messenger may be human, but they need to be more responsible about allowing their personal feelings to interfere with these inquiries.
I don't know what went on between you and Holmgren, and haven't been on the email lists you have. How do I know whether or not Holmgren "spewed insults" at you or said "revealing and damning things" about you? I'm not trying to suggest it was either way, but let's say he did spew insults at you and was way out of line -- so what? Post an article saying "Holmgren's a prick," and say he should be nicer, but please don't endorse unsubstantiated allegations of "disinfo."
Based on what I have seen published on the web, I said this the other day in a blog piece praising Holmgren's work:
'Citizen researchers would benefit from reading all the articles there. Holmgren may be a bit harsh, but he raises very serious questions about the ethics and critical thinking of many in the "truth" movement. From what I can see, Holmgren has been attacked for his positions, for sticking to his positions, and for asking other people to clarify their own positions, and these attacks have not been in the spirit of open debate and inquiry.'
'I would prefer that talk of "disinformation" go away, and that people would just evaluate each others' arguments on the merits. Maybe this can happen now. Nevertheless, I think Holmgren's "disinformation" section is a valuable history for new researchers to read. It is as well- documented as all of his work, so you can decide for yourself whether his suspicions as to motives are justified.'
This seems consistent with all the praise you've given Holmgren, even tempered by your run-in with him.
Icke should be censured for publishing unsubstantiated allegations that may be defamation. The '"Laurel and Hardy" act with delusions of grandeur' insult tells me he has his own issues with ego, and may not be disclosing his own run-ins with Holmgren or Web Fairy.
This is exactly the kind of thing I think 9/11 researchers should not be wasting their time on this year.
Ningen-- It's impressive that you are willing to sort through all this info and I respect your opinion.
First of all, I hate this name-calling/disinfo-calling stuff, and I always dread these posts. As I said, I mostly did this for Marcus, because he's been nice to me and helped me a lot with setting up Flight Simulator analysis.
And in fact, I have had some nice interactions with Webfairy. I think she is a creative and interesting lady with a good wit. But there are other issues and maybe if you want to email me, we could discuss it more in depth.
Holmgren has always been pretty stand-offish to me, and then he got really obnoxious with me about six months back. Which really annoyed the hell out of me as I have been a big supporter of his. I could discuss that more with you as well if you like.
I haven't written/posted much regarding the sloppiness of Webfairy and Holmgren, but it certainly is exemplified by Marcus article. But there is a lot more where that came from if you're interested.
Anyway, I thought I was clear that I didn't think Icke, Holmgren or Webfairy were operatives. On the other hand, I have to have an open mind and while I suppose it is annoying for me to keep that possibility open, that is how I view it. I do have various suspicions about some of the more controversial researchers. I guess it is natural in this business if you've been in it long enough.
Hmm. I think it's best to leave the personalities out as much as possible and just debate the ideas themselves. I don't really care if "thermite" is advanced by Jones, or Webfairy, or a guitarist, or a demolition engineer... We can figure out whether or not it's a good explanation regardless of where it comes from. Even sincere, hard-working people are going to have bad ideas once in a while.
Idiots like Pinch rely on heuristics for their analysis. They think mainstream TV is respectable so they form all their opinions based on what their TV tells them. We have to be smarter than that, and if some researcher has 100 great ideas and 3 bad ones we keep the good and reject the bad. At least that's how I see it.
Fred
Spooked said:
"Icke does NOT promote holograms now. At one point he did in collaboration with Grossman. But Webfairy promoted holograms early on as well. Holograms are fine as a hypothesis, but the explanation doesn't hold up. Both Icke and Webfairy now believe it was pure video fakery."
Icke said in his "proxy" article about Hologram's "hip-hop article," which did not mention holograms:
"But how do we know the video is genuine showing a hologram of a Boeing 767-200 or a modified Boeing 767-200 designed for high speed operation at low altitudes?"
I don't know what Icke is saying here. If Icke does not think holograms are a possibility, he seems to suggest that Holmgren does, which I've seen no evidence for.
Icke's work is not clear.
I'm basing that his "proxy" article and on this website. If Icke has another please tell me:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/
It's hard for me to figure out exactly what Icke is saying, as he does not give the "brief précis" of his multi-page website that he criticized Holmgren for not giving in his one-page article. (Holmgren precis was "it's a fake. He then made his arguments why, and concluded "It's a fake.")
As far as I can tell, Icke is saying something other that a Boeing could have hit one or both towers, and that whatever hit WTC2 could have had a pod, and might have been disguised in a hologram. These pod and hologram theories don't seem essential to his argument about fake images. It's fine if he wants to make these arguments, but I would like to know the basis, given that Popular Mechanics and Jim Hoffman agree these are ridiculous arguments, and these arguments are used to discredit the "no planes" theory.
Icke gives no synopsis either on the main page, or on the "WTC1 Video Hoax" page or the WTC2 Media Hoax page.
Icke rules out a Boeing 767 in both cases, but is not clear whether there was a real plane of some sort.
Sometimes he says there was a plane, sometimes he says there might have been a plane. It's not clear why he thinks there is more reason to believe there was a plane in at WTC1 than at WTC2, though it appears to be the audio here:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/
wtc1witnessreports/wtc1_critical_
witnesses_mp3.mp3
A synopsis combining both pages would have helped.
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/whwtc1/
"Whatever hit WTC1 was no Boeing 767-200, it was a much smaller non-commercial aircraft of unknown origin that functioned more like a missile than a passenger jet."
With WTC2 perhaps there was another plane, but not for sure, so he calls it a "media hoax" rather than "video hoax." At least this is my supposition -- he does not explain.
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/
ggua175/conclusion/
"The UA175 aircraft may have been added to the film during transmission or after transmission / reproduction to cover the absence of any aircraft or to conceal an aircraft that was not a Boeing 767-200."
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/
ggua175/afterward/
"there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911."
So there could have been another plane.
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/
ggua175/pod/
"'Pod' sceptics claim that the 'pod' can not be real because it would have obstructed the gear bay doors which implies that the aircraft would not have been able to take off from the ground. I think it's quite plausible that the perpetrators could have used an alternative method for launching the aircraft, perhaps using some kind of disposable bogey that could be jettisoned after take-off thus eliminating the necessity for a retractable undercarriage."
So there was or might have been a plane, and it had a pod.
This does not make sense to me -- if the image is fake, who cares if a real plane could take off with such a "pod"?
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/
ggua175/structural/
"The apparent impact of the supposed Boeing 767-200 is the foundation for the 'Hologram Theory' and the 'Media Hoax' theory which means that the UA175 aircraft was either a hologram hiding a smaller aircraft or the Boeing 767-200 was added to live footage of the crash or added in post production."
So there may have been a hologram.
See also:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/
ggua175/conclusion/
"Element 1 - The Airborne Illusion
According to the witness reports an aircraft of some sort was seen to collide with, and subsequently vanish inside of, the WTC2 tower. This is a physical impossibility for a real aeroplane. The effect could have been achieved by some sort of airborne illusion that would fool witnesses into believing a real aircraft had collided with the WTC2 tower."
"Airborne illusion" means hologram, I assume.
I guess it could mean a cloaking device as well.
This is to account for these witness reports, I guess.
I don't see a need for illusions, though -- any flying object could account for people saying they saw a Boeing, given the conflicting reports mediated environment that changes memories.
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/
ggua175/witness/
I am not going to judge these witness reports, except that I am surprised that Icke would cite Stanley Praimnath. I think it beggars belief that he was on a floor where the plane hit, was protected from fire and shrapnel by his deks, then saw a wing stuck in a door as reported elsewhere. Morgan Reynolds was right to call this a "tall tale." Sorry, Mr. Praimnath - I'm not saying you don't believe this - it's just that I don't.
So why is Praimnath used to justify a hologram or other illusion, which could not account for his testimony that he saw a wing embedded in the door, even if had survived the impact of whatever hit and the firey explosions that occurred?
I think Icke needs to go back and edit his work and clarify these questions about pods, holograms, and witnesses.
You're quite right, Ningen. Of course, almost everyone's work can be picked apart if you try hard enough. And we should avoid criticisms when they are criticisms that we are prone to ourself. Some people's work have more glaring problems and I agree Marcus should clarify what his hypothesis is. It could be that Marcus is not good at expressing himself in writing as well-- or that he wants to leave some ambiguity-- or who knows-- he is the disinfo agent.
I should also say that sloppiness isn't necessarily a crime or a flaw. I often get sloppy-- mostly when I try to rush things. And sadly I just never have enough time to do everything I want, so I am often sloppier than I should be.
I know that Holmgren strongly dislikes Marcus, and to a certain extent, Marcus was fighting back with this piece.
I agree about leaving personality issues out as much as possible. Thanks for the reminder Fred. Unfortunately it is all too easy to get caught up in the personality game-- who is nice and who is mean and who is the disinfo agent and so forth.
I agree, most researchers have good ideas and bad ideas, and ideally one is smart enough to pick out the good from the bad.
- or who knows-- he is the disinfo agent.
That was a joke, by the way.
Just FYI, Webfairy has been very nice to me and helped me enormously to figure out how to get my video stuff working to put together the 911 Octopus stuff. I've never talked to Gerard Holmgren but I've enjoyed his articles.
Fred
Hi there!
Post a Comment
<< Home