This morning I logged on. I saw a misleading message I wanted to reply to.
I spent ten minutes writing a reply. I posted it. I got a message saying YOU
ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE.

My message was lost, and I was required to log in again.

The purpose of this is unclear to me. It stinks.

Jack

Jack,

See the 'Moderator Actions' thread, stickied at the top.

John has placed you on moderation. That means a moderator must approve each of your posts.

I am not sure what you see when you are on moderation and post a message, but that "not authorized" message may be it.

It's a shame Jack's behaviour has led to moderation of his posts: it may have the effect of stopping him posting, which I for one don't want to see. If anything I'd like to see him opsting more often, in particular either defending or withdrawing his (mainly Apollo) claims.

While I have little in common with the man, and whole-heartedly disagree with all of his photographic studies that I've analysed, the mere fact that he has the opportunity to defend his studies on this forum enriches the Apollo debate. It's a shame he doesn't take proper advantage of the democratic right offered him here by properly defending (or withdrawing) his claims, rather than just stating them.

Jack ... I have also been put on moderation but I haven't seen that message , and except for two nights ago , my posts have been submitted without a problem .. I was however bumped off the forum the other night and then could not sign back in and was locked out temporarily.

I'm not sure if being moderated means that our posts are read as they are written and either allowed or denied , or if they are allowed to be submitted and then deleted if a moderator sees fit to do so .

I assume that the "sign in as invisivble " feature was taken off of our accounts so we could be monitored , as I haven't yet recieved an answer yet as to why that was done .

Duane,

To the best of my knowledge you have not been placed on moderation. I even reduced your warning level.

Any log-in problems are your own, and NOTHING to do with any Forum moderation.

When someone is on moderation, their posts are visible - as written - to the moderators and admins only.

The mod can approve or disapprove the post as is.

They can also edit the post before approving it. If so, the post appears with a note it has been edited and by whom, and when.

Let me make this clear to everyone: a moderator cannot edit a post without the fact that it has been edited - and by whom - being displayed in the post. The only mod action that takes place without a record for public viewing is the deletion of a post. That is still recorded in the security log, so an admin can tell if anyone deletes a post.

And, once again, no-one on this forum (including the admins) can alter a security log. The only people who might be able to do so are the people from IPB, not me, not John, not Andy.

Now, a warning: do not make any such accusations without clear proof.

If you believe there are problems, then say you are having problems and ask the staff to investigate.

For instance:

"All my posts are coming up with NOT ALLOWED; does this mean I am on moderation? If so, who put me on such and why, as I have not been notified of such."

Evan .. I'm not having any problems posting or logging in now ... and Kathy just PMed me explaining some of what you did ... Thanks .

Peter ... Thank you for coming to Jack's defense here ... As usual your insight is dead on accurate ... I was going to write something very similar to what you did , just not quite as profound ... But I was afraid if I did stand up for Jack that I might be moderated or banned ... Now I really don't care , as I no longer have any interest in wasting my time on a forum where freedom of speech is not allowed and certain members are blocked from posting in their own defense ... Jack has been attacked by certain members here on a daily basis ... Every single word he writes is ridiculed with a venom that to me is not normal ... Thus , my accusation that one of his attackers might be obsessed in taking him down .

Unfortunately this entire debacle has happened because Jack came to my defense and even though he may have misunderstood that I had not been banned , that is no reason to block him from posting what he wants to .... He has apologized to John Simkin for misquoting him and draging him into this , and I believe that should have been enough to correct the problem .

It's very true that I have been no saint on this forum and have at times hurled insults in reply to those who have insulted me first ... but that is still no excuse for me stooping to their level and breaking the forum rules ... It is an very immature game of what I call ONE UP , and what that comes down to in the end is that whoever argues the best wins and truth ALWAYS loses .

I joined this forum to discuss my favoite subject , the Apollo moon hoax ...and also to meet Jack White because I admire what he is doing in exposing the faked Apollo photography ...I also hoped by my joining that I could hopefully come to Jack's defense here , as I had been reading these threads long before I joined and saw a pattern of abuse towards him which was disgusting ... but I had no idea that my joining this forum would come to this ... That the man I admire so much would be censured for coming to my defense .

I would like to post on this forum about my conspiracy beliefs, but not if means being constantly ridiculed for those beliefs ... I am tired of being insulted and then when I reply in kind , have my post comments placed on the complaints thread to be made an example of ... I consider that akin to a witch hunt and what has been done to Jack , even worse ... I have no more interest in posting on a forum where Jack is being treated so unfairly .

I am requesting that Jack White have the moderation lifted from his account and be allowed once again to post without being censured .

To Whom It May Concern:

Jack White is a hero to all who struggle for justice and truth for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

That Jack often finds it difficult to control his passions should be appreciated as being indicative of his courage and his commitment to that cause.

Treating with collegiality the agents provocateurs who, in the service of the enemies of truth and justice, stalk these cyber pages is an unforgiveable offense.

Apparently the commisars of this Forum would sooner publish politely phrased attacks on truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth.

Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum. Who stands with me in his defense?

Charles Drago

No purpose and no stink
This is precisely the message a person gets when attempting to reply to a message when not logged in

Not me. Jack has been shown time and time again to post blatant mis-information and outright dis-information. Talk about an agent provocateur. Of course understanding this requires people who are intellectually honest. Do you qualify Drago?

Man, what stinks in here?

Somebody crack a window!

Translated from dragospeak,

No, I do not.

Fellow members,

I am an advocate for the right to freedom of speech and I, too have been on moderation until I agreed that there were certain lines concerning forum rules that we are not to cross. Many times I will still walk up to the line and look over it, but I try to have enough sense to know when enough is enough. I could go back and find some examples if need be, but as I recall - Jack has gone on to still use swear words and has called people a liar and in one post that I seem to recall ... Jack basically said that he wasn't about to not say what he wanted to.

Do I think that the moderation thing goes a little overboard when it comes to how we address another members post - maybe? But at the same time this forum is being used by under-aged students and when it gets to where any of us feel that we are more important than the memory of JFK or rights to the students not to have to read profanities and such that accompanies them, then it is time to start considering starting one's own forum where a person needs to be over 18 to join it.

And as far as what moderation is ... I was under the understanding that Jack can post, but before his message goes onto the forum - it is checked to insure he has followed the forum rules and guidelines. Sometimes all it takes is the rewording of a phrase to be accepted and still got your point across. I'm sure if Jack would work with the moderators ... his moderated status could be lifted.

Bill Miller

Peter:
Thank you for an excellent post and also a reminder that we can all fall victim to posting a sharp response, when perhaps a better notion is to sleep on what is preceived as a personal attack. (It happened to me just yesterday, with someone I had considered a friend). I broke my own "rule" of refusing to respond in anger, even when feeling attacked personally.

I am reminded today, as you point out how close we are to yet another war, that we who care deeply about the Kennedy assassination and what has happened to our country since have to cease this terrible fueding. We all have our opinions as to what may have happened that day, but we here are really closer in agreement than we are in our disagreement, (with the notable exception of the LNs who post here).

Dawn

.

I've witnessed Bill Miller exchanging insults with Jack White on internet forums for well over five years. There is probably no one on this forum less qualified to offer an impartial opinion on the reasons for the recent incident which has absolutely nothing to do with Jack's use of profanity. The issue was about something else entirely. Miller's above post is irrelevant to the reasons why Jack White became subject to moderation.

A few months ago I voiced disagreement with Miller's comments about Jack White (saying that it was the type of response that could cause people to lose respect for Bill Miller) and Miller's response was to make a public post indicating that he had personally seen me do something that might cause others to lose respect for me. I had no idea to what he was referring and demanded four or five times that he make the nature of his allegation public. Rather than do so, Miller said that he would send me a private email detailing his charge. Each time Miller was asked to make his allegation clear to readers of the thread he declined to do so saying that I might not want such a thing to be known.

I've never opened that email.

Bill Miller's invocation of the memory of President Kennedy in his judgments of Jack White's conduct on this Forum as if he somehow had more reverence than Jack is simply disgusting. I've seen him use the same tactic on others that disagreed with him.

It's not about President Kennedy's memory, under-age students, or even Jack White. Miller's post seems to be more about him and his ego. His use of the word "I" eight times in an opening paragraph of four sentences indicates that.

Mike ... I do believe you're forgetting Craig Lamson ... The one member here who not only makes it his personal business to disagree with almost every other member on this forum , but does it in such a way that he has turned it into his personal toilet ... His daily abuse towards Jack White and Peter Lemkin is quite disturbing , to say the least .

Yet , nothing is ever done to stop or moderate him because of his friendship and similiar agenda with one of the moderators here , Evan Burton .

Duane, I would have preferred that you didn't take one sentence of mine out of context from that post which was directed in a different direction and use it to further your comments about Lamson. I didn't forget about anyone.

When you first started posting here, I told you I liked you. I still do. But I've seen you break your own vows so many times and always blame it on being provoked. It's only my opinion, but if you were to start ignoring some people the truth wouldn't suffer a bit.

In this section of this Forum, its almost always more about ego than it is the actual truth. The real battle for the truth is being waged on much bigger fronts.

Oh, amen.
The only thing I can add to this great post is that I can't understand why anybody would continue to suffer through Miller's posts when there is the capability to put him on "ignore."

Halo fellow members......

I do believe it could be called the AAM desease......the "all about me's''...and of course one upmanship as another member has already mentioned....
and in other cases, hmmmmmm who knows...??

These problems also go back many years between some.......and they carry on.
.......Nothing new in the research F worlds in otherwards.....as many are well aware.....but also as a member has mention, there are those out there that have set their sites on Jack White, and in the bringing of him down, and in one case.

Not mentioning any names, of course, that would be bad press....but whose presence is here, went back bragging of such a few years back onto another F.......after leaving one...perhaps he did not think others were watching both ??... Don't know, didn't care, but he proved his point of what
exactly he was up to...and it continues...

If a moderator cannot do his or her job without becoming personally entangled in the situation, on a particular thread, then get out of the kitchen...imo..he or she should know the when to step out.......and or sign in as not being the moderator on that particular thread...and take no actions as such..

A problem mentioned by a member, in an earlier post in this thread, is that he could not log in as invisible, I no longer can either, if I wish to.....
Is that a problem with settings or does it mean something I am not aware of...

Like never mind, Big Brother, is Father Funckle perhaps watching.....?? Just asking.....curious, though it does not mean much one way or tother to moi..I will come and go as I do....Unless I have stepped on anyones toes to warrant such..if so, I would like the reasoning..

Thanks Brothers and Sisters, now all carry on with the meeting, and Praise be, please continue........

B......

Bernice might not want to mention any names but I don't mind .

I have been doing a little research on one of our beloved moderators here .... The same moderator who decided to conduct a witch hunt here against me and Jack ... The same moderator who went to his pals at the most dispicable of forums, known as Apollo Hoax , and tried to recruit members there to come here to attack Jack and me ... The same moderator who everyone here thought was such a nice , fair and honest guy...

Here are just a few of his offense posts on Apollo hoax ... He goes by the name of Obviousman there ... and Evan Burton here .

And I quote ...

"Oh yes - Duane is far from being the sharpest knife in the draw. He runs an antique dealership IIRC from his Ed Forum bio. There was also mention of someone with the same name being busted for dope after some domestic incident with his girlfriend - I wonder if it is the same person?" ** (I am guilty of being an antiques dealer , but I never have been busted for dope ...So no , that's NOT me . )


"I do it for pretty much all the reasons previously mentioned.

Sometimes a question is asked and I have to dig deep into technical reports I would normally never bother with. I pick up lots of interesting information, gain a greater appreciation.

I do it to check on the person asking the questions; sometimes they are a person who has heard the misdirection of the HBs, and just need to be shown how to research the subject for themselves.

I do it for the lurkers, who might otherwise just swallow the HB nonsense. I always try to stress researching the facts yourself, consulting experts (plural) in the fields where you don't have the background to make a valid judgment, checking the what people have said is actually what they did say, etc, and most importantly to try and set up experiments to verify the data you have been given. That last one is a killer for the Jack White debates; once people try to reproduce the things he says are impossible, they discover what a fraud he is.

Lastly, and not to my credit, I do it because it is so easy to slap these people with a cold wet fish and make them look stupid. It's schadenfreude.

99% of the time, you are unlikely to change the mind of a "hard core" HB."


"Hey - just register. They don't have any "exclusion policy".

If anyone has problems with the forum, just let Craig, Len, or myself know about it. "


"Straydog accuses Jay of withholding evidence from his 'fan club':

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...try111797"


"That's right. The ID numbers simply confirm what image he is talking about. Think about it; how can an ID number be "fake"?

They are simply numbers assigned to a particular image. He also makes a deal out of GRIN numbers; I'm pretty sure that even GRIN images still give the original image number, although the GRIN server file number is different.

I'm pretty sure it's that Jack is starting to suffer from senility or similar. That's not being offensive or cruel; that is an honest assessment. He is getting on in years, he's making unsupportable claims, he's being illogical, and showing signs of paranoia.

I genuinely think that Jack is starting to suffer the effects of age on the mental makeup. No-one is immune, even the brightest & best can suffer from it. "


"All explained here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...911&st=120#

For any of that garbage Jack calls "studies" about Apollo on the Aulis website see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...opic=5911"


"And I see Duane is already playing the victim, saying he'll be banned while actually behaving in a manner which will make his prophesy come true!

Now where have I seen that behaviour before?"

"I only get the occasional 'bandwidth limit' error. It's because some.. what do you call them, spammers?..... download heaps of stuff via the website, causing the site to exceed its allowance. There is a thread about it on the website somewhere.

Now, if I were a woo-woo, I'd claim it's all Duane and Jack's fault, trying to prevent people watching them getting a pasting."

"Keep 'em coming, folks.

BTW, have alook at the new 'live one' we have on the Education Forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;st=165"


"i don't know which is Jack's most prominent feature: his obstinacy, or his ignorance. "

"Now, I can't speak about Turbo or Lionking, but I do have some small experience with Duane. An example of his open mindedness (modified for comedic value, not a quote, although representaional):

Duane: But NASA never gives any figures for radiation on the Moon. We can't say if they could survive.

EB: Sorry, you are wrong. Here are the radiation figures from the lunar landings.

Duane: Those figures are from NASA - you can't trust them.

EB: Hang on; the only figures available must have been recorded by NASA, but you say NASA figures are invalid and there are no other figures so.....?

Duane: I win. You lose. Thanks for playing."

"I yam what I yam." .... * ( yes you certainly are )


http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...user=obviousman
..................

And I think you all get my point .

I not only recommend that Jack White be uncensured , but I also recommend that Evan Burton be removed from moderator status , for "Obviousman " reasons.

I am locking this before it gets any further out of hand.