Morgan Reynolds interviews Jack White...

[Jack White]

I have not called anybody a xxxx. People rationalize about what their superiors order them to do.

Study of the Nazis make it very clear that people in certain situations will do and say what they

are ordered (or brainwashed) to do. They may rationalize that they are NOT LYING but doing

their patriotic duty. So I do not say they lie.

I say that NONE OF THE EXTANT APOLLO PHOTOS WERE TAKEN ON THE MOON.

Jack

[Jack White]

I have never stopped Jack making his Apollo claims; rather I (and others) cannot get Jack to defend his claims once they are made. Most often he does not reply - he just calls me a disinformation agent and won't address the valid points I have raised. He makes a claim - which is easily proven wrong - then only talks about it to people who support it. He won't discuss those claims with his detractors because - IMHO - he knows he'll be proven wrong.

I agree completely but I think it goes deeper than that. I don't think Jack is able to admit he might be wrong about something. That would fit well with his seeming paranoia that all those who post opposing viewpoints must be paid to do so. Apparently nobody is able to examine the research and come to a different opinion.

I consider this a personal attack and request that the moderators take appropriate action.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

I have never stopped Jack making his Apollo claims; rather I (and others) cannot get Jack to defend his claims once they are made. Most often he does not reply - he just calls me a disinformation agent and won't address the valid points I have raised. He makes a claim - which is easily proven wrong - then only talks about it to people who support it. He won't discuss those claims with his detractors because - IMHO - he knows he'll be proven wrong.

I agree completely but I think it goes deeper than that. I don't think Jack is able to admit he might be wrong about something. That would fit well with his seeming paranoia that all those who post opposing viewpoints must be paid to do so. Apparently nobody is able to examine the research and come to a different opinion.

I consider this a personal attack and request that the moderators take appropriate action.

Jack

I submit myself to the decision of other moderators. I will not comment on this in any way.

[Evan Burton]

I have not called anybody a xxxx. People rationalize about what their superiors order them to do.

Study of the Nazis make it very clear that people in certain situations will do and say what they

are ordered (or brainwashed) to do. They may rationalize that they are NOT LYING but doing

their patriotic duty. So I do not say they lie.

I say that NONE OF THE EXTANT APOLLO PHOTOS WERE TAKEN ON THE MOON.

Jack

This is what I mean by "wishy-washy" (and I like how you now compare the astronauts to Nazis; nice going).

It is either a lie or not. Even if they are not telling the truth because they consider it their "patriotic duty", it is deliberately telling a version of events they know to be untrue. That is called a lie. The person who knowingly tells a version of events that they know to be untrue is a xxxx.

Edited to add:

The definition of a xxxx is "one who tells lies". What, therefore is a lie?

lie

1   /laɪ/ noun, verb,lied, ly·ing.

–noun

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3. an inaccurate or false statement.

4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

–verb (used without object)

5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

–verb (used with object)

7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

—Idioms

8. give the lie to,

a. to accuse of lying; contradict.

b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.

9. lie in one's throat/teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.

[Evan Burton]

Actually, I'll reverse myself here. I ask all concerned to consider the following posts:

Asking in-depth questions based on understanding of the subject IS fair, and does not constitute an attack. Asking uncomfortable questions (like circumcision) does not constitute an attack. Asking questions for which an accurate answer is not given does not constitute an attack. Asking a question for which the answer is "no comment" is not an attack.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=194166

Pipedream. The last thing JVB wants is impartial intelligent questions by an unbiased emcee.

She does not want to be asked about the "Nobel scientists" who back her. Who are they?

She does not want to reveal why she claims to have the highest IQ in Florida. How was this determined?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=194081

Even if her various claims were true, which seems unlikely since she appears in not a single document regarding Oswald, her tales are so peripheral to the assassination as to be meaningless. So what is her motive? To be noticed? To sell her story? To become famous? To sell her tales to a movie maker? To most of us, what she has been doing for a good portion of her life makes no sense to a normal person. That she is unable to lead a normal life seems a path of her own choice.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193971

Some people who believe JVB have an empty mind...unable to evaluate evidence.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193806

Jim, everyone else sees who is telling the truth here. Go refigure.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193704

Only today did Adele get to the "email from Adele" which Judyth alleges that Adele wrote jointly to her and Mary Ferrell.

Adele denounces it as a forgery!

She says she has never seen it before and the writing style is not hers by a long shot. Even with close friends she would not use the words or phrases shown in purple. She had never met Judyth, and in their first conversation she decided that Judyth was a phony.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193567

JVB is quite an accomplished tap-dancer.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193362

I remind Jim that DPF is very strict about enforcing the policy against ad hominem attacks from either side of a discussion. For instance in the posting below, Jim would not be allowed to say....meaningless drive ....point of absurdity ....or other comments about the motives of opponents.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=192760

Are these personal attacks, or simply opinions made by a member? Are these personal attacks, or rebuttals towards claims made? Please note that none of these have been edited / made invisible / deleted / etc.

[Dave Greer]

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...view_jack_white

In the first couple of sentences of that interview, we read:

With photos my expertise is better than the average person. I notice things which the average person may not.

While you may or may not be better at taking photos than the average person, the Apollo studies you've presented on this forum only demonstrate that you simply aren't capable of analysing them properly. A simple search of this forum will show a few links for any interested followers of the thread, who are more than welcome to come to their own opinion about your abilities as a photographic analyst.

Why is it important to show why your studies are wrong? It's not so much about getting you to admit an error and withdraw a claim (although that would make a pleasant surprise). It's certainly not about bashing an old man for daring to question authority. Most of your studies are hosted at Aulis, David Percy's website. Many hoax believers use this site as part of their evidence that Apollo was faked. The same arguments get wheeled out time and again by various people on different forums, so instead of wasting time going over old ground again, it's easier to point them in the direction of refutations to your individual studies. If they choose to side with you once they've been shown why your studies are false, that's democracy. You can lead a horse to water...

[Matthew Lewis]

I have never stopped Jack making his Apollo claims; rather I (and others) cannot get Jack to defend his claims once they are made. Most often he does not reply - he just calls me a disinformation agent and won't address the valid points I have raised. He makes a claim - which is easily proven wrong - then only talks about it to people who support it. He won't discuss those claims with his detractors because - IMHO - he knows he'll be proven wrong.

I agree completely but I think it goes deeper than that. I don't think Jack is able to admit he might be wrong about something. That would fit well with his seeming paranoia that all those who post opposing viewpoints must be paid to do so. Apparently nobody is able to examine the research and come to a different opinion.

I consider this a personal attack and request that the moderators take appropriate action.

Jack

Everything I wrote is my honest OPINION based on what I see not an intentional attack (although I will abide by any moderator's decisions). If you would make an effort to address the opposing viewpoints that are brought up instead of ignoring them and accusing those who post them of being disinformation agents who are paid to post without any evidence then it would go a long way towards changing my opinion of you.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[William Kelly]

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...view_jack_white

In the first couple of sentences of that interview, we read:

With photos my expertise is better than the average person. I notice things which the average person may not.

While you may or may not be better at taking photos than the average person, the Apollo studies you've presented on this forum only demonstrate that you simply aren't capable of analysing them properly. A simple search of this forum will show a few links for any interested followers of the thread, who are more than welcome to come to their own opinion about your abilities as a photographic analyst.

Why is it important to show why your studies are wrong? It's not so much about getting you to admit an error and withdraw a claim (although that would make a pleasant surprise). It's certainly not about bashing an old man for daring to question authority. Most of your studies are hosted at Aulis, David Percy's website. Many hoax believers use this site as part of their evidence that Apollo was faked. The same arguments get wheeled out time and again by various people on different forums, so instead of wasting time going over old ground again, it's easier to point them in the direction of refutations to your individual studies. If they choose to side with you once they've been shown why your studies are false, that's democracy. You can lead a horse to water...

Why isn't it - to bring this on topic - why is it so important for Evan, Mathew, Dave et al, to prove Jack White wrong about the Moon Landings or moon photos or 9/11, yet it's okay for others to believe Oswald killed JFK alone because he was a deranged nut?

We've gone over the evidence again and again, and each time Oswald is exonerated and easliy percieved as being framed, yet 20% of the people, some of whom actually study this case, believe he killed JFK alone for his own psycho motives, and they're not lyers?

BK

[William Kelly]

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...view_jack_white

In the first couple of sentences of that interview, we read:

With photos my expertise is better than the average person. I notice things which the average person may not.

While you may or may not be better at taking photos than the average person, the Apollo studies you've presented on this forum only demonstrate that you simply aren't capable of analysing them properly. A simple search of this forum will show a few links for any interested followers of the thread, who are more than welcome to come to their own opinion about your abilities as a photographic analyst.

Why is it important to show why your studies are wrong? It's not so much about getting you to admit an error and withdraw a claim (although that would make a pleasant surprise). It's certainly not about bashing an old man for daring to question authority. Most of your studies are hosted at Aulis, David Percy's website. Many hoax believers use this site as part of their evidence that Apollo was faked. The same arguments get wheeled out time and again by various people on different forums, so instead of wasting time going over old ground again, it's easier to point them in the direction of refutations to your individual studies. If they choose to side with you once they've been shown why your studies are false, that's democracy. You can lead a horse to water...

[Craig Lamson]

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...view_jack_white

In the first couple of sentences of that interview, we read:

With photos my expertise is better than the average person. I notice things which the average person may not.

While you may or may not be better at taking photos than the average person, the Apollo studies you've presented on this forum only demonstrate that you simply aren't capable of analysing them properly. A simple search of this forum will show a few links for any interested followers of the thread, who are more than welcome to come to their own opinion about your abilities as a photographic analyst.

Why is it important to show why your studies are wrong? It's not so much about getting you to admit an error and withdraw a claim (although that would make a pleasant surprise). It's certainly not about bashing an old man for daring to question authority. Most of your studies are hosted at Aulis, David Percy's website. Many hoax believers use this site as part of their evidence that Apollo was faked. The same arguments get wheeled out time and again by various people on different forums, so instead of wasting time going over old ground again, it's easier to point them in the direction of refutations to your individual studies. If they choose to side with you once they've been shown why your studies are false, that's democracy. You can lead a horse to water...

Why isn't it - to bring this on topic - why is it so important for Evan, Mathew, Dave et al, to prove Jack White wrong about the Moon Landings or moon photos or 9/11, yet it's okay for others to believe Oswald killed JFK alone because he was a deranged nut?

We've gone over the evidence again and again, and each time Oswald is exonerated and easliy percieved as being framed, yet 20% of the people, some of whom actually study this case, believe he killed JFK alone for his own psycho motives, and they're not lyers?

BK

Why? Simple. As has been proven time and time again ...and not as a matter of opinion but hard empirical proofs...Jack simply does not know what he is talking about whe nit comes to his so called "photo analysis".

Clearly that does not fit the agenda and BELIEFS of some. But hard fact is hard fact. It's as simple as that Bill.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Why isn't it - to bring this on topic - why is it so important for Evan, Mathew, Dave et al, to prove Jack White wrong about the Moon Landings or moon photos or 9/11, yet it's okay for others to believe Oswald killed JFK alone because he was a deranged nut?

Why is it not okay to prove people wrong? After all, if Jack (or anyone else) is wrong then they are wrong.

[Matthew Lewis]

I would like to add that I view it as a personal attack every time Jack accuses or implies that I post here because I am paid to do so.

[Dave Greer]

Why isn't it - to bring this on topic - why is it so important for Evan, Mathew, Dave et al, to prove Jack White wrong about the Moon Landings or moon photos or 9/11, yet it's okay for others to believe Oswald killed JFK alone because he was a deranged nut?

We've gone over the evidence again and again, and each time Oswald is exonerated and easliy percieved as being framed, yet 20% of the people, some of whom actually study this case, believe he killed JFK alone for his own psycho motives, and they're not lyers?

BK

People can believe whatever they like about Oswald, or about any matter discussed on this forum. That's democracy. Different things matter to different people. You clearly think the JFK assassination is more important than whether Apollo was faked. That's your personal choice and I'm fine with that.

Personally, I'm more interested in Apollo. It annoys the heck out of me that people seek to undermine that achievement for personal gain, notoriety, or other motivation. When I see false information about Apollo being propagated, I choose to investigate the claims and where possible show why they are wrong. I make no apology for this, and without being rude, have absolutely no intention of letting you or anyone else decide what should be important to me, and what issues I should be talking about.

As for Oswald, I haven't delved into the JFK conspiracy in anywhere near as much detail as I have Apollo. I always used to think Oswald was probably a lone nut. I've since changed my mind, I now suspect that Lyndon B Johnson was behind it, but don't know enough to argue a convincing case.

Feel free to discuss whatever theories on whatever issues you choose to, but kindly allow me the same consideration.

[William Kelly]

Why isn't it - to bring this on topic - why is it so important for Evan, Mathew, Dave et al, to prove Jack White wrong about the Moon Landings or moon photos or 9/11, yet it's okay for others to believe Oswald killed JFK alone because he was a deranged nut?

We've gone over the evidence again and again, and each time Oswald is exonerated and easliy percieved as being framed, yet 20% of the people, some of whom actually study this case, believe he killed JFK alone for his own psycho motives, and they're not lyers?

BK

People can believe whatever they like about Oswald, or about any matter discussed on this forum. That's democracy. Different things matter to different people. You clearly think the JFK assassination is more important than whether Apollo was faked. That's your personal choice and I'm fine with that.

Personally, I'm more interested in Apollo. It annoys the heck out of me that people seek to undermine that achievement for personal gain, notoriety, or other motivation. When I see false information about Apollo being propagated, I choose to investigate the claims and where possible show why they are wrong. I make no apology for this, and without being rude, have absolutely no intention of letting you or anyone else decide what should be important to me, and what issues I should be talking about.

As for Oswald, I haven't delved into the JFK conspiracy in anywhere near as much detail as I have Apollo. I always used to think Oswald was probably a lone nut. I've since changed my mind, I now suspect that Lyndon B Johnson was behind it, but don't know enough to argue a convincing case.

Feel free to discuss whatever theories on whatever issues you choose to, but kindly allow me the same consideration.

But it doesn't matter what you or Jack White think about Apollo or the moon landings.

It does matter if Oswald was a lone nut or framed as part of a conspiracy and coup, as the national security of the United States is at stake, and all presidents are potential victims until what happened to JFK is resolved.

It's not just a matter of belief, or what you or Jack White think happened on or off the moon, determining how and why the President was killed is more than just a matter of belief or public opinion, it's the Constitution of the nation that is on the line, not just what you or Jack White believe.

We are allowed to believe anything but to know nothing.

BK

[Dave Greer]

But it doesn't matter what you or Jack White think about Apollo or the moon landings.

I can't speak for Jack, but it certainly matters to me.

It does matter if Oswald was a lone nut or framed as part of a conspiracy and coup, as the national security of the United States is at stake, and all presidents are potential victims until what happened to JFK is resolved.

It's not just a matter of belief, or what you or Jack White think happened on or off the moon, determining how and why the President was killed is more than just a matter of belief or public opinion, it's the Constitution of the nation that is on the line, not just what you or Jack White believe.

We are allowed to believe anything but to know nothing.

BK

I respect your commitment to your cause, but the Constitution of your nation just doesn't tug at my emotional heartstrings as much as Apollo does. What can I say? I'm not an American, but I am a space-geek!