I will not be responding to Craig Lamson...

[Jack White]

I had quite enough of Mr. Lamson's disruptive provocations on Rich DellaRosa's JFK research Forum before Rich banished him (and others) for bad behavior, insults and rules violations. NASA has sent Lamson and others here to oppose my research into the faked photos. I have already heard all of his phony excuses and egregious insults. I do not need a repetitive rerun to tell you that anything he says is false.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

So anybody that doesn't agree with you is automatically a "provocateur"? Gee it must be nice to live in your deluded little world. And is NASA psychic? Craig Lamson registered on this board on 15 November. That's absolutely amazing that he could have been sent here a full month before you even started posting about the supposedly faked Apollo photos on 18 December. As far as I can tell, Craig has done nothing more than point out that your research was in fact shoddy and incomplete. You claimed that only 2 pictures showed the scale on the window and Craig found 63. How do you account for that?

Edited January 24, 2005 by Matthew Lewis

[Craig Lamson]

I had quite enough of Mr. Lamson's disruptive provocations on Rich DellaRosa's JFKresearch Forum before Rich banished him (and others) for bad behavior, insults and rules violations. NASA has sent Lamson and others here to oppose my research into the faked photos. I have already heard all of his phony excuses and egregious insults. I do not need a repetitive rerun to tell you that anything he says is false.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its always such a pleasure to see you squirm while your reputation lies in tatters on the floor.

BTW nothing in my post was false. Can you account for that? I think not.

[Bill Miller]

So anybody that doesn't agree with you is automatically a "provocateur"? 

If Jack is going to start new threads each time he doesn't want to respond to another individual who doesn't agree with him, then I ask that he consider just starting one thread listing all those people who he thinks does agree with him for the list will be much shorter and take up far less forum space! I'm also going to ask that John Simkin consider removing the last two threads Jack has started concerning his desire not to respond to certain researchers because such threads are nothing more than irrelevant extensions of the Apollo subject.

[John Simkin]

If Jack is going to start new threads each time he doesn't want to respond to another individual who doesn't agree with him, then I ask that he consider just starting one thread listing all those people who he thinks does agree with him for the list will be much shorter and take up far less forum space! I'm also going to ask that John Simkin consider removing the last two threads Jack has started concerning his desire not to respond to certain researchers because such threads are nothing more than irrelevant extensions of the Apollo subject.

I am reluctant to remove any thread as this always leads to me being attacked for censoring the views of members. However, I do think it was unnecessary for Jack to start another thread on someone he does not intend to respond to. It is already abundantly clear that Jack is unwilling to engage in debate with people he disagrees with. That is his prerogative. Although by attacking the motives of his opponents and refusing to challenge the evidence they have provided does not give a very good impression to the neutral who does not hold strong views on the subject.

I would ask all members to consider rule (iv) before posting.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

[John Simkin]

I had quite enough of Mr. Lamson's disruptive provocations on Rich DellaRosa's JFK research Forum before Rich banished him (and others) for bad behavior, insults and rules violations. NASA has sent Lamson and others here to oppose my research into the faked photos. I have already heard all of his phony excuses and egregious insults. I do not need a repetitive rerun to tell you that anything he says is false.

Jack

Unlike Rich DellaRosa's JFK Research Forum we do not ban people because they have views different from the administrator. As I am someone who has been banned from Rich DellaRosa's JFK Research Forum for defending myself against attacks from Bob Vernon, surely you do not expect me to be sympathetic to you on this point.

[Jack White]

It is already abundantly clear that Jack is unwilling to engage in debate with people he disagrees with. That is his prerogative. Although by attacking the motives of his opponents and refusing to challenge the evidence they have provided does not give a very good impression to the neutral who does not hold strong views on the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, may I point out:

1. I will discuss evidence with any SINCERE person, even if they disagree.

2. I will not ARGUE (debate) with anyone. Arguing is a waste of time.

3. I will not engage in any discussion with anyone who engages in uncivil personal attacks, such as Miller, Lamson, Burton, et al.

4. I will not engage in any discussion with persons with a hidden agenda (who have joined the forum with the sole purpose of discrediting my research).

5. I will not engage in any discussion with persons such as Lamson and Miller WHO HAVE BEEN ATTACKING ME FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN THE PAST and whose motives are clear. Personal attacks are NOT research.

6. I will not engage in discussion who distorts the truth and misstates established facts. If it is improper to call this lying, what word may I safely substitute?

7. It is pointless to argue with persons who USE THE OFFICIAL STORY as a standard to support their position. That is like using the Warren Report to prove that researchers are wrong in saying LHO did not kill JFK. Quoting NASA to prove that Apollo mission photos are authentic is like quoting Nixon that he "was not a crook". NASA has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth. NASA supports websites like BAD ASTRONOMY. NASA recruits PROVOCATEURS to create disruptions on forums which try to expose the truth.

If anyone wants to discuss the evidence I present, I am eager to do so. I am unwilling to engage in personal attack dogfights which provocateurs seek to provoke.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

It is already abundantly clear that Jack is unwilling to engage in debate with people he disagrees with. That is his prerogative. Although by attacking the motives of his opponents and refusing to challenge the evidence they have provided does not give a very good impression to the neutral who does not hold strong views on the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, may I point out:

1. I will discuss evidence with any SINCERE person, even if they disagree.

2. I will not ARGUE (debate) with anyone. Arguing is a waste of time.

3. I will not engage in any discussion with anyone who engages in uncivil personal attacks, such as Miller, Lamson, Burton, et al.

4. I will not engage in any discussion with persons with a hidden agenda (who have joined the forum with the sole purpose of discrediting my research).

5. I will not engage in any discussion with persons such as Lamson and Miller WHO HAVE BEEN ATTACKING ME FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN THE PAST and whose motives are clear. Personal attacks are NOT research.

6. I will not engage in discussion who distorts the truth and misstates established facts. If it is improper to call this lying, what word may I safely substitute?

7. It is pointless to argue with persons who USE THE OFFICIAL STORY as a standard to support their position. That is like using the Warren Report to prove that researchers are wrong in saying LHO did not kill JFK. Quoting NASA to prove that Apollo mission photos are authentic is like quoting Nixon that he "was not a crook". NASA has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth. NASA supports websites like BAD ASTRONOMY. NASA recruits PROVOCATEURS to create disruptions on forums which try to expose the truth.

If anyone wants to discuss the evidence I present, I am eager to do so. I am unwilling to engage in personal attack dogfights which provocateurs seek to provoke.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. I'm sincere in my belief, based on the evidence, that the Apollo lunar photographs were indeed taken on the surface of the moon, as billed by NASA. I'm also sincere in my belief that you, Jack White are making faulty conclusions about the Apollo images and I'm not afraid to say so.

2. I'm not arguing with you, rather arguing with the "research" you have published in this public forum. As such it's fair game. If you don't like the evidence I produce to back up my posts, fine...offer alternative evidence.

3. Being civil cuts both ways and your recent posts show that you do not practice what you preach. It might have worked for you inside the walled garden of JFKresearch with the attending guard dogs, but I suspect it will fail here.

4. My agenda is not nor ever has been hidden. I'm very upfront about what I believe and what my goals are. Let me restate them in case you have forgotten. I believe Apollo was as billed, and the images from the moon are authentic. I believe and have shown numerous times that your photographic understanding is lacking. I will when possible offer evidence and experimental data to prove just that. Got it?

5. See above. BTW, looking at a picture and seeing hidden trucks and scaffolding without further study is not research, it's imagination run amuck.

6. I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror because that is exactly what you are doing with your "apollo research".

7. Unless you are able to provide some evidence other than your "apollo photographic research" to back up your wild claim that the official Apollo record is false, please refrain from calling it such. The Apollo program is one of the most documented and detailed events in modern history. Your suggestion that is is something other than correct has no foundation in fact. You use the Apollo record and photography when it suits your needs but then you claim it cannot be used against you. Please, give me a break. It cuts both ways. Again if you have evidence that NASA supports places like Bad Astronomy and the like and that they recruit people to debunk the likes of you, please post it. I cannot speak for anyone but myself but I have never been approached by anyone from NASA nor any other group or agency to promote Apollo history. I do it because I enjoy it. Period. If you can prove otherwise please do so or cease your suggestion that I am somehow connected to NASA.

I and others are attempting to discuss your "findings" here on an open forum by presenting evidence that is contrary to your findings. You refusal or inability to refute our evidence speaks volumes.

[Evan Burton]

You won't respond to Craig Lamson for the same reasons I posted in the thread where you said you won't respond to me.

As John Simkin said, you do no credit to your theories when you post them but will not defend them.

[Shanet Clark]

Mr. White is to be applauded for his courage and prophetic insight into the photographic record.

I salute him and support his efforts, if not all of his specific findings.

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. White is to be applauded for his courage and prophetic insight into the photographic record.

I salute him and support his efforts, if not all of his specific findings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Comment deleted by Craig Lamson

Edited March 27, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Mr. White is to be applauded for his courage and prophetic insight into the photographic record.

I salute him and support his efforts, if not all of his specific findings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet,

Someone can be applauded for their efforts if they go against mainstream thought in trying to prove that accepted belief is, in fact, false. I've said in other threads that I agree with critical analysis.

What, however, if they are wrong? What if their efforts were in vain because accepted belief was, in truth, actual fact? The critical analysis is noble but refusing to accept fact is not.

What evidence, for arguements sake, would you accept in proving that the moon landings happened as history records?

BTW - I see nothing prophetic or insightful about Jack's analysis.

[Shanet Clark]

What is this ? A Good cop / Bad cop Routine ?

In the context of unconstrained discourse in the new internet media, I found my fellow member Jack White with little or no support on these Apollo issues. In the spirit of good seminar dynamics and personal loyalty, I responded to Jack's posts in order to give him the "second" he needed, the encouragement to unveil a more articulated and credible body of evidence concerning his approach.

I believe I assisted him in presenting a more fully articulated presentation.

In the process, I found how compelling his evidence was.

One only needs to review the key photo threads to see the evidence I have found fairly persuasive and in need of further unbiased review.

I find the anomalys as pointed out by Jack, at least half of the specific ones, to withstand the joint and concentrated bureaacratic debunking by our members, the Clavius site, etc.

I still stand alone as his second, and supporter;

and I am proud of my role in the stimulation of responsible analysis of these

problematic and strange photos.

I am unswayed by the vehement and "scientific" barrage of co-ordinated effort in explaining the shadows, point of views, moon/earth phases and photo prints found on the landing gear in the photos.

However, I realize I am nearly alone and stand as a member's personal second in the seminar dialogue process, and I hope my warm colleagues from the JFK and International Education forums understand me as such, one who will vouch if only to propel Jack White, Lee Forman and the rest of the members further along

.....

[Jack White]

What is this ? A Good cop / Bad cop Routine ?

In the context of unconstrained discourse in the new internet media, I found my fellow member Jack White with little or no support on these Apollo issues.  In the spirit of good seminar dynamics and personal loyalty, I responded to Jack's posts in order to give him the "second" he needed, the encouragement to unveil a more articulated and credible body of evidence concerning his approach.

I believe I assisted him in presenting a more fully articulated presentation.

In the process, I found how compelling his evidence was.

One only needs to review the key photo threads to see the evidence I have found fairly persuasive and in need of further unbiased review.

I find the anomalys as pointed out by Jack, at least half of the specific ones, to withstand the joint and concentrated bureaacratic debunking by our members, the Clavius site, etc.

I still stand alone as his second, and supporter;

and I am proud of my role in the stimulation of responsible analysis of these

problematic and strange photos.

I am unswayed by the vehement and "scientific" barrage of co-ordinated effort in explaining the shadows, point of views, moon/earth phases and photo prints found on the landing gear in the photos.

However, I realize I am nearly alone and stand as a member's personal second in the seminar dialogue process, and I hope my warm colleagues from the JFK and International Education forums understand me as such, one who will vouch if only to propel Jack White, Lee Forman and the rest of the members further along

.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for your support, Shanet. By next week sometime my major

article will be online, and all these provocateurs will sneak off with

their tails between their legs. I have discovered IRREFUTABLE proof

of the NASA Apollo fakery. I will let everyone know when the article is

online.

Jack

[John Månestjärna]

I have discovered IRREFUTABLE proof

of the NASA Apollo fakery.

Yes, ignoring all science and information about the equipment used, while refusing to listen to anyone who says anything that might compromise the "proof", it would be irrefutable.

Because if you refuse to listen, nobody can refute your claims.

I see Jack's on to something here.