John Månestjärna Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 More drivel from Jack: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html I hereby present a new challenge (since nobody took me up on my previous one). Every single person who believes Jack has done his research, pick one of his claims. One Claim Per Person. Now, tell me how much money you are willing to bet that Jack is actually correct, and promise me you will publically admit that Jack White has not done his research once I prove him wrong about the claim you have picked. Any takers? Any at all? I refuse to prove Jack wrong on over a hundred claims, but I will gladly prove his best claims wrong, just to show that if his best claims are bunk, so is the rest. So, who wants to be the first bidder? Going to bed now, can't wait to rip the claims apart. If anybody will take me up on my challenge that is. Anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 More drivel from Jack:http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html I hereby present a new challenge (since nobody took me up on my previous one). Every single person who believes Jack has done his research, pick one of his claims. One Claim Per Person. Now, tell me how much money you are willing to bet that Jack is actually correct, and promise me you will publically admit that Jack White has not done his research once I prove him wrong about the claim you have picked. Any takers? Any at all? I refuse to prove Jack wrong on over a hundred claims, but I will gladly prove his best claims wrong, just to show that if his best claims are bunk, so is the rest. So, who wants to be the first bidder? Going to bed now, can't wait to rip the claims apart. If anybody will take me up on my challenge that is. Anybody? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats it? LOL... This is going to be sooooo much fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) More drivel from Jack:http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html I hereby present a new challenge (since nobody took me up on my previous one). Every single person who believes Jack has done his research, pick one of his claims. One Claim Per Person. Now, tell me how much money you are willing to bet that Jack is actually correct, and promise me you will publically admit that Jack White has not done his research once I prove him wrong about the claim you have picked. Any takers? Any at all? I refuse to prove Jack wrong on over a hundred claims, but I will gladly prove his best claims wrong, just to show that if his best claims are bunk, so is the rest. So, who wants to be the first bidder? Going to bed now, can't wait to rip the claims apart. If anybody will take me up on my challenge that is. Anybody? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I just went through Whites Aulis "research". I don't think I have every laughed so hard in my life. This thing is filled with so much disinformation, lack of photographic knowlege and down right lies, its almost too funny for words. Poor Jack can't even keep his own story correct. One example: From his "time study": "The battery-powered rovers had a top speed of about 8 mph, only slightly faster than walking...much like a golf cart. During the LRV travels ("traverses"), both men rode, and when moving, had no opportunity for photography." Yet in his photography section he points out a photo of tv camera on the rover and tells us that there are plenty of images taken by the Astronauts ( which is true) while riding in the rovers. So which is it Jack? No photography while riding in the rovers or lots of photos while riding in the rovers? LOL. This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel and by the time its done Whites reputation will be in tatters on the floor. BTW Jack, I'm NOT going to be running away with my tail between my legs but you just might. LOL> Edited March 31, 2005 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Tsk-Tsk... So much time and energy wasted by, quote "photo researchers" un-quote, disproving what some consider valid photo research. Jack must be making someone out there very nervous to be attracting this kind of attention. Considering the sources of "preservation of history" adherents located on the this site, of course no one really believes that lie anymore... Pound away, lad's, I for one enjoy seeing your quick retorts -- hang in the Jack, the dolts will disappear back to wenst they came... David Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Tsk-Tsk...So much time and energy wasted by, quote "photo researchers" un-quote, disproving what some consider valid photo research. Jack must be making someone out there very nervous to be attracting this kind of attention. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> While I tend to believe that Jack's research is flawed, I am nevertheless intrigued by the sudden appearance of these attack dogs, John and Craig. Do you guys post on any other topic? Are you NASA groupies? If so, what do think of the trajectory research performed for the HSCA by NASA's Thomas Canning? His mistakes were far more damaging than Jack's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) Tsk-Tsk...So much time and energy wasted by, quote "photo researchers" un-quote, disproving what some consider valid photo research. Jack must be making someone out there very nervous to be attracting this kind of attention. Considering the sources of "preservation of history" adherents located on the this site, of course no one really believes that lie anymore... Pound away, lad's, I for one enjoy seeing your quick retorts -- hang in the Jack, the dolts will disappear back to wenst they came... David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Guys, While I don't entirely agree with David G's comments, he has a very valid point. Ridicule - no matter how much deserved - is NOT an acceptable or desirable form of rebuttle. If we believe there are flaws in Jack's comments about images, then let's confine ourselves to the facts. Point out the lack of research. Give evidence that claims are wrong. Highlight incorrect or flawed interpretation. Especially offer demonstrations such as the shadow photos, where people can prove for themselves that Jack's claims are baseless. Let's NOT attack the man, regardless of our personal opinions. Play the ball, not the man. Simply offer the evidence necessary to show that Jack is wrong. If we attack him personally, it strengthens claims that we have something to hide. Put Jack's claims in the cold, hard light of critical analysis and let fact rule above all. Now, that being said: Jack, you should revise the comments at the bottom of THIS page. Dr. Costella is NOT currently a physicist at the University of Melbourne. I rang their Human Resources department today, and they told me he is an ex-employee. He left in 1996. I understand he is currently a teacher at a Melbourne (Australia) high school. You should also consider disclosing any business or research relationship with him, if you wish to offer his comments as impartial. Edited March 31, 2005 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Månestjärna Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 So much time and energy wasted by, quote "photo researchers" un-quote, disproving what some consider valid photo research. Jack must be making someone out there very nervous to be attracting this kind of attention. Some also consider Elvis to be alive, unicorns to be real, elves and goblins, and so on. I could make a long list. Unless you can actually prove that Jack White's research is correct, we have nothing to discuss. Jack brings forward no valid points except his own ignorance. I have several times put forward a challenge. Nobody has taken me up on it. Why don't you, if you think Jack makes good research? Are you afraid that I will ridicule your ignorance? What if I promise to not use one single sarcastic comment, innuendo, or word play? What if I only give links to full size high resolution images (Jack loves to crop and resize), and only quote text, and write nothing on my own? Will that suffice? It won't because I'd have to point out what to look for. I would have to teach you maths and physics, or how perspective works. But what if I cut the sarcasm, ridicule and "hostility" ? Will you take my comments seriously, or do you so strongly believe in Jack White that you refuse to think differently? Just curious. As for attention. Well, I can make up any claim about anything at all, and start posting on forums, to get attention. If I make my claims plausible to the untrained/uneducated eye, I will get friendly attention. Except from the trained people who will call me on my lies. Everyone has something they know a lot about, if you attack that person and tell them they know nothing, and they're wrong, even though they're the ones who spent years and years in school and studies, and even possibly in work life working on the hardware, they will snap back at you. Did Jack ask if there was something wrong with the shadows? No. He made a claim that NASA faked the picture, or that whistleblowers left clues. Jack claims there is a hoax. I want to see evidence. Not loosely based claims that fall on his lack of education or knowledge of photography, but actual evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Månestjärna Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 While I tend to believe that Jack's research is flawed, I am nevertheless intrigued by the sudden appearance of these attack dogs, John and Craig. Do you guys post on any other topic? Are you NASA groupies? Well, seeing as how nobody here was educated enough about Apollo to actually "attack" Jack's claims, we had to step in. Sudden appearance is a result of that fact, that nobody here could take care of the problem themselves. That and we're drawn to Jack like flies to biomatter, we just love the stink. Personally I have been debating/debunking moon hoax claims for years. well, 7 years to be exact. Jack White is just another guy with silly claims. I don't post on any other topic because I don't find any of the other topics interesting enough. This forum is about education, and I'm trying to educate Jack, which of course is futile since he refuses to listen, or admit that he is wrong. So I'm left with the hope of someone who's not sure about how to take Jack's claims can sleep at night knowing Jack is wrong. NASA groupie? No, I'm a space flight groupie. What other space flight conspiracies have you heard of, except Apollo? That's the big one. But sure, bring up the lost cosmonauts, or the russian base on the moon, or the US marines on Mars. I'll debate anything that's space related. I don't see any other space related topics here though. Perhaps you could point me to some if I missed them? Bottom line is, how we treat Jack, how we appear, or how we speak has nothing to do with the validity of Jack's claims. It has to do with personal thoughts and feelings. I have provided evidence that you can TRY AT HOME YOURSELF! Yet nobody on the other side of the fence has agreed that Jack White is wrong about shadows having to be parallel. They simply refuse to admit they are wrong. So should I act completely emotionless and just ramble on when Jack is wrong, or give him his own medicine? He ridicules NASA, saying the moon landings and/or pictures were faked. So what's wrong with me ridiculing Jack? oh the personal part? So if I change my "Jack is ignorant" claim to "anybody who claims this is ignorant", would that make you feel better? Probably not, since you'd know I was referring to Jack. In the same sense Jack is attacking real people, who made real accomplishments. Jack is also personally attacking anybody who has actual knowledge about the Apollo program. Anybody with mathemathics or physics educations. Anybody who knows about perspective. But no, we're the bad guys. Pat you believe Jack's research is flawed? I HAVE PROVED IT IS. What evidence do you need to accept that Jack is wrong? I have given you an example you can try at home. Will you publically say "yes, Jack is wrong about that" ? Why not? Is it a personal attack? How about we're less touchy feely, and actually look at the claims critically? Either Jack is lying, or he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's a fact. There's no middle thing. He refuses to admit that he is wrong, or defend his findings. He refuses to show actual evidence for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Tsk-Tsk...So much time and energy wasted by, quote "photo researchers" un-quote, disproving what some consider valid photo research. Jack must be making someone out there very nervous to be attracting this kind of attention. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> While I tend to believe that Jack's research is flawed, I am nevertheless intrigued by the sudden appearance of these attack dogs, John and Craig. Do you guys post on any other topic? Are you NASA groupies? If so, what do think of the trajectory research performed for the HSCA by NASA's Thomas Canning? His mistakes were far more damaging than Jack's. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have only a minor interest in the JFK case. And if you research you will see my "sudden apperance" is nothing of the sort. I joined this forum well before White bagan posting on Apollo, originally to post on the Moorman thread where I have some history. However, the thread was buried deep in the pile and I let it go. Maybe I'll get to it since its David Healy and Jack White making silly claims. Anyways, I did'nt visst the forum for some months and when I did I saw. WHites Apollo posts. I was quite happy for a number of reasons. 1. I find Whites work to be some of the worst "photographic research" I have ever seen and quite frankly I take pleasure in offering readers an alternative to his "work" 2. This is the first time Jack White has brought his apollo work outside his protected lair of JFKReaearch. I first when to JFKResearch because someone with Jacks permission was posting some limited examples of his apollo material to the Bad Astronomy Bulliten Board. Of course no one could converse with thte author of the work, since he was not there. Once I found out where he was I went there to challenge his works directly. Needless to say he was not pleased with that turn of events. Nor were his guard dogs. I was attacked by White and his goons from the word go, because I was posting emperical tests and factual research that was making their "golden boy" look pretty bad. I'm more than happy to return the favor. 3. Now we have Jacks works in a public forum and even better yet his "research" is now published on the Aulis website, making it fair game and more importantly fair use for rebuttal. 4. Apollo groupie? Sure I guess. But no more than the JFK groupies. Is is a problem to find the Apollo program interesting? And oh by the way I was happy toi tell my friends about my find...Jack White on a open forum. 5. So why go after White and his research? First he is not an intellectually honest person. If he were he would admit his mistakes, such as the identical photos which have been shown to be not identical on this forum but included in his Aulis piece. Second he would defend his work rathaer than just name calling and hiding. Hes just not an honest broker. Its pretty easy for White, he makes up a silly claim and posts it, once again claiming to have found Apollo fake. His ignorant minnions pat him on the back, never bothering to check the validity of his claims, because he s Jack White, a photographic god. So someone has to take an hour or more to do the research, do the experimentation, write up a rebuttal, all to show thats White is once again full of bull. Now all of this would be fine if White were honest and actually admitted it when he makes a mistake, and removed his faulty claim. However thats not the case. So I do this for personal reasons and for entertainment, and for the pleasure of seeing White watch his works being attacked in a public place without his guard dogs (well except for Healy who is all bark and no bite). Clearly White has every right to record his thoughts and make them public. And its the right of those who disagree to express that disagreement, be it JFK or Apollo. Clearly the goal is to bring the truth to the light of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Tsk-Tsk...So much time and energy wasted by, quote "photo researchers" un-quote, disproving what some consider valid photo research. Jack must be making someone out there very nervous to be attracting this kind of attention. Considering the sources of "preservation of history" adherents located on the this site, of course no one really believes that lie anymore... Pound away, lad's, I for one enjoy seeing your quick retorts -- hang in the Jack, the dolts will disappear back to wenst they came... David Healy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bark bark bark...got any teeth David? Making someone nervous? Classic White defence. Cant you at least be original? Nervous not. Delighted to see White "photo research" posted in a public place so it can now be shown to be crap? OH yea! Keep your little ct brain going David, and maybe next time you can actully try and defend some of Jacks work instead of just barking... We are just getting started on Jacks Aulis post, not going anywhere for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Dines Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) Guys,While I don't entirely agree with David G's comments, he has a very valid point. Ridicule - no matter how much deserved - is NOT an acceptable or desirable form of rebuttle. If we believe there are flaws in Jack's comments about images, then let's confine ourselves to the facts. Point out the lack of research. Give evidence that claims are wrong. Highlight incorrect or flawed interpretation. Especially offer demonstrations such as the shadow photos, where people can prove for themselves that Jack's claims are baseless. Let's NOT attack the man, regardless of our personal opinions. Play the ball, not the man. Simply offer the evidence necessary to show that Jack is wrong. If we attack him personally, it strengthens claims that we have something to hide. Put Jack's claims in the cold, hard light of critical analysis and let fact rule above all. Now, that being said: Jack, you should revise the comments at the bottom of THIS page. Dr. Costella is NOT currently a physicist at the University of Melbourne. I rang their Human Resources department today, and they told me he is an ex-employee. He left in 1996. I understand he is currently a teacher at a Melbourne (Australia) high school. You should also consider disclosing any business or research relationship with him, if you wish to offer his comments as impartial. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Evan, Well said Sir! While we differ on this issue, I am pleased to see you are willing to discuss this in a civilised manner. I believe Jack has produced the definitive Apollo photo analysis to date, worthy of serious consideration and discussion. If you, Mr. Lamson, and particularly John M are prepared to respond to posts on this site without personally attacking Mr. White, then yes, I would dearly love to discuss Jack's work. Bottom line, leave the bitchy, snide, and sarcastic comments for the Apollohoax Forum and let's use this forum as it was intended. Okay, I don't have a whole lot of letters after my name but I did go to school once, well twice actually but the second day was a sports carnival. No need to "dumb down" your replies. Finally, regarding Dr. Costella, having met the man several times, I can say there is absolutely no clandestine relationship between Mr. White or Dr. Costella. Indeed, Dr. Costella is very impartial regarding the Apollo missions and it took quite an effort on my behalf to get him to even consider looking into the issue. Bill Edited April 1, 2005 by Bill Dines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 (edited) Guys,While I don't entirely agree with David G's comments, he has a very valid point. Ridicule - no matter how much deserved - is NOT an acceptable or desirable form of rebuttle. If we believe there are flaws in Jack's comments about images, then let's confine ourselves to the facts. Point out the lack of research. Give evidence that claims are wrong. Highlight incorrect or flawed interpretation. Especially offer demonstrations such as the shadow photos, where people can prove for themselves that Jack's claims are baseless. Let's NOT attack the man, regardless of our personal opinions. Play the ball, not the man. Simply offer the evidence necessary to show that Jack is wrong. If we attack him personally, it strengthens claims that we have something to hide. Put Jack's claims in the cold, hard light of critical analysis and let fact rule above all. Now, that being said: Jack, you should revise the comments at the bottom of THIS page. Dr. Costella is NOT currently a physicist at the University of Melbourne. I rang their Human Resources department today, and they told me he is an ex-employee. He left in 1996. I understand he is currently a teacher at a Melbourne (Australia) high school. You should also consider disclosing any business or research relationship with him, if you wish to offer his comments as impartial. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Evan, Well said Sir! While we differ on this issue, I am pleased to see you are willing to discuss this in a civilised manner. I believe Jack has produced the definitive Apollo photo analysis to date, worthy of serious consideration and discussion. If you, Mr. Lamson, and particularly John M are prepared to respond to posts on this site without personally attacking Mr. White, then yes, I would dearly love to discuss Jack's work. Bottom line, leave the bitchy, snide, and sarcastic comments for the Apollohoax Forum and let's use this forum as it was intended. Okay, I don't have a whole lot of letters after my name but I did go to school once, well twice actually but the second day was a sports carnival. No need to "dumb down" your replies. Finally, regarding Dr. Costella, having met the man several times, I can say there is absolutely no clandestine relationship between Mr. White or Dr. Costella. Indeed, Dr. Costella is very impartial regarding the Apollo missions and it took quite an effort on my behalf to get him to even consider looking into the issue. Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I believe my dealings with you have been fair and civil, do you not agree? White however is another story and he gets back what he dishes out. A lie will aways be a lie and it will be noted as such. Continued use of "proofs" that dont pass established physical or scientific facts, is just disinformation and will be noted as such. I have no problem with healthy discussion and a desire to learn, I'm open and I expect the same from those I discuss issues with. I do however have no patience with those who just want to believe, facts and science be damned. I understand you are a Jack White fan, from JFKR. Thats no problem, as you are an honest broker. As to Whites latest works, which you label as "definitive Apollo photo analysis to date", exactly what are you refering to? His posted photo research or his time study? If its the time study perhaos you can give us your thoughts on his methods and assumptioms, and more importantly his calculations on the time available for photography by the astronauts. Craig Edited April 1, 2005 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Månestjärna Posted April 1, 2005 Author Share Posted April 1, 2005 I believe Jack has produced the definitive Apollo photo analysis to date, worthy of serious consideration and discussion. If you, Mr. Lamson, and particularly John M are prepared to respond to posts on this site without personally attacking Mr. White, then yes, I would dearly love to discuss Jack's work. Mr. Dines, I will put away all snide remarks, all the sarcasm, and all the "personal attacks", and only reply in a calm manner while discussing with you. I will present you the same challenge. Show me that any single claim that Jack has presented (since you say they are definite photo analysis) is correct. I have previously given examples on how to show that Jack is correct. I will repeat them, or if you pick a claim, I can tell you how to prove it correct. Or, if you only wish to lightly discuss something, I am fine with that as well. But I would find it easier if you picked one of the claims you find is the strongest, and we could start from there. I wish to show that these claims lack research and use of proper knowledge. The best way to do so, I feel, is to take the "best" claim first. Wouldn't you agree Mr. Dines? Still, if there is a specific claim you personally don't understand, and/or wish clarified, I am more than glad to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Dines Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 John M. and Craig L, Fair enough, I will present what I feel provides good proof of the Apollo Hoax and/or what I think is anomolous and requires some sort of explanation. Craig, for the record, yes you have been fair and civil towards me on this forum. Likewise I have conceded when you have proven me wrong. John, if you call me "Mr. Dines" again I'll hunt you down and punch you on the nose! My name is Bill! Okay, I guess the ball is in my court.....I'll be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Månestjärna Posted April 1, 2005 Author Share Posted April 1, 2005 John, if you call me "Mr. Dines" again I'll hunt you down and punch you on the nose! My name is Bill! But you called Craig Mr. Lamson! Isn't his name Craig? Is it because you can't figure out how to type out Mr. Månestjärna? But I'll stick to Bill from now on then. No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now