Maya Abou Saad Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Hi Mr. Jack, I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Hi Mr. Jack,I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks Hi...I will look at it when I have time. In general CLAVIUS and BAD ASTRONOMY websites are populated by agents provocateur, and I do not bother to engage them in time-wasting arguments. I prefer not to even visit their sites. When I have time, I will look. OR, just ask me questions on THIS forum, and I will respond to any message which does not contain PERSONAL ATTACKS. Thanks for your interest in my studies. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 (edited) Hi Mr. Jack, I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks Hi...I will look at it when I have time. In general CLAVIUS and BAD ASTRONOMY websites are populated by agents provocateur, and I do not bother to engage them in time-wasting arguments. I prefer not to even visit their sites. When I have time, I will look. OR, just ask me questions on THIS forum, and I will respond to any message which does not contain PERSONAL ATTACKS. Thanks for your interest in my studies. Jack In other words Jack finds it difficult if not impossible to counter the debunking of his "studies" on those sites. He claims that they are fronts for NASA but has yet to produce any evidence to back those claims. Edited October 19, 2005 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maya Abou Saad Posted October 19, 2005 Author Share Posted October 19, 2005 Hi Mr. Jack, I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks Hi...I will look at it when I have time. In general CLAVIUS and BAD ASTRONOMY websites are populated by agents provocateur, and I do not bother to engage them in time-wasting arguments. I prefer not to even visit their sites. When I have time, I will look. OR, just ask me questions on THIS forum, and I will respond to any message which does not contain PERSONAL ATTACKS. Thanks for your interest in my studies. Jack Hi Len. It is not important who works for who. It is important that there is a counterclaim that needs to be refuted. Mr.Jack The question here is that the site ays that both mountains are eventually the same size, with the feautures on the closest mountain a bit bigger as should be, but the horizontal rige line has "eaten up" the bottom of the first mountain. That is why it looks smaller, bcz part of it is hidden by that ridge line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Hi Len. It is not important who works for who. It is important that there is a counterclaim that needs to be refuted. Hi Maya, I agree, you should tell that to Jack. To him making such claims frees him from the obligation to refute their points., i.e. it's an ad hominem attack. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Hi Mr. Jack,I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks Maya, I think I have dealt with this one on the following thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3589 The thread deals with all of the photographic claims made by Jack on the Aulis website. It's long but (IMO) worth reading. It's especially important to look for the situations where you can re-create the same scene yourself, and see what your own photographs tell you. Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Just watching a programme about the NASA plans for a return to the moon, and it struck me that the present plans are the greatest piece of evidence that Jack and other 'moon hoaxers' are wrong. Here we are, 40 years later than the design of Apollo. Massively improved electronics. Huge advances in aerospace technology. NASA has the chance to design an all-new system to land on the moon. What do they come up with? "Apollo on steroids". Why? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS. I'm just wondering how Jack et al are going to make up so-called 'proof' about the next generation of landings being faked. Have no doubt, they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Maya and Evan, I hope you have comfortable chairs because as they say here Brazil, you'd better 'espera sentada' [wait sitting] for Jack to reply. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maya Abou Saad Posted October 25, 2005 Author Share Posted October 25, 2005 http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_19.html can anybody explain the last study here thnx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_19.htmlcan anybody explain the last study here thnx Evan covered it post 142 in his thread (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3589) discussing Jack's work - about halfway down on page 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maya Abou Saad Posted October 26, 2005 Author Share Posted October 26, 2005 Thnx Stephen Mr. Jack, have you had the chance for checking the clavius site? thnx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Thnx StephenMr. Jack, have you had the chance for checking the clavius site? thnx See post 8 above. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 As you can see Maya, Jack White will only talk to you if you support his claims. If you question what he says, he will no longer discuss his claims with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eagerthan anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT. More little White lies? 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