Evan Burton

The Forum will be changing in look and operation due to a required update in future. Please read this post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15369

The look and operation of the Forum will be changing in the future. Please read this post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15369

There must be a way to settle it. I can understand - and support - keeping records confidential from every Tom, Dick or Harry.

On the other hand, a suspicious death followed by a verdict of suicide, and then they say no-one can see anything for 70 years? It hardly inspires confidence that everything is above board.

Is it possible for an exemption to be granted for an independent researcher?

This might have something to do with it:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=555...mp;postcount=16

John, you understand UK laws. Is this a normal procedure or is it indeed something extraordinary and suspicious?

I most stongly and totally object to this thread. It was my original idea to discuss this topic, yet the person most opposed to the notion as I see it started the thread. This is known as co-opting and is a well-known method of attempting to defeat a discussion, by controlling both the framing of the discussion and the control of it. Now it is proposed [privately among the moderators] that this and other thread pinned in Conspiracies and JFK be removed. I object in the strongest terms. I have not participated much in this thread as my political opponent chose to start it, IMO, in order to co-opt it. If it is removed, know that this and other likely to-be-removed pinned threads I just downloaded...so will have to cite...the reason I feel some want them removed - so to not be cited - able to be referred to. 

I really think you need to check your sources, Peter. There was discussion about reducing the number of pinned threads in the JFK section, due to a complaint from a member. I suggested consolidating some:

• Rules of behavior, photographs as avatars, moderating committee and motivation of posters combined into one.
  
• Actions of moderators and moderation options combined into one.
  
• Index and poll remain separate threads.
  

No mods objected (some agreed) and John S asked for it to go ahead.

Nothing has been removed, nothing changed.

There has been no discussion about the same happening here; the only request has come from a member that we put a Forum Technical Help thread on the JFK section.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT REMOVING THREADS OR PINNED TOPICS

BTW - you complain six months after this thread was started and four months after the last post? Get a grip...

P.S. To John S: Did I predict this or did I not? LOL!

Jack might be referring to the 'double reticules' seen in a couple of Apollo 14 images, IIRC. Jack believes they were made because a clear plastic overlay was used to place them on the image, and the corners lifted. Apart from being shown how this would not work, he ignored the reply I got from Hasselblad which explained the effect was because of light reflection within the Reseau plate (on which the reticules were etched).

Anyway - I've had my say and made my point. In order to avoid further disruption, if anyone has Apollo questions it would be appreciated if they could start their own threads on the Political Conspiracies board. That is a suggestion, a request - not a directive.

Jack avoids the issue: he refuses to admit he made a mistake. How can anyone not question the integrity of someone who deliberately maintains a position that they have been shown to be false?

If he is not deliberately refusing to admit what is proven errors, then what is the alternative? Either incompetence or a decline in mental ability to recognise such errors. You can decide which of them - or combination of them - it may be.

BTW - if you think Jack is correct then by all means research the claim yourself and - most importantly - SHOW THE POST/S WHERE CRAIG CALLED HIMSELF "MR LIGHT".

It would help Jack enormously.

Think anything you want. I would have never coined the "complimentary term" MR. LIGHT.

Lamson posted that is what his customers called him. I used it ONLY because he had called

himself that. I would NEVER have complimented him in a serious way. I was using the term

ONLY because he called himself that.

Jack

Right...and you expect us to believe that?

It was NEVER a compliment from you Jack, it was an attempt to SLAM me. The truth is here in the forum archives. PROVE your claim, or accept that you are once again not telling the truth.

As it stands the facts show you made mention of the term Mr. Light, on this forum, LONG BEFORE I even mentioned it. And as Evan was so kind ot post, my first explanation of the term in 06 matches to a tee the one I just gave.

So, show us all where I said what you said I did

BTW, My wife is not amused with your "corruption" of history. She was not pleased you included her in the first place and shes a bit peeved you can't be honest about it now.

I decided to expand my search, and used Google to search for "Mr Light" (please note - capitalisation and punctuation is not recognised). That gave a huge number of returns, including a number of companies that use the name. I then filtered the search by using "Mr Light" AND "Lamson" (since if Craig claimed in a post that he was called that by customers, his surname would have also been included in the post).

That drastically reduced the returns and the only examples I could find were of Jack calling Craig "Mr Light" or Craig saying that Jack had called him "Mr Light".

There were NO examples of Craig calling himself "Mr Light".

Come on Jack - admit you were wrong. It's not that a significant point... in fact, it will demonstrate that you DO admit error when proven wrong. Three little words Jack, that's all you have to say to clear your name: "I was wrong".

BTW - notice Jack does not admit he made a simple and understandable mistake in the example below? Instead he deflects and obfuscates.

How can any rational person not accept that Jack is adverse in the extreme to admitting he makes mistakes?

Okay - second example (thanks for the first Jack).

Jack's claim here.

My reply here.

Jack has made a simple misidentification of which side of the lunar module faces the camera. This was pointed out to him in 2006. Has he corrected his - ahem - "study"? No.

Thanks to Burton for posting AS11-44-6598 for me to examine! I was not familiar with it

previously. I am beginning a study of it which will appear on Aulis. This is a marvelous

Apollo photo full of wonderful colors...and so perfectly lighted!

Perhaps Mr. Burton will appeal to his crony Mr. Lamson to assist me with the text, since

Lamson is the self-proclaimed expert on photographic set lighting. I hope Lamson can

explain the following:

1. The photo is obviously lighted from the top (seen enhanced sun rays at top). I want

Mr. Lamson to describe the method for photographing sunrays against the black background

of outer space (note enhancement). I just cannot figure this out.

2. Though the sun is at the top and there are no light reflectors out in space, how did the

photographer manage to get the SIDE of the LM lighted so perfectly?

It is a mystery to me. But then I do not call myself Mr. Light.

Thanks for your help.

Jack

Just curious, did you delay Duane Damans posts for weeks as has been claimed?

Duane? No, not to my knowledge.

Think anything you want. I would have never coined the "complimentary term" MR. LIGHT. Lamson posted that is what his customers called him. I used it ONLY because he had called himself that. I would NEVER have complimented him in a serious way. I was using the term ONLY because he called himself that.

Jack

Then PROVE it. You have made a false statement according to all the evidence. If you are right, then prove Craig was wrong.

I'm guessing you can't but won't admit you made a mistake... as you refuse to do so in numerous cases shown.

Craig,

The action thread is for moderator use only. We unlock it, make the necessary entry, then lock it again.

Curious Evan, what was the specfics of your search? I used my member name and LIGHT as the keyword and that post you listed did not show. I am wondering why.

I had problems too, as I used the search term "Mr Light" but the Forum search engine didn't like it (Mr has only two letters and you need four letters minimum). I also tried to limit the search to your posts only, but the search engine looks for your name, not the poster. So whenever you were quoted it showed up.

I got around that in two ways:

1. I clicked on your name and used the SHOW ALL POSTS function, and when to your first posts on the Forum. Jack said it was when you first showed up so I searched the first 10 pages or so of your posts.

2. A better way is to use Google. Use the advance search, use the term "Mr Light", and limit the results to those from the Forum:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_...i=&safe=off

I went to the last page, then used the SHOW OMITTED RESULTS function. That gave me 775 instances.

The earliest instance I can find is 30 DEC 05, where Jack used the term:

...Such a light dress would have photographed in sharp contrast to the dark background, regardless of the direction of lighting. Mr. Light lies when he says the pedestal was BACKLIGHTED. The sun was in the south, not the west, as any fool can plainly see. Mr. Light surely knows the difference between SIDE-lighting and BACK-lighting.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50155

But then I do not call myself Mr. Light.

Jack

In the sprit of full disclosure, it should be noted that I don't call myself Mr. Light. That was a term of endearment bestowed upon me by Jack White when I did my very first study of his JFK works, the LHO Minsk photo.

I was kind enough to point out to Mr White that his claim that a certain shadow was impossible, thus rendering the photo a fake, was simply not impossible at all. In fact I did a quick shoot in my studio to provide proof of concept. And in response Jack White coined the phrase Mr. Light for which I thank him.

Continuing in the sprit of full disclosure, and the subject of this thread, perhaps Jack White will tell us if he ever removed his claim of the impossible shadow from his "study"

This would seem to be backed up by evidence on this forum. From 2006:

...Claimed all sorts of things to discredit the findings, even gave me the nickname "Mr. Light". Jack never attacks...LOL!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=68484

Can Jack substantiate his claim?

Hi John.

The answer to most of your questions is 'yes'. Let me explain.

Firstly, the CSM and LM were in lunar orbit on the sunlit side of the Moon. This was deliberate, as what they were doing in the photograph was inspecting the LM. The CSM was pointing "up" from the lunar surface with the LM "above" it. This was so that the LM could be inspected against the black of space. It was a final exterior inspection prior to landing. The LM would rotate about all axis, giving the CMP a good view to ensure nothing was amiss.

There are numerous images available from roll 44, as the entire undocking and inspection sequence was filmed. Go to:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

Then select FULL HASSELBLAD MAGAZINES, Apollo 11, then Magazine 44. The sequence goes from AS11-44-6565 to AS11-44-6600.

As Craig mentioned, the CM itself was covered with with highly reflective mylar tape.

That image also shows the various windows on the CM. The image Jack shows was probably taken through window 4. Window 5 is flush with the hull so points directly out whereas windows 2 and 4 are recessed to allow you to look directly forward.

Yes, the crew wore white clothes. They were called a Constant Wear Garment and looked like this:

Another example: Here I show how Jack has got the wrong image, and that the correct image has all the "missing" items in it. I also show how the flag was not deployed until late in the mission, some 23 hours after the image was taken. I corrected Jack in 2006, but has he withdrawn the claim? Nope - the erroneous claim is still there. Will Jack admit he was wrong? My money is on no.

***********

On the same page you can see Jack's OH SAY CAN YOU SEE claim. Once again he claims a missing flag - but as pointed out previously, the flag wasn't deployed until later. My pointing this out is here.

Has Jack corrected himself? Nope.

***********

Here Jack has again got times mixed up (Apollo 15 - color or black / white). Jack claims that the ground is different between the two images but the astronaut is almost identical... except "whistleblowers" have left the chest camera off. My rebuttal here shows that the images were taken about 15 hours later. Has Jack admitted a simple mistake? Perish the thought!

***********

This claim (port or starboard) is a classic. Jack mixes up left and right but even after being shown his error still refuses to admit it.

***********

In the claim immediately after (LEM changes in mid-air) Jack doesn't realise stowage area doors have been opened, accounting for differences in image. Does he correct himself? Nope - it'll never happen.

***********

The entire thread is full of examples where Jack has made errors but refuses to correct them.

I immediately

redo any of my studies PROVEN wrong by anyone. It does me no good to have ERRORS in

any of my studies.

Jack

This is not true. It is an untruth.

I agree. Jack will always deny it, though.

And lets not forget that Jack has accused some members - being in "supervisory positions" - as having been banned from forums.

Let me repeat that I have not been involved in JFK forums (apart from this one) and I have never been banned from a JFK forum. The only forum I have been banned from is the DPF - a forum of which I have never even applied for membership of (I think the term might be 'pre-emptive banning').

I'm sorry Stephen but I am human: Jack continues to show he cannot admit when he is wrong (well, he RARELY admits when he is wrong; there are isolated examples).

Stephen,

Okay - I'll withdraw but I'd like it noted that I object to excessive pandering to people just because they no longer have the capabilities they once had. My eyes are not what they once were and I don't expect anyone to jolly me along when it is an important subject.

Okay - second example (thanks for the first Jack).

Jack's claim here.

My reply here.

Jack has made a simple misidentification of which side of the lunar module faces the camera. This was pointed out to him in 2006. Has he corrected his - ahem - "study"? No.

Then as now, your "rebuttal" is made up of obfuscatory nonsense about some imagined defect.

It is proof of nothing. Wasn't then. Is not now. Come right out and say what is wrong instead of

obfuscating. If your point is that is said left instead of right or vice versa, just say so in plain

language.

Jack

Come on - stop "protecting" Jack. Let him know he is making mistakes!

Jack - yes, you mixed up the sides. Let's start a thread on this very claim, shall we? On any board is fine by me, and I am happy to abstain from moderator status on that thread.

Hello, and welcome to the Jack White show. What purpose is this thread serving, appart from that of a lightning rod for ad homs? Four pages of this nonsence, seriously, sort yourselves out. this board is supposed to be an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the assassination of JFK, not some egotistical screaming contest.

Stephen,

Would you agree with me that Jack has - on occasion - refused to admit he was wrong when there is clear evidence to the contrary? I agree it does not belong here on the JFK board - though I am more than happy for it to remain here intact.

I think it is interesting that nobody here is interested in DEW weaponry...oh, yeah...Burton says thatcannot be discussed in the JFK CONSPIRACY category.

Jack

Now - where did I say that it "...cannot be discussed in the JFK CONSPIRACY category..." Jack? Nowhere is the correct answer.

Will you admit you are wrong in this case?

Okay - second example (thanks for the first Jack).

Jack's claim here.

My reply here.

Jack has made a simple misidentification of which side of the lunar module faces the camera. This was pointed out to him in 2006. Has he corrected his - ahem - "study"? No.