Jump to content

A very peculiar Apollo series


Recommended Posts

Craig Lamson Posted Today, 02:07 PM

QUOTE(John Geraghty @ May 22 2007, 03:04 PM)

QUOTE(Craig Lamson @ May 22 2007, 02:31 PM)

QUOTE(John Geraghty @ May 22 2007, 01:36 PM)

QUOTE(Craig Lamson @ May 22 2007, 04:09 AM)

QUOTE(Jack White @ May 22 2007, 03:55 AM)

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ May 22 2007, 02:39 AM)

I didn't lock the thread Jack; it's still open and has never been closed.

I have not censored any of your posts (either via editing or deleting).

It is YOU who is doing the slandering.

OH, YEAH?...THE POSTING ABOVE HAD AN IMAGE ATTACHED.

IT HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED. I DID NOT REMOVE IT. WHO DID?

I suggest that we not review this whiners work until it is posted with image numbers, whenever that may be. If Jack can not extend the simple courtesy to post image numbers for the members of this forum he deserves to be ignored.

Can we dispense with the name calling please, thinking it is sufficient.

No Thanks.

Civility costs nothing and buys everything. -Mary Wortley Montague

If at least only for your own sense of decorum Craig.

I aptly described Jacks actions in his post at the start of this tread and you seem to think that is somehow name calling. PLEASE! Lets just call a spade a spade....THAT'S true civility.

All the rest is poppycock.

Mr. Lamson,

this is your opinion. I too think such name calling is unnecessary. The same rule applies to all. I am asking you to refrain from resorting to this in the future.

You are correct it is my opinion, and its also YOUR opinion that it is namecalling. As such I will continue to post MY opinions as I see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Len Colby Posted Today, 01:31 PM

QUOTE(Jack White @ May 21 2007, 11:32 PM)

I will continue to post research in the "four sticks" series

regardless of how many times Apollogist Burton locks it...

every day if necessary. He is totally out of line to consider

it his power to censor legitimate research which he disagrees

with. He certainly has no power to control how I conduct

my research or how I publish it. I REFUSE TO BE CENSORED.

I have asked simple questions which can be answered by

observing photos. No file numbers are necessary. When I

post the FINAL research on Aulis, then the personal attacks

may begin.

Burton has called my research frivolous. He is entitled to

that private OPINION...but he should not be allowed to

force HIS BIASED OPINION ON THE ENTIRE FORUM.

He may refuse to consider what I post, but he should

not be allowed to censor it!

He will call this image frivolous also...but it is legitimate

SERIOUS RESEARCH. This image is cropped from an

Apollo photo. I simply am asking anyone, not just

Mr. Burton, what it represents. The file number is

irrelevant to such an opinion. The file numbers of the

four photos will be presented when my Aulis research

is complete.

Jack

Jack perhaps rather that rant on about threads that weren’t being locked you’d be willing to address your apparent attempted deception uncovered by Evan. It not only explains your fake question but shows why indeed we always want to get uncropped images and image numbers from you. If you don’t want to be accused of being dishonest you should stop playing such games. Frankly your latest stunt baffled me, didn’t you know some one would find the original images? Your suggestion that suppling image numbers is doing your critics “research for them” is absurd, if you are really after the truth you should supply all relevant information. If you know the numbers asking other to spend perhaps hours looking for a cropped (and at times altered) detail from amongst thousands of images is absurd.

Emphasis added

QUOTE(Jack White @ May 19 2007, 11:46 PM)

Today I came across this odd Apollo series of four photos.

They are four consecutive photos of a stick stuck in the ground.

They are nearly identical. Someone please tell me what was so

important about this stick that four shots were used on it.

No, for purposes of answering this, you do NOT need the file

numbers. If you are such experts, you already know them,

or can find them easily. I will not do your research for you.

I suggest that Jack be reprimanded (by a moderator other than Evan) unless he can explain how his selective cropping. rotating and misleading description of the images was anything but and attempted fraud. He claimed the images were “nearly identical” but only his altered versions match that description the originals clearly don’t. Also someone who claims to know as much about Apollo photography as he does should have known they were “clearing shots”.

I also suggest the other thread be locked as having two threads on the same topic unnecessarily cuts up the discussion

I don't see how someones allegedly erroneous research or their inability to provide proof of claims has to be a moderation issue. I suggest either negotiating with the other party to obtain desired information, or just stating your opinion regarding the "misleading description" in a post of yours.

I will look into merging the two threads shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Lamson Posted Today, 02:42 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ May 22 2007, 03:37 PM)

Craig Lamson Posted Today, 02:07 PM

QUOTE(John Geraghty @ May 22 2007, 03:04 PM)

QUOTE(Craig Lamson @ May 22 2007, 02:31 PM)

QUOTE(John Geraghty @ May 22 2007, 01:36 PM)

QUOTE(Craig Lamson @ May 22 2007, 04:09 AM)

QUOTE(Jack White @ May 22 2007, 03:55 AM)

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ May 22 2007, 02:39 AM)

I didn't lock the thread Jack; it's still open and has never been closed.

I have not censored any of your posts (either via editing or deleting).

It is YOU who is doing the slandering.

OH, YEAH?...THE POSTING ABOVE HAD AN IMAGE ATTACHED.

IT HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED. I DID NOT REMOVE IT. WHO DID?

I suggest that we not review this whiners work until it is posted with image numbers, whenever that may be. If Jack can not extend the simple courtesy to post image numbers for the members of this forum he deserves to be ignored.

QUOTE

Can we dispense with the name calling please, thinking it is sufficient.

No Thanks.

Civility costs nothing and buys everything. -Mary Wortley Montague

If at least only for your own sense of decorum Craig.

I aptly described Jacks actions in his post at the start of this tread and you seem to think that is somehow name calling. PLEASE! Lets just call a spade a spade....THAT'S true civility.

All the rest is poppycock.

Mr. Lamson,

this is your opinion. I too think such name calling is unnecessary. The same rule applies to all. I am asking you to refrain from resorting to this in the future.

You are correct it is my opinion, and its also YOUR opinion that it is namecalling. As such I will continue to post MY opinions as I see fit.

Yes, but you were out of line and therefore reprimanded by 2 moderators. There seems to be a reason why for instance I am a moderator here and you are not, Sir. I seem to be more talented at distinguishing what is bad taste and what is not. Furthermore here are the Forum rules just FYI.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=Swearing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how someones allegedly erroneous research or their inability to provide proof of claims has to be a moderation issue. I suggest either negotiating with the other party to obtain desired information, or just stating your opinion regarding the "misleading description" in a post of yours.

I will look into merging the two threads shortly.

You have to read all of Jack's threads. It's not erroneous research, it's him being deceptive, and it's way beyond that being just my opinion, it's a fact. He is attempting photographic analysis without revealing the images that he is analyzing, he is manipulating the images without identifying how, and then he is making claims based on the manipulated images when he knows those claims do not apply to the originals. In EVERY thread we ask him for the image numbers so we can see the originals, and he REFUSES to give them, claiming it's somehow irrelevant. Then we find the originals and it turns out that they were relevant every time. His 'research' doesn't make any sense in context, so he hides the context, and even admits to doing so by preemptively saying he won't give us image numbers before we even ask for them. How is that not deceptive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Lamson Posted Today, 02:42 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ May 22 2007, 03:37 PM)

Craig Lamson Posted Today, 02:07 PM

QUOTE(John Geraghty @ May 22 2007, 03:04 PM)

QUOTE(Craig Lamson @ May 22 2007, 02:31 PM)

QUOTE(John Geraghty @ May 22 2007, 01:36 PM)

QUOTE(Craig Lamson @ May 22 2007, 04:09 AM)

QUOTE(Jack White @ May 22 2007, 03:55 AM)

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ May 22 2007, 02:39 AM)

I didn't lock the thread Jack; it's still open and has never been closed.

I have not censored any of your posts (either via editing or deleting).

It is YOU who is doing the slandering.

OH, YEAH?...THE POSTING ABOVE HAD AN IMAGE ATTACHED.

IT HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED. I DID NOT REMOVE IT. WHO DID?

I suggest that we not review this whiners work until it is posted with image numbers, whenever that may be. If Jack can not extend the simple courtesy to post image numbers for the members of this forum he deserves to be ignored.

QUOTE

Can we dispense with the name calling please, thinking it is sufficient.

No Thanks.

Civility costs nothing and buys everything. -Mary Wortley Montague

If at least only for your own sense of decorum Craig.

I aptly described Jacks actions in his post at the start of this tread and you seem to think that is somehow name calling. PLEASE! Lets just call a spade a spade....THAT'S true civility.

All the rest is poppycock.

Mr. Lamson,

this is your opinion. I too think such name calling is unnecessary. The same rule applies to all. I am asking you to refrain from resorting to this in the future.

You are correct it is my opinion, and its also YOUR opinion that it is namecalling. As such I will continue to post MY opinions as I see fit.

Yes, but you were out of line and therefore reprimanded by 2 moderators. There seems to be a reason why for instance I am a moderator here and you are not, Sir. I seem to be more talented at distinguishing what is bad taste and what is not. Furthermore here are the Forum rules just FYI.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=Swearing

The suggestion that I was "out of line" by two "moderators" is subjective opinion, as is your suggestion about your qualifications. In my opinion you both were the ones who were Out of Line. Clearly my opinion about the context of Jacks post pales in comparison to some of the invective sent my way by other members of this forum, which I might add goes unnoticed by some of the "moderators" on this section of the forum. I suggest you take stock of your actions and then apply them with equal vigor to ALL of the posts on this section of the forum by ALL members.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Craig, although he might have said that a little more diplomatically. :up

If you look at the history of moderators commenting on people insulting each other, they nearly always direct their posts towards the pro-apollo side. But if you look at who is doing the actual insulting, it's Jack and Duane 90% of the time, without moderators paying any attention to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Craig, although he might have said that a little more diplomatically. :)

If you look at the history of moderators commenting on people insulting each other, they nearly always direct their posts towards the pro-apollo side. But if you look at who is doing the actual insulting, it's Jack and Duane 90% of the time, without moderators paying any attention to it.

Being diplomatic is high over-rated. Just call a spade a spade and get on with it....

Hynonen and Geraghty can't even moderate this thread with consistency.

From the opening post by Jack White:

"I will continue to post research in the "four sticks" series

regardless of how many times Apollogist Burton locks it..."

I guess namecalling has different standards depending on what side of the fence one sits....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len Colby Posted Today, 01:31 PM

I suggest that Jack be reprimanded (by a moderator other than Evan) unless he can explain how his selective cropping. rotating and misleading description of the images was anything but and attempted fraud. He claimed the images were “nearly identical” but only his altered versions match that description the originals clearly don’t. Also someone who claims to know as much about Apollo photography as he does should have known they were “clearing shots”.

I don't see how someones allegedly erroneous research or their inability to provide proof of claims has to be a moderation issue. I suggest either negotiating with the other party to obtain desired information, or just stating your opinion regarding the "misleading description" in a post of yours.

I will look into merging the two threads shortly.

Antti (and other moderators)

I can see you being reluctant to make a judgment call over an issue you (AFAIK) have no expertise in, however I suggest that it “goes along with the territory” of being a moderator on a forum where diverse topics are discussed. IMO Jack clearly and intentionally violated forum rules.

Rule (iii) of this forum: “Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.” Every time Jack refuses to provide full frame images and image numbers Jack he is IMO violating rule iii, but this is I admit a question of interpretation. He did however seem to have demonstrably violated another rule.

He seems to have intentionally been misleading and inaccurate thus violating rule v of this forum:

“Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=2243&st=0

I ask that you and the other moderators answer the questions below. If you can honestly answer ‘yes’ to the second then you can say Jack is innocent. Otherwise he’s not. Perhaps ‘yes’ answers can be justified.

1) Take a look at the full frame images in post 9. Do you think Jack’s declaration that “they are nearly identical” is accurate? The obvious answer is ‘no’, while somewhat similar they are easily distinguishable.

2) Do think Jack honestly believed they were “nearly identical”? To me the answer is obviously ‘no’ because he went to the effort to manipulate the original images by cropping out about 80% of the picture area and reorienting the first two images. “Nearly identical” is a fair description of Jack’s manipulated images NOT the originals. His refusal to disclose the image numbers is further evidence of an intent to deceive.

The only defense Jack could offer would be if someone else sent him the images and he didn’t know what the originals looked like. But in that case he could in no way attest to their authenticity or that they were sequential. He must have known they had been severely cropped because all Apollo images are square and the images he posted (via a proxy) images that are twice as tall as they are wide.

I only used the qualifier ‘seems’ above only because Jack has yet to explain his “apparent” attempted deception. He has posted a few times since Evan brought it to light. If he provides a reasonable explanation for his cropping and rotation of the images, I will apologize.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't lock the thread Jack; it's still open and has never been closed.

I have not censored any of your posts (either via editing or deleting).

It is YOU who is doing the slandering.

OH, YEAH?...THE POSTING ABOVE HAD AN IMAGE ATTACHED.

IT HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED. I DID NOT REMOVE IT. WHO DID?

I suggest that we not review this whiners work until it is posted with image numbers, whenever that may be. If Jack can not extend the simple courtesy to post image numbers for the members of this forum he deserves to be ignored.

Can we dispense with the name calling please, thinking it is sufficient.

No Thanks.

Craig,

I appreciate your support but when it comes down to matters like this I would prefer if just myself and my opponent post. Jack has made an accusation which I can prove wrong, and inflammatory comments - no matter how well intentioned - will only distract from the situation at hand.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I did NOT merge the two threads. I presume it was one of the other mods.

That is not to say I disagree with the merging, I just want to head off any implications that I did it for my own reasons.

Could the mod who merged the threads please state so? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I merged the two threads as suggested by Mr. Colby. I thought it was a good idea.

The reason why I all of a sudden moderated this thread was due to the moderation reports I received concerning the events here. As the moderation issue at hand involved the primary moderator of the conspiracy theory section (Mr. Burton), it was necessary for a "third party" moderator to step in.

By doing this I read and reviewed postings by numerous members on this thread and the other merged thread. I have taken moderation action based on what I have seen and read here.

Basically, normally I do not have the time nor the possibility to moderate any Forum's in addition to the JFK forum. Believe me, it will be my joy and pleasure to not venture here in the future, and will not do so voluntarily.

As to the trouble and moderation issue's regarding Mr. White, I recommend that if he is consistently wrong in your (applies to all who feel this way) opinion and consistently avoids providing materials and proof for whatever he is posting, just simply ignore his postings and/or make such settings to your profile. You should learn to submit moderation reports when there is a clear cause for such, and not complain afterwards that moderation has been lacking due to lack of involvement of moderators. As for someone being wrong or failing to prove a statement they have made - I see little moderation options, perhaps one of my colleagues will know how to handle such issues better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommend that if he is consistently wrong in your (applies to all who feel this way) opinion and consistently avoids providing materials and proof for whatever he is posting, just simply ignore his postings and/or make such settings to your profile.

Because people less informed about the subject seeing his disinformation unreplied to might assume there is some truth to Jack’s nonsense.

You should learn to submit moderation reports when there is a clear cause for such, and not complain afterwards that moderation has been lacking due to lack of involvement of moderators. As for someone being wrong or failing to prove a statement they have made - I see little moderation options, perhaps one of my colleagues will know how to handle such issues better.
There is a big difference between poor research and fraud. One is a “sin of omission” i.e. failing to properly research one’s claims the other is a “sin of commission” intentionally posting misleading information. Selectively cropping the 4 images rotating two of them then claiming they were “nearly identical” was a blatant case of the latter not the former. Just as rules not to insult other members should be enforced so should rules not to provide disinformation esp. when it appears this was intentional.
I suggest either negotiating with the other party to obtain desired information

That's the whole problem, people ask Jack for the image numbers but he refuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len Colby Posted Today, 12:08 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ May 23 2007, 02:35 AM)

I recommend that if he is consistently wrong in your (applies to all who feel this way) opinion and consistently avoids providing materials and proof for whatever he is posting, just simply ignore his postings and/or make such settings to your profile.

Because people less informed about the subject seeing his disinformation unreplied to might assume there is some truth to Jack’s nonsense.

Well, by all means reply to them if you see this as the better option. Please just (everybody) follow Forum rules when doing so.
QUOTE

You should learn to submit moderation reports when there is a clear cause for such, and not complain afterwards that moderation has been lacking due to lack of involvement of moderators. As for someone being wrong or failing to prove a statement they have made - I see little moderation options, perhaps one of my colleagues will know how to handle such issues better.

There is a big difference between poor research and fraud. One is a “sin of omission” i.e. failing to properly research one’s claims the other is a “sin of commission” intentionally posting misleading information. Selectively cropping the 4 images rotating two of them then claiming they were “nearly identical” was a blatant case of the latter not the former. Just as rules not to insult other members should be enforced so should rules not to provide disinformation esp. when it appears this was intentional.

Good, if you can clearly distinguish what is fraud and what is poor research, go ahead and submit a moderation report when you see intentional posting of misleading information. I suggest these cases from this section of the Forum then be dealt by Mr. Burton who is far more knowledgeable in this area than I. However, knowing who you are referring to I'm not sure distinguishing what is intentional and what is unintentional is clear cut. I could be wrong.

QUOTE

I suggest either negotiating with the other party to obtain desired information

That's the whole problem, people ask Jack for the image numbers but he refuses.

He ought to give the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antti: You should learn to submit moderation reports when there is a clear cause for such, and not complain afterwards that moderation has been lacking due to lack of involvement of moderators. As for someone being wrong or failing to prove a statement they have made - I see little moderation options, perhaps one of my colleagues will know how to handle such issues better.

me: There is a big difference between poor research and fraud. One is a “sin of omission” i.e. failing to properly research one’s claims the other is a “sin of commission” intentionally posting misleading information. Selectively cropping the 4 images rotating two of them then claiming they were “nearly identical” was a blatant case of the latter not the former. Just as rules not to insult other members should be enforced so should rules not to provide disinformation esp. when it appears this was intentional.

Good, if you can clearly distinguish what is fraud and what is poor research, go ahead and submit a moderation report when you see intentional posting of misleading information. I suggest these cases from this section of the Forum then be dealt by Mr. Burton who is far more knowledgeable in this area than I.

I consider my post above a "moderator report", should I send it by PM to a moderator to make it 'formal'? Evan unfortunately has his hands tied a bit because he is a partisan of one side of the debate and deciding on whether or not to sanction him would be a conflict of interest. If he decided to reprimand Jack, he would be accused of bias. I’m not saying it should be you but ideally any moderator(s) other than Evan should decide on this.

I don’t think specialized knowledge is necessary, the uncropped photos obviously weren’t “nearly identical” like he said they were and he obviously knew so otherwise he would have cropped them.

However, knowing who you are referring to I'm not sure distinguishing what is intentional and what is unintentional is clear cut. I could be wrong.
You have a very good point there though I doubt the person I’m “referring to” would agree.
He ought to give the numbers.

It’s official now Mr. White. 2 moderators have spoken on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...