Jack White and David Percy....

Craig Lamson · September 15, 2007

No, actually what is funny beyond belief is watching Jack White, self proclaimed "photography expert" showing the world he is anything but.

Jack's first mistake here is that he claims these photos which prove beyond a doubt his silly theory is incorrect are attempting to " show that A PHOTOGRAPHER'S SHADOW DOES NOT BEGIN AT HIS FEET." What a foolish and ignorant statement by Jack White. All the photographs show is that a photographers shadow, when backlit, can be at the right, left or center of the photograph and those shadows can angle either towards the center, be parallel or angle towards the outside of the frame. In each of these cases, the shadow ALWAYS begins at the feet of the photographer. None of the testers are making the claim White attaches to them. His statement is not the truth.

Jack asks why there are no photos of the photograher feet in any of the testing photographs. I'll ask the same, where are the feet in any of the APOLLO photographs? In either case its a very silly question. Short of using a very wide angle and aiming the camera down or using a fisheye lens, it is impossible to capture the feet of the photographer and include his full shadow. The Apollo astronauts had neither. A true "photographic expert" would understand this limitation and not try and foist this gross misinformation onto unknowing readers. Clearly the motives of a person attempting this must surely be called into question.

White makes these claims in a attempt to fool the unsuspecting and the ignorant. It is HIS smokescreen to cover his distinct lack of knowlege of the subject matter. In addition he claims "trickery" was used to create the images that prove his claims false. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Lets look his claim in detail. White states:

"I will concede that CERTAIN TRICKERY can show shadows to one side,

but that is not a true test of how Apollo photos were taken...that is,

instead of the camera pointing forward, it can be turned sideways

and achieve different shadow angles."

Can you spot the "trickery' of White statement? Its pretty simple, regardless of the direct a camera points, its is ALWAYS pointing forward. If the Apollo astronauts shoot a picture the camera points forward. If that astronaut then turns his entire body or turns his shoulders or even turns just the camera 20 degrees to the right or left (all of which were quite possible for the Apollo astronauts) HIS CAMERA WILL BE POINTING FORWARD! Also contray to Whites claim, it is not the turning the camera sideways (what ever that might mean) that changes the shadow angles in the Apollo and testing photography, but rather is the up or down TILT of the camera that changes the angles of the shadows (disegarding any LEANING the photographer might impart while exposing his photograph.) The only 'trickery' you will find is the tricks White is playing with the physical rules of photograhy. His 'theory' breaks them completely!.

I have provided complete empical evidene that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that White's claims are totally false. White is unable to provide any emperical evidence to either back up his claims or impeach the evidence shown that refutes his claim. That he stands only on his unproven word is quite telling.

Finally White claims images can be cropped to create offset shadow like those seen in the Apollo images and the testing images but yet we have not seen any empircal testing images from White or his supporters to back up this claim. In addition I have provided images that show the entire image circle of the taking lens, eliminating the possibiltiy the image was cropped. White cannot rebut these images.

White has been proven wrong in this claim over and over again. His reluctance to admit his error speaks volumes about his status as a "photo expert". White is simply using his own brand of trickery and a smokescreen to cover his failure to understand the most basic of photographic principals.

Duane Daman · September 16, 2007

No, actually what is funny beyond belief is watching you attack every single word that Jack posts here ... Your obsession with him is not healthy at all ... Anyone who feels the need to constantly character assassinate someone they disagree with, usually has a real problem ... Or in your case , many problems .

Whether or not this one study of Jack's is completley accurate or not hardly matters , as most of his studies prove beyond a doubt that the Apollo photography was faked .

Like I said before ... This ONE study does not make or break the hoax evidence ... Many of the Apollo photos contain enough anomalies in them , that even you should be able to realize that they could not possibly have been taken on the Moon .

Craig Lamson · September 18, 2007

White is unable to refute any of the images that prove his theory wrong. His last attempt was completely trashed and he has gone once again. No suprise really. Daman is lost on this one and can't fathom that his 'experts', White and Percy might just be pulling the wool over his eyes. Ssdly he would not even know if they were given his inability to understand the subject matter at hand. He claimed he was going to test this himself but that remains to be seen.

He has also stated that this one study by White, if incorrect does not prove the Apollo photography was not fake, and that there aer many oother proofs that prove beyond a doubt that the images are fake. This begs the question, How would Daman know? He relies on the the statements of peolple like White and Percy to think for him. My study that started this thread as well as the work of others has shown that White and Percy have a very weak understanding of even the very basics of photography or they are intentionally misleading the reader.

Daman's confidence rests on very shaky ground.

Jack White · September 18, 2007

I guess this is the thread to report this interesting information.

I occasionally exchange emails with David Percy...especially

when I do new Apollo studies.

This week the email has been heavier than usual...and a very

odd thing has happened.

Any message with an image attached has been held up approximately

48 hours before eventual delivery. Not deleted, so far as I know,

although he has as yet to reply to my last message, sent earlier

today.

I suspect the images are being INTERCEPTED and examined by

the spooks so they will have plenty of time to compose replies

for their several stooges assigned to harass me here, so that

immediate responses can be ready as soon as Bernice posts

images for me.

Jack

Craig Lamson · September 18, 2007

ROTFLMAO!

Now care to retract your study which has been shown to be totally false?

Stooges eh? You, Duane and Percy....Larry Curly and Moe......

Edited September 18, 2007 by Craig Lamson

Duane Daman · September 18, 2007

Ah poor Craig ... He's just not happy unless he's ridiculing those he fears .... David Percy and Jack White are internationally famous for exposing nasa's Apollo photographic fraud , and he's just one little egotistical photographer living in the boondocks of the midwest ... Otherwise known as Jumpoff Place , Indiana .

I have a mind of my own when it comes to Apollo and have been studying this subject long before I ever heard of Jack White or David Percy , or saw their Aulis site .... and as much as I admire them both for what they are doing in exposing the faked Apollo photography , I don't always agree with them ... So Craig's unkind remark, claiming that I rely on the statements of people like White and Percy to think for me , is a lie .

All Craig has done by starting this thread is to continue to character assassinate Jack and David with his game of "one up" on the conspiracy researchers and has reminded us all what a mean and hateful little man he really is ( as if any of us needed reminding ) .. For a guy who's in his 50's , this game is very immature .

BTW , Jack has also had some other strange things happen with his e-mail this week ... My e-mails and e-mail address being somehow deleted from his account was one of them ... and I find that rather odd , as I am no one that any government stooge should be concerned about .... or am I ?

But if Craig considers Jack and David and me to be "Larry Curly and Moe" , then I will consider myself very lucky to be in such good company ... I am proud to know them both and I am proud to have sent them both hoax evidence which they have used in their studies.

My confidence in Percy and White's work , which proves that the official Apollo photograpic record was faked , does not rest on shaky ground at all ... It rests on very solid ground .

Dave Greer · September 18, 2007

Jack

Yer jokin' aren't yer? :blink:

Dave

Jack White · September 18, 2007

Absolutely not joking. Emails between Percy and me have taken 48 hours

this week IF THEY CONTAIN IMAGES. A technical problem? Hasn't happened

previously.

And as Duane wrote, this week I wanted to email him as I sometimes

have done...AND HIS OLD EMAILS AND HIS EMAIL ADDRESS HAD

DISAPPEARED FROM MY ADDRESS BOOK. Annoying, yes. Coincidence...?

Jack

Dave Greer · September 18, 2007

I'm not questioning the fact that you may be experiencing some technical problems with your email (heck, I do from time to time). I'm questioning you suspecting people on this forum of being involved (presumably me as well as I've composed several replies to your studies, including 2 or 3 in recent days).

Sorry Jack, I didn't need anyone to intercept them, I just used good old-fashioned analysis. If you think my responses are wrong, show me where, rather than side-tracking the issue with veiled accusations of skullduggery.

How about a response to the missing tyre track thread for starters?

Peter McKenna · September 18, 2007

Likely a web bot attack on a major server.

Companies like Yahoo, Google, Excite, etc. use massive Servers to handle the tremendous flux of mail they handle. Sometimes these companies come under a web bot attack, a method of attack where one or more hackers send out 'orders' to ther hacker community to attack some such company, or service, Government, etc. They then have programs which are launched and which can co-opt thousands, even milions, of unsuspecting computers, which, in turn write several emails each, to the traget, to flood the company's servers with large, AI generated emails. The object is to overload the server for said company with so many emails, that they can't handle the traffic, and are effectively shut down. The hackers may also be testing their latest hack designs on the commercial email servers.

Since emails that contain images are typically many times the size of standard emails, the server's protective buffers store these large files until the traffic becomes manageable. That's the clue that strongly suggests a web bot attack.

For any skeptics out there, read Wired magazine's (I believe its in the August Issue) article describing how some Russian Nationalists launched a Web Bot attack on Estonia when they were removing a WWII statue commemorating Stalin or some such, from WWII. They shut down (and I mean shut down) Estonia's electronic infrastructure.

This is a major national security concern for any country that depends heavily on cyber communications in their security infrastructure.

I seriously doubt that any third party would intercept photos of supposed Apollo hoax claims, and hold them up, out of the cyber-traffic, while they are inspected. Even if some third party wanted to inspect them, they could set up an automatic intercept of any emails with tagline 'apollo hoax', Jack White', or etc., copy the message for later inspection, and not slow the message down for even a micro second.

Intercepting and holding Apollo Hoax emails and images for 48 hours? Not credible.

Edited to correct spelling and grammatical errors, PM 9/17/07 10:32 CST

Edited September 18, 2007 by Peter McKenna

Duane Daman · September 18, 2007

Whew , what a relief !!

But don't you think it just a bit odd that the only e-mail affected in Jack's account were those about the Apollo hoax evidence to both David Percy and myself ? ... Your explaination , as much as I would like to believe it , just doesn't make sense in this respect ... If it was a bot attack , then why wasn't his entire account affected and his other contact's e-mails and addresses deleted ?

Sorry, but the government can and does hack into e-mail ... especially if they think it may be something which may expose their many lies.

Jack White · September 18, 2007

It is not credible and is indeed naive to say that NSA does not use KEY WORDS to

intercept emails. Indeed, the full extent of electronic spying is not known. Just

google and find lots of stuff about electronic surveillance:

on...

state-of-the-art technology

By Shane Harris

National Journal January 20, 2006

The furor over the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping, authorized by President Bush, has focused largely on legal questions -- whether the NSA has the authority to spy on Americans

inside the United States and whether the commander-in-chief can order the agency to do so.

But that debate has largely smothered examination of how the nation's largest intelligence agency is collecting -- and analyzing -- information intercepted from hundreds, possibly thousands, of

Americans. Since the 9/11 attacks, the NSA has abandoned the mantra that guided it in earlier decades -- Do not spy on Americans inside the nation's borders. Things have changed, and the NSA may be

on the cusp of employing state-of-the-art technologies to uncover more information about potential terrorists, and about Americans here at home.

In the first days after 9/11, amid the palpable fear of another strike and an all-hands investigation of the attacks by the FBI and CIA, the NSA's then-director, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, took a broad view

of his agency's power to conduct electronic eavesdropping.

Whereas existing laws, regulations, and executive orders restricted domestic monitoring of U.S. persons without a warrant, Hayden told House Intelligence Committee members on October 1, 2001, that

he "had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of [his] authorities," according to a declassified letter that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then the committee's ranking

Democrat, sent to the general after he briefed lawmakers.

Pelosi was troubled by the legal rationale for the NSA's activities. Although significant portions of her letter -- and most of Hayden's response -- are redacted, Pelosi wrote that she was "concerned

whether, and to what extent, the [NSA] has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting." According to the letter, those operations included the NSA's sharing of

intercepted communications with the FBI without first receiving a request for such reports -- the normal procedure, to avoid the co-mingling of intelligence and law enforcement operations.

According to sources who are knowledgeable about the NSA's domestic operations but who would not be identified because those operations are still classified, just after 9/11, the NSA targeted and

intercepted the communications of specific foreign persons and groups, an indication that at least some of the targets were previously known to U.S. intelligence. The sources didn't specify whether any

persons inside the United States were also monitored. But, Pelosi wrote, Hayden informed lawmakers that the NSA was making the call about what intercepted information was of "foreign-intelligence

interest" before passing it to the FBI.

The New York Times reported this week that "in the anxious months after the September 11 attacks, the [NSA] began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and names to the

FBI, in search of terrorists." Some of that information led to Americans inside the United States. It appears that the NSA was handing over just about any information it could find that might be useful to

investigators. The Times reported that the NSA eventually provided thousands of tips a month.

The agency conducted these activities without presidential authorization for at least three months following 9/11. In early 2002, Bush authorized the current program, which, he has said, targets only

known members of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups, and people linked to them. But even before Bush's order -- which remains classified -- the NSA's work was evolving from targeted interceptions to

broader sifting and sorting of huge volumes of communications data.

Officials with some of the nation's leading telecommunications companies have said they gave the NSA access to their switches, the hubs through which enormous volumes of phone and e-mail traffic

pass every day, to aid the agency's effort to determine exactly whom suspected Qaeda figures were calling in the United States and abroad and who else was calling those numbers. The NSA used the

intercepts to construct webs of potentially interrelated persons. (The Times, citing FBI sources, reported that most of these tips led to dead ends or to innocent Americans.)

Analyzing large amounts of telecom traffic would give security officials valuable information about potential adversaries, revealing the times of day that terrorist suspects tended to conduct their

communications, and the means they used -- land-line phones, mobile phones, or the Internet -- according to telecommunications experts.

One telecom executive told National Journal that NSA officials approached him shortly after the 9/11 attacks and insisted, to the point of questioning his company's patriotism, that executives hand over

the company's "call detail records." Those documents, known as CDRs, trace the history of every call placed on a network, including a call's origin and destination, the time it started and ended, how long

it lasted, and how it was routed through the network.

Having wholesale access to many companies' records would, in theory, give the NSA a picture of telecom usage across the country. And, since many U.S.-based carriers route international calls through

their domestic switches, a picture of the wider world could emerge as well. The telecom executive said he believed that the NSA wanted the information to conduct a "data-mining" analysis of call and

e-mail traffic.

Fifty years ago, intelligence officers had to manually scan communications intercepts for keywords, names, or other tantalizing intelligence nuggets. The NSA has long since automated that process with

sophisticated supercomputers that can read huge stores of intercepts at speeds human beings can barely contemplate.

But more recently, the NSA has pursued cutting-edge data-mining technologies that don't just find key words but also uncover hidden relationships among data points. These technologies can even detect

how a particular analyst thinks, identify what his or her biases are, and then suggest alternative hypotheses.

Data-mining systems, which the NSA has publicly pursued and spent millions of dollars researching, don't just "connect the dots" but also alert analysts about which dots to connect, which to disregard,

and how to connect them in ways they may never have considered. It is unclear which, if any, of these data-mining tools the NSA is using to analyze the domestic information gathered in the current

eavesdropping program, but the tools themselves offer a telling look into the agency's potential to exploit what it collects, regardless of its legal basis for doing so.

In September 2002, one year after the 9/11 attacks, a technology research-and-development office located at the NSA's Fort Meade, Md., headquarters awarded $64 million in research contracts for a new

program called Novel Intelligence from Massive Data. The NIMD project, set to last for three and a half years, is intended to keep intelligence analysts from drowning under the massive flow of

information they encounter and therefore missing key pieces of intelligence. In essence, it is an early-warning system.

"NIMD funds research to ... help analysts deal with information-overload, detect early indicators of strategic surprise, and avoid analytic errors," reads a "Call for 2005 Challenge Workshop Proposals"

released by the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA), the group at Fort Meade that was founded in 1998 to field new technologies for intelligence agencies, especially the NSA.

The administration has informed some lawmakers that the eavesdropping program the president authorized in 2002 is also designed to be an early-warning system. In late December, Assistant Attorney

General William E. Moschella wrote to the top Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence committees, "The president determined that it was necessary following September 11 to

create an early-warning detection system" to prevent more attacks.

Tellingly, Moschella wrote that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the government to obtain warrants to conduct domestic eavesdropping or wiretapping, "could not have provided the

speed and agility required for the early-warning detection system."

The administration hasn't elaborated on why the system needs to operate independently of FISA, but officials may believe that it cannot meet the law's minimum threshold for surveillance, which requires

a probable cause that the target is a terrorist, said Steven Aftergood, an expert on intelligence and government secrecy with the Federation of American Scientists.

"Logistically speaking, the early-warning approach may involve a significant increase in the number of surveillance actions," Aftergood said. "It may be that neither the Justice Department nor the

[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves wiretapping warrants] is prepared to prepare and process several thousand additional FISA applications per year, beyond the 1,700 or so

approved in 2004."

If the NSA is monitoring large numbers of communications -- The Times has reported that the agency has monitored as many as 500 Americans and other residents of the United States at one time --

then it stands to reason that applications for warrants could take time to process.

The NIMD project, as well as some others that ARDA is pursuing, closely resembles those of another controversial data-mining program aimed at discovering terrorist plots -- the Defense Department's

Total Information Awareness program. Suspended in 2003, TIA was also designed as an early-warning system that would mine intelligence databases, but also private databases of credit card records and

other transactions, for telltale signals of terrorist plots.

Of the companies and research institutions that won NIMD contracts in September 2002, six also held contracts for the earlier TIA project. Their TIA work focused on key areas of interest to NIMD,

including challenging analytic assumptions and building prototype data-mining devices.

Like NIMD, TIA aimed to challenge analysts' traditional notions about what a given piece of intelligence might signify. It did this by creating a database of what TIA creator John Poindexter called

"plausible futures," or likely terrorism scenarios. Another ARDA project also envisions such a database.

The Advanced Capabilities for Intelligence Analysis program, which is a cousin of NIMD, looks for ways "to construct and use plausible futures in order to provide additional, novel interpretations for

today's collection" of intelligence information, according to the 2005 call for proposals.

TIA was distinct from NIMD and other projects in that it specifically focused on counter-terrorism, according to Tom Armour, a former program manager in Poindexter's office at the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency. However, Armour says, the two research teams had "good coordination" and discussed their projects on a regular basis.

When Congress eliminated funding for most of Poindexter's projects, a number of them (the exact number is classified) were transferred to intelligence agencies. Armour and others associated with TIA

would not disclose the names of those agencies, but a former Army intelligence analyst also involved in data mining and counter-terrorism confirms that TIA tools were transferred to other agencies,

where work on them continues to this day.

Asked whether data-mining programs, such as NIMD, that the NSA may still be pursuing would be useful for analyzing large amounts of phone and e-mail traffic, Armour said, "Absolutely. That's, in

fact, what the interest is." The former No. 2 official in Poindexter's office, Robert Popp, said that he and his colleagues wanted to know whether intercepted phone calls and e-mail would help find

terrorists but not ensnare innocent people. "We didn't know," Popp said. "That was the hypothesis. That was the question that Poindexter and I wanted to do research on, to be better able to understand."

The similarities between TIA and the NSA's current data-mining operations were enough to prompt one senior lawmaker to signal his discomfort in a letter to Vice President Cheney. Sen. Jay Rockefeller

IV, D-W.Va., the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was briefed by Cheney, Hayden, and then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet in July 2003.

"As I reflected on the meeting today," Rockefeller wrote, "John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to

security, technology, and surveillance."

Whether the NSA research shares another similarity with Poindexter's work remains, troublingly, unanswered. Poindexter's office spent between $4 million and $5 million researching technology and

policy that would protect the privacy of innocent people whose names might turn up in a data search, Popp said. "No one else was, or is, to our knowledge, putting that kind of investment in the privacy

R&D area, certainly not in 2002 and 2003, like we were."

The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold hearings in the coming weeks on the NSA's domestic operations. In addition to the specifics of how the NSA collects and mines information, senators

undoubtedly will want to know what assurances American citizens have that they won't be ensnared in a vast data-search net.

Poindexter addressed the trade-off between privacy and security in 2003, when he was forced to resign as the TIA manager amid criticism that it was an Orwellian assault on civil liberties. In his

resignation letter, Poindexter wrote, "It would be no good to solve the security problem and give up the privacy and civil liberties that make our country great."

Craig Lamson · September 18, 2007

Another attempt to distract from the fact that your "theory" is in shambles on the floor. Can you and Percy provide any empirical evidence (and no that does not mean Jack sez or Percy sez) to refute any of the evidence that destroys you claims?

Why not invite Percy to come out of hiding and debate in the open? Does he have the balls for it?

Duane Daman · September 18, 2007

What's the matter Craig ? ... Has your character assassination thread gone a tad off topic !?!

David Percy wouldn't wipe his boots on you , much less waste his valuable time arguing with a closed minded disinformation artist who posts nothing but venom.

You really do need to lighten up old boy ... Having such negative feelings towards your fellow man really isn't good for your health .. Mental or physical ... and from what you've said , and from what I've observed here on this forum , your mental and physical health is aready in a bit of trouble .

Evan Burton · September 19, 2007

Jack,

You made a claim about the photography.

Myself and others have shown examples which would seem to disprove your claims.

You have not tried to address the rebuttal, and instead remark that you believe your e-mails are being intercepted. You do not disprove the rebuttal.

You have also said that you are willing to correct any mistake you make - yet so far have failed to do so.

What do you call someone who makes statements and then does not live up to that statement, someone who gives an undertaking but does not honour that undertaking.. again and again?

Jack White and David Percy....

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements