Duane Daman Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I just received this e-mail from Jack and I thought his friends here might be interested in reading it ... I am posting this with his permission . Duane...Thanks for all your help. Yesterday about this time, our nephew Mark Cannon was killed in Afghanistan in Bush's war. Partly responsible are those on the forum who fight exposure of the official 911 story. The irony is that Mark was a compassionate Navy medic who was there to save lives. Thanks. Jack PS...I am now totally blocked from posting on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Well at least we know and can prove that the PS is a lie. The rest suggests a rather exaggerated role for this forum to say the least. I just received this e-mail from Jack and I thought his friends here might be interested in reading it ... I am posting this with his permission .Duane...Thanks for all your help. Yesterday about this time, our nephew Mark Cannon was killed in Afghanistan in Bush's war. Partly responsible are those on the forum who fight exposure of the official 911 story. The irony is that Mark was a compassionate Navy medic who was there to save lives. Thanks. Jack PS...I am now totally blocked from posting on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Let us pray that our moderators are vertically challenged. Charles, I really don't care one way or the other how the people who pay to have this forum wish to run their business. But I must say that if one wishes to be taken seriously, then one should follow-up on what they have said. You called for 'no more post' and since that time in this thread` alone ... you have posted four more additional times. I read this saying not long ago that may offer some inspiration here and it goes like this ... "Say what you mean, but mean what you say. Just don't say it mean." Bill Miller there's more than few around here that mean EXACTLY what they say, it may be you that has a problem with the *saying*, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Well at least we know and can prove that the PS is a lie. The rest suggests a rather exaggerated role for this forum to say the least. I just received this e-mail from Jack and I thought his friends here might be interested in reading it ... I am posting this with his permission .Duane...Thanks for all your help. Yesterday about this time, our nephew Mark Cannon was killed in Afghanistan in Bush's war. Partly responsible are those on the forum who fight exposure of the official 911 story. The irony is that Mark was a compassionate Navy medic who was there to save lives. Thanks. Jack PS...I am now totally blocked from posting on the forum. It would appear that man's inhumanity to man is very much alive and well on this forum .... The lack of concern for Jack's dead nephew is unbelievable . I received a second e-mail from Jack BEFORE this post reply was written about him , so please don't accuse him of lying again ... I know for a fact that Jack is telling the truth about not being able to post here because the EXACT same thing happened to my account when Evan Burton raised my warning level to 30 % and put me on moderation a few nights ago .... Apparently when one is on moderation on this forum there occurs some type of glitch which causes an immediate log out after posting , the necessity to log back in again and then the post lost ... The night this happened to my account ( which is the reason this entire debacle with Jack started to begin with ) I was not only knocked off the site and logged out but when I attempted to log back in , I was denied access four times and then temporarily locked out .... So considering I have had first hand experience with this particular problem, I can say with certainty that Jack is not lying about no longer being able to post here . I believe that Peter mentioned all of this nonsense as being a tempest in a teacup and I couldn't agree with him more . I'm not sure at this point why Jack still wants to be a member of this forum and have the privilege of posting here , but he does ... And for that reason alone I feel very sorry for him and for what is taking place here . Here is Jack's second e-mail to me explaining the technical problems he is having at the moment when attempting to post here . "They always say I am not logged in. I logged in to post a message about my nephew's death. I clicked on NEW TOPIC, and immediately I was no longer logged in, and got a message that I was not authorized to post. (maybe it is MY computer, like they claim!?) It happened twice last week, and I lost a message I had written, because I was logged out automatically before I could post the message. The second time I was logged in, sent the message, and it NEVER APPEARED... and I had been logged out again. It is sorta like what happened to you. I suspect foul play." I hope this clears up what is happening with Jack's account and stops any more accusations of him lying . Edited October 3, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Well at least we know and can prove that the PS is a lie. The rest suggests a rather exaggerated role for this forum to say the least. I just received this e-mail from Jack and I thought his friends here might be interested in reading it ... I am posting this with his permission .Duane...Thanks for all your help. Yesterday about this time, our nephew Mark Cannon was killed in Afghanistan in Bush's war. Partly responsible are those on the forum who fight exposure of the official 911 story. The irony is that Mark was a compassionate Navy medic who was there to save lives. Thanks. Jack PS...I am now totally blocked from posting on the forum. It would appear that man's inhumanity to man is very much alive and well on this forum .... The lack of concern for Jack's dead nephew is unbelievable . I received a second e-mail from Jack BEFORE this post reply was written about him , so please don't accuse him of lying again ... I know for a fact that Jack is telling the truth about not being able to post here because the EXACT same thing happened to my account when Evan Burton raised my warning level to 30 % and put me on moderation a few nights ago .... Apparently when one is on moderation on this forum there occurs some type of glitch which causes an immediate log out after posting , the necessity to log back in again and then the post lost ... The night this happened to my account ( which is the reason this entire debacle with Jack started to begin with ) I was not only knocked off the site and logged out but when I attempted to log back in , I was denied access four times and then temporarily locked out .... So considering I have had first hand experience with this particular problem, I can say with certainty that Jack is not lying about no longer being able to post here . I believe that Peter mentioned all of this nonsense as being a tempest in a teacup and I couldn't agree with him more . I'm not sure at this point why Jack still wants to be a member of this forum and have the privilege of posting here , but he does ... And for that reason alone I feel very sorry for him and for what is taking place here . Here is Jack's second e-mail to me explaining the technical problems he is having at the moment when attempting to post here . "They always say I am not logged in. I logged in to post a message about my nephew's death. I clicked on NEW TOPIC, and immediately I was no longer logged in, and got a message that I was not authorized to post. (maybe it is MY computer, like they claim!?) It happened twice last week, and I lost a message I had written, because I was logged out automatically before I could post the message. The second time I was logged in, sent the message, and it NEVER APPEARED... and I had been logged out again. It is sorta like what happened to you. I suspect foul play." I hope this clears up what is happening with Jack's account and stops any more accusations of him lying . ************* Thank you Duane.... Andy " Quote : Well at least we know and can prove that the PS is a lie. The rest suggests a rather exaggerated role for this forum to say the least. Duane: Quote : It would appear that man's inhumanity to man is very much alive and well on this forum .... The lack of concern for Jack's dead nephew is unbelievable . Yes, unbelieveable and incomprehensible. I was also under the impression, that this Forum is regarded as most important by the Administration..... " Exaggerated role for this forum to say the least " it could easily be..... No Forum is the be all and end all of importance...it is after all a Forum...such can fail and begin again, as has happened. ...It is the membership, the people and their knowledge that they posess that is... If this F were not to exist tomorrow, or was shut down for whatever reason..... They would pick up and find another eventually.........This has happened in the past, and it will in the future, as time goes on....that is a proven... I would mention here to the administration imo.......to not be taking it's members so for granted with any cavalier attitude and or condescension as some have shown, they may be cutting their noses off to spite their faces, it is the membership that makes a forum, not the other way around... They can stop any forum dead in the water by deserting the ship, at anytime..and once the best have gone, they do not return.... This is one of the main reasons some of the best authors, and researchers of the past, stopped visting any of the forums, and still do not... the hard difficult times they received within such... Duane : There is a glitch.........Yesterday in one of your posts on the Consp thread you mentioned at that time, about your problems logging in etc, and you mentioned, that you could no longer log in as invisible....for some reason... You were assured by I believe the mod, that had nothing to do with anything, words to that effect.....and I then mentioned that I could not either and that it did not and does not make any difference to me.... But that does prove a point, there is a glitch....as I asked for an explanation of the why I could not.......and none has been forthcoming..and the thread locked.......so, I take it there is a glitch....??? Quote: Duane : ""I'm not sure at this point why Jack still wants to be a member of this forum and have the privilege of posting here , but he does ... "" I imagine at times Jack perhaps has had that very thought...as well as many others..... Jack has never given up the fight for over 40 years and he will go on fighting, till the day comes when we will not have access to his knowledge.... Some may not agree with him at all times, or any of the time, everyone has that right.......but his studies and all he has brought forth all these many years cannot be denied, except by the intellectually impaired.....and or the provacateurs which do exist.... Also perhaps he also would like the opportunity to defend himself, now there is a scathingly brilliant idea....... in this court that has emerged, I believe he should be entitled.... I only have one question, and that is, has the administration taken the time to check the Hoax Forum, from where you copied the information posted by the mod of the consp threads. Where he posted what he did and the related information, concerning the other two members as well.... .....That in so many words came down to.......it is, and was an ongoing Jack Attack, and bragging about such, and on and on....or have they all been deleted by now to save their sorry you know whats...? I believe you as I have seen them for myself in past years..as well as others who have... ..Has anyone perhaps contacted you for your information ?? Jack our condolences for your families loss...... Best B & G........ You must wonder when it is all going to end, and when we can come back home. We have to stay at it. We must not be fatigued. --John F. Kennedy, November, 1963 Edited October 3, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Error. Sorry. Edited October 3, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Duane, please give Jack my regards and tell the old rascal to keep trying to get logged in (and not be deterred by difficulties) so he can post in his customary mannner. Even though I don't think Len and Craig are disinfo artists, I do think they enjoy baiting Jack and getting the reaction they do. This should also be taken into account by the moderators. It's not just general rules of decorum that are important, but the underlying motives too. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Is one who purposely provides "disinformation" an "artist"? I thought he was an "agent"? Or if a disinformation agent is good enough does he (or she) become an artist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) I admit I find this quite amazing. I have never made reference to Jack viz a viz his JFK work, except perhaps once say that people considered him a respected researcher in that area. Before I was a moderator, jack posted his famous words. I found them - as far as his Apollo studies were concerned - hypocritical to say the least and created my signature line. When I was made a moderator, it was pointed out that this was inappropriate and so I removed it. Jack was taken to task over ONE particular claim. It was stated over and over that admitting error in this one claim had no effect on his other studies or claims. Each time Jack said that we (because more than one forum member posted images in response to this) were not following the conditions correctly, we ensured that the photographs were taken under the conditions he specified. he changed the condition, and we produced new images. Each time it was shown that Jack was wrong. He was given several opportunities to admit this error - and prove that his famous quote was indeed true. He chose not to, despite the overwhelming evidence that he was wrong in this particular claim. So I returned my signature line. There was offence taken at the last word in the signature line, so I altered it to be more civil... whilst still remaining accurate. When Jack was placed on moderation, IIRC, I removed it entirely. Jack accused me - not the forum software, but me - of banning him, of blocking his logins, of altering his posts, of deleting his posts. I stated that I had not done so. John and Andy confirmed this after checking with the forum security log, where ALL actions are recorded. Did Jack apologise for his accusation, saying that something had happened to his posts? No. He continued to accuse me, claiming more interference on my part. Once again I said I had done no such thing, once again John and Andy confirmed that the claims were baseless. An apology? Nope. MORE accusations, this time (IIRC) on Duane's behalf. Did anyone check the facts? Nope. Was I responsible for any interference? Nope. In fact John and Andy confirmed that I had done nothing wrong. They warned Jack about making such rash accusations. Surely an apology for that one, even a "XXXX - sorry about that"? Nope. MORE accusations, so I asked John to place Jack on moderation. NOT ban him. Simply have his posts released or rejected by a moderator - any moderator. He was placed on moderation... and I'm the bad guy? How many people have actually read the threads, looked at what Jack said, looked at what I said? How many? Because frankly, I'm piston-amazed at the reaction. I'm over-moderating. I'm not moderating enough. If someone will point me to some clear rules and regulations, I'll enforce them without fear or favour - or consideration. Lastly, the end of my rant: Jack's little martyr performance is not going to stop me from doing my job as a moderator. I follow whatever rules / guidelines that board owners set, and keep them informed if I think a situation is brewing (as I did in this case). I'll record in the appropriate thread what I have done and why I have done it - with links to the posts or threads that caused such action to take place. If the board owners or other moderators think I am being heavy-handed or my actions not appropriate, they will contact me and let me know - as they have done in the past, either to support my actions or to advise reversal. If people have problems with that, use the complaints thread - that is what it is there for. Edited: Langauge. Antti Hynonen Edited October 8, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 As one wag once put it, even the thinnest pancake has two sides. But perhaps a better way to put it is that this is not a black and White case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Duane, please give Jack my regards and tell the old rascal to keep trying to get logged in (and not be deterred by difficulties) so he can post in his customary mannner.Even though I don't think Len and Craig are disinfo artists, I do think they enjoy baiting Jack and getting the reaction they do. This should also be taken into account by the moderators. It's not just general rules of decorum that are important, but the underlying motives too. David Good grief, Have do you ever read Whites posts? Its clearly tit for tat in regards to White and his posting habits. You want my underlying motive? How about the truth? Anyone here interested in that? Here's one most of you don't want to hear. Jack White simply is ignorant about photography. No personal opinion involved. Just solid, proven fact. I really don't care how long White has been doing this or how much he is admired by some, the truth is still the truth, and White posts very little of that with his photographic studies. He has had more than ample opportunity to defend his work, and more importantly actually learn and admit his errors. So I ask again. Is anyone here actually interested in the truth? Who is really the 'enemy of truth" around here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 and if the moderators don't like it, they can go stuff themselves.Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I received the following email from Jack White, with his request I post it. He is responsible for the content. I am posting it in that he claims he can not post at all and thus can not speak to the Forum.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Initially I thought this forum was a hospitable place where flame-free intelligent discussions could occur. Like many here I was invited to join when the forum began, as it wanted to have experienced and able JFK researchers lend their credibility to the new venue. I had many pleasant exchanges of research here without any problem. Then several PROVOCATEURS from the Bad Astronomy forum FOLLOWED ME here to trash my research on the faked Apollo photos, and the peaceful exchange of information ceased. I was constantly attacked personally on ANYTHING I posted, regardless of subject or truth. One of these persons even had on EVERY posting "LITTLE WHITE LIES" directed as a personal insult to me. Some of these people were tossed from another forum for their incessant juvenile personal attacks. In indignation, I protested several times...and was met with inaction...and even abuse. This forum is no longer a search for historical truths. It is more like a Salem witch hunt or a Joan d'Arc trial. I have been relegated to the role of Don Quixote, fruitlessly tilting at windmills...my quest becoming an Impossible Dream. I have devoted more than 40 years to this quest for historical truths and exposure of official malfeasance. But instead of finding truth and justice, I find that search HERE hampered by personal attacks and lies. I have been called a xxxx for saying I cannot post; I tried five times and got "logged off" each time...so I have quit trying, but I'm not lying. It has been said I am looking for self-aggrandizement; nothing is further from the truth. I just want to be free from personal attacks. I am an honest, philanthropic person known for my kindness and generosity in many fields, including the JFK assassination. To be pictured otherwise by miscreants here is an abuse of truth and justice. Thanks to all those who have testified in my defense in this mock trial. May truth and justice prevail. Jack PS...thanks for those who sympathized about the death yesterday of my nephew in Bush's war. Jack, My sympathies to you and your family for the loss of your nephew. Bush's war is about to turn into WW111 it would appear, if they get their way on Iran. I hope your posting priviliges are restored. I am not one who looks at the moon landing threads, so I can't comment on what goes on there, but when I see you post on the JFK thread you never attack anyone. I will say that as long as I have been in complany with members of the critical community (now 35 years) I have long known the presence of provocatuers, posing as researchers, pretending to care about this, when all the while the purpose is to spread both divisive discontent and disinformation. "The enemy is we". Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I find that language by Mr. Drago offensive. Here is MY solution: 1. Everybody gets a fresh start. 2. There are very very clear explicit rules re what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. 3. Everybody is allowed ONE error. He or she is given a public warning if he or she submits a naughty post. 4. In the event of another naughty post after this warning, the offending party is banned for three months. After three months, he or she is reinstated. But another mistake and the offending party is shot--no, better make it that he or she is banned for good. 5. A group of three of our wisest members are selected to judge if the post really violated the rules. The vote is somehow taken in secret (so no single person can be "blamed") and two out of three make the decision. 6. In order to be reinstated Jack must admit that Neil Armstrong was walking on the moon--around the same time Sen Kennedy was driving off a bridge. 7. Forget #6. Fair enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) One addition: any member can appeal to the panel or the panel can take up a possible offense on its own (any one panel member initiating the decisionb). Edited October 3, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts