Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 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. Yes Evan, but as you well know Jack will continue on regardless, so my original question remains, What the point. these kind of threads always attract personal abuse, and really serve little, or no purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Stephen...here is my original post, which clearly demonstrates who is doing the ATTACKING. After I posted this, all 'ell broke loose, as I knew it would, as all of the adhominers rushed to reply! If they had not, this thread would be only one post long...BUT THEY PERSIST! ....... In my spare time, I have participated in some JFK forums for over a dozen years now. Everywhere I go, an attacking "goon squad" previously not there has showed up to make personal attacks on me. SOMEBODY must consider it important to keep me quiet. I do not need to name these goons...everybody recognizes them and knows who they are and the personal attack tactics they use. Most of them have been banned from one forum, and another forum disallows them membership, but this forum permits them and even promotes some to supervisory positions. As Penn Jones once said to me...YOU WILL BE ATTACKED AND CALLED A WACKO. WEAR IT AS A BADGE OF HONOR. As Fletch Prouty once told me...THE CIA CONSIDERS YOU AS "THE MOST IMPORTANT" JFK RESEARCHER BECAUSE YOU EXPLAIN PHOTOS, WHICH EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND." So it is an honor to be attacked by goons. I tells me that I may be on the right track. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) 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). Edited January 22, 2010 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 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. WOW...yet another ad hom...saying that I am being pandered to because of my age! Well that is not as bad as the owner of the forum calling me a PARANOID SENILE OLD MAN! Thanks for not going THAT far! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 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'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 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. Evan, im not aware that I am protecting Jack, I made a post on the first page questioning the validity of Jacks original OP, I then left it alone, seeing where it was headed, and hey presto, a few hours later, five pages of Ad Homs, strawmen and delusion. by all means continue, misrakes should be pointed out and admitted, its the main way we learn, but I don't hold out much hope for a successful conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) I immediatelyredo 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. Edited January 22, 2010 by Paul Baker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I immediatelyredo 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 sycophantic supporters. Thats a very bold and alarming statement Len In fact I feel like that was directed right at me If it was directed at me your wrong, I do not need to flatter Jack at all, I am however going to show him my support when he is taking crap from all angles and I agree with his position You do the same thing with Tink, but I would not say your trying to flatter him, I can see that, its just too bad you cant see the other side of it No Dean that wasn't "directed right at" you, look at the sentence in context,what Jack wants is that every unquestionably accept what he posts. And don't be silly about Jack "taking crap from all angles" he initiated this xxxx fight just as he initiates most of the ones he's involved in. As for me and Tink the thread that we most coposted in was the one about the Wellstone crash in that has he voiced his support of my research more than the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I must repeat: I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE ANYONE. I am here ONLY to share and discussinformation. I WILL NOT DISCUSS RESEARCH WITH ANYONE WHO ATTACKS ME PERSONALLY. I do not "dodge" debating issues. I am interested only in research, not in engaging in juvenile arguments. Anyone who wants to debate me is wasting time taunting me. Jack Translated that means: "I will make claims but not try to defend them when questioned, nor retract them when proven wrong." This is an ad hominem attack...implying that I lie and am dishonest! Absurd whining from the person who labelled Evan and his other detractors a "goon squad" I immediately redo any of my studies PROVEN wrong by anyone. It does me no good to have ERRORS in any of my studies. Because somebody THINKS I am wrong is proof of nothing. Complete BS Jack In the morning the eastern sides of objects are in direct sun and shadows point west,in the afternoon the opposite is true, yet you claimed that a photo in which the western sides of various building were in direct sun and shadows pointing east was taken before 10 in the morning. No only did you never admit error but you reposted the same study. Nor have you withdrawn your claim 6 WTCwas gray I could go on and on. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Jack White takes more abuse on this forum than anyone. Yes, he can be cantakerous. Yes, he is sometimes impatient with those who question him. I might not agree with the way he responds at times, but then I'm not having my work ridiculed on a constant basis. No after Perter Lemkin and possibly Craig Jack levels more abuse than anyone on this forum. But his critics (even Craig) are normally polite when the point out his numerous errors. Do you really think its true he admits error when he's wrong? Take a look at the "Black and White and Jack White" thread and tell us what color you think the building was. And riddle me this; if the western side of a building is in direct sun what time was the photo taken, before or after solar noon? Jack claims such a photo was taken before 10 AM but solar noon was just before 1 AM on 9/11 in NYC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Lets see how many factJack gets wrong Don...thanks for presenting some of the ACCURATE Murrah information...not the misinformation we were told.It is quite interesting that PI Thompson REVEALS that he was the investigator on the case. I know of nobody who knew that before. He should have seen a pattern: McVeigh only suspect...Oswald only suspect 1) Wrong Terry Nichols was his accomplice at the latter's trial evidence was presented of additional accomplices but they were no brought to trial,probably due to lack of evidence. McVeigh quickly convicted...Oswald quickly convicted 2) McVeigh was convicted over 2 years after the bombing 3) LHO never went to trial McVeigh killed without telling his story...Oswald killed without telling his story 4) McVeigh repeatedly admitted his guilt and spelled his motives was executed over 6 years after the bombing and his arrest ANFO bomb...single bullet theoryJohn Does...Oswald associates buying fertilizer and oil...buying the MC rifle General Partin refutes ANFO...researchers refuting WCR etcetera Nothing is really parallel beyond the human inclination to see patterns whether they exist or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now