A list of the major players on the Forum

[Evan Burton]

Bernice - I have never owned one of the (in)famous 'Dogs Playing Poker' prints.... but secretly I have always wanted one! Actually - the whole series.

[John Simkin]

What do I have to do to become a major player? After all, I pay the bills. (I have always been told: "to follow the money")

doesn't that make him a MAJOR PAYER?

Let us hope we can continue to concentrate on the humour of the situation.

[Guest]

doesn't that make him a MAJOR PAYER?

Never played in a major championship myself - did manage to qualify for the British Boys Amateur Golf Champs in 1982 - all down hill since then

[Jack White]

Kathy...you misunderstand. All I have done is post a listing of the forum's MAJOR PLAYERS.

As far as I know it is not against any forum rules to designate anyone a MAJOR PLAYER.

Any inference you draw from this list is ALL IN YOUR MIND. This is like a playbill at a theater

which identifies the ACTORS. This list does not discriminate. Anyone can be named to the

list by simply becoming a MAJOR PLAYER.

Newcomers here need a program to help them quickly identify the leading actors.

What do I have to do to become a major player? After all, I pay the bills. (I have always been told: "follow the money")

John...in this case following the money does not apply.

Matthew 7:16

Follow the theology.

Jack

[Pamela Brown]

Otherwise known as the 'usual suspects'....:-)

[David G. Healy]

Some people consider Jack to be a 'major player', too:

Jack White first made a name for himself by trying to show that the famous photographs (e.g., Fig. 1) of accused Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his back yard had been falsified. Claiming, among other things, that he had found discrepancies between the measurements of that rifle taken from the photo, and other photographs of the rifle recovered from the Texas School Book Depository, White maintained that Oswald was holding a different rifle than the one believed to be used to shoot President Kennedy.

Unfortunately under examination before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations White's evidence completely fell apart. He demonstrated almost no understanding of the mathematical and geometrical principles of photogrammetry. He admitted to having received no training in photogrammetry or the forensic analysis of photographs.

His embarrassment before Congress did not stop White from continuing his research on the Kennedy assassination, although his findings remain questionable. Some researchers into Kennedy's assassination consider White something of a crackpot.

Does this have anything to do with Apollo?

Directly, no. We are not interested in examining the Kennedy assassination or supporting or refuting any specific points of view that relate to it. However, Jack White's skill, methodology, and training in photographic interpretation are relevant to his recent study of the Apollo photographs. The best evidence of that skill, methodology, and training are his own statements given under oath, and the reactions of those who heard those statements.

Jack White and his associates initially entertained private Apollo-related discussions in a web site at JFKResearch.com where they discussed their ongoing Kennedy research. Since late 2000 White has turned his attention increasingly to Apollo photographs. He believes he has evidence that they were falsified. He published that evidence at JFKResearch privately, then publicly at the Education Forum and at Aulis.

White's approach to Apollo photography is especially clumsy. While we are not Kennedy assassination experts, we are Apollo experts, and his assertions regarding the Apollo photographs are frequently absurd. In many cases White demonstrates he doesn't understand what various Apollo equipment is or what it's used for. And in a few cases he has edited and composed the photos in a way that creates "anomalies" that weren't there otherwise.

Such as?

See the photo analysis page for some specific examples.

For example, White cropped and resized two photos of the same lunar mountain in order to argue that the mountain "changed size" between the two photos, suggesting the same studio backdrop was used in two different occasions. In fact, when the unaltered photos are examined the mountain is proportionally the same size.

It is very difficult to follow White's research because he habitually "forgets" to include the standard Apollo photo reference numbers, forcing critics to search through thousands of photographs to find the source image and make sure he hasn't left out something important, or that he's not trying to compare photographs from two different missions.

Where can I talk to Jack White about his Apollo theories?

He has been most active lately at the Education Forum. In general White refuses to discuss his theories except within the carefully controlled environment of web sites and other forums in which some moderator protects his interests. White is fond of calling his critics "agents provocateurs," and of construing any questions regarding his expertise or skill as "personal attacks," all the while refusing to answer material questions regarding his claims.

White's "studies" (i.e., attempts to determine the authenticity of Apollo photographs) are online at the Aulis web site, but no discussion is allowed there.

So Jack White admitted he isn't a scientist or a physicist, and that he wasn't able to account for perspective effects in his JFK analysis. So much for what he isn't. He must have some professional qualifications. What are they?

He holds a bachelor of arts degree in journalism with a minor in history from the Texas Christian University. (Proceedings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations vol. 2, p. 322.)

We concede that White's work with Witherspoon and Associates establishes he is an expert in photographic compositing and duplication. But we hasten to emphasize that these are not the same skills required to reliably characterize objects that appear in photographs, and their relationship to each other and to the camera. White's demonstrated skills may aid in the detection of forgery based on artifacts of photographic composition. But we dispute his expertise at identifying forged photographs on such grounds as lighting, parallax, perspective, and photogrammetry.

White's allegations regarding Apollo photography do not correspond to his demonstrated area of expertise. They instead tend to derive from photogrammetric analysis, shadow analysis, and perspective analysis -- topics White admits are not within his expertise.

So why does anybody pay any attention to Jack White?

That's a good question. Someone who is so frequently wrong should not normally enjoy credibility. However, because White's embarrassment was handed to him by elected representatives of the U.S. government, White has acquired a sort of folk hero status with the anti-government conspiracy theorists. They apparently see him as a sort of "little guy" who was inappropriately squashed by the Goliath of the United States Congress, and who bravely continues the fight.

Except that Congress properly rejected his testimony. Other experts whose credentials are not in question testified that White's analysis of the Oswald backyard photos is wrong and did not consider factors White would have probably understood had he been properly trained. It's hard to argue that White was being "suppressed" when he himself admitted he didn't have the appropriate knowledge.

http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html

That photo is a fake as a wooden nickel and anyone who doesn't think so is suffering from the Emperor's Naked Clothes Syndrome or just hasn't studied Jack's and other's clear evidence of fakery. I'm not going to repeat it all here again. The apparent purpose of many on the list is to endlessly bring in doubt - to make it seem as if the conclusions have never been reached and to usually cite 'official' sources or panels [who have clearly been complicit in this and other crimes and cover-ups]. Not impressive - and newbees should not be fooled. First there was just one such photo, then two, then three, then four, now many more - all different - and it is impossible for any of them to be real - just look at Jack wonderful video or other work on them on this Forum. As I mentioned, I have yet another - never released - different than the others but, unfortunately, can't release at this time [under the conditions I was given it]...but know 101% they are fakes. One could go on for hours about what is wrong and impossible with that photo. Where are his finger tips and the papers, of known size show the impossible size of the body and on and on. Why believe the 'officials'. They lied in the WC; lied about Tonkin; lied about LHO not being an intelligence agent; covered-up the events of Dallas; tampered with the evidence and even the body; lied about 9-11 (no matter how you view it); lied us into endless wars - everyone I can think of. The whole event of Dallas was fake - as presented officially - as with all covert operations - to fool people into thinking X happened by Y; when Z happened by the usual gangsters running the power structure. Don't be fooled by those who endless post the 'doubt'. Personally, I doubt even they believe it. Think for yourself. Most evil, war, economic injustice, assassinations, government overthrows, bank collapses (into the pockets of the rich), murders made to look like accidents or natural death, injustice, etc. is perpetrated by those in power - not 'lone nuts'. It is the power elite that must be eliminated - and the

sycophants who want to see the Emperor with his clothes on ignored or laughed at - the Emperor and the Empire [any Emperor / any Empire] are stark naked, if you only think for yourself and read real history - not the synthetic pap written to lull you into somnolence, so you can be controlled. Be a People not a Sheeple! In the light of the now acknowledged 'cognitive infiltration' of websites, forums et al. [as follow-on to the Mockingbird Op which did the same with the print and radio, TV media, one really has to wonder how much cognitive infiltration we have going on here. I'd say quite a bit. It is all about Machiavellian Power by a few over the many. Sadly some are fooled and others are working for the powerful to try to pull the wool over other's eyes. Sadly, most people trust and want to trust those in power and the 'system' they live under. I see no system that deserves trust and NO one in power or authority who should be believed. If the People lead, the government will follow - not the other way around. NO positive change EVER came from the top down; only from the bottom up. Read the quotes in my signature below. How true they all are! We'll make NO progress in human society - nothing of real meaning - until we free ourselves continuously of the tentacles of power from the few who wish to control and fool us - for their profit and power - for our enslavement and sheephood. They want us to be serfs. Stand-up! Better to die standing on your feet and knowing the truth, than to live on your knees believing your master's lies! Want to be a mental slave to the Oligarchy - listen to what Evan has to say. Want to be a free person - then think for yourself. The Back Yard Photo issue is settled. They are fakes - faked by those who framed Oswald to eliminate JFK who was becoming to much pro-Peace and anti-War to take over covertly the USA [it is still under their control - even worse than in 1963] and slowly the whole world. Pure evil and pure lies. For Empire, riches for the few, control of information over the many and turning them into serfs. Neo-Mideavalism I call it.

frankly Peter, we have them dancing, mightly! They're all over the place these days.... same on the alt. boards -- the very best the lone nuts can do is instill doubt, and attack the messenger.... they KNOW the Warren Commission Report is in the toilet. The result of same is on full display here, and other places.

[Ron Ecker]

On major players here, the question should be which posters are major and which ones are here to play.

I must say I'm puzzled by Gary Mack being on the list of major players on the forum. He's been a major player in the JFK research, certainly, but has he ever posted once on this forum?

[Jack White]

On major players here, the question should be which posters are major and which ones are here to play.

I must say I'm puzzled by Gary Mack being on the list of major players on the forum. He's been a major player in the JFK research, certainly, but has he ever posted once on this forum?

Mack regularly provides "information" to be posted on the forum.

[Ron Ecker]

Mack regularly provides "information" to be posted on the forum.

True. But since he doesn't post, I think there should be an asterisk by his name (like there should be for every home-run record holder since Ruth - now there was a major player).

[Jack White]

Mack regularly provides "information" to be posted on the forum.

True. But since he doesn't post, I think there should be an asterisk by his name (like there should be for every home-run record holder since Ruth - now there was a major player).

OK.

[Dean Hagerman]

Gary Mack*

*in absentia

[Guest John Gillespie]

doesn't that make him a MAJOR PAYER?

_____________________________

Oooooh! I like that one. You are a major player, oops, Major Player, just for that pun.

Also, I think your posting yesterday of differing opinion was germane. After all, when it comes to a choice between beef and fish, one man's meat is another's...poisson.

JG

Edited February 3, 2010 by John Gillespie

[Guest John Gillespie]

Gary Mack*

*in absentia

________________________

Gary Mack, the establishment's gatekeeper.

JG

[Michael Hogan]

Players would not be players if they were not enabled by Forum members who are willing to spend endless

hours engaging them in mostly pointless arguments and debates that lead nowhere.

[Evan Burton]

Players would not be players if they were not enabled by Forum members who are willing to spend endless hours engaging them in mostly pointless arguments and debates that lead nowhere.

Good point. You point out things that are wrong but they go on merrily ignoring the faults. Perhaps it is better just to tag them as a "non-player", indicating their status not worthy of consideration.

I tag Aulis as one of those sites.