Morgan Reynolds interviews Jack White...

[Jack White]

Thanks, Michael. You are correct.

My discussion with Morgan Reynolds, who asked to interview me, covered three subjects:

1. JFK...my reason for posting it to the JFK forum.

2. Apollo...because Morgan had read my website and wanted to discuss it.

3. WTC...the main reason he wanted to interview me and discuss my photo studies.

Since it covered THREE SUBJECTS, IT WAS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE TO POST IT TO

BOTH FORUMS, WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT AUDIENCES.

Burton wished to censor it to two of the audiences, based on his bias that I was seeking

"self promotion". I reported his abuse three times, but nobody took any notice, and kept

the thread LOCKED to two thirds of its audience. To me, this is abominable. Further, his

suggestions to now move it to the other forum make NO sense at all.

I did NOTHING except post a link, without comment, so that anyone interested could

access it. I request (not strong enough) the original thread be unlocked by some

moderator with a conscience. The link belongs on both forums, and I deny the claim

of "self promotion". I request that Burton be reprimanded.

Jack

This thread started off dealing with a Jack White interview but is moving more and more into an Apollo discussion. We have a few options:

- Split the thread, moving Apollo posts to the PC section;

- Start a new thread in the PC section;

- Resurrect an existing Apollo thread in the PC section;

- Move this thread to the PC section; or

- Leave the thread as it is.

I'm happy with the last option if people don't mind the discussion going off-topic (i.e. discussing Apollo).

How disingenuous can you be? It is you that steered this discussion toward Apollo.

Jack also started the same thread in the Political Conspiracies section by simply

posting a link to his interview. You chastised him for doing so and immediately

locked the thread. When he complained, you made his complaints invisible.

You made no mention of your actions here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116841

Regardless of your personal opinions of Jack, he is a long-time member here who has

made a lot of valuable contributions. The title of his interview that he simply linked to without comment was:

An Interview with Photo Analyst Jack White On JFK, Apollo and 9/11

On what basis was it proper to lock the thread? Your transparent biases toward Jack White are

not reason enough. Until you posted the above statement, I was content to leave my complaint here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=194554

[Craig Lamson]

(snip)

Burton wished to censor it to two of the audiences, based on his bias that I was seeking

"self promotion".

(snip)

I did NOTHING except post a link, without comment, so that anyone interested could

access it.

Jack

It appears all that Burton did was lock the thread. He did not "censor" your posting of the link, in fact it is still there in the original post and the link is active. Anyone who is interested can clink the link and review the material.

So whats your beef again? That you don't have two thread going ont he same topic?

[Greg Parker]

Screw Jack's "beliefs" They are meaningless.

On the contrary, I find the subject of Jack's belief's fascinating. Or at least, what informs and feeds Jack's beliefs. I long ago concluded that Jack is either a Bircher, or a fellow traveler of the JBS. His conspiracy gestalt screams "Bircher".

Just look at Dear ol' uber-conservative Morgan Reynolds... Mises Institute... Mont Pelerin Society... Cato Institute... another Bircher fellow traveler.

I hear they're making a comeback too, on the coat-tails of those teabaggers... could be another first, next Presidential election. Better watch out for those black choppers then!

[Craig Lamson]

Screw Jack's "beliefs" They are meaningless.

On the contrary, I find the subject of Jack's belief's fascinating. Or at least, what informs and feeds Jack's beliefs. I long ago concluded that Jack is either a Bircher, or a fellow traveler of the JBS. His conspiracy gestalt screams "Bircher".

Just look at Dear ol' uber-conservative Morgan Reynolds... Mises Institute... Mont Pelerin Society... Cato Institute... another Bircher fellow traveler.

I hear they're making a comeback too, on the coat-tails of those teabaggers... could be another first, next Presidential election. Better watch out for those black choppers then!

I'm happy for you Greg.

[Evan Burton]

*sigh*

Okay - let's review the facts.

1. Jack posted a link to a site where an interview with him was published. He discussed JFK, Apollo and 9-11 amonst other things.

2. I posted my opinion of the content (full of bull and inaccuracies). At no time did I mention Apollo.

3. François Carlier asked about Apollo (amonst other topics), and where Jack stood on it.

4. Jack responded, saying quote All the photos "taken on the moon" are faked unquote.

5. I asked that if the astronauts claim opposite of what Jack says, stating they DID take the images, then is Jack saying they are lying or not.

6. Bill, Bernice, Craig, and Prof Fetzer all weighed in.

7. I clarified my position, clarified that you can call a non-member a xxxx if you so wish, and that the problem - IMHO - was Jack will not respond to those who dispute his claims.

8. Jack - as per normal - claimed it was a personal attack on him.

9. I submitted myself to the decision of the other moderators.

10. I gave numerous examples where Jack makes person attacks on people.

I did not steer the conversation towards Apollo. In fact, Bill Kelly and Jack made more posts on Apollo than me.

Next:

Jack posted another link to the same interview on another sub-forum. I said that it was enough self-promotion, and that a link on one sub-forum was enough.

The first thread Jack posted was left open, and discussion is free to take place.

Jack did not post his complaint on the complaint thread, but instead started new threads and posted complaints off-topic on other threads. I closed these and made them invisible, and make no apology for that.

[Michael Hogan]

*sigh* Okay - let's review the facts.

Sigh to you too. Anytime someone tells you "let's review the facts" and proceeds to enumerate them, you can bet it is they who are "reviewing the facts" and their list

is likely to be both subjective and selective.

1. Jack posted a link to a site where an interview with him was published. He discussed JFK, Apollo and 9-11 amonst other things.

Jack posted the link both here and in the Political Conspiracies section so that Apollo and 9/11 could be discussed there.

Burton fails to mention that he locked the thread in the PC section, making that impossible.

2. I posted my opinion of the content (full of bull and inaccuracies). At no time did I mention Apollo.

Evan Burton was the first to respond to Jack's link. Maybe he was referring to JFK. After all, it was the JFK section of the Forum

3. François Carlier asked about Apollo (amonst other topics), and where Jack stood on it.

4. Jack responded, saying quote All the photos "taken on the moon" are faked unquote.

It seemed clear that there might be a language barrier there and Mr. Carlier wanted to be sure he understood Jack's interview correctly.

In any event, Jack's brief response also included JFK and 9/11. Mr. Carlier wrote:

....But anyway, that's not the proper place to talk about these subjects. This is a Kennedy assassination forum. So I'll focus on the Kennedy assassination.

(bold added)

(I shall have to learn how to use the many features this web forum provides). Thanks again, Mister White, for your franchise.

The very next post was Evan Burton's. No mention of the JFK assassination:

Just so we are clear on this, Jack: you claim the images were not taken on the Moon.

The astronauts who conducted those lunar missions say you are wrong.

So you are saying that the astronauts, who say they have walked on the Moon and took the photographs - which you claim are faked - on the Moon, are lying.

That is your position, isn't it? There is no grey area here; it's one or the other.

The following five "facts" are irrelevant to what I wrote. They are irrelevant to the complaint of Burton's locking of the other thread.

6. Bill, Bernice, Craig, and Prof Fetzer all weighed in.

7. I clarified my position, clarified that you can call a non-member a xxxx if you so wish, and that the problem - IMHO - was Jack will not respond to those who dispute his claims.

8. Jack - as per normal - claimed it was a personal attack on him.

9. I submitted myself to the decision of the other moderators.

10. I gave numerous examples where Jack makes person attacks on people.

The following was not included in Evan Burton's "review of the facts." Maybe they are not facts.

I did not steer the conversation towards Apollo. In fact, Bill Kelly and Jack made more posts on Apollo than me.

Evan Burton was the first member to make a post that dealt exclusively with Apollo. Of course he steered the conversation toward Apollo. He also made it impractical/impossible for anyone to post their thoughts on Apollo or 9/11 in the Political Conspiracies section by locking the thread there.

Bill Kelly's posts were less about Apollo and more about Evan Burton's treatment of Jack. And Burton fails to mention that Bill Kelly kept trying to bring the topic back to the Kennedy assassination.

Next:

Jack posted another link to the same interview on another sub-forum. I said that it was enough self-promotion, and that a link on one sub-forum was enough.

The first thread Jack posted was left open, and discussion is free to take place.

Jack did not post his complaint on the complaint thread, but instead started new threads and posted complaints off-topic on other threads. I closed these and made them invisible, and make no apology for that.

By using the word next, Burton leaves it unclear that Jack posted the links in both sections of the Forum virtually simultaneously and that Burton quickly locked the thread in the PC section. Many other Forum members, including John Simkin, have duplicated their threads in both sections. Many other members have promoted their own work. It should not be up to Evan Burton to decide how much is "enough" when it comes to Jack's posts, particularly in light of the subject matter of Jack White's interview

There would have been NO HARM in allowing the thread in the Political Conspiracies section to remain open so that Apollo and 9/11 could properly be discussed there. Instead, Burton forced members like Dave Greer and Matthew Lewis to respond in the JFK section. Neither of them seem to have a particular interest in the JFK assassination.

The most salient point here is that Evan Burton did not abide by his own dictum:

In the interest of being open & transparent, would all Mods please record any Moderator actions they take (locking, deleting, warning, moving, etc) here.

(bold mine)

This thread is for recording the actions only, and not for discussing them.

Access is limited to Moderators only. Unlock the thread, make your post, then lock the thread when finished.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10873&view=findpost&p=116841

Lastly and for the record, I initially posted the text of my complaint here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10872&view=findpost&p=194554

Edited June 8, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Jack White]

Thanks, Michael. You are 100 percent correct.

Jack

[

[Evan Burton]

Okay Michael - I'll re-open the thread and move all non-JFK discussion to that thread.

[Evan Burton]

Greer is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to continually make attacks on me.

Please point out where I continually attack you, rather than your studies.

As usual, the silence is telling.

[Michael Hogan]

Such a class act.

Okay Michael - I'll re-open the thread and move all non-JFK discussion to that thread.

The silence was telling.

In the interest of being open & transparent, would all Mods please record any Moderator actions they take (locking, deleting, warning, moving, etc) here.

(bold mine)

This thread is for recording the actions only, and not for discussing them.

Access is limited to Moderators only. Unlock the thread, make your post, then lock the thread when finished.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10873&view=findpost&p=116841

[Evan Burton]

Wow. Try not to fall over yourself with thanks for doing what you asked for.

[Evan Burton]

And we still see no indication of the "personal attacks" that member Dave Greer has supposedly conducted.

Can anyone find evidence of such?

[Evan Burton]

I feel that a moon hoax is not a sideshow, but an unexplored political area. A non-landing brings up NASA budget questions. What was the covert relation between NASA and the DOD? Was NASA a money launderer for Defense or intel projects? If they didn't spend it on the lunar surface...where did it go, and what other funding went with it?

David,

They're good questions. I'll try to answer...

NASA is a civilian agency. There are circumstances when they carry payloads which are in the interest of national security, but that is normally when a military launch vehicle is not available. This particular role is entirely limited to the Shuttle. I don't know if you have read any of the history of the Shuttle, but NASA had to get the DoD (specifically the USAF) to help finance the programme otherwise it would have died before ever flying. This forced NASA to make several changes to the Shuttle design to meet USAF requirements. During the Mercury / Gemini / Apollo programmes, military involvement was limited to the use of spacecraft as an orbital recon platform. The USAF had it's own programmes (X-20 / MOL) but rapidly moved towards unmanned space platforms and dedicated military launch vehicles.

The accounting of all the money spent is reasonably well documented. As a primer, can I recommend: Apollo By The Numbers.

The development of Apollo hardware and techniques took massive amounts of funding; they developed processes and techniques unheard of previously. Funding, though, reached a peak around 1965-66 and then entered a steady decline. the Mars project got canned. The Apollo Applications project - with the exception of Skylab - got canned. Next, the missions themselves got hit. Hardware for flights up to Apollo 20 were built but 20 got cut. Then 19 and 18 ran out of money.

The money was not spent on the lunar surface, but in developing the techniques, the hardware, and the infrastructure to get there - and back - safely.

[Michael Hogan]

Wow. Try not to fall over yourself with thanks for doing what you asked for.

I didn't ask you for anything.

I pointed out how your bias against Jack White affects your abilities to moderate fairly.

I pointed out how you impinged on Jack's basic rights as a member by wrongly locking his thread.

I pointed out how you failed to adhere to the basic protocols that you established when a thread is locked or made invisible.

And I pointed out how you were willing to misrepresent things in order to make yourself look better with your faulty "review of the facts."