Why is the forum accepting advertising...

[Craig Lamson]

I haave summarized my position.

Which has been shown to be pure folly. Yet you still persist . Why? Scientific evidence not enough for you? You prefer wild speculation with no basis in fact instead?

In a mentality of unconstrained discourse,

Unconstrained would aptly describer your “position”.

Might I direct you to Whites post to both Mr. Burton and myself calling us liars and NASA plants.

Double standards eh Shanet?

I find Jack White's strongest point

is probably the vantage point of the photos themselves,

the shadows, incorrect placement and orientation over time and photo forgery

You find his points strong when they have been debunked in the strongest manner? I guess false idol does apply in your case. I find it amazing a man who professes to be a scholar fails in the most basic of research. I would expect reason from a man of your education yet what we get borders on the absurd.

Please show us some incorrect shadows and explain why they are incorrect. If your (or Whites as the case may be) assessment is correct it will be an easy task to provide detailed empirical proof to support your position. Simply providing White “I say it is so” will not suffice. His ability at photo analysis has long ago been shown to be less than stellar.

[ the whistleblower's anomaly] and I am most interested

in the points my fellow respected JFK assassination photoanalyst

and EDUCATION FORUM senior member JACK WHITES

approach overall as he presents on his thread.

Whistleblower? LOL. DO you have even ONE actual whistleblower to bring forward? I didn’t think so.

Jack White lost his respect in the JFK research community years and years ago. Other than a very small core group of inmates at JFKR, White is a has been.

You find his overall approach a valid method of investigation? He throws together non-researched claims based on altered photos, incomplete knowledge, and just plain lack of knowledge on the basics of photography and you find them interesting?

However I am disturbed by the tone and unprecedented interest in our hypothesis:

“our hypothesis” LOL. These claims are as old as the hills, dating back to the beginnings of the “Apollo hoax movement.

Why should you be disturbed? You along with White posit wild and baseless claims and you are disturbed to find that others with a greater knowledge of the subject challenge your claims? And why would you consider it unprecedented? It’s a public forum and people with an interest in the Apollo program are here offering the other side of the story, based on facts and empirical data to balance out the foolishness and nonsense. It looks to me the sides are at about equal strength manpower wise. When it comes to brainpower….

Jack White needed a second opinion and I was there to second that member,

in the interest of

UNCONSTRAINED DISCOURSE ON THE INTERNET ..........

LOL indeed. A quick review of the Apollo threads shows you as a cheerleader very early on in the White postings, far before he was challenged. Step up to the plate Shanet and do a little research…or step aside before the steamroller gets to you.

Edited March 27, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Shanet Clark]

All members:

In the interest of unconstrained discourse I support the Jack White approach and many of his findings.

I am sure to note the lack of concurrence by others.

I believe the original postings, and my summary,

have yet to be addressed and still present many difficulties and problematics.

(see photos)

[John Månestjärna]

I believe the original postings, and my summary,

have yet to be addressed and still present many difficulties and problematics.

(see photos)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(emphasis added) in other words, you refuse to prove anything, you refuse to research anything, you wish to believe Jack, without any personal thinking required.

Belief does not equal evidence.

My challenge stands. You refuse to accept it. Reseach a single claim, prove that it is in fact a real anomaly. You have failed to do so. You have still not accepted the challenge.

[Craig Lamson]

All members:

In the interest of unconstrained discourse I support the Jack White approach and many of his findings.

I am sure to note the lack of concurrence by others.

I believe the original postings, and my summary,

have yet to be addressed and still present many difficulties and problematics.

(see photos)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Duly noted. As is your ignorance on the subject matter. Believe as you wish as is your right. It speaks volumes and it will be reflected in future readings of your posts.

I"m sure it will be duly noted by other on this forum as well.

Why not detail exactly why you believe your summary has yet to be addressed?

Your vague posts show nothing of substance while your points have been rebutted in detail. Do it point by point.

Still after many chances you give us only bluster. So much for intellectual honesty.

Beep beep beep...that the steamroller backing up your way.....

Edited March 27, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Shanet,

I posted details of why I believe you were wrong in the points put forward in your posts.

Could you address where you disagree with my replies? Many thanks.

[Evan Burton]

I noticed in one of the Google ads:

"Apollo 11 hoax? This film starts off trying to prove it and ends up discovering Nazis in NASA!" (or something like that)

Should I start the same bleating as Jack did?

Nah, just kidding folks - though the ad did actually appear. I figure that balances up things nicely.

[Guest]

I noticed in one of the Google ads:

"Apollo 11 hoax?  This film starts off trying to prove it and ends up discovering Nazis in NASA!" (or something like that)

Should I start the same bleating as Jack did?

Nah, just kidding folks - though the ad did actually appear.  I figure that balances up things nicely.

I would appreciate it if you would both just click on these adverts

[Evan Burton]

If it helps the forum, no problems.

[Craig Lamson]

I noticed in one of the Google ads:

"Apollo 11 hoax?  This film starts off trying to prove it and ends up discovering Nazis in NASA!" (or something like that)

Should I start the same bleating as Jack did?

Nah, just kidding folks - though the ad did actually appear.  I figure that balances up things nicely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would appreciate it if you would both just click on these adverts

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just clicked on the moonpans ad ad I actually found some mounted and signed apollo panaorama images I might actually be interested in buying. There are a couple that wolld look great in my studio office. Imagine that.

[Guest]

I just clicked on the moonpans ad ad I actually found some mounted and signed apollo panaorama images I might actually be interested in buying. There are a couple that wolld look great in my studio office.  Imagine that.

Excellent

I might even be persuaded about the benefits of the capitalist economy if this goes on

[David G. Healy]

Lamsom dronned ON:

Duly noted. As is your ignorance on the subject matter. Believe as you wish as is your right. It speaks volumes and it will be reflected in future readings of your posts.

how kind of you to allow others to believe as they wish, what nonsense, rofl!

I"m sure it will be duly noted by other on this forum as well.

education and varied historical viewpoint is a plain pain in the butt, makes for good conversation though...

Why not detail exactly why you believe your summary has yet to be addressed?

Your vague posts show nothing of substance while your points have been rebutted in detail. Do it point by point.

here we go, AGAIN -- telling those you disagree with WHAT to do <sigh>, didn't you get thrown off of another board for that, or was that Tink Thompson? Maybe Bill Miller there were so many back back then, one tends to forget the names...

Still after many chances you give us only bluster. So much for intellectual honesty.

speaking of intellectual and PROFESSIONAL HONESTY, have you EVER been paid by NASA for any contracted photo work or freelance television work -- I have!

Beep beep beep...that the steamroller backing up your way.....

thats Sputnik, children will be children, sigh! Wanna buy a CD with a Moorman5.tiff on it, worthless today as it was a few years ago, is she or is she not... roflmao

you the only one around here exempt from posting a likeness of yourself, just curious?

Edited April 3, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

Lamsom dronned ON:

Duly noted.  As is your ignorance on the subject matter.  Believe as you wish as is your right.  It speaks volumes and it will be reflected in future readings of your posts. 

how kind of you to allow others to believe as they wish, what nonsense, rofl!

I"m sure it will be duly noted by other on this forum as well.

education and varied historical viewpoint is a plain pain in the butt, makes for good conversation though...

Why not detail exactly why you believe your summary has yet to be addressed?

Your vague posts show nothing of substance while your points have been rebutted in detail.  Do it point by point.

here we go, AGAIN -- telling those you disagree with WHAT to do <sigh>, didn't you get thrown off of another board for that, or was that Tink Thompson? Maybe Bill Miller there were so many back back then, one tends to forget the names...

Still after many chances you give us only bluster.  So much for intellectual honesty.

speaking of intellectual and PROFESSIONAL HONESTY, have you EVER been paid by NASA for any contracted photo work or freelance television work -- I have!

Beep beep beep...that the steamroller backing up your way.....

thats Sputnik, children will be children, sigh!  Wanna buy a CD with a Moorman5.tiff on it, worthless today as it was a few years ago, is she or is she not... roflmao

you the only one around here exempt from posting a likeness of yourself, just curious?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks so much for you meaningless (once again) post David.

I think I got removed from the board in question because I strongly disputed Whites photographic knowlege. And we all know that cant be allowed on that board now can it.

Paid by NASA or any governmental agency or contractor...nope, but I'm so very happy for you.

Now do you have anything of value to add to the discussion or are you just going to play your regular game? I'm guessing it will just be more of your guard dog barking.

Bark away David, it seems its about all the value you have in this discussion.

Oh and by the way why would I need a Moorman cd since the original came through me and went out unedited. But I'm glad to see you find perhaps the best scan available of the Thompson #5 copy neg worthless. It speaks volumes.

Perhaps you would prefer to work with White over compressed and soft Zippo?

Bye Bye Spot. good doggie.

[Terry Mauro]

Lamsom dronned ON:

Duly noted.  As is your ignorance on the subject matter.  Believe as you wish as is your right.  It speaks volumes and it will be reflected in future readings of your posts. 

how kind of you to allow others to believe as they wish, what nonsense, rofl!

I"m sure it will be duly noted by other on this forum as well.

education and varied historical viewpoint is a plain pain in the butt, makes for good conversation though...

Why not detail exactly why you believe your summary has yet to be addressed?

Your vague posts show nothing of substance while your points have been rebutted in detail.  Do it point by point.

here we go, AGAIN -- telling those you disagree with WHAT to do <sigh>, didn't you get thrown off of another board for that, or was that Tink Thompson? Maybe Bill Miller there were so many back back then, one tends to forget the names...

Still after many chances you give us only bluster.  So much for intellectual honesty.

speaking of intellectual and PROFESSIONAL HONESTY, have you EVER been paid by NASA for any contracted photo work or freelance television work -- I have!

Beep beep beep...that the steamroller backing up your way.....

thats Sputnik, children will be children, sigh!  Wanna buy a CD with a Moorman5.tiff on it, worthless today as it was a few years ago, is she or is she not... roflmao

you the only one around here exempt from posting a likeness of yourself, just curious?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks so much for you meaningless (once again) post David.

I think I got removed from the board in question because I strongly disputed Whites photographic knowlege. And we all know that cant be allowed on that board now can it.

Paid by NASA or any governmental agency or contractor...nope, but I'm so very happy for you.

Now do you have anything of value to add to the discussion or are you just going to play your regular game? I'm guessing it will just be more of your guard dog barking.

Bark away David, it seems its about all the value you have in this discussion.

Oh and by the way why would I need a Moorman cd since the original came through me and went out unedited. But I'm glad to see you find perhaps the best scan available of the Thompson #5 copy neg worthless. It speaks volumes.

Perhaps you would prefer to work with White over compressed and soft Zippo?

Bye Bye Spot. good doggie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, what d'ya know! If it isn't the Annual NASA xxxxx Convention blowing into town.

I could care less if they went to the Moon, especially after what happened to the Challenger shuttle in the mid 80's. You would've thought the Apollo project might have at least guaranteed the safe passage of Kristie Macauliff, et.al, in what was a supposedly simple maneuver, like orbitting the Earth's stratosphere, right? Don't you think they should've gotten the kinks out of it by then?

Go back to the drawing board, Lamson. You and the rest of your cronies. Tell me something I don't already know. You guys are boring the hell out of me.

[Matthew Lewis]

If you are going to use somebody's name, at least take the time to get it right. The name is Christa McAuliffe.

What does Challenger or the space shuttle have to do with Apollo? They are entirely different vehicles. Yes, we know how to get into space but that doesn't mean mistakes can't or won't happen. Hopefully we'll learn from them and move on.

[Craig Lamson]

Lamsom dronned ON:

Duly noted.  As is your ignorance on the subject matter.  Believe as you wish as is your right.  It speaks volumes and it will be reflected in future readings of your posts. 

how kind of you to allow others to believe as they wish, what nonsense, rofl!

I"m sure it will be duly noted by other on this forum as well.

education and varied historical viewpoint is a plain pain in the butt, makes for good conversation though...

Why not detail exactly why you believe your summary has yet to be addressed?

Your vague posts show nothing of substance while your points have been rebutted in detail.  Do it point by point.

here we go, AGAIN -- telling those you disagree with WHAT to do <sigh>, didn't you get thrown off of another board for that, or was that Tink Thompson? Maybe Bill Miller there were so many back back then, one tends to forget the names...

Still after many chances you give us only bluster.  So much for intellectual honesty.

speaking of intellectual and PROFESSIONAL HONESTY, have you EVER been paid by NASA for any contracted photo work or freelance television work -- I have!

Beep beep beep...that the steamroller backing up your way.....

thats Sputnik, children will be children, sigh!  Wanna buy a CD with a Moorman5.tiff on it, worthless today as it was a few years ago, is she or is she not... roflmao

you the only one around here exempt from posting a likeness of yourself, just curious?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks so much for you meaningless (once again) post David.

I think I got removed from the board in question because I strongly disputed Whites photographic knowlege. And we all know that cant be allowed on that board now can it.

Paid by NASA or any governmental agency or contractor...nope, but I'm so very happy for you.

Now do you have anything of value to add to the discussion or are you just going to play your regular game? I'm guessing it will just be more of your guard dog barking.

Bark away David, it seems its about all the value you have in this discussion.

Oh and by the way why would I need a Moorman cd since the original came through me and went out unedited. But I'm glad to see you find perhaps the best scan available of the Thompson #5 copy neg worthless. It speaks volumes.

Perhaps you would prefer to work with White over compressed and soft Zippo?

Bye Bye Spot. good doggie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, what d'ya know! If it isn't the Annual NASA xxxxx Convention blowing into town.

I could care less if they went to the Moon, especially after what happened to the Challenger shuttle in the mid 80's. You would've thought the Apollo project might have at least guaranteed the safe passage of Kristie Macauliff, et.al, in what was a supposedly simple maneuver, like orbitting the Earth's stratosphere, right? Don't you think they should've gotten the kinks out of it by then?

Go back to the drawing board, Lamson. You and the rest of your cronies. Tell me something I don't already know. You guys are boring the hell out of me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are bored than don't read, no one is forcing you.

But than again the cheap shot made you feel better eh?