The provocateur squad is desperate...

[Jack White]

Everyone has noticed how desperate the provocateur squad is to dispute

everything I say, no matter how trivial.

They know that they face overwhelming odds in their 24/7/365 job

assignment.

They MUST BE CORRECT 100% OF THE TIME.

On the other hand, I have to be right ONLY ONE TIME to bring down their

precious OFFICIAL STORIES. That is why I do not bother to read or reply

to any of their tedious repetitions and challenges.

They know that if I am right any one study, it is all over for them:

1. for instance, the backyard photos faked or the Z film altered

2. any one Apollo photo not genuine

3. any 911 fact untrue, like a 757 not hitting the Pentagon, or

WTC7 brought down by controlled demolition.

ANY ONE item of any of these OFFICIAL STORIES NOT GENUINE

and all official "findings" COLLAPSE. That is why the provocateur

squad is always so frantic. They have to be 100 percent right

100 percent of the time. It's their job.

Think it over.

Jack

[Gary Buell]

Everyone has noticed how desperate the provocateur squad is to dispute

everything I say, no matter how trivial.

They know that they face overwhelming odds in their 24/7/365 job

assignment.

They MUST BE CORRECT 100% OF THE TIME.

On the other hand, I have to be right ONLY ONE TIME to bring down their

precious OFFICIAL STORIES. That is why I do not bother to read or reply

to any of their tedious repetitions and challenges.

They know that if I am right any one study, it is all over for them:

1. for instance, the backyard photos faked or the Z film altered

2. any one Apollo photo not genuine

3. any 911 fact untrue, like a 757 not hitting the Pentagon, or

WTC7 brought down by controlled demolition.

ANY ONE item of any of these OFFICIAL STORIES NOT GENUINE

and all official "findings" COLLAPSE. That is why the provocateur

squad is always so frantic. They have to be 100 percent right

100 percent of the time. It's their job.

Think it over.

Jack

Keep at it Jack--you're bound to get one right eventually.

[Jack White]

Everyone has noticed how desperate the provocateur squad is to dispute

everything I say, no matter how trivial.

They know that they face overwhelming odds in their 24/7/365 job

assignment.

They MUST BE CORRECT 100% OF THE TIME.

On the other hand, I have to be right ONLY ONE TIME to bring down their

precious OFFICIAL STORIES. That is why I do not bother to read or reply

to any of their tedious repetitions and challenges.

They know that if I am right any one study, it is all over for them:

1. for instance, the backyard photos faked or the Z film altered

2. any one Apollo photo not genuine

3. any 911 fact untrue, like a 757 not hitting the Pentagon, or

WTC7 brought down by controlled demolition.

ANY ONE item of any of these OFFICIAL STORIES NOT GENUINE

and all official "findings" COLLAPSE. That is why the provocateur

squad is always so frantic. They have to be 100 percent right

100 percent of the time. It's their job.

Think it over.

Jack

Keep at it Jack--you're bound to get one right eventually.

They would not bother attacking me IF I WERE WRONG.

Jack

[Brendan Slattery]

Sigh. Another desperate bid for attention. The next time we land on the moon, let's leave Jack behind.

[Michael Hogan]

Jack White may be eighty years old, but he still knows how to play his detractors.

What's funny is that they don't even know they're being played. They think they're playing him.

[Jack White]

Jack White may be eighty years old, but he still knows how to play his detractors.

What's funny is that they don't even know they're being played. They think they're playing him.

Thanks, Michael. Perceptive.

I ignore them because they never address evidence, but

only use ad hominem attacks. I consider them all irrelevant

to the search for truth. They want to divert my efforts and

engage in time-wasting "debates".

I have the luxury of not having to be 100 percent right.

If they admit ANYTHING I say is correct, they have lost.

Jack

PS...for instance if they admit the black patch shown

in this Apollo photo was not there in earlier photos, they

are admitting that this photo is not genuine. They cannot

afford even one such admission.

[Bill Miller]

Jack White may be eighty years old, but he still knows how to play his detractors.

What's funny is that they don't even know they're being played. They think they're playing him.

Thanks, Michael. Perceptive.

Jack, Mike wasn't paying you a compliment ... better read what he said again. I believe he is saying that it is you do the provoking now.

I ignore them because they never address evidence, but

only use ad hominem attacks. I consider them all irrelevant

to the search for truth. They want to divert my efforts and

engage in time-wasting "debates".

What you have just said is no different than a man standing in direct sunlight and telling people that it is night time.

I have the luxury of not having to be 100 percent right.

If they admit ANYTHING I say is correct, they have lost.

Jack

Robert Groden: "In the matter of the Zapruder films authenticity and many of the other issues such as foreshortening, and other technical issues, you have been 100% right and Jack has been 100% wrong."

Bill Miller

Edited September 6, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Jack White may be eighty years old, but he still knows how to play his detractors.

What's funny is that they don't even know they're being played. They think they're playing him.

No what's funny is that White was fishing for someone to support him because he has his tit in a wringer over an apollo thread. So who rides in? Why it's Hogan..getting played by White...again.

Thanks for the laughs.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

Everyone has noticed how desperate the provocateur squad is to dispute everything I say, no matter how trivial.

They know that they face overwhelming odds in their 24/7/365 job assignment.

They MUST BE CORRECT 100% OF THE TIME.

On the other hand, I have to be right ONLY ONE TIME to bring down their precious OFFICIAL STORIES. That is why I do not bother to read or reply to any of their tedious repetitions and challenges.

They know that if I am right any one study, it is all over for them:

1. for instance, the backyard photos faked or the Z film altered

2. any one Apollo photo not genuine

3. any 911 fact untrue, like a 757 not hitting the Pentagon, or

WTC7 brought down by controlled demolition.

ANY ONE item of any of these OFFICIAL STORIES NOT GENUINE and all official "findings" COLLAPSE. That is why the provocateur squad is always so frantic. They have to be 100 percent right 100 percent of the time. It's their job.

Think it over.

Jack

Keep at it Jack--you're bound to get one right eventually.

They would not bother attacking me IF I WERE WRONG.

Jack

"They would not bother attacking me IF I WERE WRONG."

Cute little Catch-22 you're trying to set up. If people debunk your "studies" you say "They would not bother attacking me IF I WERE WRONG." If no one replies to you say it because you're right. Heads I win tails you loose.

More logically as we often say, if we were wrong you would reply to our debunkings of your work.

"It's their job."

Can't speak for the others but I'm not compensated financially for the time I spend on forums, wish I was. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

"They know that they face overwhelming odds in their 24/7/365 job assignment.

They MUST BE CORRECT 100% OF THE TIME."

What exceedingly poor logic you should have Fetzer straighten you out. You could be right about the backyard photos but that wouldn't mean you right about the Z-film let alone Apollo or 9/11. You also seem to misunderstand odds, if for example there is a 1 in a million chance of you ever being right you can do 10,000 or even 100,000 studies and the odds would still be against you.

"That is why I do not bother to read or reply to any of their tedious repetitions and challenges"

I guess I'm wasting my time directing my reply to Jack since won't read this. One wonders how he can be sure we're wrong if doesn't read our replies. I guess we could call this his Sgt. Shultz/three monkeys' strategy. Fetzer should be able to straighten Jack out on his circular logic too which basically amounts to, 'I know I'm right, why bother to look at what people who challenge my theories say?'

By refusing to look at contrary evidence he can delude himself into thinking he's always right. Hard to believe that some guy who's such a brilliant analyst never defends his work or ever admits he's wrong even it's obvious.

OK I admit I to a degree misrepresented what Jack was saying which amounts to "It doesn't matter how many of my studies are baseless nonsense if I make enough of them sooner or latter I'm bound to be right so I don't care if I'm right or wrong in a particular case and won't even bother to spend the time to look at what people who say I'm wrong are saying.

"I ignore them because they never address evidence, but only use ad hominem attacks."

How could Jack know this if he does "not bother to read" what we say? Actually Jack describes his own tatic saying all his detractors are provocateurs, spooks, murderers, liars, idiots etc. not only doesn't he ever bother to address evidence he never replies when debunked.

For example Jack was very clearly shown to be wrong on this thread, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7761 , but never bothered to reply or admit error.

On this one he claimed that a photo of a cut column from ground zero proves that thermate was used and denier that it could have cut with a cutting torch. I among others presented contrary evidence including a similar photo showing a worker cutting a column with a torch. He refused to address this. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7658

On this thread he claimed to have evidence that WTC 6 had been bombed and refused to address contrary evidence http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7725

He was asked very politely to defend his work on this thread but refused. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5199

In this post there is a partial list of threads Jack hasn't replied to.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=52876

Gary wrote: "Keep at it Jack--you're bound to get one right eventually." I like this guy!

Jack White may be eighty years old, but he still knows how to play his detractors.

What's funny is that they don't even know they're being played. They think they're playing him.

I never thought I'd be saying this, but more and more Jack reminds me of the kid in the playground that sticks his chin out and says "hit me," and when the bully obliges him, goes running to the principal.

When the principal doesn't do anything, the kid goes back the next day and sticks his chin out again. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=73516

No Mike we realize he is jerking us* off. So what does that make Jack?.

*and anyone who bothers to take a look at his "studies"

Edited September 6, 2006 by Len Colby

[Dawn Meredith]

Jack White may be eighty years old, but he still knows how to play his detractors.

What's funny is that they don't even know they're being played. They think they're playing him.

If I am half as sharp as is Jack at 80 I will count myself VERY lucky. My 79 year old father- in- law nearly died over the wekend...so enjoy life to the fullest; you never know when you won't have it.

As to detractors: ignore them Jack.

Dawn

(I have Amy Grant playing on cd, nice early am music. Hard to get pissed when Amy is on. Love her!!)

[Len Colby]

As to detractors: ignore them Jack.

That's what he does any way. Only by ignoring what his critics say can he maintain his fantasy that he is right. I'm surprised that other forum members would applaude such spurious logic.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

No Mike we realize he is jerking us* off. So what does that make Jack?.

I guess that makes Jack the "jerker" and you the "jerkee."

It must feel good to you, or you wouldn't let him do it.

[JL Allen]

Jack doesn't jerk anyone OFF. He might, on occasion, jerk someone AROUND. The two are polar opposites. Anyone who can't tell the difference has their own problem - nothing to do with Jack. If you should feel that you have been metaphorically "jerked-off" during forum exchanges - it most likely came from the encouraging and supportive posts of those who are your like-minded comrades - enraptured with your blather. Hardly a group which would include Jack White. I'm quite sure, though, that your twisted insinuation was deliberate and intentional - not to mention, immature, base and classless.

Edited September 6, 2006 by JL Allen

[Michael Hogan]

Jack doesn't jerk anyone OFF. He might, on occasion, jerk someone AROUND. The two are polar opposites. Anyone who can't tell the difference has their own problem - nothing to do with Jack. If you should feel that you have been metaphorically "jerked-off" during forum exchanges - it most likely came from the encouraging and supportive posts of those who are your like-minded comrades - enraptured with your blather. Hardly a group which would include Jack White. I'm quite sure, though, that your twisted insinuation was deliberate and intentional - not to mention, immature, base and classless.

Exactly.

[J. William King]

From what I’ve seen in my limited time on this forum board, Jack finds something in the evidence that he feels has been altered, or just is isn’t right. Jack posts that information to get opinions from the rest of us. Others on the board jump all over Jack personally instead of disputing his opinion on this particular topic. Jack may attack back, but since it’s after he’s been attacked, I would rather call it self defense.

What I fail to understand is why some on this board seem to take it so personally when Jack thinks he found something funny or fishy in a photo. He may not be right all the time, but at least he’s out there looking and not just sitting around waiting to jump on someone if his/her opinion differs from their own.

Stay the course, Jack.

JWK