Duane Daman Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I posted my opinion about this yesterday , in case you missed it ... and after reading Jack's emperical evidence , I agree with him ... and please stop with the "handwaving" crap ... That expression is what the Bad Astronomy geeks use when they can't refute the hoax evidence and don't have a real argument . As for David Percy , I highly doubt he would post Jack's photographic evidence on his web site unless he agreed with it . I sent him these links with your challenge here ... We will have to see if he has the time or interest in posting his own evidence here .. I warned him how ugly it got here because of you , but then he will be able to see that for himself . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 I posted my opinion about this yesterday , in case you missed it ... and after reading Jack's emperical evidence , I agree with him ... and please stop with the "handwaving" crap ... That expression is what the Bad Astronomy geeks use when they can't refute the hoax evidence and don't have a real argument .As for David Percy , I highly doubt he would post Jack's photographic evidence on his web site unless he agreed with it . I sent him these links with your challenge here ... We will have to see if he has the time or interest in posting his own evidence here .. I warned him how ugly it got here because of you , but then he will be able to see that for himself . Duane...David is a very busy man, with offices in London and Paris. He has no time to waste dealing with stupid nonsense and provocateurs. But thanks for informing him. I often send him some of the outrageous postings. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Jack ... I know he's a very busy man and probably not the kind to want to have to waste any of his time mixing it up with lowlifes like Lamson ... but I felt he should know what was being posted here about him anyway . I hope you don't mind me posting your studies here ... I know it doesn't do any good , but at least you try to enlighten the closed minded fools who continue to defend the faked Apollo photography . David just posted one of my quotes on his web site and is helping me with a project I have been working on about the faked Apollo photos ... He also gave me his permission to use his new ' Dust to Dust' evidence in my new video on YouTube ...He is a throughly nice fellow and I am very grateful that he has taken time out of his busy schedule to work with me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 David just posted one of my quotes on his web site and is helping me with a project I have been working on about the faked Apollo photos ... He also gave me his permission to use his new ' Dust to Dust' evidence in my new video on YouTube ...He is a throughly nice fellow and I am very grateful that he has taken time out of his busy schedule to work with me . Is Percy the expert who is doing some photographic analysis for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I posted my opinion about this yesterday , in case you missed it ... and after reading Jack's emperical evidence , I agree with him ... and please stop with the "handwaving" crap ... That expression is what the Bad Astronomy geeks use when they can't refute the hoax evidence and don't have a real argument .As for David Percy , I highly doubt he would post Jack's photographic evidence on his web site unless he agreed with it . I sent him these links with your challenge here ... We will have to see if he has the time or interest in posting his own evidence here .. I warned him how ugly it got here because of you , but then he will be able to see that for himself . See there you go Dunae, thinking Jack has posted emperical evidence. Please show us that you UNDERSTAND what emperical means and then show us exactly why you you think Jacks handwaving qualifies. How lets check the the score....Duane says he will post emperical evidence and the amount posted thus far....ZERO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Emperical proof means scientific proof ... Jack has provided it in his study and David Percy agrees with him completely. Here is David's answer to you , via e-mail to me . .............................. Duane, You may most certainly use the article and/or info elsewhere. I have looked briefly at the forum links. Personally, I have no time for these people, but I think you will find that the point about the photographers’ shadows now been well and truly dealt with in the last study at: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html Sorry about the typo – now fixed. Best wishes, David ...................... So there's your reply ... Not only does David agree with Jack , but he has seen these posts on the EF before and wouldn't waste his time defending his work with dishonest , nasty game players like you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Won't waste time defending his work because he can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 (edited) Emperical proof means scientific proof ... Jack has provided it in his study and David Percy agrees with him completely. Here is David's answer to you , via e-mail to me . .............................. Duane, You may most certainly use the article and/or info elsewhere. I have looked briefly at the forum links. Personally, I have no time for these people, but I think you will find that the point about the photographers’ shadows now been well and truly dealt with in the last study at: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html Sorry about the typo – now fixed. Best wishes, David ...................... So there's your reply ... Not only does David agree with Jack , but he has seen these posts on the EF before and wouldn't waste his time defending his work with dishonest , nasty game players like you . Yea, he is a chicken. Thats fine, now we have him on record agreeing with Whites work, and when I post the next round of empirical evidence we can paint Percy as ignorant as well! Thanks Duane! Edited May 18, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Craig, I agree with your assessment but please phrase it in more polite terms. Duane, please do not call Craig dishonest unless you can substantiate that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 I've been looking at some of the various claims; seems Jarrah has been wrong at least twice. He accused svector of "editing" the Apollo 11 footage so as to make it appear continuous (which disproved Jarrah's claim), yet when Jarrah's source footage and svector's video were compared, they were exactly the same. He also accused svector about making a 'bold face lie' regarding the 10 minute length restriction on YouTube videos, yet that was also proven wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih51BSly8JY Does Jarrah also follow the policy of correcting himself when he has been shown to be incorrect? I wonder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 (edited) svector did edit the A11 footage and more importantly , so did nasa . Jarrah also proved that videos longer than ten minutes can be uploaded to YouTube ... So I guess this means you are posting the bold faced lies now . Not only does David Percy not need to defend his work to the likes of all of you , but he wouldn't waste his time on this forum because he has more important things to do with his time than to argue with those who are out to discredit him by any means necessary . Your weapons of choice against those you disagree with are ridicule and character assassinations ... but that's typical of those who fear the truth . Edited May 30, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Yadda, yadda, yadda. We've heard it before. All it means is that their arguments cannot withstand scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 svector did edit the A11 footage and more importantly , so did nasa . Utter cobblers and you know it. Jarrah constructed a strawman argument and tried to knock that down. His video actually PROVED that there were no internal edits in the clip used in SVector's video. (PS If you don't know what a strawman argument is, look it up). Jarrah also proved that videos longer than ten minutes can be uploaded to YouTube ... So I guess this means you are posting the bold faced lies now .Not according to Youtube policy, unless you have a Director's account.Your weapons of choice against those you disagree with are ridicule and character assassinations ... but that's typical of those who fear the truth . Laughable if it wasn't so ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 (edited) Not only does David Percy not need to defend his work to the likes of all of you , but he wouldn't waste his time on this forum because he has more important things to do with his time than to argue with those who are out to discredit him by any means necessary . So who does Mr Percy defend his work too if not his detractors? You see Duane, I could very easily claim that the ghost of George Orwell lives in my garden shed, and makes boots for Pixies at night. Then when called to produce evidence, or defend my claim say that I am simply too busy. Edited May 30, 2007 by Stephen Turner to correct a spelling error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 WOW - George Orwell's ghost lives at your place?!? Can you get me his autograph - I'm a big fan. 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