An open letter to Jack White

[infocusinc]

Jack,

For the last year or so I have followed your work on the Apollo photographic record at the JFKreasearch forum. During that time you have created a very large number of studies that in your opinion prove the photographic record of the Apollo missions has be altered. You have also recently stated that you have a number of new studies ready to post as well. Events at the JFK forum makes that impossible since the admin of that forum has put a two month hold on Apollo related posts. In a reply to the admin on this subject you wrote:

"But to give in to the attackers (badasses) is to silence the truth...
and is exactly what they are seeking.

It is a tough choice, but it is your call...and all truthseekers will
continue to support you. It is obvious to me that taxpayer dollars are
being used to try to silence us here.

But shucks...I was just getting warmed up on some new Apollo hoax stuff,
and will have nowhere to post it."

Silencing you Mr. White is not my goal. In fact I seek exactly the opposite. In that regard may I suggest the following. Sort though your many studies of the Apollo photographic record and choose the five you feel are the most conclusive evidence of alteration. If you feel five examples are too few than choose more. Post those studies here and stick around to defend you posts if needed. Your comments which I have quoted above make it clear you consider yourself a truthseeker and fear being silenced. The opportunity exists right here for your views to be heard and your evidence presented. This web forum offers a large and public venue for your work unlike the JFK research forum. Recently on the JFK forum you stated your desire to see your Apollo work presented to a wider audience. Here is a golden opportunity. I personally know you have great faith in your evidence. If as you say the Apollo photographic record can be provably shown false, then I agree that the world should know that.

I propose an open disscusion of your work. Since emotions on this issue run high, I also ask that should you choose to post your examples here that any replies by the members here be civil and that posts stay focused on facts and not the person. The Admin here does a very good job of limiting personal attacks I am confident he would do the same in this case. Mr. White has invested conciderable time in his studys and he is owed that consideration.

Craig Lamson






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: infocusinc on 2002-05-19 10:21 ]</font>

[Obviousman]

Oh this is classic Jack White.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...howtopic=15319

[BigDon]

I sure wish I had that popcorn eating emoticon.

This has my attention.

[Glom]

Jay has thoroughly dismantled him. The disappearing mountains was one of my favourites of his.

If he wants to plead persecution to avoid facing his own inability to make a coherent argument that doesn't fall apart at the first sign of scrutiny, then that's his choice.

[EDG]

Wow, an 8-year necro-thread? Is that a record?

[SolusLupus]

About the thread that was linked:

I dunno, if I were training CIA agents to kill people like Jack White, I'd get them to do it right. You know, stab for vital organs, make sure he isn't getting up.

That's just me, though.

That's kind of a problem with a lot of these conspiracy theories, isn't it? It's like a kind of Stormtrooper syndrome. You have the story writer trying to tell you that the Troopers are efficient, wide-spanning, and accurate, and then effectively you make them out to be blithering dunces that are ineffective. Why pay people to argue with people online?

[Van Rijn]

Oh this is classic Jack White.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...howtopic=15319

I read through it. A lot of the stuff (especially at the beginning of the thread) is about non space and astronomy CTs, and in the later thread (as of 1/22/2010) is just back and forth argument.

On one hand, it's a great example of Jack's habit of contradicting himself. On the other hand, it shows how pointless it is to try to get him to admit to even trivially obvious errors or misstatements. It's clear the thread isn't going anywhere.

What's always sad to me is seeing other people defending someone like that.

[ineluki]

I read through it. A lot of the stuff (especially at the beginning of the thread) is about non space and astronomy CTs, and in the later thread (as of 1/22/2010) is just back and forth argument.

But at least Jack admitted his modus operandi

"I must repeat: I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE ANYONE."

[Swift]

I've closed this thread.

The recent change to the CT forum does allow some discussion of material from other forums and websites, but this particular discussion doesn't seem to meet the criteria.

11. The CT forum may also be used for the critical analysis of websites that advocate specific astronomy and space related conspiracies. Such discussions should be limited to the specific claims of those websites and the scientific arguments against those claims. Such discussions are not an excuse to bash the claimants of such conspiracies.

I see nothing in that linked forum about astronomy and/or space, and this thread seems to be mostly for the purpose of bashing Jack White. Whether he deserves a bashing or not, such is not the intent of BAUT or the CT forum.

If anyone has some counter-arguments as to why this thread should be reopened, please Report this post.