|
|
Post by Glom on Feb 21, 2010 19:24:47 GMT -4
Of the old gang, what conspiracists are still doing the rounds?
Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene have expired. Bart Sibrel is driving a taxi. Are Percy and Bennett still around? Is Jack White still doing things (I know he would remain holed up in his bunker though)?
|
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Feb 21, 2010 22:52:41 GMT -4
I believe Jack White is still examining photographs, although he must be getting pretty old now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 22, 2010 2:31:00 GMT -4
Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene have expired. ...rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This... is an ex-paranoid! Sorry, couldn't resist.  |
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Feb 22, 2010 9:07:43 GMT -4
I believe Jack White is still examining photographs, although he must be getting pretty old now. For certain values of "examining"... ;-) He is still active over at the Educationforum FWIW. |
|
|
|
Post by grmcdorman on Feb 22, 2010 11:00:47 GMT -4
Indeed. One of his recent attempts at "analysis" on a World Trade Center building (not one of the towers) attempted to prove that black is white.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 22, 2010 11:22:39 GMT -4
Are Percy and Bennett still around? Is Jack White still doing things (I know he would remain holed up in his bunker though)? I don't think we know much about Bennett - I haven't seen hide nor hair of her other than being listed as a co-author with Percy. Percy still has his web site going and Jack White is still around making a fool of himself. In fact, Percy and White have joined forces in that Percy's site is now hosting a bunch of Jack White's stuff: Jack White's Apollo Studies |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 22, 2010 15:25:47 GMT -4
Indeed. One of his recent attempts at "analysis" on a World Trade Center building (not one of the towers) attempted to prove that black is white. I'm still trying to get over his Pentagon studies in which he managed to prove that fences erected after 9/11 didn't exist on the day, that out of focus fire engines look funny when enlarged, and that moving vehicles can move between photographs. Of course the problem ocurs in that he thought that all of these things were high suspicious. |
|
|
|
Post by supermeerkat on Feb 22, 2010 16:31:52 GMT -4
I believe Jack White is still examining photographs, although he must be getting pretty old now. And judging by his recent output, I'd say, he appears to be going senile. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 23, 2010 2:16:43 GMT -4
I believe Jack White is still examining photographs, although he must be getting pretty old now. And judging by his recent output, I'd say, he appears to be going senile. I had my first (and last) encounter with Jack White a few months ago when I emailed him about one of his "anomalies". He claimed that one of Armstrong's photos of Aldrin coming down the ladder captured the reflection of the flag in a lunar module window before the flag had been raised, thus "proving" a hoax. Several problems with this analysis were apparent. First, the "staff" of the "flag" was obviously one of the Landing Point Indicators inscribed on the window (this was the commander's window). Second, the flag was erected well to the left of where Armstrong was standing, so given the downward and rightward (as seen from the front) tilt of the window, the flag could not possibly have appeared as a reflection in that window even if it had been erected. The only thing I wasn't sure about was what the "flag" actually was. It certainly didn't have any stripes or stars on it. It could have been a checklist page that is seen taped above the commander's circuit breaker panel in a post-EVA picture of Armstrong. It could have been the shade for the overhead rendezvous window. Or it could have been the rendezvous window itself. Although I had taken care to write in a neutral, even helpful fashion, citing the other pictures I was using as references, Jack went ballistic. To criticize his work was to attack him. He took it as a personal affront that I had even dared to email him. And he certainly wasn't about to change his analysis just because someone had proved it wrong. Also rather telling was how one of Jack's disciples, straydog02, treated my uncertainty about the "flag". Since I couldn't be sure, I listed the possibilities. Somehow that made my analysis totally suspect. Because I couldn't say for sure what the "flag" actually was, only that it couldn't possibly be the actual US flag, that meant that it had to be the actual US flag reflected in the window. I mention this because I've seen a similar (and equally bizarre) line of reasoning from others about a variety of scientific subjects. It usually pops up when a scientific paper is retracted or a major theory is significantly revised, especially if academic fraud seems to have been involved. It also comes up in discussions of the limits to existing theories, i.e., the stuff we just don't know yet. Those who seem to harbor a grudge against science seem to hold the position that because scientists don't know everything for certain, science really doesn't know anything at all. I'm never able to explain successfully that science is a iterative process that consists largely of detecting and correcting human error so that over time we converge on better and more complete models of nature. The fact that we still have gaps in our theories, and that even the good ones are always tentative in principle, hardly means that we don't know anything at all. As examples, I cite the technology explosion of the 20th century. Maybe Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics aren't perfect, but they were good enough to enable electrical engineers to develop an awful lot of amazing stuff soon after those theories were published. Stuff that actually seems to work. Some people just seem to want stability in their beliefs above everything else. They want "facts" that will never change - whether they're actually true or not doesn't even seem to matter! To paraphrase the Charles Babbage quote in PhantomWolf's signature, I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 23, 2010 5:31:22 GMT -4
I had my first (and last) encounter with Jack White a few months ago when I emailed him about one of his "anomalies". He claimed that one of Armstrong's photos of Aldrin coming down the ladder captured the reflection of the flag in a lunar module window before the flag had been raised, thus "proving" a hoax. We tried to figure out that one in July last year: apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=2487&post=71826 |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 24, 2010 3:29:09 GMT -4
Thanks, it looks like you did a pretty good job. But probably not so good that Jack withdrew his claim, huh? Has he ever withdrawn a claim that others have shown to be wrong? The hoax crowd seems a pretty brittle bunch. The ones I've encountered generally refuse to concede even the weakest and most tangential claim. Winning an argument seems far more important than arriving at the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 25, 2010 16:05:41 GMT -4
That's my impression, especially after seeing Phil Karn's videos that discuss JarrahWhite's claims about the moon rocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Feb 27, 2010 9:40:53 GMT -4
Lovely story ka9q. Which photo was it? Maybe together we could figure out what it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 28, 2010 2:00:33 GMT -4
That's my impression, especially after seeing Phil Karn's videos that discuss JarrahWhite's claims about the moon rocks. My videos? You must be thinking of someone else, as I've never produced a YT video in my life. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 28, 2010 2:20:23 GMT -4
Lovely story ka9q. Which photo was it? Maybe together we could figure out what it was. Well, follow that link (here it is again: apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=2487&page=1#71826 ) to the earlier discussion of the A11 photo supposedly showing the flag reflected in the window before the flag had been set up. I think that discussion did a pretty good job of establishing what we're really seeing, except for which of several possibilities is the "flag". |
|
