lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 30, 2006 7:50:31 GMT -4
I was refering to Jack White of course but there was not enough space to include his first name in the title. This is pure BS on Jack's part. Evan found the first example and I found the second. Do any of you know of anyother examples of him saying the LANDINGS were faked? educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=36640 |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 30, 2006 7:52:42 GMT -4
Sounds like he is sliding towards the Hoagland camp... a real landing, but "what they found" had to be hidden with faked photographs. It's entertaining, at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Jan 30, 2006 21:23:51 GMT -4
The world that jack lives in is a strange one
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 30, 2006 22:07:02 GMT -4
Sounds like he is sliding towards the Hoagland camp... a real landing, but "what they found" had to be hidden with faked photographs. It's entertaining, at least. No I think he is sticking in cop out territory. His position is that he is a 'photo analyst' and can only judge the photos. He says they are faked but does not know one way other about the landings. That is except for when he says they were faked as well. I'd like to call him on this so if any of you could provide me with quote by him saying the landings were faked that would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Jan 30, 2006 23:32:38 GMT -4
Sounds like he is sliding towards the Hoagland camp... a real landing, but "what they found" had to be hidden with faked photographs. It's entertaining, at least. No I think he is sticking in cop out territory. His position is that he is a 'photo analyst' and can only judge the photos. He says they are faked but does not know one way other about the landings. That is except for when he says they were faked as well. I'd like to call him on this so if any of you could provide me with quote by him saying the landings were faked that would be greatly appreciated. Check out White's intro to his "tiime study" at Aulis. I think you will find he states the missions were faked. |
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 3, 2006 10:36:31 GMT -4
Your right Craig he did say the were faked there.
Any other links to Jack saying the landings were faked would be greatly appreciated and would help discredit him (even more than he has already discredited himself).
Also did he ever use the "no stars in the sky" argument?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2006 15:10:21 GMT -4
His position is that he is a 'photo analyst' and can only judge the photos.
Actually I think he admitted under oath to the HSCA that he was not a photo analyst, or at least had no such relevant training.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Feb 3, 2006 15:33:41 GMT -4
White often stresses that he is just raising questions and it is not his job to consider consequences and implications of the questions he raises. If he says he is "just a photo analyst" I don't think that is a claim of expertise, but of scope.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2006 20:01:31 GMT -4
White often stresses that he is just raising questions and it is not his job to consider consequences and implications of the questions he raises.
Ah, a professional gadfly.
I am more impressed with people who raise questions and then go on to answer them in a meaningful way. Dangling questions are just a means of insinuating a conclusion rather than stating it; e.g., "Are we really supposed to believe that Von Braun went to Antarctica when he was supposed to be building the Saturn V?" It provides for implying a statement without having the legal or rhetorical responsibility for having actually said it.
If I were to ask the question, "How do we know Jack White isn't a child molester?" then I'm sure White would be absolutely livid at the insinuation -- and with good cause. There's a reason a question like that is improper, even if it may escape legal liability. Questions do have consequences and implications of their own aside from the answers, and it is irresponsible to fail to consider them when asking.
That situation is even more acute when the question is asked from a position of ignorance or misconception as well as of malice. If the "question" arises only because the inquisitor lacks appropriate knowledge, then the question may only serve to sow unsupportable seeds of doubt with no associated argument.
If he says he is "just a photo analyst" I don't think that is a claim of expertise, but of scope.
Agreed. He doesn't want to create accountability beyond that suggested by the role he's chosen. Unfortunately it is also a claim to expertise, and it is relevant to the legitimacy of the question. White has, on other occasions, styled himself as "dangerous" to the government precisely because he attacks the photographic record of events in which he alleges the government is malfeasant. Further, the title "photo analyst" alone implies that White claims skills that the average person does not possess. It is apparent to me at least that White seeks to be perceived as having uncommon skill in the identification of errors and fabrication in photography.
This is a problem because a reader will interpret White's dangling questions differently if he knows they came from a layman instead of an expert. It doesn't matter what the implications are; this is a subversion of support. It doesn't matter whether a reader interprets White's challenge to the authenticity of the photography as a hoaxed mission if the authenticity really isn't in question. White opens the door to all manner of reckless speculation. Granted, it is the reader who speculations, but it is White who invites him to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 4, 2006 7:36:48 GMT -4
Maybe there's been a NASA hoax to convince the public that Jack White claimed the moon landings were faked, and he and a bunch of others can expose the Jack-White-said-the-moon-landings-were-fake hoax...
N
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 4, 2006 7:48:26 GMT -4
Ah, a professional gadfly. Wow, you can get paid for doing that? How do I sign up? |
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 4, 2006 10:42:05 GMT -4
The sad thing about White's claim to be a photo analyst is he doesn't seem to be very good at it. the basic errors he makes in perspective are laughable. What's even more sad is the people that take it word for word without even thinking about how absurd it is.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 4, 2006 11:11:29 GMT -4
The sad thing about White's claim to be a photo analyst is he doesn't seem to be very good at it. Doesn't seem to be good at it? From what I've seen he flat out sucks at it. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 4, 2006 11:52:46 GMT -4
White is a terrible photo analyst. Ironically he has experience in some of the darkroom techniques that would apply to some kinds photo analysis, but he doesn't generally use that approach. He takes a different approach that requires good spatial analysis skills, and White is absolutely terrible at that. His spatial reasoning skills are, from what I can determine, considerably less developed than those of the average layman.
It's difficult to get a handle on why White enjoys such a reputation. But as nearly as I can tell, it's solely a reputation. People have simply heard that White is a "skilled photo analyst" and go right along with it. Of course with any conspiracy champion, you're going to have people who believe White's absurd rationales simply because they agree with the conclusions he has drawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 4, 2006 13:02:11 GMT -4
The sad thing about White's claim to be a photo analyst is he doesn't seem to be very good at it. Doesn't seem to be good at it? From what I've seen he flat out sucks at it. I was trying to be nice but... yeah. |
|
