|
Post by craiglamson on May 15, 2006 17:01:49 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 15, 2006 17:39:31 GMT -4
Oh you've got to be kidding. "Does not match any known equipment on the moon." LOL! This one has been debunked for at least three years. www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 15, 2006 17:42:16 GMT -4
Oh, and I love White's rhetoric: if you can't debunk, attack the messenger. He has it backwards. First we debunk; then when the messenger is thereby revealed to be a complete imbecile and irresponsible for his own claims, then we comment on the messenger. If White would respond to any of the debunking, fewer people would think him a clown.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on May 15, 2006 18:48:23 GMT -4
I've always thought that there's really no way all of his claims could be due just to stupidity.
I was going to post a response in support of Jack White being just stupid and not dishonest. But after viewing the cropped antenna photo Craig linked to and comparing it to the uncropped one on Clavius, I may have to reconsider my long-held belief about Jack.
I took White to be someone who mindlessly and unwittingly manipulates photos and graphic assemblies until he gets an anomaly or suspicious-looking artifact staring him in the face. White has sometimes waved away a technical analysis with a statement to the effect that one could see the anomaly directly in his graphic. (This "direct perception" of underlying conspiracy is an interesting pattern shared among conspiracy theorists.)
Now, perhaps White inadvertently cropped the PLSS antenna photo along the way (I have done such when cutting and pasting). He wouldn't have questioned his results because they were the results he expected to find. He just knew from the start that he would find something fishy in those jump-salute photos.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on May 16, 2006 5:18:38 GMT -4
If NASA genuinely had the technology to produce an "Anti-Gravity" Device (assuming JW doesn't just mean a wire attachment) then I think it fairly likely that at some point in the last 37 years NASA, or more likely the company that built it may have tried to exploit their revolutionary technology.
After all they have a responsibilty to their stockholders not to sit on such a remarkable technical breakthrough and actually build it into a product they can sell.
Of course, he may be using "Anti-Gravity Device" with tongue in cheek and actually just saying ...
"Hey look, that's where the wire attaches!"
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 16, 2006 8:29:46 GMT -4
If NASA genuinely had the technology to produce an "Anti-Gravity" Device (assuming JW doesn't just mean a wire attachment) then I think it fairly likely that at some point in the last 37 years NASA, or more likely the company that built it may have tried to exploit their revolutionary technology. This is one of the big contradictions I've always seen in the HB arguments. For example, they often ask the question "if we went to the Moon in 1969 then why haven't we been back", claiming that had the technology existed we would have surely continued to exploit it. Yet they have no problem claiming the lunar rock and soil samples were returned by robotic spacecraft -- a technology that supposedly existing during Apollo but hasn't been exploited since.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 16, 2006 10:45:34 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure he just means to imply the old "astronaut on a rope" claim. Although how that would simulate the motions correctly I do not know. I do have to admire (?) the current form of his claim...that a lifting shackle was clearly visible in the surface photographs, but had been airbrushed out of the majority; with only a few frames of video here and there slipping through the net.
Of course said "lifting shackle" resembles nothing used in theater -- used successfully on Broadway and on the road since Peter Foy first hoisted Mary Martin into the air (back in the 50's). Us artsy theater folk managed to figure out how to clip and hide an almost invisibly thin piece of aircraft cable. You'd figure a Moon Hoax project could do at least as well.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 16, 2006 11:04:16 GMT -4
If the astronaut were lifted as Jack claims, then while suspended the astronaut would be hanging from the backpack rather than the backpack hanging from the astronaut's body. I think this would be observable in the position of the pack and the tension on the shoulder straps. In other words, if an astronaut were yanked upward by the backpack, then the backpack would be pulled upward in relation to his body. I've never observed anything remotely like this.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on May 16, 2006 13:08:00 GMT -4
Neither has Jack White but give him the idea and he'll "find" something that he thinks fits that.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 16, 2006 22:35:01 GMT -4
And if he can't, he'll just crop something until it looks like it does.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 17, 2006 12:51:44 GMT -4
I was going to post a response in support of Jack White being just stupid and not dishonest.
It's very charitable of you to defend White in this way. Subjectively I simply can't subscribe to any such notion. After White has been told time and time again that cropping photos as he does removes important information, and that you must appropriately normalize the scale of digital photos before registering them, his continued practice of doing so can be attributed to lack of skill only with diminishing credibility.
It may be true that White is both inept and unteachable, in which case he deserves as much sympathy as we can muster.
But after viewing the cropped antenna photo Craig linked to and comparing it to the uncropped one on Clavius, I may have to reconsider my long-held belief about Jack.
The key is not that White has cropped photos or that he has failed to normalize. We all generally agree that White has no appropriate skill in photographic analysis of this sort, and such errors would be appropriate to and common among laymen attempting such analysis. The key instead is that White engages in this behavior repeatedly, even after he has been shown that it is in error.
If you are unskilled but well-meaning, you learn from your mistakes. White was told to normalize the scale of photographs when trying to compare them directly. White was told not to draw conclusions from excerpts when those conclusions are contradicted by the full context. He does not change his behavior. He commits the same interpretational infractions over and over. This increases the likelihood it is intentional behavior.
Now of course there are always many possibilities. White may really have such low mental wattage that the explanations given for his anomalies -- simple though they may seem to others -- go right over his head. He doesn't incorporate that reasoning into future arguments because they are as much gibberish to him. Or he may be mentally ill in some way, such as paranoia that doesn't allow him to accept that people who disagree with him may do so on viable grounds.
The clincher is White's propensity to surround himself with cheerleaders, and to style himself as the "most dangerous photographic analyst" when government claims are concerned. White clearly enjoys the attention he receives, seeks it out, and shuns those who would diminish his sense of self-importance (i.e., the "provacateurs"). In my interpretation, White's behavior is pure ego. He does whatever it takes to make him seem important to others, including relying on the same tricks that got him his first set of fans.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on May 17, 2006 18:11:05 GMT -4
He does not change his behavior. He commits the same interpretational infractions over and over. This increases the likelihood it is intentional behavior.
Are you saying that White understands the reason for normalizing the scale of photographs?
I never get the sense from White that he grasps any of these concepts. I would be surprised to find out that he understood that objects in photographs get smaller with distance from the camera.
That said, his actions may very well be intentional. He is an old advertising guy, after all. He knows how to present goods to make them attractive to his target audience.
In my interpretation, White's behavior is pure ego. He does whatever it takes to make him seem important to others, including relying on the same tricks that got him his first set of fans.
This ego, of course, is natural and inhabits most of us who post to web sites. We like being the guy that has the answers, and we cherish whatever praise comes our way. And this shows one way to satisfy such ego: over time, become more knowledgeable about a subject. Pay attention to those who are well-versed in the matter. When you make a mistake, learn from it so that you don't make the same blunder again online.
With White, though, and with most conspiracists, the ego is pursued in a most perverse way. True, White looks like a genius to a small group of people, but he looks like a colossal idiot to the rest of humanity. You would think that the drive to appear important would occasionally guide conspiracy theorists to the truth. In practice, however, they seem dead set on being wrong no matter how embarrassing the required beliefs are.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 17, 2006 21:43:03 GMT -4
These guys are like the more run of the mill swindlers and confidence men, who ply their trade because it is what they were born to be good at. They are driven to do what they do well. White has been at this for about 50 years. What else would he do with his life but look for conspiracy. It doesn’t matter if the conspiracy is real or not because discernment is not in his skill set. His forte is the ability to act without conscious in accusing others.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on May 18, 2006 5:39:26 GMT -4
Jay, could I quote your post on Jack on the Education Forum? It's very well stated and I think deserves more visibility amongst the members.
If not a quote, can I paraphrase? (Paraphrase, hell, it's pretty much perfect!)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 18, 2006 11:12:50 GMT -4
Sure.
|
|