Jay had added a special Jack White page to Clavius:

http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html

Wow, that was fast. We uploaded that very late last night. Most embarrassing, considering we refer you to the photo analysis page of examples of White's absurdities, only we haven't uploaded those yet. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

As expected, the folks over at the JFK forum reacted quite badly to Jay's article. Some disgruntled individuals have suggested that Clavius must be run by the Government or the CIA. Others belive Jay's website to be a "professional hit-site" and that the article actually enhances Jack White's credibility.

More details can be found on this thread at ApolloHoax:

http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/vie...12&start=25&42

The response was as I expected. I was warned that my comments on Jack White's training, methods, and results would elicit personal attacks from those who protect White. I guess if they want to assume I work for the CIA or some other agency of the U.S. government, there's nothing anyone can do or say to change their minds.

Y'know the part I found really funny? Here these yokals are worrying about being monitored and Jay's site being government/CIA sponsored and all and they're all over there chatting away about this stuff on the Internet! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I mean, in their minds people have been killed for trying to reveal this stuff in the past and they're all yapping away on probably the most insecure means of communication ever used by mankind. LOL, did it ever occur to any of them that the fact that their forum and all of them still exist is probably the biggest argument against the Apollo hoax? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Perhaps those at JFK who believe in Jack Whites skill will convince him to come on over here and see if his work can hold up. Nothing like a trial by fire to see if your work will hold water. And is'nt that the whole point? If you can only convince those who in your inner circle, what good is your proof? Surely White and his followers have enough confidence in the work to stand behind it in the light of day. Why hide away?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jack White used to hang around here in the days of the old BBS? Every couple of days he'd post a bunch of photos along with a load of conjectures and then would never respond to any of the requests for evidence or bother to debate any of the points against his conclusions.

[/quote]
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jack White used to hang around here in the days of the old BBS? Every couple of days he'd post a bunch of photos along with a load of conjectures and then would never respond to any of the requests for evidence or bother to debate any of the points against his conclusions.
[/quote]

Thats how I remember it and its what took me to JFK. If I remember correctly White did not actually post himself but rather had someone else post his work with his permission. Its been a long time ago so I could be wrong. I also seem to remember that BA had an email conversation with White and asked him to stop the posts unless he was willing to comment. I think the posts stopped.

Nothing like a trial by fire to see if your work will hold water.

That is the principle behind peer review in professional science, although peers aren't necessarily assumed to be adversaries. But definitely the measure of one's work is how well it stands up to the examination of those who are genuinely motivated to find flaws in it, and possess the skill to do so.

There is a story told among engineers, probably apocryphal, about the practice in Germany of requiring the engineer who designed a bridge to stand underneath it when it is first subjected to a load. A sort of ceremony of confidence.

This applies to making an argument. An argument which presents the appearance of strength without the substance of it is like a bridge which appears solid but is unable to withstand a load. Actual strength, not the appearance of it, is the sine qua non of both arguments and bridges.

The adequate test of a bridge is not merely to pretend to subject it to loads. Actual loads, perhaps even in excess of its design specification, are the proof of a bridge. Pretending to test an argument does not elicit faith in it. I would not step onto a bridge that had not been tested, even if I had designed it. And I do not rely on arguments without first subjecting them to tests.

Since it's awkward and impractical to do that in private, I do it in public. I put up the arguments and ask people to examine them and test them for flaws. Then I modify them as necessary. That's what I'm doing here.

I know that the Bad Astronomer will not send someone packing just because he disagrees with him, or me, or anyone else who believes Apollo was authentic. And I know the Bad Astronomer will slap me down if I argue improperly. And I know that if I make any mistakes in fact, or offer unsupportable opinions, there will be plenty of people here to catch me and motivate me to correct myself, and there's very little I can or should do to stop them.

Peer review is a very important process in science / engineering. Every report and study I do I expect to be “peer” reviewed, if not in a formal process, then by the reviewing agency for whatever project I’m working on. I welcome this kind of review not only because I believe in my work, or want any errors / omissions corrected so I can do things better in the future, but the most important reason is that other people have a different way of looking at any given problem and sometimes I can learn something!

As an engineer I know the only way to succeed is to continue to learn. Something the HB’s don’t want to do.

<a name="20020516.4:27"> page 20020516.4:27 aka Testing 1 2 3 maybe 4
On 2002-05-15 22:01, pvtpylot wrote: To: 2

On 2002-05-15 21:26, Ian R wrote: 2
http://www.promenadeshop.com
telnet://bbs.neverending.com/
telnet://bbs.msgcentral.net

http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/vie...12&start=25&42

b4...0...there's.........1.....2............,...hm m?
Math syntax`s are mysterious things to me

So... Jay... (how to put this)...

Have you ever met Sydney Bristow? What's she really like? Could you introduce me?!?

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by galloping male libido."

Jack White sent Clavius an e-mail today, calling me an "ignorant a--hole" and accusing me of being paid off by NASA for reviewing his work. The letter included other profanities and a threat of legal action unless Clavius removes its "personal attack" against him.

Just for the record, we submitted our article on Jack White to several experts on the JFK assassination and have been assured that the allegations of fact regarding White are correct. Our information regarding the JFK Forum, which White never leaves, comes from former and current members. Our conclusions regarding Jack White's Apollo photograph arguments are based on a year-long study of some 30 of his photographic treatments.

I wish the law allowed me to reproduce the entire letter here, except that it does not pass the Bad Astronomer's language standards.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-16 15:19 ]</font>

And here I thought your review of his work was on the mild side! Being called names by Jack White definitely goes in the plus column.

I just hope you didn’t spend all that government money in one place!

[fixed spelling]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-16 15:26 ]</font>

Just put a clock on the page counting the no. of days that nothings happened since threatened legal action. Make sure to allow enough significant digits though

This guy gets so many empty threats hes created a whole page for them:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/strange/lawyersahoy.htm
_______________
N6MAA10816

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Roy Batty on 2002-05-16 17:18 ]</font>

I think a "vacuous threats and ludicrous accusations" page would be a nice addition to Clavius.

The threat is contingent upon our correction of the many "errors" and "lies" White claims the page contains. However, White has provided no list of alleged inaccuracies. We have no means of effecting corrections until we are notified as to what may be in error. Further, we have no intention of responding to letters filled with profanity, no matter what else they may contain.

Hmm, Jack White appeared on the BAs old board several times and was taken to task for his colorful use of the english language. Well, at least someone calling themself Jack White.

__________________
Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is forgotten through the lapse of Time.
~Aristotle

Jay,

It will be REALLY REALLY nice when you get the "previous/next" buttons to work on all your pages....


[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

CJSF

_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
--Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-05-21 09:45 ]</font>