ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: scooter on June 20, 2012, 11:05:17 PM
-
Just read over at JREF that Jack White passed away.
...admittedly, mixed emotions at this end.
-
As I've said elsewhere, while the death of the man leaves me mostly without reaction, I do grieve for the wasted potential. Imagine what he could have accomplished had he been willing to learn.
-
Yes. I won't celebrate anyone's passing. But I'll miss some people more than others.
I've had exactly one email exchange with Jack White, a few years ago. He had found what he claimed was a reflection of the US flag off the commander's window of the Apollo 11 LM, in a picture (I believe AS11-40-5862) taken before the flag was set up. I wrote him in a polite, neutral tone to point out a few facts:
1. The geometry didn't work. The location of the Apollo 11 flag was incompatible with being reflected by the commander's window to the location of the camera.
2. The reflection did not look much like a US flag.
3. The object claimed to be the mast of the flag coincided with the LPD (landing point designator) graticle etched on the commander's window.
4. The object claimed to be the flag itself coincided with the shade of the overhead rendezvous window in the LM.
White replied in an angry tone, essentially asking how dare I send him email or question his conclusions.
I think that was the end of my only conversation with Jack White.
-
One of the saddest things one can say about someone is that the world is honestly improved by their passing.
Rest in Peace, Jack White, may you find the truth you never could in life.
-
I probably shouldn't make light of it, but I'm reminded of a joke that went something like this:
Jack White arrives at the Pearly Gates. On meeting God, he asks the one question that has obsessed him for most of his life:
"Who killed JFK?"
God replies: "Lee Harvey Oswald. And he did it entirely on his own."
Jack: "Oh my [god], the conspiracy has gotten to you too?"
-
Okay, that's funny.
-
Imagine what he could have accomplished had he been willing to learn.
So true, and gillianren's word do not just apply to conspiracy theorists. Sadly, I think some CTers know what they are doing, and are highly exploitative for their own needs. That is what sets them apart from others who have potential but are unwilling to learn.
I try not to comment too much on the passing of conspiracy theorists now. It has got me into trouble, and left an innocent third party exposed due to a HB individual's attempt to name and shame me with aggresive cyberstalking.
I am sure Jack had family that have to deal with his passing right now. I hope he is at peace now, and they that mourn find peace in the days to come.
-
Yes. I won't celebrate anyone's passing. But I'll miss some people more than others.
I've had exactly one email exchange with Jack White, a few years ago. He had found what he claimed was a reflection of the US flag off the commander's window of the Apollo 11 LM, in a picture (I believe AS11-40-5862) taken before the flag was set up. I wrote him in a polite, neutral tone to point out a few facts:
1. The geometry didn't work. The location of the Apollo 11 flag was incompatible with being reflected by the commander's window to the location of the camera.
2. The reflection did not look much like a US flag.
3. The object claimed to be the mast of the flag coincided with the LPD (landing point designator) graticle etched on the commander's window.
4. The object claimed to be the flag itself coincided with the shade of the overhead rendezvous window in the LM.
White replied in an angry tone, essentially asking how dare I send him email or question his conclusions.
I think that was the end of my only conversation with Jack White.
he had an astounding ability to NEVER admit he was wrong about anything.
He claimed there was an explosion in WTC 6 (not a typo, six) BEFORE either tower collapsed and it was caught on tape. His evidence? A still taken from the video that day that showed a dust cloud rising in the vicinity DURING the collapse of the first tower. When I tracked down the video he ignored it.
-
he had an astounding ability to NEVER admit he was wrong about anything.
Indeed. Consider this classic exchange between White and committee counsel Mickey Goldsmith when White testified to the House Subcommittee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1978:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jwhite.txt
I have twice testified formally to Congressional subcommittees. Although I'm not a politician, lawyer or lobbyist who does it professionally, I'm a reasonably good public speaker, I knew my subject and I had a friendly audience. I testified in favor of bills introduced by the committee chairmen; the few other members who showed up were cosponsors. I only had to read a prepared statement (which I had rehearsed to the bathroom mirror quite a few times), answer a few softball questions and listen to a lot of political posturing. No one challenged my expertise. Everyone was in fact quite courteous.
Yet it was one of the more nerve-wracking experiences of my life, especially the first time. I can't even imagine being subjected to the kind of nationwide public humiliation that Goldsmith directed at Jack White during his HSCA appearance. I would have crawled away with my tail between my legs and probably would never have been heard from in public again.
It took me a long time to understand that some people must either be born without any sense of shame, or with the ability (innate or cultivated) to completely suppress it. During the 2008 election, I came to the realization that this is probably the single most helpful trait any public figure can have, especially a politician or conspiracy theory peddler.
-
Yes. I won't celebrate anyone's passing. But I'll miss some people more than others.
I've had exactly one email exchange with Jack White, a few years ago. He had found what he claimed was a reflection of the US flag off the commander's window of the Apollo 11 LM, in a picture (I believe AS11-40-5862) taken before the flag was set up. I wrote him in a polite, neutral tone to point out a few facts:
1. The geometry didn't work. The location of the Apollo 11 flag was incompatible with being reflected by the commander's window to the location of the camera.
2. The reflection did not look much like a US flag.
3. The object claimed to be the mast of the flag coincided with the LPD (landing point designator) graticle etched on the commander's window.
4. The object claimed to be the flag itself coincided with the shade of the overhead rendezvous window in the LM.
White replied in an angry tone, essentially asking how dare I send him email or question his conclusions.
I think that was the end of my only conversation with Jack White.
Hehe. What the "brilliant" Jack White who also claimed to be a "photo expert" couldn't figure out (see attachment).
-
To be fair, for someone with only an average knowledge of Apollo, and I would include myself in this statement, that really does look a lot like the flag set up.
-
To be fair, for someone with only an average knowledge of Apollo, and I would include myself in this statement, that really does look a lot like the flag set up.
And that is what he relied on, that he enforced: don't question, remain ignorant.
-
GTP: In the "flag in window" pic, unless you have something definitive, I'm not sure that's a mylar shield that looks like a flag - it looks to me more like one of the 'cue cards' the crew stuck up here and there. I think there's an image around somewhere of Armstrong inside the LM with one of those visible above/behind him. Not that it matters which it was - the cross-marks on the LPD are pretty much the "smoking gun" of that debunk.
=======================
I was thinking (always chancy) and you know what would be fun? A conversation with a rational reasonable, intelligent person who is a Hoax Believer and who has some fairly coherent theory of how all the parts of the "hoax" fit together and could have been pulled off.
It'd probably be like shooting fish in a barrel, though - a reasonable, intelligent person with a high school level understanding of science should be enlightenable (?) with minimal effort. Still, it would be a fun conversation.
-
I was thinking (always chancy) and you know what would be fun? A conversation with a rational reasonable, intelligent person who is a Hoax Believer and who has some fairly coherent theory of how all the parts of the "hoax" fit together and could have been pulled off.
I don't think such a person exists.
-
Yes, you'd need a strange combination - a reasonable person who could put a good argument together (and believe it) that something that did happen didn't happen.
-
The best you could probably hope for is to find someone willing to take on a position, a devil's advocate, for purposes of discussion.
-
Honestly, the best you can hope for is someone who has just come across the hoax idea and is able to be talked out of it. Someone who heard just enough to be uncertain and is still intelligent and reasonable. We don't get those often, but I'd rather have one than someone arguing Devil's advocate.
-
Honestly, the best you can hope for is someone who has just come across the hoax idea and is able to be talked out of it. Someone who heard just enough to be uncertain and is still intelligent and reasonable. We don't get those often, but I'd rather have one than someone arguing Devil's advocate.
I am one of those. i have a friend who was into all kinds of conspiracy theories. although i had heard of hoaxing before when i was younger (the coke bottle thing i think) but didn't pay attention to it. then my friend introduced me to the hoax via the bart sibrel funny thing movie. i immediately was skeptical, because of both the nazi intro and i knew it was a conspiracy video. however, at the time i had little knowledge of apollo, other than that it happened and the the odd tv shows and a13 movie, so many of the claims presented did make me unsure of the landings.. he especially pointed out the "earth transparency" clip.
for a while i didnt do much about it, but a couple of years ago he brought it up again. i then procded to research these claims, and managed to find the original video on a nasa site. where it clearly shows it disappears behind the window..
from that day on i have continued researching the apollo missions, absorbing all the knowledge i can. i can truly say that the hoax actually opened my eyes to the incredible feat of landing on the moon.
my friend now is at the point where he believes that we went to the moon, but that some pictures may have been removed or doctored/faked to remove something nasa did not want anybody to see. (like removing a ufo in the sky from a panorama, or something.)
the funniest thing is that he actually has Buzz Aldrin's left (i think) training glove, i remember playing with it when we were younger, and some of the black rubber inside had deteriorated and crystalized, so at the time we thught it was moon dust, all black and shiny. ahh. magical times :)
and then these slimeballs like david percy (eww) and barf sibrel (ugh) show up with their pompous claims and present bad photo copies and fake credentials and intentions.
all to sell their crap. and some idiots actually buy into it without any afterthought or research, just gawking at the screen with wide eyes going "wow. it must be fake"
thank god that there are only a few active moon hoaxers on youtube.. jarrah, hunchbacked and a couple more. though hunchbacked is the one that seems the most active at churning out new ideas about the hoax at the moment, so it is easier to counter every one of their biased badly researched claims
-
I really do think hoax belief is dying, the way hardly anyone seems to blame FDR for Pearl Harbor anymore.
-
Hehe. What the "brilliant" Jack White who also claimed to be a "photo expert" couldn't figure out (see attachment).
...it looks to me more like one of the 'cue cards' the crew stuck up here and there. I think there's an image around somewhere of Armstrong inside the LM with one of those visible above/behind him.
The photos concerned here are AS11-40-5862 and AS11-37-5528 (links below).
AS11-40-5862 is the first photo of Buzz exiting the LM. To the right of the large white circle, the top of Neil's window is visible. It needs to be lightened considerably to see White's "flag." In Irfan View I get a good result by zooming in on the window then increasing brightness by 100 and contrast by 90.
It's seems that things like timing, angle of reflection, and ALSJ photo captions didn't concern Jack White. The flag hadn't yet been erected, and even if it had, it wouldn't have been reflected by Neil's window from that particular camera position, if at all.
The culprit for the "flag" is identified in the ALSJ captions (emphasis added):
AS11-40-5862 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5862.jpg
Hi res:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5862HR.jpg
ALSJ caption:
109:39:57 First photo of Buzz coming out through the hatch. The inward-opening hatch is on his left. Buzz is kneeling, probably with his hands on the midstep. We can see his heels, the lower portion of his PLSS and his left arm. Elsewhere in the image, both sets of thrusters are visible, along with Neil's window with the LPD grid etched on it, the straps of the Lunar Equipment Conveyor (LEC) coming out thru the hatch on the left, the upper portion of the ladder, the porch, and the plume deflector on the downward thruster on Buzz's side. The US flag that Neil and Buzz will deploy later is stowed in a long, thin canister attached to the underside of the lefthand rail of the ladder. Journal Contributor Markus Mehring notes that, thru the CDR's window, we can see "the crash bar, and a checklist/cue card that's been stuck under the overhead window with grey tape! -The same card can be seen right behind Neil in the post-EVA portrait, AS11-37-5528".
AS11-37-5528 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528.jpg
Hi res:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg
ALSJ caption:
Buzz took this picture of Neil in the cabin after the completion of the EVA. Neil has his helmet off but has not yet doffed his "Snoopy" cap. The circuit breaker panels are illuminated, and a small floodlight is on at the lower right. A circuit breaker chart has been fixed up on the wall with gray tape, below the rendezvous window in the cabin roof. Scans by Kipp Teague.
-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg)
Now thats the face of a guy who has just had the most amazing experience walking around on the moon!
-
Now that's the face of a guy who has just had the most amazing experience walking around on the moon for the first time in the history of the entire human race! And is very relieved that there are now samples of the moon safely stowed in the LM, and that neither, he, Buzz, nor the LM crashed though the top of a lava tube the depth of Hadley Rille.
There, fixed that for you!
I remember from the time before Apollo 11, lava tubes were still one of the great unknowns and it was thought that rilles might have been collapsed lava tubes. The surveyor craft had done a great job of sending information about the lunar surface back to earth, but being so much lighter than the LM and having widely-spaced landing pads, there was far less of a chance that they would crash through into a tube.
The only places I've seen this concern mentioned post-Apollo are in Mike Collins's book, Carrying the Fire.
On pages 339-341 is his list of 11 major hurdles during a lunar-landing trip. One of them is EVA:
7. EVA Walking on the moon might be physically taxing and overload the oxygen or cooling systems. There might be potholes, or even underground lava tubes which could cause the surface to collapse. Even more basic, any EVA puts man just one thin, glued-together, rubber membrane away from near-instant death.
And on page 410, after Houston tells Mike the crew of Tranquility Base is back inside:
Well, that's a big one behind us: no more worrying about crashing through into hidden lava tubes, or becoming exhausted, or the front door sticking open, or the little old ladies using weak glue, or any of that! Whew!
-
Now that's the face of a guy who has just had the most amazing experience walking around on the moon for the first time in the history of the entire human race! And is very relieved that there are now samples of the moon safely stowed in the LM, and that neither, he, Buzz, nor the LM crashed though the top of a lava tube the depth of Hadley Rille.
There, fixed that for you!
true, but i think i would also make that face, even if the moon had been turned in to a theme park, and is a regular travel spot. and it was 100% safe :)
but interesting about the lava tubes.. it's like landing on snow, you don't know how thick it is, what is under it or if you will just plow straight through it. must have been nerve-wrecking to say the least
-
Journal Contributor Markus Mehring notes that, thru the CDR's window, we can see "the crash bar, and a checklist/cue card that's been stuck under the overhead window with grey tape! -The same card can be seen right behind Neil in the post-EVA portrait, AS11-37-5528".
I remember participating in a discussion about that, but I can't remember who or where. I disagree with this analysis; I think the "flag" is more likely to be the Mylar shade hanging down from the rendezvous window above the Commander's station. The checklist taped to the left wall behind Armstrong in the post-EVA picture doesn't seem to be in quite the right position. The window shade is shown curled up in some pre-landing pictures when the LM was in zero-G, but on the moon it would probably have hung down loosely in 1/6-G.
-
true, but i think i would also make that face, even if the moon had been turned in to a theme park
Sponsored by the Monsanto corporation. "We're whalers on the moon..."
-
...I think the "flag" is more likely to be the Mylar shade hanging down from the rendezvous window above the Commander's station. The checklist taped to the left wall behind Armstrong in the post-EVA picture doesn't seem to be in quite the right position.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was right. Had my own little doubt about the checklist, but know very little about the geometry of the LM in that area and thought the ALSJ guys would have known their stuff. The perspective of the edges of the "flag" seems about right to me for the checklist, but I doubted the position and thought that perhaps the writing and the tape should show a little. However, unlike some HBs, I don't butt in and rave about something I know little about.
If you can show the ALSJ guys the evidence, please do. They want it to be accurate, and can't know everything. Through Eric Jones gratefully thanking me for notifying him about a few minor typos, we've had some great chats. I sent him some stuff about Captain James Cook and he sold me the early CD-ROM copy of the ALSJ for peanuts. I've since bought the DVD version, but the CD version, plus my own experience numbering negatives with indian ink in the 1970s, was the only one that solved one HB query about "studio lights" due to its early scans of Apollo lunar photos.
I sent Eric the names of the Playmates in the Apollo 12 lunar checklists,
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&thread=1345&page=1
but he was well behind doing updates at the time. Anyway, it turned out that he beat me by two years when first reading Playboy in the 1960s.
I don't recall ever seeing those circuit-breakers behind Armstrong in the photo, or the shade you speak of. Fred Haise took some good film or video images near the CDR's area of the Apollo 13 LM, so I must look at the little of what I have again.
Even the Tom Hanks movie might help, although I cringe over the wrong moon phase for Apollo 11 (same as in The Dish), the Saturn V's ignition at zero in the countdown (repeated in From the Earth to the Moon), the mention of seeing Tsiolkovsky followed almost instantly by Fra Mauro, and I think they also showed the CSM and LM going in the wrong direction close to Taurus-Littrow. Yuck! It would be nice to see a movie about Apollo that's 95% accurate or better.
You obviously know a bit about perspective too. I've often been amused at how spacious the interiors of the LMs and CMs look in the video, but they're filmed with very wide-angle lenses so look a lot less like roomy telephone boxes or Volkswagens. That's probably why one of the HBs at the old board said something about one of the Apollo 11 guys floating "all the way across command module" in the vicinity of the couches. What???
-
so many of the claims presented did make me unsure of the landings.. he especially pointed out the "earth transparency" clip.
for a while i didnt do much about it, but a couple of years ago he brought it up again. i then procded to research these claims, and managed to find the original video on a nasa site. where it clearly shows it disappears behind the window..
And that's where I really, really get pissed off at Percy and his ilk. He had to have watched that whole video sequence in order to pick out the bits he wanted to use. And it follows that he had to know that his whole "transparency" bit was wrong. And so it follows that he knowingly published a bare-faced lie.
I can try to help enlighten the merely ignorant, or even just shake my head sadly at the clearly delusional, but the people like Percy (and, I suspect, the swear-on-the-bible ambusher) I really have nothing but contempt for.
-
And that's where I really, really get pissed off at Percy and his ilk. He had to have watched that whole video sequence in order to pick out the bits he wanted to use. And it follows that he had to know that his whole "transparency" bit was wrong. And so it follows that he knowingly published a bare-faced lie.
Agreed. Before David Percy went into hiding, I was able to catch him on a number of bald-faced lies and misrepresentations. I hold some sympathy for people who are simply ignorant but also have a big mouth. I wish they'd hold their peace until they were properly educated, but if we enforced that universally there'd be an oppressive silence in the world. People will shoot their mouths off, and there's little we can do in return but shout a louder and more satisfying truth. But I hold no sympathy for people who look at the facts but then choose willingly to say something else. Misguided oafs are far more sufferable than profiteering liars. Percy's answer to nearly every challenge was, "You must buy both our book and our video to understand our arguments." Overtly mercenary, if you ask me.
Another great example of David Percy's duplicity is the "Una Ronald" story. It was obviously bogus from the start and contained a number of factual errors. Of course Percy wouldn't identify the woman by name, "for her own safety," but had no problem putting her face up on the screen in his video for the world (and the CIA) to see. At first he tried to stumble through some lame rebuttals for why "Una's" story didn't line up with the facts. But then in the next edition of Percy's book, all the errors were magically corrected and attributed to "Una." It doesn't get any shadier than that.
Bart Sibrel makes a similar claim: that the (allegedly) round window bezel on the CM was being used to create a bright "round" Earth out of the view from orbit by being photographed from across the cabin. At first we caught him on factual grounds: the window being used for filming was not the hatch window but rather one of the rectangular side windows, and the outer bezel on the hatch window is trapezoidal even if the inner bezel is round. But we also caught his deliberate edit, where he removed the segment in which the camera clearly backs away from the window to a point across the cabin. Sibrel edited that out and pretended instead that this is where the camera was the whole time. That can only be deliberate.
To make matters worse, we found footage in the same reel of the faraway Earth, along with portions of the window frame showing that there was indeed a faraway Earth. At first Sibrel denied that this footage was part of the package he got from NASA, but then some clever sleuthing on Mark Gray's part showed that Sibrel had quoted from the same footage elsewhere in his film, proving that he indeed had the exculpatory data at his disposal. When finally confronted with the inescapable facts of his dishonesty, Sibrel claimed the faraway footage was "faked," with no further comment.
Free speech doesn't protect deliberate fraud. Let the misguided oafs parade their ignorance, if they wish. But when someone deliberately withholds facts and then charges you money you may not be willing to part with if all the facts were known, then that crosses the line.
-
And here's an example of the damage this crap does...
OK, they're airheads. But this stuff sticks in young minds. Astrobrandt, myself and others have pointed them to Clavius and ALSJ and urged them to look around with their eyes open before they come to conclusions, but who knows?
-
And here's an example of the damage this crap does...
OK, they're airheads. But this stuff sticks in young minds. Astrobrandt, myself and others have pointed them to Clavius and ALSJ and urged them to look around with their eyes open before they come to conclusions, but who knows?
those poor girls got atleast 3 detailed explanations by 3 different people :P (me included)
though it's "better to scare them straight" ;)
-
The best you could probably hope for is to find someone willing to take on a position, a devil's advocate, for purposes of discussion.
A while back, I tried to approach the Hoax as if I had been assigned that side in a debate competition, but the more I thought about it, the less 'traction' I seemed to be able to get.
It might be possible to pick at a few anomalies in the official record (any event of this size inevitably produces some), but even the claims the HBs consider to be their strongest arguments are easy to explain for someone with even a basic understanding of the subject matter. And, if nothing else, the sheer size and scope of the operation it would take to simulate the moon landings would be more difficult (and probably more expensive) than going to the moon in the first place.
So I don't know how someone could even act as Devil's advocate unless they were also willing to simulate a lack of functional brain cells.
-
And here's an example of the damage this crap does...
OK, they're airheads. But this stuff sticks in young minds. Astrobrandt, myself and others have pointed them to Clavius and ALSJ and urged them to look around with their eyes open before they come to conclusions, but who knows?
This is one of the major reasons why I'm participating YouTube.
-
those poor girls got atleast 3 detailed explanations by 3 different people :P (me included)
though it's "better to scare them straight" ;)
Maybe pt1gard will come along and "scare them straight" ;)
-
The best you could probably hope for is to find someone willing to take on a position, a devil's advocate, for purposes of discussion.
A while back, I tried to approach the Hoax as if I had been assigned that side in a debate competition, but the more I thought about it, the less 'traction' I seemed to be able to get.
It might be possible to pick at a few anomalies in the official record (any event of this size inevitably produces some), but even the claims the HBs consider to be their strongest arguments are easy to explain for someone with even a basic understanding of the subject matter. And, if nothing else, the sheer size and scope of the operation it would take to simulate the moon landings would be more difficult (and probably more expensive) than going to the moon in the first place.
So I don't know how someone could even act as Devil's advocate unless they were also willing to simulate a lack of functional brain cells.
As Charlie Duke says at the end of "In the Shadow of the Moon", "We’ve been to the moon nine times. If we faked it, why did we fake it nine times?"
I forget whether it was on the old board or on the BAUT Forum, but someone posted how they'd run Apollo if they were going to fake it - fewer missions, one landing mission, no TV, no live access to Mission Control, few photos released, no rocks released. In other words, about as different from Apollo as a Moon landing program could be.
-
You're making the same mistake I used to make: you're expecting the hoaxers to think logically and to examine the necessary consequences of their claims. They're fundamentally unable to do either.
-
Correct. White even used to say that he'd examine evidence that proved his hoax theories wrong... but since the landings were faked, any evidence saying otherwise were also faked and therefore should be ignored.
Circular reasoning anyone?
-
Circular reasoning anyone?
Of course it's circular. That's the original meaning of "begging the question", though nowadays people seem to interpret that phrase as meaning something different, i.e., "strongly suggesting the question".
They also take everything very personally. In my one and only interaction with Jack White, pointing out the problems with his analysis of the "flag" in the window of the Apollo 11 LM, he reacted as though I'd insulted his mother and invited him to a gay sex orgy or something. It was truly remarkable. That I would have the barefaced audacity to even think of emailing him -- the one and only Jack White! -- to question his interpretation was simply unforgiveable.
It made me wish I could see video (or at least hear audio) of him getting keelhauled by the counsel for the House Subcommittee on Assassinations.
-
Circular reasoning anyone?
It made me wish I could see video (or at least hear audio) of him getting keelhauled by the counsel for the House Subcommittee on Assassinations.
Just reading the text of that testimony was quite damning in itself....they just shredded his claim of any credibility or expertise. I almost felt sorry for him. Almost.
As to those girls and their video, sometimes the internet does more harm than good, it seems it spreads ignorance and knowledge equally. Middleschoolers...wish they'd come to our launches so we could teach them some science (ala the TARC program).
-
...though nowadays people seem to interpret that phrase as meaning something different, i.e., "strongly suggesting the question".
Indeed, but that's due to a legitimate overlap. Consider this:
Kevin: It's going to cost $1,225 to ship the cabinets from fab [fabrication] to Livermore.
Jay: We could have the cabinets drop-shipped to Livermore and bring the equipment with us.
Kevin: But that begs the question of dry-fitting the rackup.
In this case Kevin meant to raise the question of how we would test the layout of the equipment in standard cabinets, to make sure cable harnesses would fit, etc. But in a more esoteric sense, he means that I'm assuming that certain unknowns would magically resolve themselves in a favorable way. And that's the essence of the logical fallacy of circulus in demonstrando.
That I would have the barefaced audacity to even think of emailing him -- the one and only Jack White! -- to question his interpretation was simply unforgiveable.
Yes, that was indeed Jack White. He thought he was pretty hot stuff. And ironically a lot of that came from his HSCA gang-up. He spun it to say he must really be onto something if "the government" was going to work so hard to discredit him.