Dave Greer

This is a shocking abuse of power, as well as indirect evidence of CIA culpability over failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. I despair to hear that the UK looks to be going down a similar route. Freedoms that have been centuries in the making are being silently taken away, under the guise of national security. Sadly very true.

The link doesn't work. Try this. http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/the-46-drills-of-911-by-webster-tarpley/

Please can you demonstrate how you calibrated the size of the superimposed plane in this image. Please can you also demonstrate how you took into consideration how the angle of incidence of the plane's approach relative to the Pentagon would affect it's appearance and relative length as seen from the security camera. (Hint below).

This discussion seems to have been manoeuvred away from Jack's original claim (in his attachment), which is clearly false, on to something completely irrelevant to anything. This demand to see a Hasselblad image of the rover being unloaded is just a smokescreen to hide the moving goalposts. (Who cares? What does it prove, other than what we already know, that unloading the rover was a 2 man job, they probably weren't wearing the cameras yet, and the whole thing was being recorded on TV anyway?) For once Jack, do the right thing and admit you made a simple mistake in your original study, and withdraw it. Please, just this once.

That's patently absurd. If I accuse you of beating your wife, anything you say to defend yourself is self-serving and must be disregarded. You cannot prove my assertion wrong, ergo, you are a wife-beater. Jack This has been proven to be wrong. The rover has clearly been unstowed from Quad 1 (to the right of the ladder as seen in the photo). Evidence has been provided that clearly supports that. If you still insist that the rover hasn't been unloaded, please provide proof. (You're going to struggle with that one, since we've all seen the video of it actually being unloaded). Looking at the 'study' you presented:- Do you accept that you are wrong about the LRV being lowered but not unpacked? If you don't accept it, can you please explain why you insist that the yellow arrow on your 'study' points to a partially unstowed LRV, when all the supporting literature, photos and video shows that the LRV was stowed on the opposite side?

I'm curious as to what extent the lawn should be "blemished", and in what manner. As far as I'm aware, the plane allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, not the lawn itself. Watch from 3:30.

http://www.circlemakers.org/

BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay over a photocopy print. IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow. Jack You missed my point. I'll try to be clearer. For argument's sake, let's assume you're right about the crosshairs not being in the camera. How does the overlay of cross-hairs on the images (yet somehow missing out the brighter/over-exposed areas of white) prove that the photos must have been taken on Earth? Why can't they have been taken on the moon, and the cross-hairs added later? (They weren't added later, I'm just playing Devil's advocate). A reasonable question. Here is the reasonable answer. According to all I have read about the Hasselblad Apollo cameras, they had a clear glass plate between the lens and the film. I think it was called a Rousseau plate or something like that (immaterial). The clear glass allowed the image photographed to pass through it with no loss in quality. The light passed through when the shutter was operated to take a photo. It passed through ONLY ONCE (ONCE ONLY) when the shutter was snapped. Etched into the glass plate, however was a series of small black+ marks evenly spaced over its surface, with a larger central + mark. These were variously called fidicials, reticules, reticles or crosshairs. They were placed there for photogrammetric purposes. Photogrammetry is a fancy word for taking measurements on a photograph. When the light came through the shutter when it was opened the ONE TIME it was opened for each photo, the BLACK CROSSHAIRS BLOCKED THE LIGHT FROM REACHING THE FILM BEYOND IT! On b/w film, this produced a CLEAR area on the film, which printed as BLACK +s. On color film, this blocked light, so nothing was exposed, leaving the color film with BLACK + marks. Now if you understand from this explanation how the + marks got onto the film, then you have to understand that SINCE THE LIGHT CAME THROUGH THE LENS AND THE GLASS PLATE ONLY ONCE, IT COULD CAST ONLY A SINGLE SHADOW (+) ON THE FILM WHERE EACH CROSSHAIR WAS ETCHED IN THE GLASS. Since each reticle cross could have only ONE SHADOW, it CANNOT have TWO SHADOWS. Therefore anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed, practicing disinformation, or lying. It is quite elementary and simple to understand. Jack I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to get you to explain is, why is the existence of these shadow marks proof that the images must have been taken on Earth, rather than the moon? Secondly, on a slightly different issue, take a closer look at the image you were investigating - AS14-66-9304 Pay particular attention to the four reticles surrounding the very bright light-source in the top right of the image. Can you explain why each of these has a shadow, which when tracing a straight line through the corresponding reticle, intersects at the light-source? Can you also explain why the displacement of the shadow from its reticle is directly proportionate to the distance of the reticle to the centre of the light-source? This seems to confirm the theory that the shadow is formed by some kind of internal reflection

BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay over a photocopy print. IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow. Jack You missed my point. I'll try to be clearer. For argument's sake, let's assume you're right about the crosshairs not being in the camera. How does the overlay of cross-hairs on the images (yet somehow missing out the brighter/over-exposed areas of white) prove that the photos must have been taken on Earth? Why can't they have been taken on the moon, and the cross-hairs added later? (They weren't added later, I'm just playing Devil's advocate).

It might take a minute to read through the list, but it would take many weeks of research to thoroughly investigate each patent, to see whether it backs up the assertion that "persistent spreading contrails" as seen in some of the photos you've posted are actually "chemtrails". I looked at a few of them. 1. Self-focussing antenna system - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3174150.pdf I couldn't figure out why a patent for such a device would help prove the existence of "chemtrails" as I characterised them above, so I looked at the patent. I'm still none the wiser. Please explain how this device proves that "persistent spreading contrails" are actually "chemtrails". 2. Atomizing Attachment for Airplane Engine Exhausts - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/1892132.pdf Judging the title alone, this one sounds more promising. The patent is from 1932, so how it proves anything relating to "chemtrails" being caused by high altitude jets in the 1990's I'm not sure. Regardless, the patent is basically for a "crop duster". Again, I ask what the existence of a patent for a crop-dusting device proves "chemtrails" over "persistent spreading contrails". 3. Method of Suppressing Formation of Contrails and Solution Therefor - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4766725.pdf As per the title, this patent relates to a proposal to stop contrails forming. I find it hard to see how such a patent proves the existence of "chemtrails", which persist much longer than Jack claims contrails can last for. 4. Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5003186.pdf This one sounds more promising. It refers to the addition of Aluminium Oxide to aviation fuel to absorb infra-red radiation, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Of course, the existence of a patent isn't proof that the method is in use, either on a small scale, or the large scale being proposed. I couldn't find any reference to the actual use of such additives in jet fuel. Neither is there any explanation as to why the use of such additives would cause the visible appearance of "chemtrails" resembling "persistent spreading contrails". There's also the difficulty of explaining why this technology has been in use in secret since the 1990's to combat global warming. Why not just fess up and claim the glory for saving the planet? If governments can fluoridise drinking water to save out teeth and convince most people it's safe, wouldn't aluminium oxide in jet fuel to reduce global warming be an easy sell? Why hide it?

Very succinctly put.

That's a frustrating, worrying, and not entirely unexpected direction for this whole saga to take. The entire media focus has switched from the leaks themselves, onto Assange. The US Government will be mightily relieved that in Sweden, the legal classification of "chatting up a bird" seems analagous to "demanding sex with menaces". As John has pointed out, it may well work in Assange's favour if he is deported and claims political asylum. He really should consider grasping the nettle and handing himself over voluntarily to the Swedish authorities.

Finally had chance to have a quick look into this one. Didn't take long to find out that the engine bell on the descent stage was increased in length by 10" for the J-class missions - leaving just 12" ground clearance. I suspect that's why there was a requirement for those missions to shut the engines off before landing. Makes sense that there would be an increased danger of the "blowback" that Cernan referred to. Look at the ground clearance in this Apollo 11 image - AS11-40-5915 and compare it to the the ground clearance on this Apollo 17 image - AS17-147-22517

Thanks for the extra IP addresses John. Let's hope it doesn't result in EF getting more DOS attacks. I appreciate concerns that some leaks may put some people at risk, but I think there's a bigger picture here. If we'd been privy to some of this kind of information prior to the phoney war against Iraq, maybe it could have been avoided - and 100,000+ lives saved.

Whoever it was must have been a member of this forum since they knew the password format, which I hadn't changed (my mistake). They likely had a grudge to bear against me re Apollo. Their IP address was traced to Savannah, Georgia. Join the dots. Why don't you contact the owner of the site and ask him why he took the site down? It's back up minus the forum apparently. http://www.worldofthestrange.com/form_contact.htm Oh, I wasn't impolite to you, it was someone from Scotland. Nothing wrong with being Scottish of course. Well, my subjective experience says exactly the opposite, such as your and Jack White's comments on this very forum about people who disagree with you. Looking at it objectively, there's plenty coming from both sides. Insisting otherwise is just playing the victim.