Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
David,
I have no problems with people questioning events. As Shanet said, it's critical thought and should be encouraged.
If there is any discrepancy in the Apollo programme, I want to know about it.
My concerns are with Jack White and the way he presents his Apollo images on this forum.
Firstly, he regards any dissent to his posted material as a "NASA provocatuer" with some hidden agenda. To me, this appears to be the trademark of someone who is not interested in knowing the truth but someone who has a belief and will not shift from it regardless of anything anyone has to offer. This is NOT a desirable trait in an objective evaluation. He refuses to discuss any of the material posted; he wants people to accept it "as is".
Secondly, he presents inaccurate information regarding the photographs. For example, saying that two photographs are sequential when in actual fact they are taken frames apart.
Thirdly, he will present images in poor quality or altered to support his supposition.
Lastly, he does not try to to determine any of the published data regarding the images (e.g. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal). He makes claims about them without determining if there is data which might explain why something has happened.
These are not the actions of someone seeking to clarify concerns about what they see as 'discrepancies' in the images; these are the actions of someone who has already determined a hypothesis and look for any material which could conceivably support that hypothesis.
I welcome further discussion on these matters.
-
Jack White has been a fearless proponent for critical thought and fresh analysis in reference to the COLD WAR ERA photographic record and its relative cultural value in the commercial media....his concerns are my concerns, broadly if not point by point....witness the glossy photos lying about the Moon, resting on the landing gear, if my eyes don't deceive me ...
Mr. Oswald had a false record that Jack White analysed critically, much to our common advantage and only due to his pioneering efforts........
I will weigh Jack White's perception of a given photo against any other interpreter evenly and with careful attention to his interpretation.................
Shanet,
I won't comment on any of the JFK material because I don't have sufficent knowledge of the subject matter to give a valid opinion.
On the Apollo material, however, he is wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!
Several posters have addressed the images Jack has shown and they have if not thoroughly debunked, then a more logical and credible explaination given.
Examples:
LM exit and cameras - records shown how cameras were passed out & NOT worn during exit.
Scaffolding - Scale on LM windows.
Moving background for Surveyor - shown to optical illusion. Background correct - poor photo interpretation.
Position of LM - Poor (incorrect) interpretation. LM angle had changed by some 30 degrees.
No footprints in soil - Footprints were present. Poor interpretation failed to highlight them (and they were CLEARLY visible).
etc, etc, etc. he's been proven wrong in every case.
And the "photos" on the LM footpad? They are pieces of gold-covered mylar, used as protective covering in the lunar experiment package which the photo showed had been extracted and set up. The reflections in them could be anything - but they are simply reflections from the lunar surface. Many other photos were shown which had various pieces of the same covering strewn about the LM area.
And I draw, once again, attention to the fact that Jack does not try to, and cannot dispute the factual evidence revealed in opposition to his attempts to show some type of conspiracy. He is the original internet 'Stone Deaf' - no matter what you say, no matter how much factual evidence is placed before him, he just blindly ignores it and continues to post deception after deception.
If you want to believe Jack, then go right ahead. You'll be 'worshipping' a 'false idol'.
I will, however, continue to correct Jack's errors or offer alternative explanations to ensure those with open minds can decide for themselves without having to accept simply one person's viewpoint.
-
I was HALF joking, half serious. It is odd that the ONLY ad I have been seeing promotes NASA, and that is only after I posted some Apollo research here which brought several provocateurs out of the woodwork. A nerve must have been struck somewhere. They have reason to be concerned; You will see what I mean in a week or so...when the bomb bursts, and they are HOIST ON THEIR OWN PETARD. (see Hamlet)
Jack
It's just that some of us realise that it is important to point out factual errors when they are made.
If Jack can call anyone who disputes his posts a "provocateur" (eg "...that is only after I posted some Apollo research here which brought several provocateurs out of the woodwork..." and the various "...I will not be responding to XXXXXX, an obvious NASA provocateur.."), can I call him a disgruntled conspiracy theorist who posts without the required technical knowledge and never responds to any of the factual errors raised in his posts?
-
It might also be apt to remember the 99th Fighter Squadron (the Red Tail Angels) who flew Mustangs. They were an all afro-american squadron.
The personnel fought long and hard to become accepted within the USAAC / USAAF.
Initially, most of other squadrons shunned them. Integration was unknown. They were considered to be poor pilots and cowards.
Soon, however, bomber groups began to request them as fighter escort.
At the end of hostilities, the Red Tail Angels never lost a bomber they escorted.
-
As i know next to nothing about this subject,please excuse me if this is
rubbish. Given the intensity of the space race,& the cold war in general
surely the Soviets tracked these flights, just to make sure.
I find it hard to belive that they would not have,"Shouted the house down"
if they had any evidence of fakery. Just a thought.
You are quite right. The USSR monitored all the flights closely. They found nothing amiss.
-
Why the lack of hassleblad images with the gold visors up? Surely, a photo showing your face while on the moon would be an important record of each astronauts's mission? This is true of all missions, not just Apollo 11 by the way.
To date, the only other "visor up" image I can find is a video frame of Cernan from Apollo 17. Please post a hassleblad image of any astronaut with his visor up if you can. I'd love to see one.
Is it possible that an error was realized after these very first photos were taken? That is, exposure to the harsh conditions on the moon would not be possible using just the glass of the helmet alone? The gold visors were essential barriers to the conditions on the moon.
Interesting points!
I know that it was standard to have the gold visor down. I'll look up some sources for the detailed explanation of why that was.
The visor did, however, affect the colour of what they were seeing. I remember when they found the 'orange soil' on Apollo 17, they needed to bring the visor up to ensure they were not getting some type of illusion.
That would probably explain why Armstrong had his visor up. He wanted an unadulterated view to describe what he was seeing.
Other images with them up? I'll search around and see what I can find, but I think you are right in saying there are very few.
I'll get back to you.
It seems the gold visor was used to protect against sun glare, UV rays, and to help reduce heat buildup. It was normally raised when the astronauts were working in a 'shadow' area, but otherwise worn down.
Here are some references about its construction:
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/leva.htm
http://www.apollosaturn.com/Lmnr/cpe.htm
I still haven't got around to look for images, as yet. Net problems have meant a slow day.
Someone has kindly trawled through the images and found some examples where the gold visor is up:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-143-21941.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17-146-22294.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17-146-22296.jpg
To get the High Resolution images, simply add "HR" after the last digit in the photo number (immediately before the .JPG).
Thank you Johnno and Kalle!
-
I can recommend:
HITLER'S SCIENTISTS - SCIENCE, WAR & THE DEVILS PACT by John Cornwell (ISBN 0-670-89362-5)
RUIN FROM THE AIR by Gordon Thomas & Max Morgan-Witts
TOO SECRET, TOO LONG by Chapman Pincher (ISBN 0-312-80902-6)
DEEP BLACK - THE SECRETS OF SPACE ESPIONAGE by William E. Burrows (ISBN 0-593-01342-5)
A MAN ON THE MOON by Andrew Chaikin (ISBN 0-670-81446-6)
-
I haven't read the book, sorry.
I'll check the local library and see if there is a copy available in the library system.
It made me think, though - how often were there 'public appearances' by major political figures (specifically FDR) in those days?
I remember reading how Truman used to like walking in public a fair bit, but how often was FDR seen in public? The media was not as prevelent in those days, so it would have been possible to go out without a crowd of press reporters following you.
-
Sumir does raise a good point. We DO have to be take an impartial, unbiased look at history and verify what what we have recorded - if possible.
You have to be able to challenge certain things, and make them verifiable.
I've had this in the APOLLO hoax threads. People can ask "Can you explain this?" I then try to show how and why something is correct or verifiable.
The difficulties appear when people:
1. Make an questionable statement rather seek facts; and
2. Will not accept a valid arguement for any reasonable reason.
If someone asks "Is it really possible that so many were killed?", then that is a valid question which should be answered.
If someone says "The Holocoust was a lie created by Zionist supporters!" then this is simply an unsupported statement which has discriminatory overtones.
Truth should be able to supported by fact or reproducable observation, otherwise it simply becomes a theory.
-
I think it is unfair to blame US military authorities for not giving warning of the tsunami to other nations.
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre (PTWC) timeline of events is here:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2358.htm
Diego Garcia was given it's warning AFTER the tsunami had struck Sri Lanka, and just before it struck Indonesia.
In addition, the US State Department acted to warn people of the danger:
"Recognising the threat to east Africa, the State Department instructed its embassies to alert local governments. That probably saved many lives: in Kenya alone, 10,000 people were evacuated from the beaches around Mombasa before the waves struck. Only one person is reported to have drowned."
From: http://www.property.telegraph.co.uk/connec.../05/ixconn.html
There is debate about why Sri Lanka's own seismic detection systems did not provide warning:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/209127_tom24.html
After any disaster, hindsight always shows how things could have been done better. Perhaps now the nations of the Indian Ocean will co-operate in the provision of a tsunami warning system.
-
It's a strange conundrum, isn't it?
Our democratic ideals of freedom and liberty allow people to use those very ideals to destroy it, yet if we suppress those same people we violate our own ideals.
The methods used by the Nazis to achieve the killings were masterful. They used hatred (these people are subhuman and should be destroyed), pride (the need for German racial purity), deception (these people are being relocated) and even humanity itself (to let these people continue to live is inhumane; to kill them is merciful).
It's frightening to think that they nearly succeeded in conquest, and even more frightening to think of what they did as they were being defeated.
-
For me as a German there are many questions relating to the holocaust: how could it happen in a country which can be proud of its poets and philosophers and its contribution to the ideas of the Enlightenment and liberalism and socialism; why did people actively or passively support this system knowing full well what was going on in Germany and what happened to the Jews and the other groups mentioned above; how could those who had killed hundreds and thousands of people on a daily basis not feel any guilt; can such a thing happen again. These are the questions I have concerning Nazism and Auschwitz.
There is a book you might like to have a look at sometime:
"HITLER'S SCIENTISTS - Science, War, and the Devil's Pact" by John Cornwell.
It discusses how different people dealt with the rise of the Nazis. Some embraced it, some used it, some left their country, some ignored it, some tried to fight it, and some felt that despite hating the Nazis they had to support their country.
It talks about the various ethics in science, and whether we have changed at all today.
Highly recommended.
-
You raise some interesting points. It is true that the major powers (United States, Soviet Union and China) could not afford unilaterally get rid of all their nuclear weapons. Everyone was aware that Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was working. For example, if the Soviet Union did not have nuclear weapons, the United States would no doubt have invaded Cuba in 1960. This also explains why the United States did not provide military help to the Hungarians in 1956.
Members of the CND recognised this reality. However, if MAD worked, then the logical thing was for all nations to own nuclear weapons. This was the only thing to guarantee that your country would not be occupied as the invader would fear being attacked by nuclear weapons. CND argued that as a result of this thinking, proliferation was bound to occur.
Eventually, a small, unstable country, would use these weapons. Countries with nuclear weapons were not in a moral position to say it was alright for them to have them for their protection but were against other countries from acquiring the same level of protection. Therefore, the CND urged countries like Britain to take unilateral action in order to get the whole world to adopt this policy. It believed, as I do, that without this happening, it is only a matter of time before a country uses nuclear weapons. At the moment the Middle East appears to be the likely place where this will happen.
The current policy of the United States is to stop any country from acquiring nuclear weapons. (Those who already have them are of course safe from a United States invasion). This is an expensive policy and does nothing to deal with the problem of those countries who already have them.
Unless complete nuclear disarmament takes place, then it is only a matter of time before the world is destroyed.
I agree with most of your comments. I certainly agree that a nation such as the UK could have unilaterally disarmed itself of nuclear weapons. The UK is, and has always been, a strong ally of the US and could afford to feel safe under the 'nuclear umbrella' of the US. Of course, there are arguements that the UK might have believed that it could be treated as an "acceptable loss" in any limited nuclear exchange between the Western / Soviet spheres of influence. How valid these arguements are I'll leave for others to discuss.
It still leaves us with the problem of the "nuclear genie". It is out of the bottle, and unless we adopt a position of repressing knowledge in areas of physics, chemistry, and engineering, anyone with the required knowledge, materials and facilities can produce a nuclear weapon. Once a weapon can be produced, then suitable delivery systems can see those hypothetical weapons being used to threaten almost anyone.
The "nuclear nations" have so far never used that capability. Hopefully that demonstrates a restraint and understanding of how terrible these weapons can be.
This is why I think it should be a universal policy to prevent any non-nuclear state from gaining the capability to produce such weapons. This will cause problems, of course, and I'll let others raise those issues.
Perhaps the only solution is for a UN Nuclear Force to be established concurrently with all nuclear-capable nations disaming. This has been raised in many science-fiction novels, and is certainly worth considering. If only one group, multi-cultural, multi-secular, trans-national, is equipped with nuclear weapons - and has an effective and suitable protocol for their use - then coupled with an anti-proliforation arm, fears of a nuclear holocoust could be addressed.
-
BTW, if anyone wants me to address each and every image Jack White has presented in this thread, I'll do so.
I consider it a waste of time, but will do so if anyone is still not convinced as to the validity of Jack White's claims about the Apollo images.
-
Here are two A11 consecutive photos that demonstrate
bad lighting. The pix are part of a panorama series taken
from the same viewpoint. Therefore the lighting in the
background SHOULD BE IDENTICAL though the camera
is pointed a few degrees more to the right in the second
view. But note that at the splice line, the lighting does
not match.
Jack
Jack tends to be somewhat haphazard with the facts, and very economical with the truth.
The two photos shown in the COMPOSITE image are AS11-40-5875 (taken at 110hrs 10 min 33 sec Ground Elapsed Time) and AS11-40-5915 (taken between 110hrs 41 min & 43min).
That's 31 mins between the images. They are NOT consecutive. They are taken from similar positions, NOT the same.
Check out other images and you'll see the light drop off (normally) toward the edge of the images.
There is a word that is banned here - I won't use it.
I will, once again, say however that Jack does not tell you the correct information about the images and he will often manipulates the images in order to create an image showing what he wants you to believe.
If Jack tells you the sun will rise this morning, I would advise you check with your local observatory.
DO NOT RELY ON WHAT JACK SAYS OR PORTRAYS!
Look for the original images yourself, and do your own research.
If you do so, you'll understand that what Jack White says does not agree with your own conclusions.
-
I didn't realise that FDR had "body doubles" though it is certainly conceivable.
Is there anything we know, for certain, that indicates the first public or political figure to use a stand-in?
-
Oh Please!
This guy is an engineer, not a medical doctor or biologist or viroligist, etc.
And he SELLS the information (the flowchart).
The reasons for higher incidence are most likely socio-economic.
-
And this site explains it all in more detail:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm
It would seem they are very familiar with Jack's work.....
-
Here are two NASA panoramas from Apollo 15. The HORIZON LINES ARE IDENTICAL,
but the LEM is in two different locations and positioned 90 degrees differently. This
is plainly impossible. Both views cannot be correct. These panoramas were assembled by
NASA, not by me.
It cannot be that some of the photos used are from a different point of view, because the
backgrounds BEHIND THE LEMs would not fit.
Jack
This site explains it all:
-
Evan-
I deleted the theory because it got absolutely no support.
My friend Joe was quite convinced that FDR died before Yalta
and a body double was sent to deal with Churchill and Stalin.
Joe had apparently read a book by one of FDR's doctors,
and was convinced of this hoax....since no one had any
support, I deleted it.
Shanet
Okay, thanks anyway.
As a hypothetical, what advantage if any could be gained by sending a double? I'm not very familiar with FDR but have general knowledge of the period.
I haven't gone over my books for the period, but do you think Stalin and Churchill would have considered a "raw" President like Truman easier to manipulate than FDR?
Actually, I kind of like these scenarios. It's very interesting to imagine what "might have been" if events through history had not been the same as we know them.
A good example of this is a sci-fi novel (yes, okay, I'm a geek) by James P Hogan called THE PROTEUS OPERATION. A good read, and some interesting alternative timelines.
Cheers!
-
Why the lack of hassleblad images with the gold visors up? Surely, a photo showing your face while on the moon would be an important record of each astronauts's mission? This is true of all missions, not just Apollo 11 by the way.
To date, the only other "visor up" image I can find is a video frame of Cernan from Apollo 17. Please post a hassleblad image of any astronaut with his visor up if you can. I'd love to see one.
Is it possible that an error was realized after these very first photos were taken? That is, exposure to the harsh conditions on the moon would not be possible using just the glass of the helmet alone? The gold visors were essential barriers to the conditions on the moon.
Interesting points!
I know that it was standard to have the gold visor down. I'll look up some sources for the detailed explanation of why that was.
The visor did, however, affect the colour of what they were seeing. I remember when they found the 'orange soil' on Apollo 17, they needed to bring the visor up to ensure they were not getting some type of illusion.
That would probably explain why Armstrong had his visor up. He wanted an unadulterated view to describe what he was seeing.
Other images with them up? I'll search around and see what I can find, but I think you are right in saying there are very few.
I'll get back to you.
It seems the gold visor was used to protect against sun glare, UV rays, and to help reduce heat buildup. It was normally raised when the astronauts were working in a 'shadow' area, but otherwise worn down.
Here are some references about its construction:
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/leva.htm
http://www.apollosaturn.com/Lmnr/cpe.htm
I still haven't got around to look for images, as yet. Net problems have meant a slow day.
-
Why the lack of hassleblad images with the gold visors up? Surely, a photo showing your face while on the moon would be an important record of each astronauts's mission? This is true of all missions, not just Apollo 11 by the way.
To date, the only other "visor up" image I can find is a video frame of Cernan from Apollo 17. Please post a hassleblad image of any astronaut with his visor up if you can. I'd love to see one.
Is it possible that an error was realized after these very first photos were taken? That is, exposure to the harsh conditions on the moon would not be possible using just the glass of the helmet alone? The gold visors were essential barriers to the conditions on the moon.
Interesting points!
I know that it was standard to have the gold visor down. I'll look up some sources for the detailed explanation of why that was.
The visor did, however, affect the colour of what they were seeing. I remember when they found the 'orange soil' on Apollo 17, they needed to bring the visor up to ensure they were not getting some type of illusion.
That would probably explain why Armstrong had his visor up. He wanted an unadulterated view to describe what he was seeing.
Other images with them up? I'll search around and see what I can find, but I think you are right in saying there are very few.
I'll get back to you.
-
We seemed to have wandered off topic a little.
Differing political systems led to countries taking a "side", but the question was "Why in the 70's and 80's were those who opposed nuclear weapons portrayed as naive rather than those who believed having lots of them would make the world safer?"
I think the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) can be said to have worked. Each side knew that a nuclear attack would (in policy anyway) result in a similar response or in some cases, a full retalitory strike.
The consequences of any nuclear strike would have been unthinkable.
If, however, one 'side' adopted unilateral nuclear disarmament, there would exist an opportunity for the other 'side' to make an all-out strike and almost completely eliminate the military capability of the other 'side'. Both sides would have to give that option serious consideration, and a tempting one it would have been.
THAT'S why the idea was naive. The "nuclear genie" was out of the bottle, and it could not be put back. More weapons did NOT "make the world safer" but a parity in deliverable megatonnage, delivery systems and capability did.
A gradual, bilateral reduction in nuclear capability was the answer. As weapon efficiency improved, so delivery systems became more accurate and invunerable to interception. Each side could be confident that the other did not have a significant advantage. Each side still had its "boomers" (SSBNs) to ensure that any first strike would be responded to, even by a 'dead hand'.
The ideals of those opposed to nuclear weapons were just & moral - and shared, I believe, by those who controlled the weapons. It was simply that total disarmament could not be rapidly or practically achieved without INCREASING the risk of a nuclear engagement.
-
What was it all about?
Why is the forum accepting advertising...
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
Shanet asked:
"Why should there be stars in photos taken from the surface of the Moon ?"
Well, the answer is there shouldn't be any stars in the images. The exposure time and apature setting for a correct photo of the lunar surface and objects on it is too short for stars to appear on the film.
You can demonstrate this for yourself by going out and trying to take a photo under similar light conditions to the lunar surface. You'll find that the stars don't appear.
This exert from Clavius.org explains it all:
" A camera works by focusing light rays through a lens onto a piece of plastic film coated with light-sensitive chemicals. The chemical turns dark when light strikes it. The more light, the darker it gets. In the developing lab the film is chemically processed to disable the light sensitivity, so that it can be handled in the light. The result is a photographic negative. When light is shone through the negative onto light-sensitive paper, it produces a normal image.
Photographic film is manufactured in varying degrees of sensitivity. Film that is intended for use in sunlight, for example, is not usually sensitive enough for pictures in dimmer indoor lighting. In that case, the photographer must use a flash to supplement the available light.
Two mechanisms in the camera control how much light falls on the film. There is an aperture, a device very much like the iris in a human eye, which expands or constricts to allow more or less light to pass through to the film. Photographers call the aperture setting the "f-stop". The higher the f-stop number, the narrower the aperture and the less light admitted.
There is also a timer which controls how long the shutter remains open. The longer the shutter interval, the more light falls on the film. Photographers state shutter speeds in fractions of a second, such as 1/250.
The technique of manipulating these mechanisms to produce meaningful photographs is called exposure. Since each of the three ways of controlling exposure (film sensitivity, f-stop, shutter speed) has its own side effects, the photographer must decide what's most important. Very sensitive film is usually unable to record fine-grain details. Opening the aperture limits how much of the image will be in focus. Using a long shutter interval may blur the photograph if the subject moves while the shutter is open.
A photograph taken with insufficient light is underexposed, while a photograph taken with too much light is overexposed. Underexposed photographs usually have coarsely-grained variations on a dark color. Overexposed images have patches of white, often bleeding into adjacent areas of the photograph.
Newer cameras have light meters that measure the amount of light entering the lens and computers that calculate the correct exposure, taking into account whether a fast or slow shutter speed is better, or whether a wide or narrow aperture is appropriate. However, even with automatic exposure photographs sometimes come out overexposed or underexposed. This happens when different parts of the picture have different amounts of light on them. The computer reads an average amount of light and sets the exposure accordingly.
For example, if you take a picture of someone who is standing under the porch of a brightly lit house, chances are the house will be correctly exposed but the subject will be a dark silhouette. The computer has no way of knowing that you want your friend in the shadow to be correctly exposed. In this situation you would adjust your exposure to allow more light to enter. The house portion of the photograph will be overexposed, but your friend will look good in the photograph.
The human eye works according to similar principles. It has an iris which opens and closes like a camera aperture. It has a retina which corresponds to photographic film. The human retina changes chemically to adjust adjust sensitivity. There is no feature that corresponds to the shutter speed.
When you go into a dark room after you've just been outside, you have to wait until your irises open and your retinas adjusts chemically. Irises open in seconds, but the retina's chemical changes take a few minutes. Until then, everything looks dark. And conversely when you go back outside, the sun will appear painfully bright until your irises contract and your retinas adjust.
Photography on the lunar surface presents two problems. First, the sunlight is quite bright. The moon is roughly as far away from the sun as the earth, but there is no atmosphere to filter and subdue the sunlight. And along with this is the glare of the sun off the lunar surface.
Second, the difference between light and shadow is more pronounced on the moon since there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight and make it more uniform.
Fortunately neither of these problems is unsolvable. A brightly lit scene can be correctly photographed simply by using less sensitive film, and also by closing the aperture and using a faster shutter speed. In extreme cases you can also put a filter (sunglasses for cameras) over the lens to reduce the light entering the lens.
But what about shadow? Well, objects lying in shadow on the lunar surface are not in pitch blackness. Light reflects from space suits, the lunar module, the dust around you. You can open up the aperture and lengthen the shutter speed if the subject you want to capture is in shadow.
A curious feature of photographic film is that it's not necessarily sensitive the same way your eyes are. Manufacturers produce film that is variably sensitive. An extreme example of this was the film invented to photograph nuclear detonations. It is possible to have film that emphasizes subtle differences among darks while representing brights with relative indifference.
In short, the notions that it's too bright on the moon for photography, or that photographic film can't capture both lighted and shaded objects on the moon, are simply not realistic from the photographer's point of view. "