A very peculiar Apollo series

[Jack White]

Let me repeat.

The Apollo photographs are FAKED.

Therefore the file numbers identifying them are FAKED.

Therefore the "official documentation" supporting the photos is FAKED.

Therefore FILE NUMBERS AND DOCUMENTATION ARE IRRELEVANT TO

WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS.

Requiring file numbers for Apollo photos is akin to requiring JFK researchers

to give Zapruder frame numbers in studies of the FAKED ZAPRUDER FILM.

...or requiring discussion of Lee Harvey Oswald as a SINGLE PERSON when

it is provable that two persons used that name.

...or requiring me to say that the gun used in the backyard FAKE photos

is the one used to shoot the president, when that is not the case.

There is NO FORUM RULE which states that in order to discuss "Apollo photos"

I must give the file number. The photos CAN BE STUDIED WITHOUT ANY

REFERENCE TO THE "OFFICIAL RECORDS". It is improper to order me to

do something which I do not believe in. Why should I provide the fake

numbers for the fake photos? It is so that apollogists can look up the faked

official record and quote it as proof of their position.

It is not within the purvue of the moderators to tell researchers how to

conduct their research or what position to take.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Let me repeat.

The Apollo photographs are FAKED.

Therefore the file numbers identifying them are FAKED.

Therefore the "official documentation" supporting the photos is FAKED.

Therefore FILE NUMBERS AND DOCUMENTATION ARE IRRELEVANT TO

WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS.

Requiring file numbers for Apollo photos is akin to requiring JFK researchers

to give Zapruder frame numbers in studies of the FAKED ZAPRUDER FILM.

...or requiring discussion of Lee Harvey Oswald as a SINGLE PERSON when

it is provable that two persons used that name.

...or requiring me to say that the gun used in the backyard FAKE photos

is the one used to shoot the president, when that is not the case.

There is NO FORUM RULE which states that in order to discuss "Apollo photos"

I must give the file number. The photos CAN BE STUDIED WITHOUT ANY

REFERENCE TO THE "OFFICIAL RECORDS". It is improper to order me to

do something which I do not believe in. Why should I provide the fake

numbers for the fake photos? It is so that apollogists can look up the faked

official record and quote it as proof of their position.

It is not within the purvue of the moderators to tell researchers how to

conduct their research or what position to take.

Jack

Jack,

The image number tells us exactly what image you are referring to. It doesn't have to be the NASA image number, because your source image may not be from NASA.

But we can then compare your source image to the one which NASA have given to the original 70mm frames.

Not presenting this information merely means that people have to determine if the image you have presented is an original NASA image, or an image that has been altered for whatever reasons for presentation in different media (such as a newspaper or film). We have to search until we can find the original NASA image it refers to. This can take an enormous amount of time.

If you have that information, why not say it?

For instance, your "sticks" images. I had to review ALL colour images taken by ALL the Apollo missions on the lunar surface. Because I thought it was some type of core sample tube, I started off with Apollo 17 and then worked backwards. Eventually I found the original images. You could have saved me the trouble by saying it was from Apollo 11, or giving the image numbers (if they were known to you).

BTW, will you now apologise for claiming that I locked a thread when it has been shown that I did not?

[Dave Greer]

Let me repeat.

The Apollo photographs are FAKED.

Therefore the file numbers identifying them are FAKED.

Therefore the "official documentation" supporting the photos is FAKED.

Therefore FILE NUMBERS AND DOCUMENTATION ARE IRRELEVANT TO

WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS.

Jack, your argument here is completely circular. I believe the correct phrase used in debate would be "begging the question".

The Apollo photographs are fully documented. If you know the reference number, withholding it gives the impression that you are deliberately hiding something, especially when you don't even show the full image being discussed. If you wanted to give that impression, it's worked. If you wanted to give the impression of being a genuine researcher, you'd give the reference numbers.

As you know, making a claim of a photo being faked is easy and takes very little work. Providing evidence to thoroughly debunk that claim DOES take time and effort - it seems you want to make it harder for people by refusing to give reference numbers for images. That makes people (well, me anyway) question your real motive. You could very easily prove me wrong by giving the reference numbers or links you already have at your disposal.

Edited May 25, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Len Colby]

Jack

Moderators do have the responsibility to make sure that members of this forum follow its rules, one of those rules says you need to cite your sources. Your BS reasons for not giving numbers have already been replied to on the thread you started on the subject.

When are you going to get around to explaining your attempted fraud at the beginning of this thread?

[Evan Burton]

Len,

I agree that Jack was less than open with the image information, and I question his reasons for presenting the images as he did, but the use of the word 'fraud' is (IMO) out of line.

I'd ask that you please refrain from using it unless directly applicable.

[Len Colby]

The relevant questions are:

1) Was Jack’s post and photo array at the beginning of this thread misleading?

2) Can we assume that if they were made by a ration person, they were intentionally misleading?

I don’t see how any objective person could fail to answer both questions “yes” so either Jack was “intentionally misleading” or he is not “a ration person”.

The fact that he hid the true nature of the originals by cropping them and refusing to disclose the image numbers and his failure to offer any defense of his actions are indicative of the former but I guess a combination of the two could have been in play since inevitability of his ruse being discovered is indicative of the latter.

[Duane Daman]

I can't believe I just wasted my valuable time reading this ridicuous thread ... Don't you people have anything better to do with your time than to continue to character assassinate Jack ? ... So he didn't post the ID numbers to the faked Apollo photos ... So what ? ... He asked a simple question ... Why were four pictures taken of the same stick ? ... It doesn't matter how he presented the photos ... He never claimed that he didn't crop them ...That was obviously done to not only save space, but to show that the four photos were all of the same uninteresting object .

To use an old cliche' ... You have all made a mountain out of a mole hill .

It seems that his question was answered by Evan ... All the rest has been nothing but the typical .. LET'S ALL GANG UP ON JACK BECAUSE WE HATE HIS GUTS FOR EXPOSING THE FAKED APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHS !!!

You people really do need to get lives and get over the fact that not everyone fell for nasa's pretense of landing men on the moon almost 40 years ago , when it was technically impossible to do so ...

Oh , and I would like to thank you all for reminding me why I no longer bother to post here very often ... Like David Percy stated in his e-mail to me ... " I don't have time for those people " .... Smart fellow .... Too bad Jack doesn't feel the same way .

Edited May 30, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

I can't believe I just wasted my valuable time reading this ridicuous thread ... Don't you people have anything better to do with your time than to continue to character assassinate Jack ? ... So he didn't post the ID numbers to the faked Apollo photos ... So what ? ... He asked a simple question ... Why were four pictures taken of the same stick ? ... It doesn't matter how he presented the photos ... He never claimed that he didn't crop them ...That was obviously done to not only save space, but to show that the four photos were all of the same uninteresting object .

To use an old cliche' ... You have all made a mountain out of a mole hill .

It seems that his question was answered by Evan ... All the rest has been nothing but the typical .. LET'S ALL GANG UP ON JACK BECAUSE WE HATE HIS GUTS FOR EXPOSING THE FAKED APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHS !!!

You people really do need to get lives and get over the fact that not everyone fell for nasa's pretense of landing men on the moon almost 40 years ago , when it was technically impossible to do so ...

Oh , and I would like to thank you all for reminding me why I no longer bother to post here very often ... Like David Percy stated in his e-mail to me ... " I don't have time for those people " .... Smart fellow .... Too bad Jack doesn't feel the same way .

Duane,

You complained about an image Dave altered despite the fact he told us what image it was, how he altered it, and why he altered it. Also, Jack accused me of altering / deleting posts or locking threads when it was proven I did no such thing... and he has not apologised for the accusation.

Don't you think you are being a tad hypocritical?

Edited May 30, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Duane Daman]

No , I'm not being hypocritical , just honest ... It's a waste of time posting here because of the dishonesty , the silly mind games and the insulting character assassinations of those who don't believe that the Apollo photographs were really taken on the moon .

[Evan Burton]

Your interpretation of 'honest' astounds me.

[Dave Greer]

No , I'm not being hypocritical , just honest ... It's a waste of time posting here because of the dishonesty , the silly mind games and the insulting character assassinations of those who don't believe that the Apollo photographs were really taken on the moon .

This is the standard defence you resort to when you can't actually refute empirical evidence and plausible explanations presented to you.

Here's a mini-snapshot of some of the phrases you used in the thread where the Apollo15 photo was being discussed. Silly mind games? Insulting character assassinations? You bet. All of it penned by Duane Daman. And not a single successful refutation of evidence presented to you by myself, Pericynthion and others. Just rhetoric and insults. That is why I believe you are not capable of logical thought and reasoning... when given the opportunity to defend your claims, you resort to your prime methodology of insults and mud-slinging, and yet you claim victim status on every board you hurl abuse on.

This speaks volumes about your (in)ability to actually defend your claims about Apollo photos. You can't even make up your mind about whether the shadow was air-brushed in backwards by a whistleblower, or whether it was produced using a model and artifical lighting.

I'm highlighting the insults you throw about like confetti in the hope that you yourself will realise that you're guilty of what you accuse me of. I'm not reporting this stuff to a moderator for you to have your wrist slapped, since being insulted by you is similar to being licked by an over-enthusiastic puppy: you know it means well and can't help itself if it playfully nips you in the process, but it still needs to be shown that its behaviour is a little naughty. So consider this a gentle ticking off: if your naughtiness continues I'll be stopping your doggy biscuits.

In your pathetic effort to prove me wrong , you were dishonest

you can not be trusted to be truthful about anything

Of all the games you have ever played , this one has to be the most dishonest of all

Greer admitted to "stretching and skewing " the image in his first post about this ... He is the one being deceptive

What Dave did by altering the A15 shadow to try to match the position of the astronot was dishonest

You might just learn something about the phony Apollo photography ... Like the truth ... If you can even manage to remember what that is.

This Apollo 15 Scott shadow photo is the biggest scam you have run so far Dave ... and because of the games you played with this one , you are now the laughing stock of YouTube

You stopped posting on YouTube because I exposed your scam

an attempt to disguise the fact that the shadow doesn't match the object it's suppossed to belong to .

[Len Colby]

I can't believe I just wasted my valuable time reading this ridicuous thread ... Don't you people have anything better to do with your time than to continue to character assassinate Jack ? ... So he didn't post the ID numbers to the faked Apollo photos ... So what ? ... He asked a simple question ... Why were four pictures taken of the same stick ? ... It doesn't matter how he presented the photos ... He never claimed that he didn't crop them ...That was obviously done to not only save space, but to show that the four photos were all of the same uninteresting object .

To use an old cliche' ... You have all made a mountain out of a mole hill .

It seems that his question was answered by Evan ... All the rest has been nothing but the typical .. LET'S ALL GANG UP ON JACK BECAUSE WE HATE HIS GUTS FOR EXPOSING THE FAKED APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHS !!!

You people really do need to get lives and get over the fact that not everyone fell for nasa's pretense of landing men on the moon almost 40 years ago , when it was technically impossible to do so ...

Oh , and I would like to thank you all for reminding me why I no longer bother to post here very often ... Like David Percy stated in his e-mail to me ... " I don't have time for those people " .... Smart fellow .... Too bad Jack doesn't feel the same way .

Wrong again Duane if Jack really were trying to get an answer to his question there is no reason from him not to have given the image numbers. Two moderators with no known opinion regarding Apollo have said so. Doing so is (imo) dictated by forum rules.

You’re right Evan did answer that question but to do so he had to comb through thousands of images to find the cropped portions of four of them. A time consuming task which would not have been necessary if Jack had the honesty or courteously* to divulge the numbers. It also would not have been if he had produced the uncropped images, he could have drawn a rectangle around the stick to emphasize his point instead of cropping. Ideally he should have provided uncropped images AND the image numbers the fact that he did neither and misleading said the photos were “nearly identical” indicates whatever he was after, it wasn’t an answer to his question.

*I’ll leave it up to you to decide which he lacked.

[Len Colby]

I'm highlighting the insults you throw about like confetti

Greer admitted to "stretching and skewing " the image in his first post about this ... He is the one being deceptive

He pretty obviously has no idea what the word 'skew' means. This didn't prevent him from repeatedly accusing you of having 'skewed' a photo.

[Duane Daman]

"Stretch and skew" is the term used for MSN paint , when altering photographic images ... In Greer's case , he claimed to have only "stretched" the image in the A15 photo in an attempt to have the anomalous shadow match the object allegedy causing it ... But in his obsession to always 'win' the point , he only drew more attention to the fact that the shadow was backwards .

Together , you all have the mentality of a lynch mob .... I can feel the hate coming from all of you .. and all I can say is , thank God I don't know any of you in the real world .

Edited May 31, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

I still don't see how you can complain about Dave and not apply the same standard to Jack.

Dave gave the image number (so people could see the original image), said how he altered the image and why he altered the image.

Jack simply presented an image, and gave no details as to its origin or what alterations he made to the image.

Surely Dave has been more open & forthcoming than Jack. That being the case, how can you accuse Dave of something and not accuse Jack of the same condition?

This is NOT "ganging up" on someone. This is NOT a "lynch mob". This is asking how you can apply two different standards to incidents that have similar conditions.