Jack White's Aulis "Apollo Hoax" Investigation - A Rebuttal

[Evan Burton]

A member of the ApolloHoax.net forum, reynoldbot, has been trying to join here but can't get a validation e-mail. I thought I'd post his comments on his behalf:

"Jack in one of your studies you show two pictures of one astronaut taken consecutively and claim that the height of the astronaut has changed. You claim that the astronaut in the second picture has straightened his legs while they are bent in the first. How do you know the legs are straight in the second picture? The view is frontal so any bending of the legs is not going to be obvious. The astronauts almost always kept their legs bent when they stood up, which makes your claim of straight legs nothing more than speculation.

Not only that, but you get very selective in what you decide is a big anomaly. You say that the boots are "almost aligned" but that the helmet line does not match at all and therefore is anomolous. Why do the boots get to be "almost aligned" but not the helmet? To me, it looks like Aldrin's legs are probably still bent in the second photo (judged on the fact that they almost always bent) and that he stepped back a bit and is bending over. You can see the bootprints he left from when the first photo was taken and that he has stepped back at least a foot or so. Follow the bottom line you drew across the two photos and you will see that the bottom of the boot in the first photo is the same distance below the line as a horizontal bootprint in the second which also happens to be exactly as far away from the solar wind experiment as the boot in the first photo. Notice also how the waist is aligned almost perfectly in the two shots and that the misalignment begins from the waist up. That is good evidence that he is bending over from the waist up in the second shot.

I'm at least glad that you didn't try to claim the LM in the background to be anomalous because it appears to change size between photos. The photos appear to be cropped at different sizes. Compare the size of the fiducials in each photo. I guess you've learned your lesson since you were exposed for cropping the two south massif photos to suit your unfounded claims about mountain backdrops.

Oh yeah, as for the "domes": Do we really need to remind you that the "domes" you show also appear to be in front of objects like mountains, LM's, astronauts, etc? That except in the very selective examples you provide, they appear as a complete circle interfering with objects? Doesn't that sound like lens flare or some other camera artifact to you? I don't think a single person on earth buys your stupid "domes" theory, even your kooky sycophants."

[Evan Burton]

Oh - and notice how, as always, Jack will not try and defend his claims. He's wrong, and he knows it. If he tries to debate his claims, his errors become more & more apparent - so he does a "hit and run", relying on people being ignorant of the facts.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Bumped, for Terry Adam's.

[Len Colby]

Oh - and notice how, as always, Jack will not try and defend his claims. He's wrong, and he knows it. If he tries to debate his claims, his errors become more & more apparent - so he does a "hit and run", relying on people being ignorant of the facts.

That's his tactic whether he's debating the Zapruder film and other assassination related images, 9-11, Apollo or Chemtrails when people find the errors in his analysis or logic he just cuts and runs.

Len

[Steve Ulman]

BUMP for Jack White:

Jack-

I believe you'll find the explanation for your DAFT photo analysis here.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Steve Ulman]

If any one photo claimed to be made on the moon CANNOT STAND CLOSE SCRUTINY, THEN ALL "MOON PHOTOS" ARE SUSPECT- Jack White

I guess the logical extension of this statement is:

If any one photo analysis by Jack White CANNOT STAND CLOSE SCRUTINY, THEN ALL "PHOTO ANALYSES BY JACK WHITE" ARE SUSPECT!

Note - this is a universal truth - applies to ALL of Jack's work.

[Evan Burton]

hehehehe, Jack. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

How's that petard going there buddy?

[Steve Ulman]

oops - Posted in wrong thread

Edited August 3, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Evan Burton]

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager

than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

More little White lies?

[Jack White]

As far as I can see,all of Jacks original claims have been rebuted. With out further(any) attempt from Mr White to defend his work, it is difficult to see how any other conclusion can be reached.

None of my studies has been refuted. My studies speak for themselves and need no defense.

It is counter productive to "debate" Lamson, Colby and Burton and waste valuable time.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

*bump*

[Evan Burton]

As far as I can see,all of Jacks original claims have been rebuted. With out further(any) attempt from Mr White to defend his work, it is difficult to see how any other conclusion can be reached.

None of my studies has been refuted. My studies speak for themselves and need no defense.

It is counter productive to "debate" Lamson, Colby and Burton and waste valuable time.

Jack

What garbage - you simply ignore facts when they are put in front of you.

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager

than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

More little White lies...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

As far as I can see,all of Jacks original claims have been rebuted. With out further(any) attempt from Mr White to defend his work, it is difficult to see how any other conclusion can be reached.

[Len Colby]

Yeah the photo analyst who:

1-misidentified the Pentagon's point of impact by several hundred feet

2-identified the WFC Winter Garden as a toppled over building

3-thinks a western wall would be in the shade in the afternoon

4 -missed the shadow cast by that flagpole on the moon

etc etc can do no wrong!

What a lame cop out excuse

See no debunking, hear no debunking, admit to no debunking!

Len

[Evan Burton]

Much of what is seen as anomalies in the Apollo photographs comes down to subjective perception by those studying the photos .... No two people will see the same thing , no matter what they may be looking at ..... We all have our own different types of mindsets and belief systems and some of us are even predisposed to see things a certain way.

For instance , I believe that the Apollo photos are studio fakes , so when I see an anomaly in one of the photos which looks like a spotlight , to me it is a spotlight ..... Where as you believe the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon , so to you the spotlight will only appear to look like a smear on the visor .... See how it works ? .... It's all subjective and none of it can really be proven one way or another ....That's why the debate over the Apollo hoax and photos still continues after all these many years ....

If it is subjective, and you have already said you believe they were studio fakes, then those issues cannot be used as evidence - because it is subjective. They must be simply put aside, and deal with objective evidence which is conclusive.

nasa can't prove they went to the moon and neither can the one's who spend all their time defending them .... And the conspiracy researchers have been so ridiculed and insulted throughout the years , that those brainwashed by nasa and the U.S. military/industrial complex , are determined to make the conspiracy side look uninformed or crazy for believing that Apollo was a hoax , even though the official Apollo record is so full of holes it isn't funny .

NASA does not have to 'prove' they went to the Moon; the masses of technical data already confirm this. If you disagree, then it is you who has to provide objective evidence to disprove the established facts. That's a common tactic used by those who don't have the evidence: "I don't have to prove I'm right; you have to prove I'm wrong". Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If we use the methods you suggest, then I can say I have an invisible elf who lives in my back yard - prove me wrong.

As for the "... full of holes...", would you like to raise one of them and debate it?

EDITED TO ADD:

Oh, you do admit that Jack is wrong in some cases - would you like to point those ones out, so as Jack can examine them and if required correct them? And to be fair, would you point out - specifically - where I have erred so that I may examine them and if necessary correct them?

Edited November 6, 2006 by Evan Burton