Why is the forum accepting advertising...

[Evan Burton]

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.................

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[David G. Healy]

Evan Burton wrote:

[...]

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.

_______________

False idol? I say that's a bit over the top -- What you apparently don't understand is: NASA and the Moon Landing were the sacred cow! No one questioned the landing credibility, then -- they're questioned now. Photo research in the JFK Assassination has shown, what some may lay a pretty good case for; lie after lie after lie, for whatever reason. Then Vietnam, lie after lie after lie. You suspected no one would take a peek as to what is under the covers regarding NASA's photo's?

Why on earth (pardon the pun) would NASA want to fabricate imagery? Interesting question which leads to interesting scenarios - mostly dealing with the Russians. If perpetrated, some, I'd agree were probably necessary. The question leads to: if it was necessary to alter or create imagery to advance USofA's position in the space race, why not admit it, NOW! What the hell is the big deal?

Jack White has raised valid questions regarding NASA moon photos -- deal with it. Raising the spector of worshipping 'false idol' is nonsense...

David Healy

Edited March 20, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

Jack White has raised valid questions regarding NASA moon  photos --  deal with it. Raising the spector of worshipping 'false idol' is nonsense...

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL. You are a piece of work David. White has raised NO valid questions to date on the Apollo images. Period. What we get are the un researched musing of what appears to be a man with no real knowlege of the working of photography. That has been shown so many times its beyond belief. You want to call his work valid? My my, you have spent your life working with images but it seems you are blind to them. Does not say a lot for you David.

As for White being a false idol, one just needs to spend some time at the walled garden of JFKresearch to see that is indeed a fact. Or look no further than Mr. Clark right here on this forum.

Maybe you should bring the guard dog Burnham along next time so he can bark in Whites defense. God knows White's not going to try and defend his work, mainly because he just can't.

Now crawl back to JFKR unless you can bring something of value to the discussion of the Apollo images.

[Craig Lamson]

Where are the stars?

Where are the leaps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clearly you jest...right.

Please, educate us all. and tell us WHY there should have been stars in the Apollo Lunar Surface images.

And please use some detailed facts to support why the images should have shown stars.

[David G. Healy]

walled garden... you need to get out of that mosquito invested part of the country you live in....

To double check, this CraigL., the wannabe photog -- that darkroom denzin, that can't quite remember anything about optical film printing -- roflmfao? This the same guy?

If so, I heard the Tinkster is gonna be back east in a few weeks, Carig ole boy - you gonna be carrying his jacket, maybe fetching a waterbottle every now and then.... wouldn't want to see your hero left unattended, now would we?

rofl.....

Edited March 21, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

walled garden... you need to get out of that mosquito invested part of the country you live in....

To double check, this CraigL., the wannabe photog -- that darkroom denzin, that can't quite remember anything about optical film printing -- roflmfao? This the same guy?

If so, I heard the Tinkster is gonna be back east in a few weeks, Carig ole boy - you gonna be carrying his jacket, maybe fetching a waterbottle every now and then.... wouldn't want to see your hero left unattended, now would we?

rofl.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yea I'm a wanna be photographer all right, its just been my profession for 25 years but what the heck, Healy knows best. Optical printing...cut my teeth on that one, but you know that now dont ya David? As for the darkroom, done more than you and White combined. But who really cares, White is and always has been a hack and his works proves it constantly. Your defence of him only lowers whats left of your stature. Keep it up, its very amusing.

Keep on Kicking Healy, back to the very WALLED garden called JKFR for you.

[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]

Mr. Burton...despite your repeated unfounded personal attacks, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you are simply mistaken and not a provocateur like several others here, who have dogged my trail for several years on the internet. Anywhere I show up, they immediately show up and start attacking me, in the same manner that you do. Perhaps I mistakenly thought that you are in cahoots with them.

Please be prepared to eat a large helping of crow in a few weeks when my Apollo article is published. How do you like your crow... with salt and pepper? Maybe a little garlic.

Cordially,

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Mr. Burton...despite your repeated unfounded personal attacks, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you are simply mistaken and not a provocateur like several others here, who have  dogged my trail for several years on the internet. Anywhere I show up, they immediately show up and start attacking me, in the same manner that you do. Perhaps I mistakenly thought that you are in cahoots with them.

Please be prepared to eat a large helping of crow in a few weeks when my Apollo article is published. How do you like your crow... with salt and pepper? Maybe a little garlic.

Cordially,

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack, while I do find much of your analysis fresh and interesting, I don't take it too seriously.

Why, you might ask?.

Because to my way of thinking the men in power's need for widespread falsification of photos and evidence is an unnecessary risk. After all, history has shown us all they need to do to control our country is LIE LIE and LIE. They found with Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs (It was Kennedy's cowardice and not CIA incompetence that was at fault), the Gulf of Tonkin, and Chile (Allende was a dangerous communist) that all they have to do is repeat a line long enough and loud enough and a certain sector will believe it. They sold the American people a bunch of lies about how conservatives are good for the economy, about the need for Star Wars, about our need to invade Iraq, about the lack of patriotism of liberals, about the genius of Richard Nixon, about the courage of George W Bush, about the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, about how Kennedy killed Diem (while leaving Lodge out of it), about how Kennedy and LBJ started the Vietnam war (neglecting to mention that Nixon interfered with the peace talks so he could get elected, and then kept the war going for 4 more years so he could get re-elected), about how Jimmy Carter was weak (when Carter tried to free hostages through military force as opposed to Reagan who traded arms for hostages) etc. The new BS line most are buying is that Clinton made us a target of Bin Laden by being weak. They don't need gizmos and simulations, Jack, they own this country simply by LYING. When you lie you leave no record of your true intentions; you simply say it was a misunderstanding or an alternative take on history.

If they were into simulations don't you think we'd have found ONE WMD in Iraq?

Edited March 21, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Matthew Lewis]

Mr. Burton...despite your repeated unfounded personal attacks, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you are simply mistaken and not a provocateur like several others here, who have  dogged my trail for several years on the internet. Anywhere I show up, they immediately show up and start attacking me, in the same manner that you do. Perhaps I mistakenly thought that you are in cahoots with them.

Please be prepared to eat a large helping of crow in a few weeks when my Apollo article is published. How do you like your crow... with salt and pepper? Maybe a little garlic.

Cordially,

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

Where is this article being published? Will it be available online. If so, will the website be public or subscription only?

[Shanet Clark]

WHat is the temperature on the surface of the Moon?

280 Degrees Fahrenheit?

That would have cooked the film, in the uninsulated Hasselblad, correct?

Why should there be stars in photos taken from the surface of the Moon ?

Why should people who wiegh only thirty pounds jump more than three inches off the ground?

THESE FOLKS IN THE FOTOS ARE EARTHBOUND !

Jack White has done some ground breaking and courageous work.

I am not convinced that the photos of the Moon seen lying on the Moon was a packing material. It looks like photos of the moon are lying on the moon.....

I am unconvinced that the area under the lander rockets would look so pristine.

I note a brass ring base mount a few inches from the surface of the Moon on the flagpole.

I do not believe you can force a flag into the dry surface like it was bluegrass sod, and I find the shadow anomalies, the flare and coronas, and other added effects signs of falsification.

Of course their are unlimited resources for those who oppose this line of thought,

so we shouldn't be suprised that a team has descended to pick apart these findings ..........

[Craig Lamson]

WHat is the temperature on the surface of the Moon?

280 Degrees Fahrenheit?

That would have cooked the film, in the uninsulated Hasselblad, correct?

Why should there be stars in photos taken from the surface of the Moon ?

Why should people who wiegh only thirty pounds jump more than three inches off the ground?

THESE FOLKS IN THE FOTOS ARE EARTHBOUND !

Jack White has done some ground breaking and courageous work.

I am not convinced that the photos of the Moon seen lying on the Moon was a packing material. It looks like photos of the moon are lying on the moon.....

I am unconvinced that the area under the lander rockets would look so pristine.

I note a brass ring base mount a few inches from the surface of the Moon on the flagpole. 

I do not believe you can force a flag into the dry surface like it was bluegrass sod, and I find the shadow anomalies, the flare and coronas, and other added effects signs of falsification.

Of course their are unlimited resources for those who oppose this line of thought,

so we shouldn't be suprised that a team has descended to pick apart these findings ..........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So in other words you have no explanation for any of the things you suspect are wrong other than you think they are wrong? Gee is that the path one takes when getting a PhD? I suggest you do a bit of research outside of your regular fare and forget the likes of White et al because they are leading you down a path of ignorance.

1. The temp WHERE on the Moon?

2. Was the Hasselblad uninsulated? And insulated from what?

3. Do you understand photographic exposure at all?

4. Why not? Was the situation dangerous and unknown? Did they only jump 3 inches?

5. Really? Got anything factual to bring to the table other than your musings?

6. Jack White has done only sloppy and misleading work, but it appeals to the ignorant.

7. Not convinced? Too bad. Can something other than what you think are photographs offer an alternate explaination for the items in the photo? Can you dispute that alternative with something other than your musings?

8. Why? Do you have any knowlege about this at all? Are you even familar with the process involved in the landing of the LM? The design specs of the rocket motor? More musings?

9. Why? Do you have the data to support your theory? More uninformed musings?

10. What shadow anomalies? There are none. And your background to judge the shadows is what? Whats the problem with the flare and coronas? Are they impossible for a camera and film to create? I for one would love to read your explanation. What added effects signs of falsification? Your musings or are your following the lead of your false idol Jack White blindly?

11. What unlimited resources are available to me? To Evan Burton? But ah yes...when confronted by a few average citizens you scream CT! Such standard behavior from those ignorant of the facts.

Do yourself a favor before you get yourself to a point beyond repair. Do the research.

Start here:

www.clavius.org

Perhaps once you have a grasp of the subject you wish to argue, we can have a decent discussion. And stay away from Jack White, he's leading you down a road you don't really want to travel.

[Shanet Clark]

You utterly FAILED to answer MY VALID POINTS, Lamson....

[Craig Lamson]

You utterly FAILED to answer MY VALID POINTS, Lamson....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You made no points, rather you speculated on things about which you have limited or non existant knowlege.

You produced the speculation, you back it up with some evidence other than whats flowing from your imagination.

I've given you a path to some enlightenment, and should you choose to follow it rather than wallowing in ignorance, then perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion on Apollo. As it stands you offer nothing, nothing but ignorant musings.

You Mr. Clark are the typical hoaxer, blinded by the desire to find the evil government at fault, believing fools like White, yet totally uneducated in even the basics of the things you profess to see as amiss.

I answered your speculation by requiring YOU to provide evidence that you have even a childlike understanding of the speculative points you are trying to make.

Again I strongly suggest you avail yourself of the wealth of knowlege the web offers in respect to the science of the Apollo missions. As it currently stands you are making yourself a fool.

Edited March 22, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Shanet Clark]

OOOOHHHHH ......