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

[Steve Ulman]

Duane-

Sorry if you think that some of the members here are simply out to get Jack.

Its not that we came here to put down Jack, its just that Jack has proven himself to be a very unreliable and sloppy researcher, especially when it comes to Apollo. It concerns me that there are so many people who just follow him blindly and refuse to do the actual research.

Jack rarely gives photo ID numbers, we are left to search for them or ask. He often posts cropped images but doesn’t tell the reader what he has done. If he has nothing to hide why not be up front with this information.

The other reason for some hostility towards Jack is that he generally refuses to answer questions, or refuses to acknowledge when he is wrong. He continually calls those who disagree with him names, or simply dismisses us because we are on the government payroll. Then to add insult to injury, his sycophants then continue the name calling or even worse, they make lame attempts to get those who would dare to disagree with Jack banned from the board for stupid reasons which have included - no picture, not having a link to their bio in the footer of their posts, etc.

As for the tenor of the debate between Jack and his detractors, you should also pay attention to the politeness or lack thereof in the discussion. For example, notice that most of us you think are out to get him usually refer to him as Jack, or Jack White while we are ALWAYS referred to as Ulman, Burton, Lamson, Colby, etc. (or worse)

Duaine, to understand our frustration, please research one simple yet very important fact and come to your own conclusion.

Where was the LRV stowed on the LM descent stage: QUAD I, QUAD II, QUAD III or QUAD IV?

Once you have made your own independent conclusion, please provide supporting evidence. Then, one of us will tell you why it is so important.

{edit to fix spelling of Duane's name }

Edited November 7, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Len Colby]

One also wonders why if Jack has so much confidence in his research why he doesn't post on Apollo Hoax or BAUT. My guess it’s because he doesn't have the courage to debate on forums where there are numerous people quite knowledgeable about the space program in general and Apollo in particular. Jack seems more interested in pontificating that debating people knowledgeable on the subject or learning. You might want to try posting there too, you are more likely to have your questions answered there than here. Steve (Ulman), Craig and Evan are well informed about those subjects but I doubt they would take offence in my saying what they know (and the time they have to reply) pails in comparison to the collective knowledge of the members of those forums.

Len

[Steve Ulman]

One also wonders why if Jack has so much confidence in his research why he doesn't post on Apollo Hoax or BAUT. My guess it’s because he doesn't have the courage to debate on forums where there are numerous people quite knowledgeable about the space program in general and Apollo in particular. Jack seems more interested in pontificating that debating people knowledgeable on the subject or learning. You might want to try posting there too, you are more likely to have your questions answered there than here. Steve (Ulman), Craig and Evan are well informed about those subjects but I doubt they would take offence in my saying what they know (and the time they have to reply) pails in comparison to the collective knowledge of the members of those forums.

Len

Both are great resources for those truly interested in understanding the space program.

BTW, I Joined the Bad Astronomy (now the BAUT) forum in '01 and use to be a regular there and at Apollo Hoax. Craig and Evan were regulars at both, and I would imagine that they still are. I found that I've had to limit myself to one forum, and for some reason this is the one.

[David G. Healy]

One also wonders why if Jack has so much confidence in his research why he doesn't post on Apollo Hoax or BAUT. My guess it’s because he doesn't have the courage to debate on forums where there are numerous people quite knowledgeable about the space program in general and Apollo in particular. Jack seems more interested in pontificating that debating people knowledgeable on the subject or learning. You might want to try posting there too, you are more likely to have your questions answered there than here. Steve (Ulman), Craig and Evan are well informed about those subjects but I doubt they would take offence in my saying what they know (and the time they have to reply) pails in comparison to the collective knowledge of the members of those forums.

Len

there seems to be a serious character defect in Lone Nutter's: they (the nutters) evidently feel if one posts to any USNET/forum board, the poster should be open for debate... which of course is nonesense...

Edited November 6, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Evan Burton]

Mr. Burton ... I didn't join this forum to attack or refute Jack White's studies ... There seems to be enough of that behavoir taking place here already ... I don't agree with Jack all of the time but that in no way implies that I believe him to be as incorrect as you would like to believe him to be .

As is your want. I only "attack" (as some would see it) Jack because he refuses to debate his claims - 'hit and run' tactics, as they are known. If you are certain of your claims, they should be able to be debated in an open forum. I know people who think their is validity in Jack's work, and I can debate them; facts stand on their own merits and these people are not afraid to put them to the test. I respect them. I sincerely hope you will fall into that category.

I will go through the thread where you think you have refuted "all" of his studies and will be happy to point out to you where I think he is correct and you are not ... Subjective evidence may not be objective proof of Apollo being faked but it is interesting to study the various anomalies in the Apollo photos anyway ...

Great! I look forward to defending - and if required correcting - my work. I would hope that Jack is equally open about his work.

Subjective data should only form a reason why you have formed an opinion; it should not be conclusive.

You mentioned the "masses of techncal evidence" which proved that nasa landed men on the moon , yet I haven't found this evidence in my research on this subject ... So if you wouldn't mind , could you point me in the direction as to where this "masses of technical evidence" and conclusive proof is, of nasa's monumental accomplishment of landing men on the moon ?... because so far all I have been able to find is evidence that the manned moon missions are complete fiction in every respect , technically and most definately photographically .

I can certainly give you a lot of references, and expert opinion. If you believe that any aspects of them are incorrect, I'd be happy to hear in what regard. Here are some starters:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_00g...of_Contents.htm

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/cover.html

http://history.nasa.gov/histsub.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://stanklos.com/virtualsciencecenter.c...UNAR-ROVER.COM/

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/agallery.htm

http://www.epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/...owdoweknow.html

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

Even though my evidence on the subject of the Apollo photos may be subjective , there is no doubt in my mind that they are all studio fakes and were not really taken on the moon ... and if the photos were faked , and the telemetry tapes are "lost" and the FBI ordered the LM and Rover blueprints destroyed and nasa doesn't have a clue today of how to land a manned mission on the moon ( their current plan is to first send unmanned missions and then robotic ones ) and if nasa spokesmen today admit that the Van Allen radiation belts are a major problem to manned space travel and far more dangerous than once thought and if all the video footage allegedly shot on the moon was pre-recorded at one speed ( 60 frames per minute on film ) and then played back for the TV audience at a slower speed ( 30 frames per minute on video tape ) then to me those things add up as to Apollo being full of holes .... and this is only a few of the reasons why I believe that Apollo was a monumental fraud .

You bring up a number of factor there which must be addressed.

1. The telemetery tapes were not lost. Telemetery data backup tapes are missing. The slow-scan TV tapes of Apollo 11 are missing. These would give us better quality B&W TV images of the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There are NO "missing" images.

2. Can you show evidence that the "FBI ordered the LM and Rover blueprints destroyed..."? I think not. Much of both still exist. Redundent blueprints get archived and eventaully destroyed - in most cases. The Bell company produced the first supersonic aircraft - the X-1; are the complete blueprints still available (I don't know but think not). The 'Colossus' computer was instrumental in breaking Nazi signal codes, and was used for computations in designing the first nuclear weapons. It is pitiful today, compared to the average home PC. Are the blueprints available?

3. Knowledge can be lost. How many people can build a stagecoach? A Model-T Ford? So when, after a regretable period of absence, we once again plan on lunar landings - what do we do? We examine how they occured, and how we can improve on them using today's technology. You might consider more closely what NASA is using for it's next round of lunar landings - improved Apollo technology (don't re-invent the wheel).

4. The dangers of the solar radiation (not the Van Allen Belts) are a problem for extended space voyages. Not a 14-day duration mission. Long term lunar habitation, and long-duration missions to Mars will require improved shielding.

5. The film speeds for viewing Apollo video may appear to be normal for astronauts traversing the lunar surface, but other aspects appear incorrect when speeded up - such as lunar dust.

The only proof I know of that nasa has to offer as having landed men on the lunar surface are moon rocks and laser reflectors ... Yet both could have been accomplished using unmanned missions ... The Russians picked up rocks , lunar soil and also placed laser reflectors on the moon using unmanned missions and they were ahead of the U.S. in the "space race " ....

Have a look at this thread. The Soviet reflectors are no longer in use because they were poorly placed. The Soviets were ahead in the 'space race' until mid-way through the Gemini missions, whereupon the US overtook them in many areas including manned hours in space and EVA.

I know that nasa has a lot of drawings of their spacecraft that allegedly flew to the moon and back , but where does the nuts and bolts proof exist that these craft really did what nasa claimed they did ? ... It surely isn't in the bogus film footage or the faked moon set photos .

It exists in the reading they obtained which were later independently confirmed. It exists in the independent astronomical observations which observed the spacecraft in lunar-orbital transition and lunar orbit.

Once again, the onus is on you to prove these are faked - not for the millions of scientists who have studied the data to prove they are not wrong.

I'm not sure why you want me to investigate in which QUAD the LRV was stowed but I suspect it's to show how Mr. White did not do his homework properly in one of his studies .... And if this is the reason, then I mean no disrespect to you sir , but I'm really not interested in playing that game .

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question - in which quad of the LM was the LRV stowed? If you agree with Jack, then we'd ask you to show proof. If you disagreed with Jack, we'd ask you to show why (AKA proof).

Come on - simple question: in which quad (section) of the LM was the LRV stowed?

[Steve Ulman]

Mr. Ulman ... I have no more interest in discussing the past problems of this forum ... I stated how feel about personal insults and what I observed as taking place here ... If I didn't have a complete picture of the problem , then you have my sincere apologies ... I am not Mr. White's keeper , nor do I have any interest in trying to have anyone removed from this forum for their insults directed to him ... but there is a proper way to discuss or debate differences of opinion and an improper way ... and from what I have read here so far recently , it looks as though Mr. White tried his best to ignore the personal insults directed at him .

I understand your frustration in the way Mr. White may have presented some of his studies here ... but I doubt that he thought the photo ID numbers or cropping images to make a certain point or zero in on a certain anomaly were as important to the discussion as you obviously do ... I think that's is just Jack's way of posting his studies and not done on purpose , as a means of trying to be deceptive in any way.

I'm not sure why you want me to investigate in which QUAD the LRV was stowed but I suspect it's to show how Mr. White did not do his homework properly in one of his studies .... And if this is the reason, then I mean no disrespect to you sir , but I'm really not interested in playing that game .

By the way , my name is spelled Duane , not Duaine ... there is no i in it ... Thanks for your post .

First, my apologies in misspelling your name. No offense intended. I'll fix the previous posts.(the dirty little secret is that I first learned to use word processing software in the ‘80s simply for the spell check feature and didn't use it on your name.)

Second, please call me Steve.

For the rest:

I agree there is a proper way to debate, although it can get very frustrating when one person refuses to say anything to you except insults. If someone is truly open to discussing the issue based on FACTS, I’m open for discussion.

I disagree with you on Jack’s use of cropping and forgetting to give image ID numbers. He has been asked for years to always provide the numbers so that we can all look at the unedited images. He steadfastly refuses to give providence for his evidence unless asked, and even then he sometimes refuses. What does he have to hide? For me, I want to use the highest resolution possible. It is also important that I know exactly when the photo was taken, review the other photos taken at the same time, what the astronauts were doing at the time, etc, so I can put things in perspective. There have been times when Jack has posted a lo-res photo that has been cropped and rotated to show something – then when you look at the un-cropped hi-res image the anomalies are explained. When someone posts something they what you to believe, aren’t you curious enough to review the source material and confirm or refute the claim on your own? Or are you simply satisfied to be spoon-fed?

If you read a book that said that people living below the Mason-Dixon line were more susceptible to a specific disease, and he could sell you a cure, wouldn’t you want some evidence to back it up? Wouldn’t you be suspicious of the author’s claims if he only said “Trust me, its true, and I can cure you!”?

Investigating where the LRV was stowed wasn’t a trap, you have complained about our treatment of Jack and defend him. You stated in an earlier thread that you were interested in the truth. Jack has been shown evidence numerous the location where the LRV was stowed, and refuses to acknowledge his error. He calls people names when they point out the error. I merely wanted you to live up to your commitment in finding out the true nature of Apollo. That is another requirement for a civil debate.

I requested that you do the research yourself so that you would see that there is literally tons of printed material available that has been sacnned to review. The location of the LRV was one example – there are hundreds of photographs, several pieces of literature from technical specifications to PR releases, and video available to use to ascertain where the LRV was stowed. You don’t need to trust Jack, Evan or me to find out the truth.

Another quick example is the VHS antenna on the PLSS. A while back, several hoax believers believed they had found proof of the hoax because simply because it showed up better in some photographs than others. You can barely see it from the front or rear, but is clearly visible from the side. Their opinion was that it should always look the same. (A round antenna was assumed so as to hide suspension wires) A little research on the ‘net showed documentation that the VHF antenna was shaped like an everyday tape measure, a thin piece of spring metal, slightly curved so that it stays rigid, but can also flex. It was installed so that when lookind from the front you ware viewing it edge-on, from the side face-on. this explained why it showed up better in some photos than others. Further more, when I visited the NASM a few months later, I was able to view an actual test / dempstration sample of the PLSS, and could confirm with my own eyes the shape and orientation of the antenna.

[Jack White]

Steve ... No problem with the mis-spelling of my name ... It can be spelled a few different ways and it can be confusing sometimes .

I'm going to make this post brief as I am very interestd in the election returns tonight .... My only hope is that this election is not rigged like the last two presidential elections were and that the Democrats can take back the majority in the house and the senate ... The math doesn't look good but the night is still young , so I will remain hopeful .

To answer your question about where the LRV was stowed , it would be QUAD 1 .

Mr. Burton ... Thanks for the nasa links ... I am very familiar with the ALSJ and also Bad Astronomy , neither of which in my opinion can offer any proof of nasa having gone to the moon ...

nasa can write any journal they want to but that doesn't qualify as proof of any lunar landings ....To my my way of thinking , if the photos were faked , then the journal discussing the action surrounding those photos would have been faked also .

I will check out the other links you provided and see what they have to offer ... I did get to read a bit of the article about the moon rocks and found it to be very interesting .

I look forward to discussing the various hoax theories with you in the future and especially the numerous photo anomalies , some of which Jack White has done studies on .

Thanks, Duane, for expressing your clear thinking:

FAKED "EVIDENCE" CANNOT BE USED TO VERIFY OTHER FAKED "EVIDENCE"!!!

Of course if the photos were staged, the "documentation" had to be faked also!

It is interesting that Mr. Greer "admits" that NASA "retouched" some photos by

blacking in the sky, but WAS NOT FORTHCOMING about doing it, because they

wanted the photos to look as good as possible to the public. HOWEVER, NASA

PRESENTS ALL PHOTOS AS BEING ON A CONTINUIOUS STRIP AND ALL BEING

ORIGINAL. Admitting "some retouching for PR purposes" amounts to a LIMITED

HANGOUT excuse. After forty years, they have had plenty of time to "fix the

record". In fact, some experts believe that some of the photos were made

in the intervening forty years...some after the advent of computers, which

made it easy to change desert or beach scenes into moonscapes.

I suggest that you and Mr. Greer discuss the attached photo. It is my favorite

to show "Apollogists" like Greer, Burton and Lamson. I have posted it several

times here. Burton and Lamson refuse to discuss it. How about you and Greer

talking about it? Thanks.

Jack

[Jack White]

Maybe Mr. Greer can explain this "lens flare" to Duane. It seems to

be caused by six spotlights being aimed directly into the camera lens.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Thanks, Duane, for expressing your clear thinking:

FAKED "EVIDENCE" CANNOT BE USED TO VERIFY OTHER FAKED "EVIDENCE"!!!

Of course if the photos were staged, the "documentation" had to be faked also!

You've yet to show any serious flaws in the Apollo record.

It is interesting that Mr. Greer "admits" that NASA "retouched" some photos by

blacking in the sky, but WAS NOT FORTHCOMING about doing it, because they

wanted the photos to look as good as possible to the public. HOWEVER, NASA

PRESENTS ALL PHOTOS AS BEING ON A CONTINUIOUS STRIP AND ALL BEING

ORIGINAL. Admitting "some retouching for PR purposes" amounts to a LIMITED

HANGOUT excuse. After forty years, they have had plenty of time to "fix the

record". In fact, some experts believe that some of the photos were made

in the intervening forty years...some after the advent of computers, which

made it easy to change desert or beach scenes into moonscapes.

Hasselblad photos are on continuous strips. Changes would have been made to a scan of the photo in question in the darkroom.

The majority of the photos on the ALSJ have had some kind of processing done by Kipp Teague, in order to provide a better colour balance and to improve contrast and bring out detail. This does not mean they were faked. The photo in question has mistakenly been added to the apolloarchive.com site - a simple clerical error.

I suggest that you and Mr. Greer discuss the attached photo. It is my favorite

to show "Apollogists" like Greer, Burton and Lamson. I have posted it several

times here. Burton and Lamson refuse to discuss it. How about you and Greer

talking about it? Thanks.

Jack

Firstly, I'm no "Apollogist", and find the term mildly insulting with it's religious connotations. That aside, I'll happily look at the photo you posted.

Here is a link to what you describe as one of your favourites. That would suggest you have studied it in great detail. AS17-134-20482

Well, I've looked at it for about 30 seconds and have already discovered a huge error you have made. You state that "NO OTHER PHOTOS OF THE FLAG DECAL SHOW THIS BLACK PATCH". You haven't looked very far, because it is quite clearly visible in the following NINE consecutive images:-

AS17-134-20480

AS17-134-20481

AS17-134-20482

AS17-134-20483

AS17-134-20484

AS17-134-20485

AS17-134-20486

AS17-134-20487

AS17-134-20488

Now, as to the other "anomaly". Quite clearly it is the reflection of the massif in the background, on the side of the astronauts helmet. You can see it more clearly in AS17-134-20480 - as well as part of the rover and what appears to be the flag.

So, do you wish to retract the claim about the black patch being in only one photo?

And do you accept that it is indeed a reflection of the massif in the side of the astronauts helmet?

Edited November 8, 2006 by Dave Greer

[Jack White]

Duane...here is one you and Mr. Greer can discuss. I started it

several years ago and never completed it. Maybe Mr. Greer

can describe how the rover tracks got in the b/w photo, but not

in the color photo. There must be an explanation, don't you think?

Jack

[Jack White]

Thanks, Duane, for expressing your clear thinking:

FAKED "EVIDENCE" CANNOT BE USED TO VERIFY OTHER FAKED "EVIDENCE"!!!

Of course if the photos were staged, the "documentation" had to be faked also!

You've yet to show any serious flaws in the Apollo record.

It is interesting that Mr. Greer "admits" that NASA "retouched" some photos by

blacking in the sky, but WAS NOT FORTHCOMING about doing it, because they

wanted the photos to look as good as possible to the public. HOWEVER, NASA

PRESENTS ALL PHOTOS AS BEING ON A CONTINUIOUS STRIP AND ALL BEING

ORIGINAL. Admitting "some retouching for PR purposes" amounts to a LIMITED

HANGOUT excuse. After forty years, they have had plenty of time to "fix the

record". In fact, some experts believe that some of the photos were made

in the intervening forty years...some after the advent of computers, which

made it easy to change desert or beach scenes into moonscapes.

Hasselblad photos are on continuous strips. Changes would have been made to a scan of the photo in question in the darkroom.

The majority of the photos on the ALSJ have had some kind of processing done by Kipp Teague, in order to provide a better colour balance and to improve contrast and bring out detail. This does not mean they were faked. The photo in question has mistakenly been added to the apolloarchive.com site - a simple clerical error.

I suggest that you and Mr. Greer discuss the attached photo. It is my favorite

to show "Apollogists" like Greer, Burton and Lamson. I have posted it several

times here. Burton and Lamson refuse to discuss it. How about you and Greer

talking about it? Thanks.

Jack

Firstly, I'm no "Apollogist", and find the term mildly insulting with it's religious connotations. That aside, I'll happily look at the photo you posted.

Here is a link to what you describe as one of your favourites. That would suggest you have studied it in great detail. AS17-134-20482

Well, I've looked at it for about 30 seconds and have already discovered a huge error you have made. You state that "NO OTHER PHOTOS OF THE FLAG DECAL SHOW THIS BLACK PATCH". You haven't looked very far, because it is quite clearly visible in the following NINE consecutive images:-

AS17-134-20480

AS17-134-20481

AS17-134-20482

AS17-134-20483

AS17-134-20484

AS17-134-20485

AS17-134-20486

AS17-134-20487

AS17-134-20488

Now, as to the other "anomaly". Quite clearly it is the reflection of the massif in the background, on the side of the astronauts helmet. You can see it more clearly in AS17-134-20480 - as well as part of the rover and what appears to be the flag.

So, do you wish to retract the claim about the black patch being in only one photo?

And do you accept that it is indeed a reflection of the massif in the side of the astronauts helmet?

OK...you say the black patch is in other photos. That is NOT the question,

but an attempt to dodge the real issue. It may be in other photos, but it

also is NOT in other photos.

The real question is WHAT IS THE BLACK PATCH? It appears to be a square

of black paper NAILED (note nails) to the LEM. This patchwork, which covers

part of the flag decal, is certainly NOT part of the original LEM. What purpose

did it serve? Where in the "record" is it mentioned?

"Apollogist" is A RELIGIOUS TERM? Surely you jest. It is a common adaptation

of "apologist" to fit zealots who defend the moon photos. Sir, I do not indulge

in calling names. I have no idea what your religion is and do not care. The facts

speak for themselves. Namecalling is resorted to by those with weak arguments.

The answer to your other question is NO.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

OK...you say the black patch is in other photos. That is NOT the question,

but an attempt to dodge the real issue.

It's not attempting to dodge the real issue. Your original post only mentioned two anomalies - the fact that this black patch only shows up in ONE photo and NO others - I've shown you to be wrong (it shows up in at least nine).

It may be in other photos, but it

also is NOT in other photos.

Which photos should it be in that it isn't?

The real question is WHAT IS THE BLACK PATCH?

Well, you never mentioned this AT ALL in your first post on this subject.

It appears to be a square of black paper NAILED (note nails) to the LEM. This patchwork, which covers part of the flag decal, is certainly NOT part of the original LEM. What purpose did it serve? Where in the "record" is it mentioned?

Jack - it is neither "black paper" nor is it "nailed" to the LM.

Well, this is the Education Forum. If you're really interested, here is a PDF which should explain everything you want to know about insulation blankets on the LM.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1972018272.pdf - try page 15 onwards.

"Apollogist" is A RELIGIOUS TERM? Surely you jest. It is a common adaptation

of "apologist" to fit zealots who defend the moon photos. Sir, I do not indulge

in calling names. I have no idea what your religion is and do not care. The facts

speak for themselves.

I'll not get bogged in in semantics, I stated it had religious conotations i.e. the connection with "apologist". Forget it, it's not that important.

Namecalling is resorted to by those with weak arguments.

Indeed.

The answer to your other question is NO.

Well, for someone who can see nails attaching a square of black paper to the LM, why you can't see the massif (and the LRV) in these closeups of as17-134-20480 and as17-134-20482 is beyond me. Heck, you can even see the shadow of the LM.

[Steve Ulman]

Duane...here is one you and Mr. Greer can discuss. I started it

several years ago and never completed it. Maybe Mr. Greer

can describe how the rover tracks got in the b/w photo, but not

in the color photo. There must be an explanation, don't you think?

Jack

Jack-

This is one situation that it is critical that we find out what the photo Id's are. If they were indeed taked arouind the same time, there might be anomolies present. If they were taken at different times, then no problems.

This one might take a while to resolve. Stay Tuned.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Craig Lamson]

Duane...here is one you and Mr. Greer can discuss. I started it

several years ago and never completed it. Maybe Mr. Greer

can describe how the rover tracks got in the b/w photo, but not

in the color photo. There must be an explanation, don't you think?

Jack

Jack-

This is one situation that it is critical that we find out what the photo Id's are. If they were indeed taked arouind the same time, there might be anomolies present. If they were taken at different times, then no problems.

This one might take a while to resolve. Stay Tuned.

Steve,

Jack has the same ability to search for the file numbers as you do. Its his study, he has access to the internet..he posted it, let HIM find the numbers. I suggest until Jack comes up with the file numbers and the source for his images we just leave this claim alone.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Steve Ulman]

Craig-

I know, but if we wait until Jack provides the photo numbers, this thread will be on page 5 of the topic archive!