Craig Lamson

In a situation like this I think its required to examine other alternative explainations to things we see in images. In the case of the window another solid possiblility exists other than the white spot being a lens. The angle of view to this window points upwards and the view we would expect would be the ceiling. Photos of the sixth floor show standard pan style reflectors containing a single incandencent bulb for each reflector as being the lighing method for that floor. Is it reasonable to assume, barring interior photos of the floor in question, that the same lighting applys? If so the white spot being considered as a lens stands a very good chance of being nothing more that a light fixture.

Comment deleted by Craig Lamson

Duly noted. As is your ignorance on the subject matter. Believe as you wish as is your right. It speaks volumes and it will be reflected in future readings of your posts. I"m sure it will be duly noted by other on this forum as well. Why not detail exactly why you believe your summary has yet to be addressed? Your vague posts show nothing of substance while your points have been rebutted in detail. Do it point by point. Still after many chances you give us only bluster. So much for intellectual honesty. Beep beep beep...that the steamroller backing up your way.....

I haave summarized my position. Which has been shown to be pure folly. Yet you still persist . Why? Scientific evidence not enough for you? You prefer wild speculation with no basis in fact instead? In a mentality of unconstrained discourse, Unconstrained would aptly describer your “position”. Might I direct you to Whites post to both Mr. Burton and myself calling us liars and NASA plants. Double standards eh Shanet? I find Jack White's strongest point is probably the vantage point of the photos themselves, the shadows, incorrect placement and orientation over time and photo forgery You find his points strong when they have been debunked in the strongest manner? I guess false idol does apply in your case. I find it amazing a man who professes to be a scholar fails in the most basic of research. I would expect reason from a man of your education yet what we get borders on the absurd. Please show us some incorrect shadows and explain why they are incorrect. If your (or Whites as the case may be) assessment is correct it will be an easy task to provide detailed empirical proof to support your position. Simply providing White “I say it is so” will not suffice. His ability at photo analysis has long ago been shown to be less than stellar. [ the whistleblower's anomaly] and I am most interested in the points my fellow respected JFK assassination photoanalyst and EDUCATION FORUM senior member JACK WHITES approach overall as he presents on his thread. Whistleblower? LOL. DO you have even ONE actual whistleblower to bring forward? I didn’t think so. Jack White lost his respect in the JFK research community years and years ago. Other than a very small core group of inmates at JFKR, White is a has been. You find his overall approach a valid method of investigation? He throws together non-researched claims based on altered photos, incomplete knowledge, and just plain lack of knowledge on the basics of photography and you find them interesting? However I am disturbed by the tone and unprecedented interest in our hypothesis: “our hypothesis” LOL. These claims are as old as the hills, dating back to the beginnings of the “Apollo hoax movement. Why should you be disturbed? You along with White posit wild and baseless claims and you are disturbed to find that others with a greater knowledge of the subject challenge your claims? And why would you consider it unprecedented? It’s a public forum and people with an interest in the Apollo program are here offering the other side of the story, based on facts and empirical data to balance out the foolishness and nonsense. It looks to me the sides are at about equal strength manpower wise. When it comes to brainpower…. Jack White needed a second opinion and I was there to second that member, in the interest of UNCONSTRAINED DISCOURSE ON THE INTERNET .......... LOL indeed. A quick review of the Apollo threads shows you as a cheerleader very early on in the White postings, far before he was challenged. Step up to the plate Shanet and do a little research…or step aside before the steamroller gets to you.

Thank you.

Well Mr. Clark viewing your reply in total provides ample evidence you have not done any quality research into the Apollo program, nor have you applied critical thinking in any manner to the “points” you have raised. Its clear you have not made an attempt to review the material at the link I provided and have once again went on your merry way, rambling on in ignorance about Apollo. Its also very clear that your point of reference is not discovering the truth about Apollo, but rather setting out to find “facts” that support your pre-determined conclusion that at the very least the US Government falsified the photographic record of the Apollo Lunar missions if not the entire Apollo program. To quote a friend of mine, Its not a good place to be. Critical thinking requires an open mind, and the will and desire to investigate to the fullest any aspect of a given subject. In the case of your “work” as shown here in this forum regarding Apollo, none of the above applies to you. You give us speculation based on nothing more that your uninformed opinion on subjects of which you have a very limited knowledge. Your failures on the topics of the lunar temperature, film in the Hasselblad cameras, and stars in the Lunar images stand as a testament of your woeful lack of understanding in these areas. Its not a good place to be. Interesting material on the heat transfer. Shall we consider that as a concession? Here is the case for seriously considering Jack White's line of thinking: Do you need White to think for you? Do your research? Take an overheated Nuclear Arms race and universal Cold War, to start. Consider the entire APOLLO project as what it really was, a propaganda effort and large scale psychological operation (this is true whether they went to the MOON or not). Consider the reluctance of US agencies to release any photo with military or strategic interest, broadly defined. Look at all the released images as a closely managed public relations and international propaganda effort. Irrelevant to the task at hand. The scientific, historical and photographic evidence of the Apollo program either support it as true or it does not. These CT sidetracks have no bearing on the evidence above. Apollo is perhaps one the most well documented and open programs in modern history. The material available to researchers is overwhelming. Please try and stay on track. Now strap a camera to your chest, put a fishbowl over your head and heavy mittens on your hands. If you are going to write about Apollo please use real facts. The cameras were not “strapped” on the chest. They were attached with a quick release bracket. The astronauts used full fingered over gloves with silicon finger tips that allowed a good range of movement and dexterity. A good primer on the space suits: More detailed information is available on the web. http://www.clavius.org/techsuit.html In any case why should the suit worn have any bearing? For decades before Apollo, men in similar suits have explored the ocean depths. After Apollo men in similar suits have worked in space, repairing Hubble and building the ISS for example. The suits do not in themselves limit mans endeavors in space. Return with a series of perfectly exposed and perfectly focused pictures of a bowl shaped Moon surface. Some of these photos are taken from about two feet above the surface, some more like ten feet above the surface. A statement that is ignorant of the facts. The Apollo photographic record is littered with out of focus images, underexposed images, over exposed images, light struck images and up sun flared images. You can review the entire Lunar Photography catalog here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/s As anyone can see your statement is totally false. The astronauts took images from inside the LM of the surface of the moon. They took photos standing on the surface. They took photos standing on top of hills and from the depths of craters. They had removable cameras, and they had knees that bent. The Photographic record of Apollo reflects just that. No one ever jumps into the air on film, despite being free of earth's gravity. Again a false statement. http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html And the John Young jump salute: http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html There are countless images in the Apollo record that support the reduced gravity on the moon. You are in error. There is no sign of a blast or pressure directly under the retro rockets. Retro Rockets? Anyways there is evidence, you are wrong. http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html There is a brass ring visible where the flag was screwed into its base. A brass ring? How in the world did you get to that? Lets see what the flag pole assembly was made of and how it was used. http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-usflag.html From the transcript: Note the last graph. [Next, Neil and Buzz will deploy the U.S. Flag. The flag deployment is not listed in either checklist. A detail discussion of the flag assembly and the decision to deploy it can be found in Anne Platoff's Where No Flag Has Gone Before'. The flag is stowed in a thermal shroud under the lefthand ladder rail as shown in NASA photo S69-38755. See, also, Neil's photo of Buzz on the bottom ladder rung, AS11-40- 5868.] RealVideo Clip courtesy Robert Godwin (3 min 30 sec) RealAudio File (4 min 13 sec) 110:06:29 Armstrong: Okay? 110:06:30 Aldrin: Yeah. I think that's there. (Pause) That end come off? (Pause) Want me to do that? I'll get the hammer. (Long Pause) QuickTime Video Clip (1 min 20 sec; 4.0Mb) 110:07:01 Armstrong: (Standing between the MESA and the TV camera) Take that part? Go out here with it. (Pause) Right out to the rock, here. (Long Pause) [in the 16-mm film, Neil and Buzz head out in the general direction of the TV camera, Buzz carrying the lower part of the flagstaff and Neil carrying the assembly consisting of the flag, the upper section of the flagstaff, and the crossbar.] 110:07:38 Aldrin: Wait, you'll have to extend that one. (Long Pause) [The flag assembly consists of a staff and an extendable crossbar. These two pieces were joined by a locking hinge at the top of the staff. The nylon flag measures 3 feet by 5 feet and has a hem shown into the top into which the cross bar has been inserted. The flag has also been attached to the staff at two points.] [Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "We'll start here with the flag installation. It went as planned, except that the telescoping top rod could not be extended. Both Buzz and I operating together were unable to put enough force into extending the rod. It appeared to just be stuck and we gave up trying. So the flag was partially folded when we installed it on the flagstaff. I suspect that didn't show very much on television, but our still photographs should show the result of that."] [in the 16-mm film at about 109:07:30, Neil pivots the top rod so that it is perpendicular to the staff.] 110:07:58 McCandless: Columbia, Columbia, this is Houston. AOS; over. (Long Pause) [in the 16-mm film at about 109:08:00, Neil is now farthest from the LM with his back to the TV and they both seem to be pulling on the top rod, trying to extend it.] 110:08:26 Aldrin: (Garbled) (Long Pause) [in the 16-mm film at about 109:08:30, the flagstaff has been assembled and Buzz is holding the flag by the top rod as he works to extend it.] [Aldrin - "There's a photograph in the 16-mm (movie film) and one of us (Neil) is kind of holding the staff and the other's pulling the flag out. I don't think you can tell by looking at the photograph who's who. I don't know whether anybody traced through actions here (in the TV or the 16-mm film). And I don't know if I remember.] [Aldrin - "We were trying to pull it out all the way?"] [Armstrong - "It didn't come to its full length."] [Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "Neither of us could extend it. We thought maybe we could extend the rod by both pulling, but then we didn't want to exert too much force because if it ever gave way, we'd probably find ourselves off balance. I don't know how we'll ever find out what happened. I suspect this is just something that may, in some way, be due to thermal conditions or vacuum welding or something like that. It came out of its mount fairly easily. I thought we had a little bit of trouble with one of the pip pins (a removable locking pin) there for a while."] QuickTime 16-mm Film Clip (2 min 21 sec; 3.6 Mb) [A frame from the 16-mm film shows Neil facing the LM and Buzz facing the TV camera. Scan by Kipp Teague.] 110:08:53 Collins: Houston, Columbia on the high gain. Over. 110:08:55 McCandless: Columbia, this is Houston. Reading you loud and clear. Over. 110:09:03 Collins: Yeah. Reading you loud and clear. How's it going? 110:09:05 McCandless: Roger. The EVA is progressing beautifully. I believe they are setting up the flag now. 110:09:14 Collins: Great! 110:09:18 McCandless: I guess you're about the only person around that doesn't have TV coverage of the scene. 110:09:25 Collins: That's all right. I don't mind a bit. (Pause) How is the quality of the TV? 110:09:35 McCandless: Oh, it's beautiful, Mike. It really is. [in the 16-mm film by about this time, the top rod is extended about as far as it is going to go and Buzz is holding the flag by the top rod as he works to extend it. Neil then takes the flagstaff while Buzz moves to the right and watches him try to get pole into the surface.] [Journal Contributor Brian Lawrence notes that NASA photo S69-39815 was taken in the MOCR at about this time. Ken Glover pinpoints the time as 110:09:25.] 110:09:39 Collins: Oh, gee, that's great! Is the lighting halfway decent? [in the 16-mm film, Buzz comes over and takes hold of the bottom, outside corner of the flag and tugs on it. He loses his grip.] 110:09:43 McCandless: Yes, indeed. They've got the flag up now and you can see the stars and stripes on the lunar surface. RealVideo Clip courtesy Robert Godwin (3 min 44 sec) 110:09:50 Collins: Beautiful. Just beautiful. (Long Pause) [in the 16-mm film, Buzz backs away again and salutes. He then moves back to the flag and grabs both the top and bottom corners and pulls while Neil holds the staff. Journal Contributor Bob Farwell has inserted a frame from the 16-mm film into a post-EVA pan which merges the views out both windows. A certain amount of artistic license is required to join the two window views and, as well, to fit in the 16-mm frame. The 16-mm camera is mounted at the top of the LMP window and, therefore, the perspective on the near surface is different from the Hasselblad images.] 110:10:16 Armstrong: (To Buzz) That's good. See if you can pull that end off a little bit. Straighten that end up a little? (Pause) [in the TV picture, Neil is on the right and Buzz is on the left.] 110:10:33 Aldrin: It won't go up. (Pause) Okay. [Comm Break, while Neil gets the flag pole into the ground. A frame from the 16-mm film shows him just as he finishes. At about 110:11, he backs away toward the north, in the general direction of the TV camera. In the 16-mm film, the flag extends to the right and, in the TV picture to the left. From the perspective of the TV audience, Buzz moves from left to right to the flagstaff side of the scene. A frame from the 16-mm film shows him in position while Neil gets ready to take two pictures of Buzz: AS11-40- 5874 and 5875.] [Journal Contributors Owen Merrick, Brian McInall, and Markus Mehring call attention to the fact that, in high-resolution versions of AS11-40-5875, we can see Buzz peering over at Neil. In 5874 Buzz is facing the flag and saluting; but, by the time Neil takes 5875, Buzz has turned slightly to look over to see if Neil has taken the picture, possibly having lowered his right hand in the interim. Normally, the high reflectivity of the gold visor would keep us from seeing Buzz's face but, as Mehring notes, in this case "his face is directly illuminated by the sunlight from the front and at a right angle to the observer's point of view, so it literally shines through the visor, especially because he's sticking his head forward. At different viewing and illumination angles and with his head deeper inside the helmet and less brightly illuminated, reflections off of the visor that would wash out anything behind it. But in this case we're lucky." Journal Contributor Harald Kucharek has created an animated gif image (also available as a two-frame movie) consisting of frames 5874 and 5875 which clearly shows Buzz turning his torso slightly between frames, but without moving his feet. Note, in particular, the change in his knee positions. The TV record of this interval shows Buzz turning in Neil's direction twice during this interval.] [Armstrong (Post mission press conference) - "We had some difficulty, at first, getting the pole of the flag to remain in the surface. In penetrating the surface, we found that most objects would go down about 5, maybe 6, inches and then it would meet with a gradual resistance. At the same time, there was not much of a support force on either side, so we had to lean the flag back slightly in order for it to maintain this position."] [Later crews hammered the staff into the ground.] If the astronauts actually went to the Moon, the film would have been strategically priceless and never publicly released. Baseless speculation on your part. The evidence supports the position that the Astronauts did go to the moon. The original film is priceless, as it a national treasure. But the images have been released. Samples of the moon rocks were sent to countries around the world for study. While detailed hardware information may have been withheld that in no way indicates the lunar missions were faked. Micro meteorites and Van Allen radiation round out the argument.… Radiation: Clavius explains it very well in language that easy to understand. I trust it will work for you as well. http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html Micro meteorites: A common and misguided argument. The suits provided for protection from micro meteorites. In fact its still a concern in low earth orbit missions during EVA’s . If it was a danger on the moon its also a danger in LEO. Is it your contention that the LEO EVA’s are fake too because of micro meteorites? The Apollo suits were constructed using three layers, the white outer suit being the one to provide protection from micro meteorites and to reflect sunlight. It was all the protection they needed. http://apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp/ap.../spacesuite.htm Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment (ITMG) This outer ITMG is for insulate heat and micrometeoroid, and connected to extravehicular visor, lunar overshoe. This is made by seven layered aluminized Kapton film, six layered Beta Marquisette, two layered Neoprene-coated nylon Ripstop, sandwiched between beta cloth. The knees, elbows and shoulders were protected by Chromel-R. On the left upper arm, a pocket for pens and penlights is stitched. And on the right upper arm, a pocket for sunglasses, on the right upper thigh, there is a utility pocket. On both legs, strap on pockets for data-list (left) and check-list, scissors(right) are stitched. On the back, for avoid wear with PLSS, Teflon patch was stitched. Finally, it was imperative that they have a good picture of the little placque they placed on the MOON, so I find the differences between these two exposures absolutely uncanny, taken as they were by individuals with giant fishbowls, mittens and a camera strapped to their chest This one has me puzzled? What’s the problem? That they took 3 underexposed images? That someone here on earth used a common photographic process to lighten the underexposed frame in the duplication process so it opened up the shadow detail? That the astronauts using cameras mounted on quick release brackets in full finger gloves were able to zone focus and work the specially modified shutter speed and f-stop levers? So what’s the problem? The astronauts practiced for months on earth to gain the skill needed to properly frame photos with their chest mounted cameras. Zone focusing is a well know and often used method of focusing without using the viewfinder. The astronauts had exposure guides on their cuff checklists to provide them with camera exposure information. Labs routinely to this day make exposure corrections when duplicating slide film and when making prints from either original or copy negatives. And the cameras were custom modified to allow the astronauts to work the controls: http://www.clavius.org/photoqual.html http://www.clavius.org/bibwgreen.html As a Hasselblad owner and user and having seen the Apollo Hasselblads in person I am convinced they work as advertised. And of course many of the Shadows and POV's make no sense whatsoever: Only to you and the likes of White. For those with a decent knowledge of photography they make perfect sense. http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html Were they really on their knees for this one, great focusing, too.… Did they have to be on their knees to shot this image? I don’t think so. In any case its not clear from the transcript if the camera was mounted or handheld at this point but it is clear during this time frame that the camera was removed from the quick release mount. So what’s your question again? Then you have the shadows, pesky shadows.… They are only pesky to those lacking in a good background in photography, From his posts it appears White is sorely lacking in this department, you as well. This stuff is so easy to test and prove empirically its not funny. That its still an issue is laughable. But anyway here’s more information as to why you are once again wrong. http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html http://www.clavius.org/shad45.html http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html So if you are concerned that we are impugning the work of the (old Nazi) space scientists or the handsome young NASA guinea pigs, fear not, I am not impugning these characters. NASA may have gone to the Moon AND faked a photographic file.....… The only thing you are impugning is your reputation and perhaps your character. Critical rational approaches to COLD WAR aeronautics, secret rocketry projects, and highly classified projects with a vast propagnada impact, critical approaches to this unusual series of events are proper and healthy. I would agree but the fact remains your approach is neither critical or rational. And its also filled with mis-conceptions and downright lack of knowledge. That you rely on the works of White, which is filled with lies, distortions, alterations and disinformation speaks volumes.

Exactly. The no stars argument is perhaps one of the very easiest of all of the hoaxers claims to actually test. Anyone with an adjustable camera can do the test. Many have and so have I. The problem with trying to get stars to record on film using any of the daylight camera settings used in the Apollo images is that the faint stars (in relation to the bright sun) do not provide enough light to overcome the threshold of exposure on the film. Put simply they are not bright enough to record. The exposure times required to get the stars to just begin to become exposed on film are many many times what is required to properly record dayling lit scenes. For example it may take up to 2 seconds of exposure time at the widest fstop opening of the Hasselblad for a star to even begin to break into recording on film. Using a two second expossure wide open in daylight would grossly overexpose the daylight areas of the photo. But again this is very easy to test. I suggest that anyone who wants to know for sure do just that. But rest assured that the hoaxers claim that there should be stars in the Apollo images is totally without merit. I love telescopes and have three large scopes which I use on a regular basis. I also like trying my hand at astro photography. In the pursuit of this pastime I have discovered many websites that deal with photographing stars. I would suggest that anyone interested in the process of photographing stars do a simple google on the subject. The results will bear out that the exposure required to record stars on film is much greater than any of the daylight setting on the lunar Hasselblad cameras would allow.

That the best you got? Why not start with the easy one. Whats the temp on the moon, where?and when? And what would you expect the temp of the cameras to be? Can you handle that one? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The temperature on the Moon ranges from Daytime highs of,130c= 265f To Nightime lows of -110c=170f. Do I win a prize? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Correct, in a sense. Still the question as it applies to Apollo is where and when. There is no air temp on the moon. So are we talking about the rocks and soil? The astronauts suits? The exterior of the Hasselblad cameras? The film inside the magazine? The exterior of the LM? If so which side? shade or sun? Or which part? Reflective mylar or black? And since the sun is the only source of heat falling on the moon how does that heat transfer to say the film inside the Hasselblad camera? To say the temp on the moon is 265F or even 280f is a huge oversimplification. Which brings us back the Mr. Clarks over simplified suggestion that it was too hot on the moon and it would melt the film in the cameras...because the temp was 280f. Clearly its not 280f on the moon in the common sense in which we think about temps here on earth. I'll let Clavius provide the explaination of why Mr. Clark was so clearly wrong. http://www.clavius.org/heatxfer.html Primer on heat transfer: WHAT IS HEAT? It seems an odd question, but a glimpse of the scientific understanding of heat is a helpful background to discussing operating in space and on the lunar surface. The average person's intuitive understanding of heat may not apply very well. What follows is a simplified discussion of heat and heat transfer. Heat, put simply, is the vibration of molecules in a substance. Even in solid objects the molecules that make them up move around. The hotter an object is, the more the molecules jump and jive. When they are very excited, they will even break the solid structure and the substance then undergoes a phase shift from solid to liquid. Similarly when the molecular motion is too vigorous for the liquid phase, the substance enters the gaseous phase. It's possible for different areas of an object to have different heat levels. The difference between the hot part of an object and the cold part is called its "thermal gradient". When a molecule vibrates it passes along a little of its exuberance to neighboring molecules. They too begin to vibrate but the original molecule now vibrates a little less because some of its excitement has been taken by its neighbors. This is how heat spreads through a substance. The ability of an object to move heat from one part of itself to another is called "thermal conductivity". It depends on the substance the object is made of. Certain substances like metals pass heat very readily. That means when a metal molecule (atom) vibrates, its neighbors quickly begin to vibrate too. If a substance doesn't pass heat well, it can be used as thermal insulation. The surface atoms (or molecules) vibrate, but nearby atoms aren't as apt to start. TRANSFERRING HEAT Transferring heat from one object to another is as simple as passing the molecular vibration from one object to another. As you can imagine, the most basic method is "conductive heat transfer". Simply place the two objects in contact with each other, and the molecular vibrations from one object will case the molecules in the other object to begin vibrating. The thermal conductivity of the objects involved plays a big part in how much heat is transferred. As a general rule, solids have the highest heat conductivity. Liquids have less conductivity. Why? Because in most liquids the molecules are farther apart than in solids. Since the molecules are more spread out, vibration in one of them isn't as likely to spread to nearby molecules. Gasses have the poorest thermal conductivity because their molecules are even more spread out. When the transfer medium is a fluid (i.e., a liquid or a gas) you have a slightly different form called convective heat transfer. This is the notion of a "coolant" that "carries away" heat. Convective heat transfer is what cools your car engine by circulating water through the hot parts and then through the radiator where it is transferred to the air. The air around us plays a big part in our everyday encounters with conductive heat transfer. The science of meteorology is largely based on the heat transfer properties of earth's atmosphere. The temperatures reported daily are the temperatures of the air at various places around the earth. The earth's atmosphere is the primary conductor of heat in our daily experiences. A SNEAKIER FORM OF TRANSFER Conductive heat transfer is pretty easy to understand. But there's another important phenomenon. Excited molecules release electromagnetic radiation (e.g., visible light, infrared light, x-rays, microwaves, or radio waves). This release of energy slows their vibration and helps them shed heat. Conversely, when a molecule absorbs electromagnetic radiation, it becomes more excited and vibrates faster. It's easy to see that by using this mechanism objects can transfer heat between each other without even touching. This mechanism is called "radiative heat transfer". Objects transfer heat between each other through electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation includes visible light. We often see hot objects giving off electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. The wavelength of light emitted depends on the substance and how vigorously it is heated. Most hot objects will emit light in the infrared spectrum. This is why infrared sensors are used in security applications to detect the presence of warm human bodies where they aren't necessarily supposed to be. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER These two forms of heat transfer account for just about everything we observe relating to heat. The sun warms the earth through radiative heat transfer. Vast amounts of electromagnetic radiation all across the spectrum travels from the sun and hits the earth. The various substances on earth (dirt, rocks, water, concrete, sand, etc.) absorb this energy and their heat level is raised. They transmit that heat through conductive heat transfer to the surrounding atmosphere, and eventually to us. The daily temperature is reported as air temperature. On a pleasant summer day, the air temperature may be 80 F (21 C). But the various solid surface substances on earth may have been quite a bit hotter that day. Have you ever walked barefoot on dark asphalt on a hot day? It usually feels very, very warm to your feet. Since your body temperature is about 99 F (37 C), you know that pavement must be considerably hotter than that, perhaps 150 F (52 C). This difference in surface temperature versus air temperature is very important to discussing the lunar environment. Place your hand near a hot object such as a pan on the stove. You can feel the heat from it, even though you aren't physically touching it. The air between your hand and the pan is conducting the heat between the air and the pan. The farther you move your hand away, the less heat can be transmitted that distance through the air. If you've ever stood on a stage under full lighting, you realize how hot that can get. That's radiative heat transfer -- the same as from the sun. The very hot coils inside the light bulb send out lots of electromagnetic radiation which hits your skin. Absorbing this radiation heats your skin up, and you feel it as heat. Microwave ovens are a special case of this phenomenon. Microwave radiation is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It happens to be a wavelength that causes water molecules to vibrate especially vigorously. Now in space there's no air. That means conductive heat transfer doesn't occur between objects that are not physically touching. Only radiative heat transfer can occur. This is important for two reasons. First, you can be very, very close to something that's very hot, and you won't feel a lot of heat. (Radiative heat transfer typically moves less heat than conductive heat transfer.) Second, objects take longer to cool off. This is because conductive heat transfer to the atmosphere is the primary means for keeping things cool on earth. Objects in a vacuum can only get rid of heat through radiative heat transfer, and since that moves less heat it isn't as good. FINDING A HAPPY MEDIUM: THE STEADY STATE So we have two means by which objects can acquire heat and pass it on to other objects. In practice, any given object is both receiving heat and passing it on. If it acquires heat faster than it passes it on, it heats up. If it passes it along faster than it receives it, it cools down. An object at a constant temperature is receiving heat just as fast as it is getting rid of it. This is called "thermal equilibrium". An object at equilibrium can still have a thermal gradient. Shine a bright light on an object. The side facing the light will be heated by radiative heat transfer. The shaded side will still be cooler. But as long as the temperature at each point in the object remains the same over time, the object is said to be at equilibrium. A more complicated version of this example would be a concrete highway on a still day. The sun warms the pavement to perhaps 150 F (52 C). It would be hotter, but some of the heat is drawn away by the air on top of it. The air may be cooler because it's less dense than the pavement -- say only 80 F (21 C). But very close to the pavement it's significantly hotter. As long as the wind doesn't stir things up this system will be at equilibrium even though we can observe several different temperatures at different places in the system. In space our ability to get rid of heat is limited. Since an object can only use radiative heat transfer and not conductive heat transfer, it will absorb heat faster than it can radiate it. That means equilibrium temperatures will be significantly higher for objects in a vacuum. The same concrete highway in a vacuum may be heated to 250 F (121 C). HEDGING THE BET Intuitively we know that things in the shade don't heat up as much. Without the radiative heat transfer from the sun, objects can only receive heat through conductive heat transfer. Since the vacuum of space limits how we can get rid of heat, the best way to keep cool in space is not to be heated in the first place. Fortunately the vacuum of space also limits how we can receive heat, so by reducing or eliminating radiative heat transfer to an object, we can keep it cool. Intuition tells us that wearing a black shirt on a sunny summer day is unwise. White colors prevail in summer because they reflect away the electromagnetic radiation that heats us up. Similar principles apply in space. Painting something flat black would cause it to absorb sunlight and heat up. Covering it with reflective material has the opposite effect of reducing the absorption and keeping it from heating up. THE KELVIN SCALE We use the Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature scales for everyday temperatures. But since they have both positive and negative values, it makes them hard to use for scientific equations. And so when we discuss heat transfer we use a special temperature scale called Kelvins. The Kelvin temperature of an object is simply the number 273 added to its Celsius temperature. This makes all the temperature measurements positive. Why 273? Because scientists have shown that at -273 C, all molecular vibration ceases. That is, there is no heat present in a substance at that temperature. Nothing can be colder than the complete absense of molecular vibration, so -273 C (or 0 Kelvin) is called "absolute zero" -- the coldest an object can possibly be. If that represents zero on our temperature scale, then no pesky negative numbers will clutter up our calculations. http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html Heat on the moon: It gets up to 280 F (138 C) on the moon. At high noon the average temperature of the lunar surface can reach that temperature. But that's not the same thing as saying it was 72 F (22 C) in Los Angeles today. The latter is air temperature. The temperature of various surfaces in Los Angeles might have been as high as 180 F (82 C). Air temperature has no meaning on the moon because there's no air. 280 F (138 C) may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not the temperature of any random object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter. Air temperature is not the same thing as surface temperature. Just as on earth, the temperatures at morning and evening on the moon are lower than at noon. This is because the sun strikes the surface at a more acute angle and therefore isn't as intense. The lunar landing sites and times were chosen so that the astronauts would be working there in the early morning before the temperature had risen to its hottest. This reduced the surface temperature at those sites. The physics term for this phenomenon is "form factor for radiative heat transfer". Quite a mouthful. The meteorological term is "angle of insolation" and it's why we have seasons on earth. Photographic film melts at 150 F (65 C). Therefore you can't use it to take photos on the moon. This would be a problem only if there was a way for the film to be heated. Since the film wasn't in direct sunlight it wouldn't have been heated. The only source of heat would have been conductive heat transfer through the camera body, and only at the points where the film physically touched the body or a connected part. Rolled up on its spool inside the magazine it was relatively safe from conducted heat. Hasselblad gave the lunar surface cameras a shiny polished metal finish to reduce the amount of light they would absorb. David Groves, PhD, has shown that the extreme heat of the lunar environment would alter the colors in the film used to take the Apollo pictures. [bennett and Percy, Dark Moon, p. 540] Dr. Groves' study is seriously flawed. First, Dr. Groves assumes that when NASA says the lunar surface temperature at the Apollo landing sites varies from 180 F in the sun to -180 F in the shade, this means the Hasselblad cameras and film also reached this temperature. In fact, the temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Since the film magazine was covered with polished aluminum it would have absorbed very little radiant energy from the sun. Further, Hasselblad confirms that additional shield plates were added to the Apollo magazines to enhance their thermal insulative properties. Second, Dr. Groves assumes that the film was subject to constant extreme heat for an average of four hours, corresponding to the average duration of a lunar EVA. Since the only possible method of heating would be absorption from sunlight, this would require the astronauts to stand facing the sun continuously for four hours. But of course that's not what they did. They were quite active, alternating between sunlight and shadow, turning toward and away from the sun constantly. Now a cold object placed in the sunlight will begin to warm. It will not immediately leap to its hottest temperature. Similarly, a hot object removed from sunlight will radiate away its heat and become cool again. It can take quite a while for objects to reach these various equilibrium temperatures. The magazine alternated between sunlight and shade while it was attached to the camera, and was stored away from sunlight when not attached. It is highly unlikely the magazine ever reached either extreme of its temperature band, which is not the 180 F to -180 F range quoted for the lunar rocks and dust. And the film itself was never in direct sunlight and so would have absorbed absolutely no radiant energy. Attempting to simulate the thermal conditions of the lunar environment, Dr. Groves uses the only mode of heat transfer not pertinent to space. Third, Dr. Groves uses an oven to heat the film. This is completely absurd. An oven uses primarily convective heat transfer: the element heats the air in the oven, and the air then transfers the heat to the material being cooked. But because there is no air on the moon, there is no such convective heat transfer. Dr. Groves has chosen the only mode of heat transfer which doesn't occur on the moon! Without a fluid medium to convectively transfer any heat from the magazine to the film itself, only two modes of heat transfer are possible: radiant transfer from the inner surface of the magazine to the film itself (the amount of which would be small in this scenario), and conductive transfer from the magazine case through the winding mechanism to the film itself. This is a very limited path of conduction. In any case, Dr. Groves' baking the film in an oven at 180 F for four hours is largely unrepresentative of the conditions in which the Apollo photographic film was used and stored. It is baffling to see such unsophisticated and flawed analysis issued under the guise of professional science. We struggle to understand how even the most basic principles of thermodynamics seem to find no place in Dr. Groves' study. If film gets too cold it will crack and the emulsion will flake off. The bitter cold of space would ruin the film. We can point out that conspiracy theorists can't agree on whether the film is subjected to intense heat or intense cold in space. But to answer the question directly we point out that the Apollo film was manufactured with Kodak's Estar base. This base is an extra-thin polyester (not celluloid) material formulated for high-altitude (i.e., cold temperature) aerial photography, especially photoreconaissance. The magazine casings were coated with aluminum. While this would reflect away most of the light, it would absorb enough to keep the film within its operating temperature.

That the best you got? Why not start with the easy one. Whats the temp on the moon, where?and when? And what would you expect the temp of the cameras to be? Can you handle that one?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh yes...please post more of your nonsense so it can be picked clean and the remains left in full view for the entire world to see. Its just so much fun seeing your "research" destroyed on a public forum. Keep it up.

Mr. Forman, could you please explain the the processing you are using on these images? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Craig, Call me 'Lee.' I use a variety of techniques, and many times a combination of programs, but I can give you an example. To penetrate the tint, for example, using ArcSoft PhotoImpression 2000 on a Muchmore frame: a. I take an image, and first use an equilization feature. b. Then I remove saturation. c. Following this, I place the image into a negative mode. d. Focusing on the target area, I adjust the tone in the photo, focusing primarily on the midtones. e. Then I reverse the negative. Again, I adjust the tone - mainly the midtones, but I play around with the highlight and shadow if it buys me anything. f. Then I apply blur, which is required when working with JPEGs, due to the 'blockiness' which comes as a result of the compression. Here's a Muchmore frame as an example, using the steps above. The 'cameramen' were plainly set up on the stairs. They were removed from the official record. More on why at another time. Adobe photoshop is much more powerful, however, and I go through a different routine. Usually I use Adobe for the first few steps, then hand it off to PhotoImpression. I've worked with an interpolator program also, but the files get too large to work with - one reason I just upgraded to a new machine. If I could lay my hands on original film stock - I wouldn't bother with most of these steps, I'd spend more time on calibrating the scanner. - lee <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Lee for your explaination. But with all due respect, doing this kind of work with webs jpg's amd scans from books with a halftone screen, is IMO fruitless. The artifact left behind by jpg compression, let alone the original image processing by whom ever made the scan in the first place, destroy any chance of finding additional information in these images. I have posted on my web photo gallery a crop of the Thompson Moorman. The image I have posted is from the drum scan we had made of the copy negative. It is posted exactly as it came off the drum scanner, with no levels or curves adjustment nor any sharpening. The negative was scanned to film grain level and its a 137mb 8 bit tiff file. The crop I am posting has been saved from the original tif as a png file, which is a lossless compression format. There are no artifacts in this file. To save this file to your system from my web gallery, do a copy on the full image, create a new document in photoshop and paste the copy into this new doc. Give this a try and see what you come up with. http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/40804897 I'm only going to leave this image up for a few days, so if you want it, please get it soon.

Mr. Forman, could you please explain the the processing you are using on these images?

Dave...apparently you did not follow my suggestion to check out: http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/ It refutes your theory. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. It suggest a different theory however silly it might be. I've wondered for the last year or so, since so much is made of the "scientific" nature of this work, exactly where is the basis for it? BY that I mean the all the groundwork like the test shots of the grid used to calibrate the pincushion removal? You do have those right? How about the formula for the actual removal, you do have that posted somewhere right? How about the test image of the grid after the removal? You have that posted somewhere right? What about the data and formula for the optical transformations? Posted? How about the complete transformed images after transformation, not just the crops? Posted? How about your test images shots to provide proof of concept? Posted right? What about your images taken to provide proof of concept on the panning and blur thing? What about the images that you made to prove the image circle of the Z camera lens is too small? You have them posted, right? Since this is a scientific "work" surely this stuff is posted and available for everyone to see...right. Sorry to ask for so much but you see the "scientists" that make the only points in your work that are not just speculation and handwaving, have made a few fatal mistakes in the past like not understanding how a simple shadow works, argued against the principal of the lever, against the magnification and oh yea...that Moorman thing. So excuse me while I wait to see all of the above posted so it can be reviewed before I buy into your latest grand scheme. The devil is in the details. You guys got any snowballs rolling downhill in there? Oh, btw, a few other things are missing to make your theory complete. How about the names of those who "fabricated" the film? Where was it done? On what equipment exactly? On what family of film stocks? When? You do that that stuff posted, Right? How about your samples made on the same equipment to provide proof of concept? Surely you must have those...right? After all you guys "proved the film is a fake"....right?

I assume we are still talking about the classic gunman figure? There is no Black Dog Figure standing between the step in the wall and the South shelter wall. We probably need to get some things straight here. I am aware that Jean Hill said someone took some photos from her that she had in her pocket, but I do not recall one of them being Moorman #5 which I believe was still in the camera. Mary had that photo in her possession when the local news interviewed her not 35 minutes following the assassination. That photo was also filmed and shown on NBC three hours later. As far as altering Mary's Polaroid in a matter of seconds ... please explain how that was done on 11/22/63? One would have to remove the underlying image without disturbing the emulsion grains, so please tell me how this was done so quickly and easily. Below is a blowup of Moorman's photo showing the dark specs that are the emulsion grains. There are many sites that explain what emulsion grain is. Feel free to browse some of them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bill, is that crop from the drum scan? If so the grain you are seeing is the grain from the copy negative that Tink had made of the #5 Moorman. Polaroid b/w sheet and roll film has a very distinctive image structure. It tends to be rather clumpy and blotchy. You can still get the sheet film version of the asa 3000 film that Mary used. In any case, retouching the original Moorman in its small orignal size in a short amount of time would be very difficult at best. I have to chuckle when novices state how easy retouching either by airbrushing or chemical means can be without ever doing the process themself. Its not easy and its almost always detectable.

Actually no. In the case of the camera Mary Moorman was using, you had to actually pull the film from the camera by hand to crush the developer pod to start the processing.

Thanks Bernice, I've read almost all of these links but perhaps other have not. I made my mind up sometime ago based on quite a number of things. First most of the CT's dismiss pilot error out of hand as a cause, but when it comes to small planes its the biggest cause of crashes. I can offer tons of crash data for small planes where that is the cause. In fact just last fall a King Air 200, with two very experienced pilots flew into a mountain carrying 10 members of the Hendricks Racing team. The plane was fine, the weather similar to the Wellstone crash but not as cold, and a good pilot and copilot aboard yet they ran the plane into the mountian. The cause was simple, the pilots screwed up. Next most CT's say the weather was ok, not great, but ok and cite a plane landing hours before and also cite the airport manager taking off in his Cessna to look for the Wellstone plane as evidence the weather was ok. In doing so they make two grave failures. First, as we all know the weather is not a constant and it changes. Second, the airport manager flew well below the iceing level while the Wellstone aircraft decended for a number of miles right through the icing level. And finally I sent all of my links on this case to a friend of mine who is a pilot. I have flown with this man many times in a King Air 200 on business. I trusted him with my life in every case. He knows his King Air inside and out and I trust his opinion. His comment to me was that even if his aircraft was hit by some "EMP" weapon, it would still fly. I also asked him to querry some of his fellow pilots and they gave the same response. He reminded me that while the King Air is a great aircraft, with very good all weather flying ability, sometimes pilots overstep their bounds. In his opinion the biggest reason for business aircraft crashes are passengers with "gotta get there itis" and pilots willing to try busting minimums to get them there. He also notes that the de-icing boots on a King Air work great...provided that the pilot performs the task as required. Sometimes pilots just plain screw up. In this case my friend and his peers think the Wellstone aircraft was downed due to pilot error and weather. He believes it was a tail stall casued by ice and slow airspeed caused by a throttle back decent and then putting the landing gear down with too litttle airspeed and an iced tail section. In total I see a wholesale dismissal of weather and pilot error in Fetzers theory and a whole lot of grandstanding and baseless speculation to arrive at their pre- conceived conclusion.

Sorry it was broken, lets try this one. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._36/ai_n8643124 Have not read the book but followed Fetzers work on this and I think it's bunk.

Paranoid style: Sen. Wellstone's death was an accident? Yeah, right Washington Monthly, Dec, 2004 by Justin Peters Conspiracy is as American as apple pie!" says Jim Fetzer. "When two guys knock over a 7-11, they're engaging in a conspiracy. It happens all the time? Fetzer, a professor of philosophy at University of Minnesota-Duluth and the author of several books on conspiracy and assassination, is a self-professed expert on the topic, a luminary in the world of cabal-and-cover-up publishing. Which is why, on a bright, windy afternoon in late October, Fetzer is standing before a podium in a small conference room at Washington's National Press Club. Two years ago to the day, a small charter plane carrying Paul Wellstone, his wife and daughter, and several campaign aides crashed in a remote part of Minnesota, killing all aboard. Today, Fetzer is marking the anniversary of Wellstone's death with the release of his latest book, co-authored with Northern Arizona University professor Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, titled American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone. There are about 15 people in attendance at the press conference, most of who seem to be the authors' friends and colleagues. They listen attentively to Fetzer's theories and nod along to his frequent digressions on the press ("Logic and evidence are not the strong suit for the American media") or John F. Kennedy's assassination ("The Zapruder film was recreated"). But they are most receptive to his main point, which is that Wellstone's death was no accident. As conspiracy theories go, the one limned in American Assassination is pretty simple: An electromagnetic pulse device, of "EMP," was used to kill the plane's instruments and cause it to crash, whereupon the FBI rushed to the scene and removed the cockpit voice recorder. Afterwards, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) covered everything up with a rushed, perfunctory investigation blaming the crash on pilot error--a finding at which Fetzer scoffs. Noting other elected officials who have died in small plane crashes in recent years, namely the late Missouri governor Mel Carnahan, Fetzer announces, "We do believe that the use of airplanes to take out political figures is a genuine phenomenon and an example of fascism." At this announcement, several audience members break into applause. The shadowy forces behind it all? None other than "the troika that controls the White House: Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld," according to Fetzer. Why? Because "Wellstone, the Senate's most liberal member, was an enemy of the Bush administration's way of doing business. "He was shifting the way people were looking at politics. He was dangerous to the neoconservative agenda," claims Jacobs, his taut, intense face at odds with the colorful Western garb he is wearing. Supporting this audacious theory is a voluminous--though somewhat rickety--scaffolding of circumstantial evidence, which Fetzer and Jacobs energetically lay before their audience during their presentation. As evidence for the use of an EMP device, they cite reports of interrupted cell-phone calls and garage doors gone haywire, as well as the expertise of one John Costella, an Australian physicist and conspiracy aficionado who collaborated with Fetzer on his last book, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. (Costella's support is all the more crucial given that the man who claimed his cell phone cut out due to the EMP later retracted his statement, admitting that it wasn't unusual for phone calls to cut out in northern Minnesota). As evidence that the plane was tampered with, they rely on reports that the smoke rising from the burning plane was bluish-white, rather than the black smoke that Fetzer asserts should have risen from a kerosene fuel-based fire. Then there is the intriguing fact that the plane's co-pilot was a flight-school acquaintance of Zacarias Moussaoui. Fetzer's not sure what this means, but he's certain that it means something. "There was actually a connection between the co-pilot and Zacarias Moussaoui," he blurts excitedly. (snip) Read the rest at: http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oCD9QSlAxgMKY...0-Criticism.htm

In a word...No. The porch side of the LM shows no signs of being illuminated by a point light source. All the surface reflections show a reflective highlight that can only be created with a very large and broad light source. Its much larger than even a huge diffusion panel. In my opinion the light source is the lunar surface beyond the shadow of the LM reflecting light back towards the shadow side of the LM. Further indications of this as the light source for the shadow side is the falloff of light on the ladder leg of the LM as it reaches down toward the shadow on the ground. As for the secondary lens flare, it seems to lead to the right footpad which is showing a huge specular highlight. The angle of the sun to the camera makes this a very likely suspect for this flare. For a lens flare to occur the light needs to strike the front element of the lens. A light placed in the positon you suggest would not illuminate the shadow side of the LM as seen. It would also cause a shadow on Aldrins left boot, which is not there. The surface light that is being reflected and lighting the shadow side of the LM is behind and beside the photographer and not in a position to cause lens flare.

John, may I point out: 1. I will discuss evidence with any SINCERE person, even if they disagree. 2. I will not ARGUE (debate) with anyone. Arguing is a waste of time. 3. I will not engage in any discussion with anyone who engages in uncivil personal attacks, such as Miller, Lamson, Burton, et al. 4. I will not engage in any discussion with persons with a hidden agenda (who have joined the forum with the sole purpose of discrediting my research). 5. I will not engage in any discussion with persons such as Lamson and Miller WHO HAVE BEEN ATTACKING ME FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN THE PAST and whose motives are clear. Personal attacks are NOT research. 6. I will not engage in discussion who distorts the truth and misstates established facts. If it is improper to call this lying, what word may I safely substitute? 7. It is pointless to argue with persons who USE THE OFFICIAL STORY as a standard to support their position. That is like using the Warren Report to prove that researchers are wrong in saying LHO did not kill JFK. Quoting NASA to prove that Apollo mission photos are authentic is like quoting Nixon that he "was not a crook". NASA has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth. NASA supports websites like BAD ASTRONOMY. NASA recruits PROVOCATEURS to create disruptions on forums which try to expose the truth. If anyone wants to discuss the evidence I present, I am eager to do so. I am unwilling to engage in personal attack dogfights which provocateurs seek to provoke. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. I'm sincere in my belief, based on the evidence, that the Apollo lunar photographs were indeed taken on the surface of the moon, as billed by NASA. I'm also sincere in my belief that you, Jack White are making faulty conclusions about the Apollo images and I'm not afraid to say so. 2. I'm not arguing with you, rather arguing with the "research" you have published in this public forum. As such it's fair game. If you don't like the evidence I produce to back up my posts, fine...offer alternative evidence. 3. Being civil cuts both ways and your recent posts show that you do not practice what you preach. It might have worked for you inside the walled garden of JFKresearch with the attending guard dogs, but I suspect it will fail here. 4. My agenda is not nor ever has been hidden. I'm very upfront about what I believe and what my goals are. Let me restate them in case you have forgotten. I believe Apollo was as billed, and the images from the moon are authentic. I believe and have shown numerous times that your photographic understanding is lacking. I will when possible offer evidence and experimental data to prove just that. Got it? 5. See above. BTW, looking at a picture and seeing hidden trucks and scaffolding without further study is not research, it's imagination run amuck. 6. I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror because that is exactly what you are doing with your "apollo research". 7. Unless you are able to provide some evidence other than your "apollo photographic research" to back up your wild claim that the official Apollo record is false, please refrain from calling it such. The Apollo program is one of the most documented and detailed events in modern history. Your suggestion that is is something other than correct has no foundation in fact. You use the Apollo record and photography when it suits your needs but then you claim it cannot be used against you. Please, give me a break. It cuts both ways. Again if you have evidence that NASA supports places like Bad Astronomy and the like and that they recruit people to debunk the likes of you, please post it. I cannot speak for anyone but myself but I have never been approached by anyone from NASA nor any other group or agency to promote Apollo history. I do it because I enjoy it. Period. If you can prove otherwise please do so or cease your suggestion that I am somehow connected to NASA. I and others are attempting to discuss your "findings" here on an open forum by presenting evidence that is contrary to your findings. You refusal or inability to refute our evidence speaks volumes.