Evan Burton

I have never claimed that APOLLO IMAGES ARE ALTERED.

My claim is that they are misrepresented as being taken on

the surface of the moon, when they obviously were taken

in an earthly setting. The photos are NOT FAKE; they

are real photos. Only the APOLLO EVENTS were faked,

not the photos.

Misstating my position is unworthy of a mighty moderator.

Jack

PS...I ignore your repeated "challenges" regarding my

"photoshopping" images because they are meaningless.

Though I own the PhotoShop program, I hardly ever

use it and have never used it in my Apollo studies.

All of my chroma pseudocolor studies are easily

replicated by anyone with ANY good graphics program;

get anyone you want to replicate them. All they have to

do is change COLOR LEVELS for RGB and the computer

finds the anomalies without ANY help.

Ah! Card No3 - Move the goalposts.

Just exactly what do you claim, Jack? Shall we refer to your Aulis studies? Please note that I have taken downloads of each, and services such as the Wayback Machine also take archival records of such sites. The most accurate is to repeat your claims verbatim from where you have made them, and give links to such claims.

There's something disturbing about the example you have given, Evan. (looking back on CAA history et.c.). How could 'trained' staff not question fittings? It's like a page out of 'the manual' of protocol has been torn out and a problem exists that may be systemic. IOW not as singularly (150+ tmes) 'accidental' as Quantas would like it to be thought of. Perhaps more a matter of significant neglect due to relaxed standards, and therefore other arenas are implicated and consequently it is in a sense a result of a 'conspiracy', but one that is removed from this particular event? What has happened to the 'whistle blower' in this case? Where today? Doing what?

There is also Quantas record to comsider re safety, add to that the opening up of the domestic/international competition. Sabotage? Staged event to arouse the 'war on terror'? Terrorism? Laxity or ignorance as a result of systemic problems?

That's an excellent question, John, and one which I ask myself often when reading Air Safety Occurrence Reports (ASORs). I see mistakes that simply should not happen - but they do. We can try to educate people, we put checks and double checks into place, we charge people who make deliberate violations of rules.... but it still happens.

There are manuals which tell you how to carry out a procedure (many in the Navy field are my personal responsibility). Sometimes there are mistakes; people lodge forms to alert us to those mistakes. Yet sometimes people disregard the procedures... because they "know better" or have been taught a "short cut".

Is it systemic? Probably. Are the organisations (ADF, civil airlines, etc) working to fix it? Yep. The RAN has a programme in place trying to get people to stop if they think something is amiss, providing avenues for people to alert command of they think shortcuts are being taken. Some may think this is just window dressing, and I don't blame them - but as a member of the team who tries to combat this, let me tell you: we want people to work smart but work to standards; not take shortcuts which appear okay but endanger lives. The loss of experienced crews (forget the PR aspect) is unacceptable.

Sorry for the rant but it is an area which I have personal involvement.

Evan,

Please enjoy the following homage to your all-too-common brand of logic.

A flea trainer had trained a flea to fly upon command.

"Fly, flea," he'd say, and the flea would fly.

Then one day he cut off the flea's wings.

"Fly, flea," he said, but the flea did not fly.

That night, the flea trainer made the following entry in his journal:

"When one cuts the wings off a flea, the flea becomes deaf."

Charles

I see your point, Charles, but I think that perhaps you are failing to recognise mine:

Not ALL accidents are conspiracies. If you have further supporting evidence, then indeed the 'accident' may be anything but... yet you have to demonstrate there is sufficient reason to hold this view.

I cannot think of a single conspiracy theory which can be the result of an "accident"...unless you consider Chapaquiddik an "accident".

If you do, you have not studied the evidence.

I suppose you think Lee Harvey Oswald ACCIDENTALLY fired three shots from the TSBD, killing JFK. Even if you deny the truth of 911, how can you consider it an accident. Was the OKCity bombing an accident?

Please give specific examples of "accidental" conspiracy theories.

Jack

Certainly.

Your associate, and fellow Forum member, Dr (or is it Prof? please excuse if I mistake the correct title) James Fetzer, claims that the aircraft crash - in which Sen. Wellstone was a passenger - was brought about by some NAVAID-interrupting beam, possibly a 'death ray' of some description, or sabotage to the aircraft systems. He disregards the numerous examples of CFIT that preceded the accident. There is a thread on this debate:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;hl=wellstone

That's one.

Posting a "REBUTTAL" is not the same as "proof".

Any "rebuttal" which quotes NASA sources is self-serving

and does not constitute "proof".

NASA is the one on trial. Any "evidence" they supply

is suspect. It amounts to the defendants claiming they

are innocent, so should be acquitted.

I have yet to see a rebuttal which is anything but

opinion.

Jack

Ah! The classic HB'ers 'Get Out of Jail Free Card' No 2:

The only images of Apollo are from NASA. The voice A/G transcripts are from NASA. The only images of Apollo hardware are from NASA or NASA contractors. Deny the use of these images (because they are from a "tainted" source) and you effectively cut off any chance of your claim being disproved.

Bit wrong there, my friend. You have to PROVE - repeat PROVE - that they have been altered. You need to PROVE that the transcripts are faked. So far, everything matches up... and this from an organisation which - according to you - has whistleblowers leaving clues left right and centre, and makes tremendous blunders like leaving wrecking trucks on "moonsets".

Compare this to a person who still gets his LM Quad I mixed up with his Quad IV, cannot recognise when the viewpoint of an LM has shifted 90 degrees, still claims (and is the only one) that NASA seems to switch sides in the carrying of the LRV, that still claims a shadow must point to the centre-bottom of an image, etc, etc.

You keep on trying, though, champ. There will always be someone out there who will listen to you and believe you, regardless of anything to the contrary.

From here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fatal-...7568330046.html

POTENTIALLY fatal gas being pumped into a passenger jet's emergency oxygen tanks in Australia has sparked a worldwide safety investigation.

The Australian Safety Transport Bureau confirmed yesterday that Qantas engineers accidentally put nitrogen into the oxygen tanks of a Boeing 747 at Melbourne Airport.

Qantas immediately checked oxygen supplies on more than 50 of its planes that had been serviced by a wrongly labelled nitrogen cart at Tullamarine.

...

Dr Ian Millar, director of the hyperbaric medicine unit at Melbourne's Alfred Hospital, said: "If there was an emergency and the pilot took nitrogen instead of oxygen, instead of gaining control of the aircraft he would black out and it would be all over. It's a pretty serious mistake."

...

The aviation source said: "Qantas took delivery of the new nitrogen cart 10 months ago.

"It looked exactly like the old oxygen cart. When the attachments did not fit they went and took them off the old oxygen cart and started using it."

The mistake was spotted by an aircraft engineer and reported to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which declared it a one-off incident. But the aviation source said: "This could have affected at least 175 planes."

....

A tremendous stuff-up, and one that could have had fatal consequences.

Now let's change the story a little bit. Let's say some persons were killed. A pressurisation seal on a bizjet fails. The crew and pax go onto emergency O2 - only it is nitrogen. They pass out, the aircraft crashes. Someone says it was the deliberate killing of one of the pax. The accident report shows an inspection was missed on the seal, and how N was mistakenly put into the O2 tanks. Some people would say "Impossible! The tanks are coloured differently, they use different fittings, etc. Impossible - it could never happen. It was foul play."

The thing is, we now have a situation where a potentially fatal accident occurred.

Now, apply the same thing to "evidence" regarding other 'conspiracies'. There are probably at least 2 or 3 that have mundane explanations... if you were to accept that accidents do happen.

Something to think about.

Sorry, I was slightly misrepresenting you; you say it was - for some inexplicable reason - left on the "moonset" during the super-top-secret-faking of the Apollo 12 images.

I've stated my position on this before: it's an artifact (probably compression) upon which you have mis-applied Photoshop and then used a vivid imagination on to determine what it is.

I've also stated my challenge regarding this before: I say it is misuse of Photoshop; you'll probably say it is not. Let's pass the originals and your conclusions / analysis to the makers of Photoshop (or another equally qualified group) and let them determine if your method is valid.

The challenge still stands - will you accept it?

18. Least likely to happen award

BK hires Tim for legal advice on the grand jury project...and John B seconds the approach

Close 2nd - Bill, Jack, Craig, Duane, Len and Miles agree...on anything .

I disagree!

(Sorry - I couldn't resist!)

I'm unsure of something here - are they inviting people to lodge articles only during the beta testing, or will this be the norm for the general release? In other words, Google will determine the people to submit the data?

I think knowing who wrote a particular piece is worthwhile, but you have to be able to question the entry. I'm sure some people would question any work I did regarding Moon Hoax claims, and likewise I would question anyone who wrote a 9/11 entry from the viewpoint of government complicity.

Perhaps the competition between the two will force each other to address the faults in each system?

Indeed, I've spotted this before as well Evan. Infact, I've seen Duane post pictures on one site, ADMIT that he is wrong and that the explanation made sense and then post it again a couple of months later.

Just off the cuff, I think that is because there are only so many "reasonable" claims they can make before the claims become ludicrous, such as a wrecker on the Moon, etc, or downright lies. The "reasonable" claims are those that might appear credible on the surface but when subjected to greater scrutiny or more detailed research is conducted, become obviously wrong. Others are ones which are testable, and recreation proves the claim false. Soon, claims become a repeat of the same situation but in a different image, and therefore have the same explanation.

In order to maintain their belief but not be forced in to absurd claims (secret cities on the Moon), they ignore the explanation / rebuttal of the claim, lay the claim aside, and return to it later with renewed fervor.

This is why I support repositories of detailed explanations. Someone makes claim A. You prove it wrong with answer A'. They move onto B, you reply with B'. Later, they return A. Instead of having to go through the whole process again (which is sometimes their aim - wear you down), you simply refer back to A'. They then try to do a variation, C2. The premise is still explained by C', so note the difference and refer to C'.

Boards where the most fanatical of HB'ers post can be telling. If you have the time and inclination, you can show where the same questions have been asked and answered time and time again, where the same situation is raised over and over. This is not always possible; a cowardly person might erase all their history so as to cover up their pattern. Sites like the wayback machine or other internet archives can negate this tactic.

Your pictures and maps and charts ( some of which come from self serving nasa web sites )are not proof that men really landed on the Moon , or that those photographs were taken on the Moon .

Predictable. What you mean is that you cannot find anything wrong with my rebuttals to Jack's claims. He said "... no-one will explain why..." yet the response I posted was the response I gave to his Aulis studies in MAR 06, over a year ago. It's that trick I have previously mentioned that HB'ers use: ignore the rebuttal, remain silent on the matter for a while, then raise the same thing again months later, ignoring previous replies and hoping no-one will notice this has been raised and proven wrong before.

I should also remind you the burden of proof is on you, Jack, and others who share your opinion, to provide the evidence of fakery in order to support your claims. None of you has ever been able to do that.

You have been told the answer before, but you simply refuse to listen. Once again:

In your study you show two images.

The image on the left (AS17-135-20542) was taken at 141 hrs 27 mins, at the SEP site during EVA-2.

The second image (AS17-143-21933) was taken at 170 hrs 24 mins, nearly 30 hours later, at the closeout of EVA-3.

During that time, well, I guess they might have moved some of the stuff on the LRV. It would be a shame to have spent all that time collecting samples and then not take them back with you.

Some of the points Jack has raised about the LRV:

1. The rake:

ALSJ -

169:23:22 Schmitt: Say again, Bob. You want that...(To Gene, having reached the gate) I don't have a scoop, I don't even have a rake.

169:23:28 Cernan: They're both gone, huh?

169:23:29 Schmitt: Yup.

[Jack's EP-2 "locator" - AS17-143-21924 - shows that the rake and scoop were gone at that time. A comparison with AS17-135- 20542 suggests that the extension handles came out of the mounting brackets. Those are shown most clearly in AS17-146-22296 which was taken at the end of Station 6. At 169:38:29, they will confirm that the extension handles were lost, that it was a failure of the mounting brackets that caused the losses.]

[schmitt - "A bunch of Okies going across the countryside, dropping stuff right and left."]

2. This is the Lunar Seismic Profiling Experiment (LSPE), which contained explosives. No need to take unused explosives back. See here.

3. See 1.

4. Sample container bags. The samples have been transferred to the LM and the spare bags discarded.

5. The fender:

170:01:00 Schmitt: I will. (Long Pause)

[AS17-143- 21932 shows the final Rover parking configuration.]

[Cernan - "I sit here (looking at the picture) and swear that I parked the Rover with the wheels straight. That's the final parking? Well, we're behind the LM and it's about the right distance."]

[schmitt - "Why doesn't it have a fender?"]

[Cernan - "I took it off. Both of them. I took them both home."]

[At some point before he goes back to the LM, Gene will remove the replacement fender - which is now at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington. He will also remove the rear section of the left rear fender - which is now on display at the Johnson Space Center's Visitor's Center.]

also:

170:19:48 Cernan: Okay; let me get one parting shot (photo) one of the finest running little machines I've ever had the pleasure to drive. (Pause)

[Gene takes AS17-143- 21931 to 21934. One of the best of these is 21933. Note Gene has removed the replacement fender and, from the left side, the rear extension. One seismic charge (LSPE) remains in the transporter. Gene will deployit at the west end of the SEP antenna array at 170:24:16]

6. That's the LRV frame, Jack. The frame is in shadow.

7. Jack must have cut the top off the antenna when he did one of his infamous 'crop jobs'. It's clearly there in AS17-143-21933.

Here is a good diagramme of the LRV and it's equipment:

LRV details (diagramme from Press Kit) from the National Air & Space Museum

The background:

Once again, the similarity of backgrounds has fooled people. In 20542, the point Jack has indicated is NOT the same point as he has indicated in 21933. The point indicated in 20542 is actually to the left of the position Jack has marked in 21933, and can be see in the FULL frame. In this case, Jack has cropped it out.

Here is a comparison of the horizons. The top two images are the ones Jack has used (20542 and 21933), joined together, then compared with a pan shot of the horizon. The bottom image is from a pan shot taken at the LM, and consists of AS17-147-22493 through AS17-147-22497.

Comparison of AS17-135-20542 (HR), AS17-143-21933 (HR), and AS17-147-22493 through AS17-147-22497 (cropped, annotated, scaled)

The pan shot I have used above is taken from just north of the LM. You can see it in the full pan (known as

Jack's 4 o'clock EVA-1 LM Pan).

I've also made a 'locator' mud map so you can get an idea of where the images where taken from, what they where looking at, and what features you would expect to see.

Now, some things to note.

In AS17-135-20542 & AS17-143-21933, we are EAST of the LM.

You can see the LM in 21933.

In 20542, it is hidden behind the LRV. Have a look at 20541 (the preceeding frame), and you can see the LM. Both frames are taken from the about the same location, but in 20541 the LRV is still at the LM, just about to leave.

The reason that the LM appears to "move" (as Jack is bound to question this) is because they are taken from different perspectives with regard to the LM. They are both about 150m east of the LM, but remember that those "hills" are over 10km away.

Don't forget to check the ALSJ, check all the pans I have referenced, and the individual images I have presented. Make sure for yourself what I am telling you is correct.

The "editor comments" - the LRV was NOT parked "several kilometers away from the LM". It had to be 137m (that's METRES) away from the LM in order for the LRV camera to be able to pan and catch the ascent stage launching.

170:20:41 Parker: Roger. We're satisfied with the TV, Gene. We're ready for you to take the EP number 3. (Pause)

[Gene is now on CDR-33. In Houston, Fendell tells the Flight Director that the distance is "well over" the 450 feet (137 meters) he needs. An analysis of mission photographs of the LM taken at the final parking place and at the SEP deployment site indicates that Gene parked the Rover about 158 meters from the LM.]

Here is another comparison of the horizon:

There are photos where the same backgrounds were used repeatedly at different locations and also photos of one scene where the backgrounds change , that seem to have nothing to do with the parallax view.

I will post some evidence of that when I have more time .

I'll be interested in seeing that, but what I am expecting is the same old mistakes ala Jack.

Gary,

I don't consider it a conspiracy per se, but rather the simple greed that a number of people suffer from. Being comfortable is not enough - we want MORE. Being a financial retard, I accept I do not understand - but I still wonder why when a company makes a million dollars a year and all is well for the stockholders, there seem to be complaints why that million didn't grow into two million or three. Why do you have to make more? Isn't making a tidy profit enough?

I'm sure David can enlighten me, but David - keep it simple. I really am so stupid in these areas.

The recent confession by Koltsov seems to have convinced the newspapers that the official story was correct. However, there is a big problem with Koltsov’s confession. According to Koltsov, the reason that he cut Crabb’s throat was that he found him attaching a limpet mine to the hull. Why would MI6 be interested in blowing up the Soviet cruiser Ordzhonikidze, an act that would almost certainly have ignited war with the Soviet Union?

I'd also find problems with this. They wanted to look at the prop and hull; sinking it in situ would have achieved little... but to play Devil's Advocate: would there have been an advantage? Could it have been claimed it was a WWII mine? Was the area near known WWII minefields (this information was kept secret for many, many years)? Was the harbour deep enough it to settle but not sink? That way Russian casualties would have been kept to minimum. Would the security services / MoD been able to get a good look during any 'assistance' in "recovery efforts"?

I don't think so, but it is worth considering.

I reject the idea that Crabb defected to the Soviet Union. If he had, the Soviets would have used the information as part of their propaganda campaign. As a war hero, Crabb’s defection would have been a considerable coup for the KGB.

Agreed.

The third theory has much more going for it.

I disagree here; his value as a diver were limited, at best. Would he have had intelligence information that would make him worthwhile?

It is of course impossible to know exactly what happened to Crabb. However, the theory that Crabb had been warned by Philby via Blunt that MI6/CIA had identified as a spy and that he intended to defect to the Soviet Union, is supported by the facts available. The arrest of Crabb would have created terrible publicity for the British intelligence system. If Crabb had defected to the Soviet Union the embarrassment would have been even worse as it would suggest that MI5/MI6 still had a mole in a senior position. The best way out of this was to kill Crabb and blame it on the Soviets. If that was the plan, it worked.

That still has to be considered as a possibility.

Anyone who would lie about going to the moon would have no qualms about lying with his hand on a bible.

On this, we can agree.

That second shot you have used is very good. You do see three distinct regions of soil colour. From top to bottom, mid-grey, light grey, and dark grey.

Now, assuming that the images were NOT faked (humour me on this) - is there anything else that could account for this effect? Or is it absolutely impossible for this to be anything other than a fake backdrop?

Ignore the nutter and don't dignify his garbage.

That would be typical Apollo apologist character assassination speak for ... "ignore the conspiracy researchers and hopefully no one will notice that all of the Apollo astronots run away from the Bible like it's a snake about to bite them and avoid their questions like the plague " ...

That particular comment (nutter) is directed solely at Sibrel. And you seem to be forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that Apollo lunar walkers HAVE sworn on the Bible - and Sibrel just calls them liars.

I'll refer you back to an answer I gave earlier:

Yes, Armstrong is a shy, retiring gent. He has been known as such for many years, preferring to ask people to acknowledge the contributions of the thousands of people who worked on Apollo, and not focus just on him.

He is not the type to stand in the front row; he is the type to stand in the back and say "let others get some accolades - I've had my share". Very admirable, and consistent with everything that people have ever said about him.

You have to consider that Armstrong's statements are not alone; Sibrel has done similar things to all of the astronauts.

(BTW, it's a biography, not an AUTObiography, and was included in the chapter where Hansen talks about Armstrong's status as an icon, how he has dealt with it, the pitfalls, etc)

Now, if Armstrong had acceded to Sibrel's wishes, what would that have achieved? Whenever astronauts have done so, Sibrel just calls them liars. What did Sibrel himself say? That if Aldrin had sworn on the Bible, he was going to bring a charge of 'obtaining monies through deceit' against Aldrin (Sibrel said swear on the Bible, and I'll donate ?$1000? (IIRC) to any charity you like). No, it's a no-win situation for the astronauts. Ignore the nutter and don't dignify his garbage.

I'll leave this here for 24 hours (unless another mod moves it) to record any objections, then if there are no valid concerns I'll move it to the Conspiracies board.

Tim,

As a JFK novice / disinterested party, I really don't see the relevence. Could you highlight it more, otherwise I'll move the thread to a more pertinent area. Thanks!

It's a very interesting topic.

The premise of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" is quite valid.... but we must also consider the premise of "We have always done it that way here". That premise abhors change and / or improvement.

So what is the best compromise between the two?

Typical poor comprehension. I accused you of NOTHING. I typed

ONLY FOUR WORDS...

"...and your point is?"

...and you say I am daft?

Jack

Then why did Duane say he editted his post to add a message from you to me saying "Your typical non like- for- like comparison does not apply once again"?

Ask Duane. It is obvious that he wrote that, not me.

Jack

Thus the reason for my asking Duane to let you post your own studies, rather than him.

I appreciate the problems you are having with the Forum because of your OS, but if someone uploads the images you supply to a website (e.g. Photobucket) for you, you can then link to them no matter what. No OS upgrade required, and no reason for others to post on your behalf.