Evan Burton

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.

The war on drugs has been a disaster in the US. Our prisons are filled with the greatest number of prisoners per capita in US history (largely due to federal law and sentencing requirements), The Criminal justice system is overloaded to the point of being hamstrung, and the US prison system has been declared to be unacceptable with respect to human rights abuses by (the UN?).

There seems to be a greater and greater call for the 'war on drugs' to be abandoned. Treat drug use as a disease, not a crime. I'm interested in how other countries have dealt with the problem? I understand the Netherlands have gone down the decriminalisation road - how has that turned out? So far, it seems we are badly losing the war on drugs.

Or was Blunt getting information from an unwise Crabb, who might have believed that Blunt could be trusted?

I read a book (I forget which) that said that Victor Rothschild was the fifth man. I was unconvinced by it, but I admit my knowledge of these affairs is only superficial.

I might be incorrect, but I think it might be unfair to say that Wright "...claimed that Roger Hollis, Michael Hanley and Graham Mitchell were spies...". IIRC, he said that based on the various allegations and known "true bills", those three were the only ones who fitted all the circumstances. He later ruled out Hanley and Mitchell because of their surveillance / interrogations, but didn't clear Hollis.

But Neil Armstrong has had his fair share of dealings with Sibrel. Bart tried to corner Neil during a stockholders meeting in 2001. He also trespassed into the Armstrong home:

Even before the EDO and Aldrin incidents, the same individual entered uninvited into the Armstrong's suburban Cincinnati home. Neil's second wife Caro, relates what happened: "Neil was at the office. This guy knocked at the door and there was a big dog with him, and he had a package. I opened the outside door while leaving the screen door shut, and the man said, 'Is Neil here?' I said, 'No, he's not. May I help you?' He opened the screen door and just walked in, bringing his dog with him. He said, 'I want him to sign this,' and I said , 'Neil doesn't sign things anymore.' 'He'll sign this,' he uttered, and then left.

"It sort of hit me three minutes later. All of a sudden I felt shaky."

In the weeks that followed, the interloper started putting letters and other things in the Armstrong's mailbox. Some of the material had religious overtones and most were about the Moon landings being faked. The local police department responded, "It's probably nothing but why don't you just bring the tapes and letters and we'll take a look at them," until a call to the ABC station in Nashville revealed that he had never worked there, but was instead an independent filmmaker who operated a business called ABC video. [Sibrel would misrepresent himself, telling people he was from the ABC - EB]

A few weeks later, Carol received a phone call from her neighbour: "Carol, there's this car parked out here and it's been out here for a long time." When the neighbour went to investigate, she saw a lot of camera equipment in the back seat. The seige continued for three days, culminating in a car chase involving the Armstrongs, the intruder, and the police.

Source: FIRST MAN, James R. Hansen, Chapter 34

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.

"Just a simple administrative error that the JSC website people have made. "

That's a great excuse ! .. and you came up with it so quickly too ! ... What a surprise .

I guess you better complete your mission then and notify the good folks at the JSC web site that they have made a little error that doesn't look very good for nasa's already very questionable Apollo photography .

Then how do you explain the disparity in what they said: "Station 8" "final parking place", when Station 8 is some 5 km from the LM?

The fact I "came up with it so quickly" is that I am obviously more familiar with the material than you. As soon as I heard Station 8 and final parking position used together, I knew there was a mistake.

How many images are there in the JSC collection? How many people had to put in the descriptions? How many descriptions were they putting in per day? Where did they get the descriptions from? You have never made an error when posting something, when putting a caption on an image? Again - you have never made an error when putting a caption on an image?

I haven't broken any forum rules posting an image for Jack have I ? ... He can't post them from his Mac , so he asked me to please post it for him .

No, but if Jack wants to rebut something, he should do it himself. Jack can post images from his Mac... if they are being hosted on another website. All he need to do is type the URL. My understanding is that because he has an outdated OS, he cannot upload to this Forum, and he cannot upload to Photobucket. That does not prevent him from linking to an image on the internet.

BTW Duane, Jack can speak for himself. He can link to the image on your website just as easily as you can, so let him post his own rebuttals.

Thanks.

Well, whoever put the details into the JSC website got it wrong; from the ALSJ:

AS17-146-22367 (OF300) ( 144k or 1162k )

166:53:35 This is Gene's "locator" to the Rover. This excellent picture shows the TV camera pointed off to the left and the high-gain antenna pointed back towards Earth, which is over the South Massif. Note that the low-gain antenna, which is partially hidden by the high-gain is also pointed at Earth. The SEP antenna is behind Jack's seat and the rake for the explosive charges is visible on the back of the Rover. The East Massif is at the upper right. Readers should note the dark blemish on the East Massif foothill above and slightly to the right of the SEP antenna. This is the outcrop area that Gene notes as he and Jack leave Station 8 at 167:39:41.

The JSC description that it was taken at Station 8 is correct, but it was not the final parking place. Station 8 is near Cochise:

It's also quite obvious when you see that the images after 22367 on the same roll have the LRV and astronauts in different locations that it was not the LRV final parking place.

Just a simple administrative error that the JSC website people have made.

Hi Mike, and welcome to the Forum.

I thought it was an example of the moderation system working.

Two complaints were made about the posts, so there was concern about them. Three moderators agreed that there might be cause for concern. The posts were made invisible (not deleted, not edited) and the matter was referred to higher authority - John Simkin.

John reviewed the matter, and decided that no action was required and no Forum rules were being broken. The posts were made visible again.

All parties had their views taken into account, and a decision was made - in Peter's favour.

End of story. This took about 9 hours; not bad considering the different time zones and the need to have John involve himself.

Posts released. John S is happy they do not constitute a violation of Forum rules.

Yes, Peter Wright described it as "a typical piece of MI6 misadventure" from an organisation that was "... operating in the modern world with 1930s attitudes and 1930s personnel and equipment..." [1].

It's quite understandable they would want to get a look at the prop design; that's the case even today. Their choice of personnel, though, was seriously flawed.

Wright says that Nicholas Elliot was in charge of the operation and received technical assistance from John Henry, the MI6 London Station Technical Officer. Henry told MI5, two days after Crabbe went missing, that he "... told Nicholas not to use Buster; he was heading for a heart attack as it was...".[2]

Wright says later in his book that the defecting KGB agent Anatoli Golitsin told them that the KGB had advance warning of Crabbe's mission[3]. He believes this pointed to Hollis being the 'Fifth Man'.

[1] 'Spycatcher', Peter Wright, William Heinemann Australia 1987, ISBN 0 85561 098 0, Ch 6, pg 72

[2] Ibid, Ch6, pg 74

[3] Ibid, Ch12, pg 172

I have set some posts here invisible; they have not been deleted. Some things have been said that give rise to concern, and I'd like one of the regular JFK moderators to look at it.

Please be patient.

Thank you.

Peter,

You can save the current attachments to your Photobucket account. There is a multi-step process which will work, though I am unsure if there is a better way to do it.

1. Go to each individual image you want to save. If it has been reduced, select the top of the image (where it says CLICK HERE TO VIEW FULL IMAGE) so that you get a new window opening with the full image. In that new window, anywhere on the image, RIGHT-click with your mouse. A menu will appear. Select SAVE IMAGE AS or similar. When you select that, a window will appear with your computer files. Select whereabouts you want to save the image (I'd suggest using a folder like EDUCATION FORUM IMAGES or something equally obvious and easy to find), and hit SAVE. The image (attachment) will now be downloaded to your computer.

2. Repeat for each image you want to save.

3. After you have downloaded all the images you want to save, navigate to the Photobucket website and login. Once logged in, on the right of the page, there will be an area marked UPLOAD. Ensure that IMAGES FROM MY PC is highlighted, then select the first BROWSE button. Browse to where you have the images stored on your computer (e.g. EDUCATION FORUM IMAGES), and select the first image you want to upload and hit the OK button on that window. The UPLOAD field on the website should change to a green tick on the left, a red REMOVE on the right, and a box in the middle to enter the image title if you like.

4. Select the next BROWSE button and repeat the process. When you run out of BROWSE buttons, there is a green cross with ADD MORE. Keep going through the process until you have selected all the images you want to upload, then hit the big UPLOAD button. It may take a while, depending on how many images you want to upload and their size, but eventually you'll get a message saying UPLOAD SUCCESSFUL.

You can also upload directly from a URL, but the above method gives you copies of the images on your computer. You can burn them to a disk and no matter what happens to the Photobucket website - or your computer - you'll have a permanent record of the images.

There is also a BULK UPLOADER option on the Photobucket website but I have not used it so am unsure how it works.

Cite away; I have no secrets.

What you are doing is simply demonstrating my caution with respect to you is justified.

We hope and encourage people to do this, but often they feel they need to post full images.

.. yet you spend every single day of your life on the UM writing lengthy posts in defense of Apollo as if your very life depended on it ....

Some people feel more strongly about than others; personally I commend Dave and others for their efforts.

A discussion that might be of interest & relevance:

Defending Apollo from hoax claims

I got the message:

ERROR 504 - Bandwidth Limits Exceeded.

As soon as the new month kicked in, it was back up again. This happens a few times a year.

If at least some of this Forbes chap's credentials were not public knowledge, would not our evaluations of the accuracy and truthfulness of his above-reproduced pronouncements regarding the alleged threat's particulars begin on substantively different footing?

The undefined Mr. Forbes v. Senior Fellow Forbes: Two very different animals.

Charles

That is why you check the veracity of what has been said. His position does not alter what he has said, and whether or not it is correct.

I understand there are times you may question the background of a person, to determine if - in absence of any other data - what they say is correct (e.g. a professional opinion) or if they are displaying a bias; but when certain statements are made - statements of fact, not opinion - then who utters it is irrelevant. The utterance is either true or false. Len is providing citations / references so anyone can determine if the source for his claims are correct or not. What he does to earn a crust is neither here nor there. If he is wrong, show why he is wrong. If you think the sources are incorrect, unreliable, or biased, then say so. But if what Len has said is correct, then it doesn't matter whether Len was God or Satan or the Purple People Eater; what he said was correct.

I've heard the same thing about Mountbatten.

He was probably speaking to Air Chief Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger, Chief of Air Staff (i.e. head of the RAAF) until 1961 then Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (i.e. chief of the armed forces).

Why is it none of my business if he is an intelligence agent .....

Because it is a standard tactic of yours to question people when you are unable to counter their argument. You are unable to address what they have said, so you try and divert attention away from it. A sign of someone who is poorly skilled in the art of debating.

I have said this before, and no doubt I'll have to say it again: it matters not whether someone is a spook, a journalist, a plumber, or a dentist - if what someone has said is correct, then they are correct. If they are wrong, they are wrong. What is important is what was said - not who said it.

You are paranoid to the extreme Peter - you must lead a sad existence to have developed that way.

My clearance is of no concern of yours - publicly or via PM. I do not talk about my work - which is a requirement for ALL Australian Defence personnel. If you want to note what SINGAROO is, look it up - it's no secret.

Peter,

Apart from being none of your business, I notice you nicely use on Len that character assassination you accuse him of.

You question if he has connections to Mossad, and then also say that if he has he will of course deny it. You damn him no matter his reply.

Norman, you are correct - it wasn't Sandys. I was getting mixed up there.

There are a number of good books available about the TSR2 but an excellent first-hand account is from the test pilot for the programme, Ronald "Bea" Beaumont, and called "Phoenix into Ashes".

The F-111 is a magnificent aircraft, but its selection into the Australian inventory involved skullduggery. A lot of pressure was placed on the RAAF to buy the F-111 in favour of the the TSR2, and it is widely believed that the loss of Australian TSR2 orders was one of the final nails in the coffin for the TSR2.

"Mark, point me in the direction of the driest uninhabited continent. Sounds good to me. I'll pack a few eskies and move there."

Greg, you wont have far to go (near uninhabited) just head straight south, and forget about an esky. Pack longjohns and parkas instead.

Evan, AFAIK the F-!!! (planning dating to early 60's) was only bought by Oz. (outside USofA) Where has it seen active service as far as Oz is concerned. It has dropped out of the sky on a regular basis. A stupid purchase at a time when the Saab Viggen (for example) was far superior.

The purchase of the F-111 was surround by controversy. The main competitor for the purchase was the (now) BAe TSR2. It was being developed for the RAF, and was turning into an impressive aircraft. Almost without warning, Duncan Sandys (the UK Minister for Defence) canceled all research programmes - among them the TSR2. There was shock about this decision, especially when shortly afterwards a decision was made to purchase the F-111K for Britain to fill the gap left by the TSR2! That order was eventually canceled, and F-4 Phantoms were purchased instead.

Anyway, as you say, we were the only customer outside of the US, but the Viggen never even entered into the picture.

The F-111 was purchased for Air Staff Requirement 36 (ASR 36), the Canberra bomber replacement, and called for a high speed aircraft to attack targets deep within enemy territory with bombs or air-to-surface missiles, as well as photo-recon and ECM missions as a secondary role. The basic requirements were for all weather day / night Mach 2 performance at 50 000 feet, and Mach 0.9 at 200 feet, ROA of 900nm minimum with 1100nm preferred. It had to be capable of in-flight refuelling, and carry a weapons load of 4 x 1000lb bombs or 2 x air-to-surface missiles.

Let’s see how the performance figures of the two stand up:

Viggen F-111

Speed M2.1 M2.4

TFR capability No Yes

Weapons load 4400lbs 8000lbs

ROA 550nm 1200nm

In-flight refuelling No Yes

Internal bomb bay No Yes

Air-to-Surface Weapons No Yes

The Viggen wasn't even considered because it wasn't in the same class. It was designed for a different requirement.

I think to say they "...dropped out of the sky on a regular basis..." is completely inaccurate. We bought 24 F-111C originally, then in 1982 bought 4 x F-111A aircraft and converted them to C status as attrition replacements, then in 1993/94 we bought 15 x F-111G to expand our capability and reduce airframe usage on the original Cs / As. So out of 43 airframes bought (of we at least two were bought only to cannibalise for spares), we have lost 7 F-111Cs (since 1973) and an F-111G in 1999. Considering the flight regime they fly in, that's a pretty good record.