Evan Burton

There are a number of problems with Griffin's claims.

Firstly, the comments about the 'FoneFaker'. There is a big - and I believe incorrect - assumption made there. It says it can "...change your voice...". I have no problem with that; there are a multitude of ways to do this. It also says it can make your voice sound like a male or female. Again, no problems. Griffin says, though, that it "...will produce the person's Caller ID as well as his or her voice...". That is NOT what the device / service claims, and I do not believe it would be capable of doing so. It is one thing to use a device to alter your voice; it is quite another to use it to mimic someone else's voice. I am wondering if he actually purchased one of these devices / services and attempted to use it in the manner in which he claims it would have been used? I think not.

Also, Griffin has said:

When the FBI had to present evidence in a court of law, therefore, it would not claim that any high-altitude cell phone calls had occurred. (These two low-altitude calls from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell phone calls made from all four flights).

That's not correct. What was said was:

Q. Would you tell us who that caller was.

A. Yes, sir, this is Thomas Burnett, Jr. Records, airphone records indicate that Mr. Burnett made three phone calls from rows

24 A, B, and C and 25 A, B, and C. However, Thomas's wife, Deena, reported that there may have been additional cell phone calls made to her.

Q. So, she spoke to her husband repeatedly that day, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

(Source: Moussaoui trial transcript, page 3473, http://www.911myths.com/images/f/f8/Moussa...ril_11_2006.pdf )

Another problem is regarding the AirFones aboard the aircraft. There is evidence from AA employees (in the form of Engineering Change Orders) that they were not removed until sometime in 2002.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Airfones

I don't know about that.

There were many convincing aspects to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" but the majority of the points put forward by the production have been disproven.

I certainly do NOT say we should stop everything and go "green".

On the other hand, I think there is a lot of room for sensible suggestions that would reduce our total emissions, and a general behavioral change in the way do things.

My world of watering the lawn, burning off, etc, needs to be re-evaluated.

Based on Peter's assessment that this is not simply a political discussion but rather a deliberate action (i.e. a conspiracy) I am inclined to leave this thread here where it belongs.

I would ask people, however, to consider if their threads are simply political discussion rather than a political conspiracy.

Thanks!

I think by the response that Apollo falls into the "conspiracy" section (even though I disagree with that assessment).

How about we just play this by ear, and post there if desired?

Do you think it might be worthwhile asking John and Andy to create a subforum or two here? I'm think Political Discussion (rather than conspiracy) and Chat.

There is a Government & Politics subforum, but it is primarily aimed at the teachers of those subjects rather than people who might like to discuss it in general.

They might not be appropriate on this board, but I thought it might be worth asking.

I'm very interested in how this could have happened. If the events told so far are correct, then the least we can say is the security control system is seriously flawed - so flawed that it should be immediately replaced with a system of tighter restrictions and positive control.

I understand the problems that restrictive controls place on operational flexibility, but a massive flaw in the current system has been exposed and has already been pointed out... these are nuclear weapons. Nearly enough is not good enough; it must be impenetrable.

Wow - a lot of interesting things to ponder between Norman and Paul. It's hardly a 'cut & dried' situation, is it?

How could we improve the situation in Burma? Or is it not our place, and we should 'bug off' from their internal affairs?

I'm not someone who follows the JFK claims, but with something like that you can understand the "confusion":

Q: "How many gunshots did you hear?"

A (first witness): "Six"

A (second witness): "Two"

A (third witness): "Three"

A (fourth witness): "There were gunshots?"

An image posted in this post was deleted at the request of the photographer, as no permission was gained for its use.

Hi Evan,

I object to Damon's use of one of my images to spread his <opinions with which I disagree>, particularly as he hasn't even bothered crediting it. If it is within your power to remove the image and details from this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=121736 I would be gratefully if you would do so. If Damon wishes to link to the post at ApolloHoax.net then he is free to do so, as this will give people a chance to see the image in the context in which it was intended.

Thank you,

Waspie_Dwarf

(ps If you do remove the image you have my permission to reproduce this PM to explain your action)

Now why couldn't any Apollo astronot FROM ANY MISSION have done exactly the same thing? ....Were they told not to? ... Were they advised to not mention what the view of the stars was like from the vacuum of space as well ?

I don't know how many times we have to say this Duane: because those images could be taken from Earth, or from a dedicated orbital platform. The Apollo programme was about lunar exploration. That why they took photos of it, both from the surface and from lunar orbit.

That's why they collected samples from the surface. That's why they left experiments there. It was about the Moon.

Photography from the Moon offered a few benefits - but not enough to warrant displacing other experiments / tasks that could NOT be done from Earth orbit or without a dedicated lunar mission (manned or unmanned).

Dave, there was a stellar photography experiment on Apollos 15 and 16, with a pack mounted in the SIM bay IIRC. I'm waiting for the JSC server to come back online to get some other images. See previous posts about the details and NSSDC ID.

If I may interject: John has mentioned that younger people do read this section of the Forum. regardless of how we may think they talk, what they know, etc... John's house, John's rules.

I should not have put that word in my own post, and apologise for using it. Antti, thanks for editing it out. Michael, thanks for picking up on that. Consider me admonished.

Here's another example. Same night, same camera. I was trying to show the "red moon". I was able to show it (I have only a cheapy tripod, and it shows) but in doing so the other part of the Moon is too bright for any detail to be seen... and still no stars are visible, though I could see them myself (I has been outside for quite some time).

The JSC Digital Image server is coming up as down for me; I'll give you some other images as soon as possible. I've sent an e-mail to the NASA people responsible, so hopefully they can get the problem fixed.

There are one or two other images which show the lunar horizon and the sky... but they don't show stars because the exposure has been set for photography of the surface, not the sky. Exactly the same thing we have been saying.

Here is an image I took of the Moon during the lunar eclipse.

Where are the stars?

Answer: the exposure settings to capture the subject of the image (the Moon) meant that the stars did not register.

Re: Leonov - yes, some astronauts / cosmonauts report seeing stars, others don't. There can often be a reason for this; here is a hint... when were the EVAs most often conducted?

"Duane,

Only just had time to look in at the EF. He's suffering from several delusions.

First off, I have applied to join the forum several times, but new members not being accepted message comes up, on my board at least.

Otherwise I'd be happy to debate with him there.

Duane,

You could ask John to have a look at Mike's application. I'm reasonably sure he'd process this as a 'one-off'. Just ask him.

For John Simkin to even ponder the possibility of resigning as forum administrator is ridiculous. He is the heart and soul of this forum and if you don't like it, take your bat and ball and go home.

John, for what ever it is worth, you have my support.

Hear, hear.

You have my 100% support.

Charles - you know better than to use such language. Please do not use it again. Thank you.

You have stated that the third astronaut in the orbiting CM WAS BUSY TAKING PHOTOS OF THE STARS while the two others were on the surface. ... Could you please back up that claim by providing the file numbers of those alleged photos ?

The Digital Image Collection server is down right now, so I can't get you some better images but in the meantime here is one:

AS16-123-19657

Details of the experiment from Apollo 15:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/Master...1-063A&ex=4

Details from Apollo 16:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/Master...2-031A&ex=4

I voted yes, with the important proviso's that EVERYTHING, short of physical intervention is tried first, and secondly, once the task is completed the interventionists leave,once the business of running the Country has been Democratically decided.

Agreed. That is why I can appreciate Peter's position but not quite agree with it. Try everything first - diplomatic talks, sanctions, etc - then if that fails, the threat of military action. With some people, you have to have the threat of force because otherwise they will simply ignore you. Perhaps they would listen to China, etc, but who knows? So far the Western world just seems to be content to tell them "You really should not be doing this. Really - it's bad. Please stop it or we will get quite angry", and the junta ignores them.

If military action (I think I'd prefer to call it a police action) is required, then it must be a multinational force, under the control of the UN, and with clearly defined goals: for instance, protection of the civilian populace from retribution from the Burmese military, supervision of existing government functions until free and fair elections can be held, supervision of elections, etc.

I don't really have the knowledge of the situation to make an informed judgment, but do you think the existing junta should be subjected to any criminal prosecution? My initial assessment is no; just get a democratically elected government back into place. Correct the situation, and forget any revenge.

I'm quite possibly wrong, but I think China has been starting to get very upset with Burma and the way they are conducting their internal politics.

I suspect we might see China sanctions against Burma in the not too distant future.

The US has frozen Burmese assets offshore, haven't they?

This is only tangentially related to conspiracies, but I thought it might be relevant here:

Should the US / the UN / the Western nations / democratic nations be sending in a military force to remove the current government of Burma and install a democratic government?

What are the pros and cons of action / inaction?

I do have to admit that there is something to think about when we consider that we (because I consider Australia in this) were quite willing to go into Afghanistan and Iraq (which I initially agreed with, but now would like to see use with an exit strategy) but do not seem so eager to remove a dictatorship in Burma.

I might start a separate thread about it.

I think a cavieat is required. Should you choose to post messages for others, particularly those under Moderation, you will be held responsible for the content of that post. Members under moderation still enjoy full posting rights, so there is no need for anyone else to act as a go-between, as if it were a message being smuggled out of a Soviet Gulag.

Well, not full posting rights - but if they conform to civility then there will be no reason to edit their posts. Since we are discussing Jack in particular, I should repeat that I am happy to let other moderators approve / disapprove Jack's posts whilst he is under moderation. I will not take part in it, so I am not censoring anything he says to suit my own wishes.

Also on a point raised by Stephen: after discussion regarding people posting Jack's replies for him, it has been decided that the poster will be responsible for the content of their posts. Saying "This is posted on behalf of John Doe.." is no immunity. If the content of the post breaks forum rules, you'll be given one warning. If you break them again, the details of the posts will be passed to John for consideration of moderation.

Maybe the Apollo treads deserve their own area outside of political conspiracies.

It's worth considering, but I am not sure if it is the right thing to do. If we did, then perhaps 9/11 would also deserve a separate sub-forum. I'm unsure. I do have to admit, it would help keep things on an even keel. I am fully aware that some excellent threads in the PC board get "pushed back" because of the prevalence of Apollo threads - and occasionally 9/11 threads.

Personally, I've never understood why they generate more 'heat' than anything else, apparently. I myself don't participate in them and obviously others, including at least one monitor have great interest in them. I don't even watch them, so don't know what goes on there.

The same goes for me, but with respect to JFK (and a far lesser degree, 9/11). For my part, Apollo is my bailiwick so that is where I am active.

Jack has been integral, both past and present in information, clarifications and important analyses and details from the past as well. His boiling point may be lower than some others, but he is also the focus of more attacks and provacations on the Forum than any other single person, but far, and it is done by a few regulars, so he feels that people are ganging-up on him and that makes it worse.

I understand, but we all have to play by the rules. If we were to extend some type of latitude to Jack because of his contribution to JFK research, then why should other person - who have contributed in other areas - not also receive latitude?

If Jack considers that he is being attacked, then he should report the posts that do so - like other forum members have done, and which get reported to ALL moderators / admins, not just to those who happen to read the particular thread where a grievance is aired.

The Forum has a slight bias against the offiical version of history and the events within it, I think.

Which is good, to a degree. Be skeptical. Question events... but you also have to listen to answers. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Those who are more in the 'camp' of supporting the official version of some particular event or every event often fight IMO a bit too hard to counter this mild bias of the Forum consensus, in so doing, start to raise the heat and that often breaks out into problematic angry posts. It is not easy when hold very nearly opposite views on important issues. One trick is not to respond immediately, if possible, but wait an hour or to the next day and try to weave both wisdom and humor into the reply, instead of venom. Another is to ignore, though that is often hard as the past poster 'seems' to have 'won' by not being challenged and that is why some who disagree with the thrust of thread at all cost make sure their post is always at the end of it trying to defeat and deflate the thread's premise.

Agreed to a degree. Sometimes you have to admit you are wrong. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. Sometimes, though, the onus is on someone to defend their position if they wish that position to be taken seriously. It is quite easy, though, to lose your temper and make remarks in anger that on reflection you wish you had not said.

I'd like to see Jack posting here again and both he and those who often attack him to try to cool it, more than a bit.

This is where we part our ways a little. Jack is still able to post here. As long as he conforms with the rules of the forum, his posts remain unedited. If he does break the rules, then the fact that the post is edited is visible to all.

I would say that people should 'cool it' with their replies, though. I try to do so myself, though not always with success. Some get accused as 'goading' others; should there be a rule against it? How do you determine goading? I think it is up to the people involved not to respond to goading, report posts which violate the forum rules, and take heed of moderators when they ask people to start being a little calmer with their replies. The last thing you want to do is respond to the goading; it simply brings you down to their level.

Here's the bottom line ... again .

The Apollo astronots claimed that they couldn't see any stars from the lunar surface without looking through the optics ... This has been proven to be FALSE by the topic article I posted here and by the statement made by astronomer Phil Plait about the ability to see stars from the lunar surface , even in the day time with the Sun shining brightly .

This is only what the Apollo 11 astronauts said. Other astronauts said they didn't see stars because they did not take the time for their to eyes to adapt to darker areas where they would be able to see. You continually ignore that Gene Cernan said that he could see stars from the surface...because he let his eyes adapt in a shadowed area.

If NASA WANTED ANY OF THE APOLLO ASTRONOTS TO PHOTOGRAPH THE STARS ABOVE THE LUNAR SURFACE ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS TO :

1. TAKE A TRIPOD ON BOARD THE LM , AS THIS WAS STANDARD PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT !

2. TAKE 30 SECONDS OUT OF THEIR EVA TIME TO AT LEAST PHOTOGRAPH ONE PICTURE OF THE STARS AS SEEN FROM THE MOON ... SOMETHING WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE !

Weight was all important on the LM. NOTHING that was not necessary (stand fast astronaut's PPK) was taken. With a standard camera, what would have been the difference between a shot of a star from the lunar surface, and through a telescope on Earth? Nothing - the Earth one, because taken through a telescope, would have probably been better.

So you needed a high quality camera, specially designed to take stellar photography.... and they carried them on a couple of occasions on the CSM.

You continually ignore the fact that your pictures as seen from the moon were taken... from lunar orbit.