Evan Burton

Why not? ... Are you seriously suggesting time lapse images of stars above an overexposed Moon setting wouldn't have been of any interest to an agency that concentrates on star photography?

Why would they take images of the stars from the lunar surface when the CSM in lunar orbit was taking images of the stars when required? Noting, of course, that the large majority of images were pre-planned, both for the lunar surface exploration and the lunar orbits.

Tim, I'm happy to abide by whatever terms and conditions are set by the board owners.

I admit I find this quite amazing.

I have never made reference to Jack viz a viz his JFK work, except perhaps once say that people considered him a respected researcher in that area.

Before I was a moderator, jack posted his famous words. I found them - as far as his Apollo studies were concerned - hypocritical to say the least and created my signature line.

When I was made a moderator, it was pointed out that this was inappropriate and so I removed it.

Jack was taken to task over ONE particular claim. It was stated over and over that admitting error in this one claim had no effect on his other studies or claims. Each time Jack said that we (because more than one forum member posted images in response to this) were not following the conditions correctly, we ensured that the photographs were taken under the conditions he specified. he changed the condition, and we produced new images.

Each time it was shown that Jack was wrong. He was given several opportunities to admit this error - and prove that his famous quote was indeed true. He chose not to, despite the overwhelming evidence that he was wrong in this particular claim.

So I returned my signature line. There was offence taken at the last word in the signature line, so I altered it to be more civil... whilst still remaining accurate. When Jack was placed on moderation, IIRC, I removed it entirely.

Jack accused me - not the forum software, but me - of banning him, of blocking his logins, of altering his posts, of deleting his posts. I stated that I had not done so. John and Andy confirmed this after checking with the forum security log, where ALL actions are recorded.

Did Jack apologise for his accusation, saying that something had happened to his posts? No. He continued to accuse me, claiming more interference on my part. Once again I said I had done no such thing, once again John and Andy confirmed that the claims were baseless.

An apology? Nope. MORE accusations, this time (IIRC) on Duane's behalf. Did anyone check the facts? Nope. Was I responsible for any interference? Nope. In fact John and Andy confirmed that I had done nothing wrong. They warned Jack about making such rash accusations.

Surely an apology for that one, even a "XXXX - sorry about that"?

Nope. MORE accusations, so I asked John to place Jack on moderation. NOT ban him. Simply have his posts released or rejected by a moderator - any moderator. He was placed on moderation...

and I'm the bad guy?

How many people have actually read the threads, looked at what Jack said, looked at what I said? How many?

Because frankly, I'm piston-amazed at the reaction. I'm over-moderating. I'm not moderating enough. If someone will point me to some clear rules and regulations, I'll enforce them without fear or favour - or consideration.

Lastly, the end of my rant: Jack's little martyr performance is not going to stop me from doing my job as a moderator. I follow whatever rules / guidelines that board owners set, and keep them informed if I think a situation is brewing (as I did in this case). I'll record in the appropriate thread what I have done and why I have done it - with links to the posts or threads that caused such action to take place.

If the board owners or other moderators think I am being heavy-handed or my actions not appropriate, they will contact me and let me know - as they have done in the past, either to support my actions or to advise reversal.

If people have problems with that, use the complaints thread - that is what it is there for.

Edited: Langauge. Antti Hynonen

Cheers! I'll give it a read.

being central to this dispute, I abstain from comment and will abide by any and all decisions made by John & Andy.

I am still allowed to read the forum, but if I want to post anything, I must submit it to moderator Burton for approval first."

NOT TRUE.

ANY moderator - repeat - ANY MODERATOR can approve Jack's posts.

If it will please the masses, I will refrain from either approving or rejecting Jack's posts. Other moderators can be pulled from the JFK section and make those decisions. I care not a wit.

What I do care about is having false accusations continuously made against me, and the person not even trying to offer an apology for false accusations when they have been proven wrong.

Can I please state: if you haven't read the reasons for the moderation, please do so. Read all the accusations against me, and the replies from John and Andy.

Edited to add: After reading the remarks about Rule (iv) I am quite happy to apply it - to the letter. It has been mentioned here, though, that people are adults and should not be castigated for the occasional barbed remark. I happen to agree - but if people would like the rule applied universally and without consideration, I am happy to do it. First violation - warning. Second violation - penalty. I will apply this universally. I will also be subject to this same standard, from the other moderators.

Would members feel better if this happened?

Deleted additional thread "The Pinay Circle". One had already been posted, no noticeable difference between them, so the latter was deleted.

David,

You mention Gough Whitlam. I am a great admirer of Gough. One of my favourite books is "The Wit of Whitlam*". I despise Khemlani, because even though Conner did not have authority to seek the loan I think Khemlani was simply playing Conner for a fool and doing his best to make some money out of the relationship. I think Conner had great vision, and truly was acting in what he believed to be the best interests of Australia.

I also despise John Kerr (I will not give him the honourific). Perhaps he also did what he thought was right, but I think he did it in a very underhand way.

Now, this being said - because I disagree with the events of 11 NOV 75 - but the country had a chance to return Whitlam in the DEC 75 elections. They chose not to, however, and by a landslide.

Why do you think this was?

* My favourite bit from the book: The Labor government had recognised Russian sovereignty over the Baltic States. An Estonian woman carried a placard which objected to this, particularly to Gough. Some people ripped up the placard. The woman took the pieces and gave them to Gough. Gough leaned down and whispered in the woman's ear.

She turned and shouted to the crowd:

"Do you know what he called me? He called me a bloody Nazi bitch!"

The assembled press immediately descended upon him, and asked if he had uttered those words. His reply?

"I never speak to ladies like that"

Gotta love the man!

Craig, Peter - please remember rules about civility. No-one has broken any, but we're getting a little heated. Think about what you post, please.

Peter,

If this attack is postponed again & again, under what conditions would you believe that such an attack on Iran was not going to happen?

Craig,

You'd have to admit that plans for an assault on Iran are probably in existence, and updated regularly. If such plans exist - and they probably do IMO - then would the change of a "D - Day" to suit US needs mean that there was NOT an intention to attack? How can you differentiate between a "just in case" plan and a "when the time is right" plan?

I don't believe for one minute that Jack has "mis-used" photoshop in proving that the Apollo photography was faked .

I guess the bottom line is that I trust Jack and I don't trust you , when it comes to this subject .

Jack has gotten confirmation from other professionals that his work is valid and that is proof enough for me and millions of other people as well ..

But the "professionals" who support Jack's conclusions (and there are not that many of them) are NOT professionals when it comes to the specific studies under discussion - ones where jack has used Photoshop to 'reveal' something.

You don't trust me? Fine. You trust Jack? Fine. Then how about we ask an expert if his work is valid or not? Someone who has no interest in the Apollo debate? Someone who is highly skilled in the use - and limitations - of Photoshop?

Would that not be a prudent move? You'd then be able to - if successful - be able to point to independent evidence as to the validity of Jack's conclusions.

I don't see a contradiction. You'd have to move into shadow and let your eyes adjust to see stars.

Some of the brightest may be visible almost immediately, or without having to move into shadow.

I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make is, though.

Gene Cernan says he saw them after moving into shadow. Duke mentions he didn't take time to dark adapt.

This may explain something, too my right wing British friends(yes, I do have some) I am considered a common, or garden variety of Socialist, yet too right wing Americans I have known I am considered a fully blown Communist.

HA! I KNEW IT!

The beanie gave you away, "comrade"!

I don't know enough about photoshop to know if it's being used incorrectly or not ... So I doubt I would trust the word of someone I don't know , who might have a certain agenda concerning the authenticity of the Apollo photos .

If Jack wants to submit some of his studies to be analysed by people he knows and trusts , then that would be entirely up to him .

So what this means is that if someone - Jack for instance - shows you something and then shows a Photoshop-altered image, and says that values mean that this should be such or that both areas should have the same gamma value or whatever.... then you have to accept it on faith that what they are saying is correct, because you lack the specific knowledge to determine for yourself if what they say is valid or not... correct?

If the application WAS being used correctly, and the statements made were valid, then an expert in its use could confirm this.

If it was NOT being used correctly and the statements made were NOT valid, then an expert in its use could confirm this.

Therefore is not the most logical step to find someone who is an expert in its use (the makers, I would suggest), and ask them?

Considering that neither of us - and not Jack either - can be considered experts in its use, would that not be the most sensible path in order to resolve the debate?

This is the quote, from here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=120609

Turns out I was wrong; no-one specifically mentions seeing the stars from the lunar surface. There are examples of mentioning the Earth, though, which I have included in the list below.

The list below are various discussions and quotes where the astronauts mention what stars they could see. Mostly they talk about seeing stars through the AOT (Alignment Optical Telescope)- a sextant like in the CM, but in the LM. It is taken from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

APOLLO 11

[buzz is at the end of the top paragraph on Sur-3. Houston will look over the proposed alignment before it is loaded.]

[Aldrin - "You've got the previous alignment in the AGS and you've just re-aligned the PGNS and, if that (new PGNS alignment) isn't very good, you don't want to screw up the one in the AGS. If it is (good), you store it in the AGS."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "The ideal was to get a gravity direction and then to do a two-star alignment and look at the torquing angles after the two-star check which would then give an indication as to what the drift had been since the last alignment. The initial gravity alignment, combined with the two-star alignment, would produce a new location of the landing site. (See below.) Had we landed straight ahead (instead of being yawed left 13 degrees), my intent was to use Rigel in the left detent number 6 and Capella in the right detent. The 13-degree yaw moved Capella out of the right-rear detent, but Rigel was in good shape there. That's the one I used first. I then selected Navi in number 4 detent, the right rear, and that wasn't particularly satisfactory. It was quite dim and it took a good bit longer than I had hoped to get the marks on that."]

[Contrary to Buzz's statement here, the alignment procedures gave no information about landing site location. Frank O'Brien adds, " The gravity alignment and stellar alignments performed the same function, namely, to align the IMU to a known attitude. In both cases, the attitude was determined with respect to two vectors: either two stars (a stellar alignment) or one star and the local vertical as indicated by gravity (a gravity alignment). Neither procedure was used to determine position, which was the purpose of the state vector."]

(snip)

103:22:04 Duke: Tranquility Base, Houston. If you have not done so, please close both Fuel and Ox vents now. Over.

103:22:17 Armstrong: They're closed.

103:22:18 Duke: Thank you, sir. (Long Pause)

103:22:30 Armstrong: From the surface, we could not see any stars out the window; but out my overhead hatch (means the overhead rendezvous window), I'm looking at the Earth. It's big and bright and beautiful. Buzz is going to give a try at seeing some stars through the optics.

103:22:54 Duke: Roger, Tranquility. We understand. Must be a beautiful sight. Over.

[Comm Break]

[buzz is about to do a platform alignment using the Alignment Optical Telescope ( AOT) to do star sightings. Gene Cernan says that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside. I asked the 11 crew if they had made any such experiment.]

[Armstrong - "I don't recall doing it on the surface. We tried a good bit inside."]

[Aldrin - "I guess I wouldn't have given it any hope at all."]

[Armstrong - "There was a thought that, if you could look through a tube, you would probably be able to see stars. I don't remember that we tried anything like that."]

[Aldrin - "You could see them in the AOT, which was sort of like that."]

[Armstrong - "Which was just one power (meaning a telescope with no magnification)."]

[A related question is whether or not stellar images could have been captured in any of the lunar surface photography. A discussion from Sky and Telescope Editor Dennis di Ciccio is linked here.

(snip)

APOLLO 16

125:56:33 Young: Because I can't make it. (Hearing Tony) Okay, Reset; Mark. 258, 64.

125:56:40 England: Rog. (Long Pause)

125:57:11 Duke: Man, that (UV camera) is some contraption, John. (Long Pause)

125:57:34 Young: 258 and 64, Houston.

125:57:37 England: Okay, fine. We'd like you to get on in then.

125:57:42 Young: Okay. That's not looking at anything that I recognize. (Long Pause)

[AZ258 and EL64 do not correspond to any of the targets listed on the UV camera decal. Because the lunar surface is so bright, he is probably not able to see any stars and, therefore, would not be commenting on his aim relative to the constellations.]

(snip)

[Jones - "Could you see stars out in the shadow?"]

[Duke - "No. The only thing that was visible was the Sun and the Earth. The UV camera was just looking up into the heavens all the time, to me; and I don't know what they were looking at. We didn't take the time to dark adapt."]

(snip)

My additional bolding.

Okay , so now both you and Craig have claimed that stars can not be seen from the Lunar surface .... You have also claimed that no Apollo astronauts ever saw any stars from the Lunar surface ... and even the Apollo 11 astronauts claimed they never saw any stars .

No, that is NOT what I have said.

I have said it is possible to see stars from the lunar surface if the time and conditions are taken for the eyes to adjust.

I also said that I thought (that is, when I used the term "IIRC") there were transmissions of the astronauts saying they could see the stars during EVAs but I was wrong. They did mention seeing stars through the AOT, and there was a quote that said Gener Cernan said he did see stars from the surface during an EVA, but he did not actually say this in a voice transmission to Houston during the moonwalk.

I'll pull up the relevant quotes - again - shortly.

Now, a warning: do not make any such accusations without clear proof.

If you believe there are problems, then say you are having problems and ask the staff to investigate.

For instance:

"All my posts are coming up with NOT ALLOWED; does this mean I am on moderation? If so, who put me on such and why, as I have not been notified of such."

Jack ... I have also been put on moderation but I haven't seen that message , and except for two nights ago , my posts have been submitted without a problem .. I was however bumped off the forum the other night and then could not sign back in and was locked out temporarily.

I'm not sure if being moderated means that our posts are read as they are written and either allowed or denied , or if they are allowed to be submitted and then deleted if a moderator sees fit to do so .

I assume that the "sign in as invisivble " feature was taken off of our accounts so we could be monitored , as I haven't yet recieved an answer yet as to why that was done .

Duane,

To the best of my knowledge you have not been placed on moderation. I even reduced your warning level.

Any log-in problems are your own, and NOTHING to do with any Forum moderation.

When someone is on moderation, their posts are visible - as written - to the moderators and admins only.

The mod can approve or disapprove the post as is.

They can also edit the post before approving it. If so, the post appears with a note it has been edited and by whom, and when.

Let me make this clear to everyone: a moderator cannot edit a post without the fact that it has been edited - and by whom - being displayed in the post. The only mod action that takes place without a record for public viewing is the deletion of a post. That is still recorded in the security log, so an admin can tell if anyone deletes a post.

And, once again, no-one on this forum (including the admins) can alter a security log. The only people who might be able to do so are the people from IPB, not me, not John, not Andy.

I think the serious players are China, the US, and Russia - though other countries can launch lunar satellites or robotic probes.

Peter, Craig - Take it down a notch.

You are both passionate about your views, but you both have to be civil to each other. Both of you are moving towards comments which I'll regard as insults requiring a warning.

Address the message, not the messenger.

Thank you.

When you can deal with the uncomfortable facts that destroy your position in an intellectually honest manner, please check in again.

I'm not however holding my breath that it will ever happen.

BTW, where is your PROOF that thermate/thermaite is USED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

Were you just born this minute?

You can continue with your grade-school level posts. Your not impressing anyone. Every day the % of those who seriously doubt the offical version of 911 is growing.

Deal with it. Learn to live with it. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Blah Blah Blah, Translated from lemkinspeak,

"I can't prove anything so I'll continue my normal rants in the hopes no one notices I have no clothes."

So where is your PROOF lemkin?

Craig,

Reminder about being civil. You appear to be becoming a little heated. Don't let it continue to evolve into an insult to which I will have to address.

Thanks.

Do you even read this stuff and check it out or do you just take it on faith because it fits your worldview?

It appears the good doctor is really a HALF-TRUTHER. If he gets something like this wrong why should we believe ANYTHING he says?

"They also make large commercial planes for FedEx that fly by remote control as reported by the Associated Press. The “success” of this operation depended on the planes reaching their destination. Would the planners (be they Arab or otherwise) trust poorly trained “pilots” when this technology was at their disposal?"

Totally untrue. A FEDEX 727 was TESTED with an autoland system. This system was NOT a remote control system but rather an update to the autopilot system, and it was for landing only. The PLANE WAS NOT FLOWN BY REMOTE CONTROL!

Peter,

For me that is a very important point. Autoland systems are used in a variety of aircraft. It is NOT a "remote control", any more than an autopilot system that steers your boat for you.

I also think I previously mentioned how some of this is subjective. My current assignment is in the standards & operational airworthiness cell for naval aviation in Australia. I work with the Chief Pilot Examiner for the RAN. I work with a multitude of pilots from a variety of backgrounds. I also have friends who pilot passenger-type aircraft, from DHC-8s to A300s to B747s.

None have expressed any doubt that the hijackers could have flown the aircraft as claimed.

I am sure you can find qualified people who disagree. So how do we resolve this? Add up the flight hours and see who wins? See who can collect the greater number of professional pilots?

If I can take one untrained person and have them successfully fly all the flights, does that mean I am right? If they can't, does it mean you are right?

I think that this is an area where no definitive conclusion can be drawn.

I'd ask everyone to take heed of my message about civility.

I'm going to let previous insults - perceived or otherwise - slide, and everyone start with a fresh card. You can express displeasure at someone, or even disgust - just do it civilly.

I don't consider someone being ignorant of a subject to be an insult.

Calling someone an ignoramus would be.

To say someone is displaying ignorance with respect to something is not an insult.

Saying they are deliberately ignorant might be; it is borderline depending on the circumstances.

Now, back to the thread:

One thing I asked Jack about previously and I'll put to you Duane: use of Photoshop or similar. In a lot of cases I believe that Photoshop (or the particular application) is being misused. Although I have had some experience with Photoshop, I am not an expert in it's use.

That is why I asked Jack that if we submitted certain studies by him for analysis by the people who make Photoshop (or at least an equivalent 'expert' group), and they determined that the conclusions drawn were invalid because Photoshop (or equivalent) had been misused or used beyond it capabilities, would he accept that.

I now put the same question to you.

If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. "

This would be the case if you let your eyes adjust to the darkness.

Some simple (and not so simple) things to try.

- Pick a nice cloudless night, preferably with a full moon. After being inside your house, go outside and immediately see how many stars you can see.

- Remain outside, do not look at any lights (they should be off), and just close your eyes. Every 5 minutes, have a look at the sky again and the stars that are visible; can you see more of them? Do this for about 20 minutes. Also note how your night vision of objects around you improves as time goes on.

- Repeat the experiment, but this time on a night where there is no moon. How many more stars can you see initially? Do you see more stars in a shorter length of time than in the first experiment?

- The ultimate, and known to most anyone who has been bridge crew of a ship at night, or sailed a ship far at sea at night. You are away from all ambient light, and have let your eyes become night-adjusted (normally takes about 30 minutes). The ship is dark except for navigation lights. You look into the sky and there are a multitude of stars visible, more than you normally ever see. It really drives home the differences.

Now, what I am driving at is that there are a number of factors involved. First, there is letting your eyes become accustomed to the light levels. It normally takes a few minutes, and normally up to 30 minutes from brightness to total dark.

Next is the amount of ambient light around you. This effects just how much your eyes will open (i.e. how much light it will let in). Even relatively small amounts of light will have an effect.

Lastly, the brightness of the objects you are looking at plays a part. Naturally, the brighter they are, the easier they will be to see - but the brighter they are, they tend to "drown out" dimmer objects around them.

The light levels on the moon were roughly equivalent to that you'd experience on the Earth. Without an atmosphere, however, there are no minute particles to 'scatter' the light. This is why the lunar sky appears black whereas the sky from Earth is blue (let's not bring Raleigh Scattering right now). This means the stars do not have to compete against a "light" background to be seen on the moon - but your eyes still have to adjust in order to see them. The astronauts were normally focused firmly on the lunar surface, both because they were interested in the geology (seneology?) and they were watching where they were walking. If they took the time, they could move to a shadowed area (to help reduce ambient light), look up into the lunar sky (again, reducing the light), allow their eyes to 'dark adapt', and stars would become more and more visible.

They didn't though, and for a very good reason - time. Every minute counted. They had limited time and lots to do. Read through the voice transcripts; they were always being reminded of their timeline. They couldn't afford the time to just stay still and let themselves dark adapt. Perhaps the sight may have been spectacular, but it would not have been significantly different to what some of them had already seen and there was simply no good scientific reason for them to do so. The Apollo CSM in orbit could do that; it couldn't collect samples from the lunar surface.

This morning I logged on. I saw a misleading message I wanted to reply to.

I spent ten minutes writing a reply. I posted it. I got a message saying YOU

ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE.

My message was lost, and I was required to log in again.

The purpose of this is unclear to me. It stinks.

Jack

Jack,

See the 'Moderator Actions' thread, stickied at the top.

John has placed you on moderation. That means a moderator must approve each of your posts.

I am not sure what you see when you are on moderation and post a message, but that "not authorized" message may be it.