Evan Burton

Can anyone direct me to a news story or press release naming the General relieved of command, a very rare occassion, or a followup story on the Sept. 14 stand down, test and reup exercise?

I haven't seen any followup.

Thanks,

BK

Bill,

Are you aware of any senior military personnel being "cashiered" for a supposed error, but not having been reported per se?

I am. Sea King Shark 02. Many people were held to account ... justly or otherwise. many people, including very senior Officers, were dismissed.

No details of them have been released, but I know two of those 'senior Officers', one particularly well.

The media does not always follow up on these matters; is there a public source you can check to see if anyone has been relieve of command? Transferred?

My God. That's at least the third time I've seen that pitiful "cartoon" posted on a forum. I feel sorry for people who actually think it's humorous, whatever their stance on 9/11. The person who wrote and/or drew it has no sense of humor whatsoever. It does appear, however, that he or she is filled with unadulterated hate. Some "troofer" must have pissed in his or her cereal.

Ron,

I disagree. To me it is extremely apt. I have seen instances where a simple explanation exists, and when you try to tell people of it you are accused of either being "9/11 disinfo agent", a "sheeple", a "Bush lover", etc. The personality displayed by the "twoofer" in the cartoon is almost the same as displayed by some people who claim that 9/11 was a massive lie.

For instance, do you believe that two airliner-type craft hit the WTC towers? If you do, there are people who will treat you as did the cartoon character, and proclaim vehemently that you saw a hologram (or were subjected to mass hypnosis - ignoring the film record, of course). These people believe, with religious passion and zealotry, that NO aircraft hit the towers.

You might believe that 9/11 was a cover-up, but they believe you are a disinfo agent, a "false flag", trying to distract them from the REAL truth.

Are you a sheeple?

Do you have any idea how many groups are planning to compete for the X-prize?

Unknown at this time, though I expect there will be a fair few.

Does using a previous NASA Design, such as MER or Sojourner, count towards "private" exploration?

Unsure. So far only the content guidelines have been published. The actual terms & conditions are still being ratified. I would imagine that as long as copyright / IP was not going to be infringed, then it would be quite okay to use existing designs. If you can make it cheaper than private aerospace, then....

Has your group thought about who's launch system you'll likely use?

Almost certainly a commercial launch system. French, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, US... there are a few to choose from. It would be nice to have our own dedicated launch vehicle but I expect that the complexity and cost will be outside our capabilities.

Peter,

How many engineers with appropriate qualifications the relevant field (so as to be able to give an informed opinion) claim it was not explainable without demolition? How many say it conforms to expected behaviour?

How many demolition experts with appropriate qualifications the relevant field (so as to be able to give an informed opinion) claim it was demolition? How many say it was not demolition?

How many pilots with appropriate qualifications the relevant field (so as to be able to give an informed opinion) claim it hijackers could not have flown those aircraft? How many say it was quite possible?

How many witnesses saw an airliner hit the Pentagon? How many say there was no airliner?

How much footage is there of airliners hitting the WTC? How much footage is there of laser beams? UFO? Other crackpot claims?

How many people who were at the scene said WTC7 was brought down by explosives? How many said it was heavily damaged and expected to collapse.

Just how much do you need to understand that terrorists committed a terrorist act?

Perhaps the CIA recruited those terrorists; I don't think so but I grant it is possible - but aircraft hit the Pentagon / WTC, and the damage sustained initiated the collapse of the WTC, whose collapse caused collateral damage to WTC7.

No, sorry Craig - I disagree. Possibly the nearest of the tracks in 12447 are out of frame in 11866, but the ones nearest the astronaut would be in frame if they hadn't been covered over by the activity.

Duane - do you say that the area where the tracks were in 12447 is not covered with footprints in 11866? Do you say that the tracks behind the astronaut in 12447 are not same tracks that are visible in 11866?

Perhaps the site isn't what you would hope - but the fact remains that the airfone claims were wrong. This was pointed out to PFT some time ago, but they wouldn't listen.

What is their stance now? The ECO was faked? Typical.

Now, one may ask why did I put the two uncropped images side-by-side?

Firstly, I always think it is important to see the full frame image before you start looking at certain areas in detail; take the holistic approach, if you will. This is especially important when comparing two images.

Next, what did Jack say about those images?

"... repeated the flag salute pose from almost the same spot."

"Like identical notes on a musical scale, the flag, the LEM and LRV were identically relocated (color dots)."

My bolding and underlining.

Now, if we are referring to the flag and the LM, then there is no reason for them to move. They are fixed. If an astronaut stands next to the flag, at about the same distance, then YES! We have the objects in almost an identical position. Even the salute...; I can tell you from 20 years experience that ever time I salute, it is almost always in exactly the same position and my fingers will ALWAYS be in the same position.

The use of the coloured dots, however, give the impression that the image was taken from exactly the same spot - perhaps by use of a tripod that was left out overnight.

This is clearly NOT true. The images are taken from about the same azimuth but the full frame (no cropping) comparison shows just how different they are. The mountain is in a different position, the LRV is in a different position - as is to be expected.

In summary, the flag and the LM are not expected to move and they haven't. The LRV didn't appear to have been driven anywhere between the images, but the aspect with respect to the LM has changed so we can see that the photographer was in a different location when he took the images. This is further backed up by the silhouette of the LM against the mountains.

Finally, the LRV tracks have disappeared in the forground - to be replaced by multiple footprints - a sign of activity and explaining why the tracks are no longer visible.

More nonsense. Cropping does not change the location of the LRV tracks.

Jack

I never said that - please do not put words into my mouth.

I said the activity covered the tracks.

First off, let's look at the full frame comparisons of the two images, without any cropping:

Now, between the two shots the crew were dusting off the LRV, working at the MESA, working at the ALSEP, doing closing out activities from EVA-2, preps for EVA-3, LRV start preps, changing positions for the photos, etc.

The tracks have been covered over by the activity, that's all.

Take a close look behind the astronaut in the two images, between the astronauts and the LM; see the LRV tracks? (highlighted by yellow arrows)

See how the track is in both images?

Take a look at the other images around the ones shown here:

AS15-92-12448, 12449, 12450, and 12451 (Black & White)

AS15-88-11863, 11864, and 11865 (Colour)

They all show that same track mark in the background.

Activity on the lunar surface has covered up the tracks in the foreground - nothing more.

More evidence showing that this so-called Pilots for Truth are anything but...

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

I don't know whether to laugh or feel frustrated. People repeating the myths and disinformation of the "truth" movement.

9/11 happened.

An investigation happened.

Causes were determined.

Findings were published.

People without the necessary expertise dispute the findings.

Truthers repeat the lies that a large number of scientists in the field, professionals, etc, have raised serious and valid doubts; they don't. As a majority they look at the findings and say "yep!".

The lies and disinformation continue to echo and be bandied about ("pull", the gold, using hearing "explosion" as being evidence of an explosion... rather than a non-explosive bang, etc).

Finally, qualified people say "enough!" and publish their works disproving the "truth movement" claims.

The truthers then say "Look! They have to publish more work to defend the OCT! That PROVES it is all lies..."

Truthers will simply not accept anything that goes against their beliefs.

It is reminiscent of when I asked some Apollo workers why they were not at the forefront of the debunking movement. I was asked "Have you convinced any of these notable Hoax Believers they are wrong? Do they examine evidence? Use science? or do they just claim it is all lies and stick to their own beliefs, no matter how illogical or patently incorrect?"

I had to admit they were basically right.

"That is why", I was told, "They are a waste of time. Don't waste YOUR precious time and energy trying to convince these people, because there is nothing that can convince them that their own views are wrong. Let them have their fantasy, and don't dignify their claims with attention. Forget about them and just deal with people who live in the real world".

Almost to a man, they seemed to hold up the actions of the Apollo 11 crew as the correct way to deal with them: Treat the claims with silent disdain (Collins), if appropriate give calm short answers why they are not worth the time answering (Armstrong), but if pushed beyond the bounds of reasonableness don't hesitate to use the appropriate response (Aldrin punching Sibrel).

This story might not be true; I'm waiting to have things verified. There have been a number of claims from the Truth movement which have been proven to be inaccurate to downright lies. I'm waiting to hear more from the other first responders who can apparently verify his claims. Some points have been raised about his account:

- He claims to have been in the collapse zone but only about 40 feet from Amy Goodman... who was about a mile away.

- He says he didn't hear a countdown but assumes that what it was, but then says he did hear a countdown and so did others. Which is it?

- Why wasn't the Red Cross person trying to get away?

I'd like to also verify this guys claims about being ex-USAF Special Ops SAR or something. A couple of people who ARE in that world said the wrong terminology was used. Probably nothing, but others have tried to raise their credability by giving themselves titles they haven't earnt.

One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center, owned by a group of commercial banks. The 1993 bomb detonated close to the vault, but it withstood the explosion, as did the towers. Seven weeks after the September 11th attacks, $230 million in precious metals were removed from basement vaults of 4 WTC, which included 3,800 100-Troy-ounce registered gold bars and 30,000 1,000-ounce silver bars.

In a joint statement Friday, NYBOT and ScotiaMocatta, the metals trading division of Canada's Bank of Nova Scotia, said the metals had been relocated and were again available to guaranty delivery of futures contracts exchange traded at the COMEX metals division of the NYMEX.

"All of the silver, gold, platinum, and palladium stored in its vaults at 4 World Trade Center have been successfully relocated by an Exchange-approved carrier to a newly Exchange-licensed Brink's Inc depository in Brooklyn," they said.

Spurred by authorities who wanted to demolish the building, by the potential for crime, and by whatever has always driven men to hunt for gold, emergency crews dug through the rubble and got a first glimpse of the gleaming booty on Oct 30.

Guarded by a small army of heavily armed federal agents, city policemen and firefighters began the massive task of moving about 12 tonnes of gold and 30 million ounces of silver. The hoard was estimated to be worth at least $230 million.

There were about 3,800 100-Troy-ounce registered gold bars in the underground COMEX warehouse. While gold is very dense, the task of loading the indestructible yellow metal onto armoured Brinks trucks was not nearly as cumbersome as moving the silver.

http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/nov/17wtc.htm

Nothing happened to the gold. It's just one of those things the Truthers spread disinformation about, hoping no-one will check on the actual details.

Dave,

The common consensus is that the prize money will barely cover costs. If our group is going to have any hope at all, we'll need sponsorship. Quite contrary to Duane's beliefs, we intend to draw heavily on NASA experience, as well as experience in the Lunokhod programme. No need to reinvent the wheel, or spend time / money on studies which have already been conducted.

We hope to use a combination of innovation and modern technology to achieve the goals. Even if we don't win, the experience of being involved in such an endeavour is going to be fantastic.

"...uses established engineering models..."

"Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering..."

"Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics..."

That's no good, Len; you know that. A qualified person publishing in a peer-reviewed journal of the subject being discussed? Rubbish.

You need unqualified people giving scientifically unsound theories being reviewed by people are likewise unqualified to assess the work. Maybe a philosopher talking about engineering in a sociology magazine. Now THAT'S evidence!

The offer has been made but I knew Jack wouldn't accept it, because it means he risks having his beliefs challenged. He won't do that. Instead, he'll continue to cry foul.

The offer will, though, remain open.

I'm inviting Jack to be involved because if the project is successful and images of the Apollo relics are returned, Jack, you, and others will cry "FAKE!". If Jack verifies the integrity of the images, he would have to admit they were genuine.

Peter,

I have no idea about the JFK witnesses and cannot pretend that I do.

The 9/11 witnesses are different, though, IMO. No-one has changed their story appreciably from that originally given. Many independent researchers - both pro and anti "truth movement" - have spoken to them, and their accounts are the same.

No-one has even hinted at being 'pressured' to alter their account in any way.

If you are aware of any such pressure, please let me know.

There are a number of different groups within the 9/11 'truth' movement: one section say that a missile of some type hit the Pentagon rather than an airliner. I call these people the 'no planers'. I would like to know how these people reconcile their beliefs with the huge number of people who SAW an airliner hit the Pentagon.

This is not a case of being asked if a man with a hat was seen at a place; if someone moved left or rather right.

This is about whether a huge airliner was seen to hit the Pentagon.

Your JFK allusion is appreciated but not relevant.

As an aside to the threads main aim.

That's very interesting Evan. Are you getting sponsorship? I'm sure such an endeavour is very expensive.

If you have a website or blog to keep folk updated could you publish it here, I'd like to see how this goes.

Best of luck with everything, I am very impressed.

It's basically a group of science geeks. Some of us know people in the aerospace industry, and are going to look for sponsorship. The forum we belong to also is part of a national TV network, so we are hoping they will give us - at a minimum - publicity in order to generate funds.

We are planing to be the original "shoestring" entry.

I want our landing site to be one of the original Apollo sites so that we can take images of the artifacts. That's why I'd like Jack to be involved, to verify the integrity of the visual record.

Jack,

A group of science enthusiasts I am involved with are planning to try and give a credible effort for the Moon Challenge.

In order to ensure that the imagery obtained from such an endeavour is not claimed as being "faked", I'd like you to be involved so as to confirm the validity of imagery taken from the lunar surface from our planned probe.

Will you subject our efforts - prior, during, and after - to scrutiny?

I agree with Charles, and also would add my opinion that you don't have to post the entire text of an article here. Just provide a link to the original, and that will be fine.

If you think the original text might be deleted for some nefarious reason, then by all means post the original here.

Otherwise - IMO ONLY - please, if it is long, just use a link, not the full text.

thanks!

Jack, you have not attempted to refute the images which disprove your statements.

Please do so - or retract your claims - otherwise I will make statements regarding the veracity of your claims on this board. As I pointed out in the previous post you have said:

Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

So far on this section of the Forum, you have made claims but not refuted specific evidence against those claims. People (note the plural) have asked you to show why their rebuttals are wrong and you have failed to do so.

As a member of this Forum you are free to post whatever you like - as long as it is within the rules. That being said, however, why should anyone give any credence to your claims when you fail to defend them?

In a thread on the JFK section, Jack relates some work done by Dr Costella with regard to JFK witnesses. When questioned on this, one of his replies included the statement:

Rather than search for inconsistencies, I suggest looking for CONSISTENCY.

As I recall, there were 56 witnesses who said the LIMO STOPPED.

There were several remarkable statements I was previously unaware of.

Jack

Source

This made me think about how people accept witness statements when it suits them, but disregard them when it goes against their personal beliefs, etc.

Jack has shown opinions ranging from questioning to distrust to utter disbelief of the "official" 9/11 sequence of events:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10786

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10472

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10338

Based on his apparent reliance on witness statements with regard to the JFK assasination, I questioned his 9/11 stance when there were as many - and more - witnesses who saw an aircraft strike the Pentagon on 11 SEP 01. There are similar witness accounts - as well as film footage - of aircraft (specifically two) striking the World Trade Centre on that same date.

Rather than sidetrack the thread jack started in the JFK section, I thought a discussion about witnesses would be better served here.

Lets talk about witnesses.

Are they reliable?

Who makes a reliable witness?

How many coinciding witness statements does it take for them to be be 'irrefutable'?

Does difference between witness statements make them unreliable?

and anything else that you think might be relevant to the thread....

I'll start a thread on Political Conspiracies that deals with this aspect, and leave the JFK stuff here where it belongs.