Evan Burton

This is the normal exchange that Apollogists, Hoax Believers, and lurkers alike have come to expect. No-one will accept anything the other person says.

Now, I have tried this with Jack in the past and he refuses to state anything apart from his own beliefs... so I'll ask Duane.

Duane, I have never seen you post anything to suggest that you are a professional photographer or have extensive knowledge in the photographic field. So, can I ask, in this particular case what evidence would convince you that Craig is correct and Jack is wrong? What standard of expertise and what standard of evidence would make you say "In this particular case, Jack is wrong"?

You can't say "I will only believe such & such a person". You have to set some type of experience / qualification level, and set some type of experiment that would say to you that there is no fakery.

I'm interested to find out what that would be so that I can arrange such a demonstration to show you that jack is wrong in this case.

No problems, Duane, but it would seem Michael wants me to enforce a total ban on the word.

I'll consult with other Mods, but until I can get further guidance on this, the use of the word xxxx is forbidden.

CUTTING EDGE: LAST GHOST OF WAR

Broadcast Date: Tuesday 4 September 2007

Channel: Free to Air / SBS

Broadcast Time: 8.30 pm

Classifications: Other, CC

Timeslot Duration: 60 mins

Thirty years after the end of the Vietnam War they are among several millions diagnosed by the Vietnamese as victims of Agent Orange. We meet several who are plaintiffs in a class action suit against 32 US chemical companies. Attorneys, activists, scientists, and a military historian take us to a new battlefield. These Vietnamese victims are seeking compensation and justice. The question is were these dioxin-laden herbicides chemical weapons? And if so, who should be held accountable in the wake of what was allegedly the largest chemical warfare operation in history? (From the US, in English and Vietnamese, English subtitles) (Documentary)

If I can just confirm what Len said; my interpretation is that you must not call another poster a xxxx.

If you want to say that George Bush is a xxxx, go right ahead - he is not a Forum member.

Hey! Well done.

Extensive work, and as you say, anyone can reproduce the results and prove for themselves that Jack is wrong.

As I think I have stated before, I know zilch about financial matters..... except how to spend money. I'm pretty good at that.

On a sidenote to the thread, someone has pointed out this article:

http://www.financialnews-us.com/?page=usho...ntid=2448565379

So is this a sign of another 9/11 event?

Is it reasonable considering the state of the markets vis a vis the US sub-prime troubles?

In the interest of being open & transparent, would all Mods please record any Moderator actions they take (locking, deleting, warning, moving, etc) here. This thread is for recording the actions only, and not for discussing them.

Access is limited to Moderators only. Unlock the thread, make your post, then lock the thread when finished.

If you have a complaint about the Political Conspiracies subsection of the Forum and feel it must be made in a public post rather than a PM to a Mod, please place it here.

If you have a complaint about a Forum member - apart from a Mod - please PM a Mod with your concerns. Don't place them here; this is not a thread to throw insults about.

If you have a complaint about a Mod, you can post it here or PM other Mods, whichever you prefer.

Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?

I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one

banishment (unannounced).

This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not

to criticize the moderators.

The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.

The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.

Jack

I'd be interested to find out who was banished (unannounced); I didn't hear of it.

Who warned you not to criticise the Mods? I warned people not to start another thread about the matter, but rather address their complaints or comments directly to John / Andy / the other Mods but not to me, since I was the one who locked the thread and thus the subject of any complaint. That way people could say whatever they liked without having to consider the limitations (or rather restrictions) of a public post.

What I wanted to avoid was another catfight thread.

Economics is beyond me. I'm happy to discuss science or military matters, but if you talk about economics I am lost.

All I know is I get paid, I have bills I pay, and then money to spend.

Time to flay me, David!

No! Bugger that! Shoot the messenger!

(BANG! BANG!)

Maybe I should gloat as an Australian?

We (as a nation) have been "debt-free" since about mid-2006:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Gov...5344197792.html

Look, this is just my opinion, but this is getting beyond a joke.

I'm going to lock this thread. This is my own decision, not taken in consultation with other Mods or John or Andy.

I'm recommending we just delete the thread.

If you have any opinions, address them to Mods OTHER than me.

Now, until this matter is settled: TAKE WARNING - NO NEW THREADS ON THIS MATTER ARE TO BE STARTED. If you agree / disagree with the locking, tell the other Mods and John / Andy. DO NOT START ANOTHER THREAD.

If the Mods / John / Andy disagree with my opinion, the thread will be re-opened.

Once more: DO NOT START A NEW THREAD COMPLAINING / COMMENTING ON THE LOCKING OF THIS THREAD.

I will NOT give any warning for breaking this direction.

Address any concerns you have to Moderators other than me. THEY will decide whether the action I have taken is correct or not.

Peter,

There should be a PM about the post on your bio.

My rant is directed towards everyone. Play the ball, not the man.

Call them on the content of the posts - question the source, its accuracy, any perceived bias in the material, etc, etc.

Yes, we lose our temper or get frustrated and make comments we shouldn't - but that should be a one-time thing, not a thread, not habit.

People!

[rant]

Anyone who is a member here has a right to post within the rules.

It does not matter if they are a patriot, a disinfo agent, just plain crazy, or anything in between. They can still post - within the rules.

Address the content of their posts, not the poster.

IMO the occasional barb such as "Another hoorah from the Apollogists" or "Predictable right-wing stance from the man who considered Genghis Khan a liberal..." etc is okay; just don't make a habit of it and don't make it too personal.

We are grown-ups here, and I see no reason not to expect everyone to act that way.

[end rant]

It sounds so much like an Apollo debate. Jack, you accuse people of not reading excellent material around, and just going by hearsay.

The gist of the letter DOES contain much of the "truther" claims. A couple of people have addressed specific claims made in the letter.

How about taking the rebuttals, one by one, and showing why - in your opinion - they are flawed or just plain wrong?

Although some people have done so, if you disagree with the contents of the letter then demonstrate WHY the contents of the letter should not be taken seriously. Associations are one thing, but try to address the specific points raised. This was done for the WTC7 claims; there are a few images of the damage, and many first-hand reports about the extensive damage sustain. This was raised and IIRC links were provided to back the claims.

Jack, do you have a link to where Karen Kwiatkowski made her statement about what she saw after the Pentagon attack? I can find a number of quotes of it, but nowhere to actually say where / when she said it.

I'm surprised they allowed pizza deliveries on base. We certainly don't; no taxis, either. Any commercial deliveries (stores, etc) have to be prearranged and unless they are on a special list, they must be escorted. If you ordered a pizza, you'd have to pick it up at the front gate.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Actually Peter, I was thinking along similar lines to Len (if I get his meaning); you have stated things quite correctly, except they apply to other than the people you had in mind - I think.

The problem is that on the internet the provacateur can create a lot of havoc in a short time. I'm sure we all have certain names in mind....They ask you to document it further...and then further. Then later, to document it all over again.

I wasn't really sure about this one, exactly what you meant. I had in mind the way some people raise a proposition, have it disproven, then wait for a while and then raise it again - ignoring the challenges that were given previously.

They naysay and cast doubt.

Correct. As soon as something happens, it is a CIA plot or a secret government experiment gone wrong or another example of.... something like that. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

They made attacks on the person more often than the information.

This more than anything makes me think of one individual. They complain about ad homs whilst are dishing them out all the time - and rarely actually address the argument given to them.

They divert threads and which they choose is always of interest.

Unsure of meaning.

They try to tempt one to spend all of one's time convincing them [when they can't be convinced...they came with fixed ideology] so the thread doesn't progress and others of good will can't interact easily.

Yep, there is no changing of their opinion. My objective is to show a different opinion, provide alternative explanations, and to highlight where inaccuracies have occurred.

...and the crowd goes wild.....

I'll just add a couple of comment here.

Another subject I see you have chosen to avoid is the other video I posted here of Percy's Apollo 12 " broken camera " evidence .... He has clearly shown that this was not true and that the camera was fuctioning , showing lens flare ( your favorite thing in the Apollo photos ) and a picture which changed as the camera slipped on it's stand .... So nasa's story of the A12 camera " breaking" because Bean pointed it at the Sun , is obviously not true.

I'd direct you to the material Dave provided about how the SEC works. You might also look up "vidicon tube" - not quite the same, but an average person will be understand what happened.

Later cameras were improved, one of the features being an equivalent to an Automatic Gain Control (AGC). Pete Conrad mentions it in the Apollo 12 section of the ALSJ where they are discussing the camera:

"...[Conrad - (To Jones) "You've got a thing in here (in an early draft of these comments) about (the camera being) 'an improvement from 11 but not the good camera used on 15, 16, and 17.' As far as I know, the only thing they did to their camera was to add circuitry that shut the vidicon off when the gain got to some point. So, if they pointed it in the Sun, it was going to turn itself off, until it got the hell back out again and then it would turn itself back on. Otherwise, it was the same camera, I thought."]..."

Well you may have other fish to fry but I think it's important to find out why nasa's Hubble photos don't match their other Apollo photos ... and if the striations or ( grooves ) were put in the image for some particular reason ... It's very strange that nasa would be capturing and then possibly photoshopping Hubble images of the alleged Apollo 17 landing site that don't jive with their previous Apollo 17 photos allegedly taken on the moon .

You haven't proved any such thing. You simply repeated what Jack said about what David Percy told him. Images can look different for all sorts of reasons - but be absolutely accurate and correct. You should demonstrate how images are incorrect or have been altered (whichever you are asserting). I say there is no alteration. We end up with "I say... / You say..." Prove what you say is correct.

[Mod hat on]

Bill,

I'm not familiar with the thread and have only read the posts on this page.

I don't see anything wrong with the description used by Miles in any way. To try and draw this as a racist remark is, IMO, being overly sensitive.

Miles,

Bill may be over-reacting, but so are you in calling it an ad-hom attack. I don't see it that way.

My 2c.

[Mod hat off]

Edited to add: if anyone does not agree with my assessment, please - as always - feel free to consult with or complain to other Mods. Thanks.

Pamela - thank you very much for that.

Ah - another link shows it offers courses in Physics and Computer Science.

Pamela,

Is what Jack say about this college correct? The Wiki entry indicates it's not a major scientific research organisation per se.

As the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's (ELCA) most diverse tertiary institution, Augsburg strives to educate both traditional and non-traditional students, offering undergraduate degrees in over 50 major areas of study. The College also grants six graduate degrees:

* the Master of Arts in Education,

* the Master of Arts in Leadership,

* the Master in Business Administration,

* the Master of Social Work,

* the Master of Arts in Nursing, and

* the Master of Science in Physician Assistant Studies, the state's only Physician Assistant training program.

Majors in the Sciences, Business-related fields, and the teacher licensure program, which has been preparing K-12 teachers since 1923, are the most popular areas of study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_College

I know nothing about the place except it's Wiki entry. Being a local, I presume you might know more?

Sorry, but I think it is likely to be utter and total crap by that website.

For a start, I would like to see verification that the institute reported actually did claim to have recorded a massive ULF "blast". There is nothing at all about it on their website.