Evan Burton

Your interpretation of 'honest' astounds me.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. We've heard it before. All it means is that their arguments cannot withstand scrutiny.

I can't believe I just wasted my valuable time reading this ridicuous thread ... Don't you people have anything better to do with your time than to continue to character assassinate Jack ? ... So he didn't post the ID numbers to the faked Apollo photos ... So what ? ... He asked a simple question ... Why were four pictures taken of the same stick ? ... It doesn't matter how he presented the photos ... He never claimed that he didn't crop them ...That was obviously done to not only save space, but to show that the four photos were all of the same uninteresting object .

To use an old cliche' ... You have all made a mountain out of a mole hill .

It seems that his question was answered by Evan ... All the rest has been nothing but the typical .. LET'S ALL GANG UP ON JACK BECAUSE WE HATE HIS GUTS FOR EXPOSING THE FAKED APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHS !!!

You people really do need to get lives and get over the fact that not everyone fell for nasa's pretense of landing men on the moon almost 40 years ago , when it was technically impossible to do so ...

Oh , and I would like to thank you all for reminding me why I no longer bother to post here very often ... Like David Percy stated in his e-mail to me ... " I don't have time for those people " .... Smart fellow .... Too bad Jack doesn't feel the same way .

Duane,

You complained about an image Dave altered despite the fact he told us what image it was, how he altered it, and why he altered it. Also, Jack accused me of altering / deleting posts or locking threads when it was proven I did no such thing... and he has not apologised for the accusation.

Don't you think you are being a tad hypocritical?

Specifically with the "missing crosshairs" image, what was the source?

We can then ask the people who printed that image if they air-brushed out the crosshairs, etc. The original NASA image still has crosshairs, and the page nicely demonstrates how when the horizon is brought to a 'normal' level, the crosshairs distract us from an otherwise pleasing image.

Do you know the source for the top image, Jack? If not, perhaps Duane knows.

Thanks for that Chris. I don't have any knowledge in the JFK field at all, and stick to the Apollo stuff. And economics? My sole expertise in that area is being able to spend the money I earn. I had always thought that GDP was the Gun Direction Platform!

I'm sure you will be a welcome addition to our community. Enjoy.

Cheers!

Len,

I agree that Jack was less than open with the image information, and I question his reasons for presenting the images as he did, but the use of the word 'fraud' is (IMO) out of line.

I'd ask that you please refrain from using it unless directly applicable.

Ooops - maybe I chose the wrong words there.

Chris, would you like to tell us about yourself?

You are obviously interested in the JFK board. Are you an academic? With the articles published, are you a professional writer?

I'm curious, that's all.

Thanks!

Hi Chris! Welcome to the Forum.

Could you tell us something about yourself?

Perhaps the birds know more than we do?

Let me repeat.

The Apollo photographs are FAKED.

Therefore the file numbers identifying them are FAKED.

Therefore the "official documentation" supporting the photos is FAKED.

Therefore FILE NUMBERS AND DOCUMENTATION ARE IRRELEVANT TO

WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS.

Requiring file numbers for Apollo photos is akin to requiring JFK researchers

to give Zapruder frame numbers in studies of the FAKED ZAPRUDER FILM.

...or requiring discussion of Lee Harvey Oswald as a SINGLE PERSON when

it is provable that two persons used that name.

...or requiring me to say that the gun used in the backyard FAKE photos

is the one used to shoot the president, when that is not the case.

There is NO FORUM RULE which states that in order to discuss "Apollo photos"

I must give the file number. The photos CAN BE STUDIED WITHOUT ANY

REFERENCE TO THE "OFFICIAL RECORDS". It is improper to order me to

do something which I do not believe in. Why should I provide the fake

numbers for the fake photos? It is so that apollogists can look up the faked

official record and quote it as proof of their position.

It is not within the purvue of the moderators to tell researchers how to

conduct their research or what position to take.

Jack

Jack,

The image number tells us exactly what image you are referring to. It doesn't have to be the NASA image number, because your source image may not be from NASA.

But we can then compare your source image to the one which NASA have given to the original 70mm frames.

Not presenting this information merely means that people have to determine if the image you have presented is an original NASA image, or an image that has been altered for whatever reasons for presentation in different media (such as a newspaper or film). We have to search until we can find the original NASA image it refers to. This can take an enormous amount of time.

If you have that information, why not say it?

For instance, your "sticks" images. I had to review ALL colour images taken by ALL the Apollo missions on the lunar surface. Because I thought it was some type of core sample tube, I started off with Apollo 17 and then worked backwards. Eventually I found the original images. You could have saved me the trouble by saying it was from Apollo 11, or giving the image numbers (if they were known to you).

BTW, will you now apologise for claiming that I locked a thread when it has been shown that I did not?

The Sunderland was fitted with Mark II anti-surface vessel radar. Although primarily designed for detecting enemy ships, it was also routinely used by flight navigators to find the coastline.

AH! Okay, that makes sense. I tend to think of navigation as a position fix, but the ASV would certainly detect the coastline as long as there was sufficient vertical relief.

Thanks!

I'm also curious about the apparent disparity between the accident board's findings that he "... descended through cloud without ensuring he was over water..." and the engines being at full throttle, indicating the aircraft was in a climb configuration. It is possible they were descending, realised they were heading for rising terrain, then went full throttle in order to climb away but still...

John,

Reference the comment about being equipped with the latest air-to-ground radar: do you have more details? I'm aware that Sunderlands of that time were equipped with ASV but this was not a navigational radar. The ASV sets gave a vertical readout, not usable for navigation.

The traditional PPI (Plan Position Indicator) radar we know of today came about with the development of centimetric radar through the klystron and magnatron. This was still in development during mid-1942, and didn't see operational service until late 1942 / early 1943 (IIRC). This system was known in the RAF as the H2S radar, and could be used for navigation. They were fitted initially to Bomber Command Halifaxes, Stirlings, and Lancasters, and to Coastal Command Wellingtons.

I'm unsure if they were ever fitted to Sunderlands.

Regarding the cacophonous criticism anytime I post an alleged photo taken on the moon

without providing a file number for the supposed "experts", I am compelled to point out

the following:

1. The "file number zealots" likely do not know that THE SAME PHOTO MAY HAVE

MORE THAN ONE FILE NUMBER, depending on the source.

This is quite correct. Determining th source of the image, however, allows us to determine if it is an original image or not. Even within NASA, different centres have different image labels - but they can still be traced back to the original source.

2. There are perhaps half a dozen sources for "Apollo photos". Some are official NASA sponsored websites. Some are independent websites.

Correct, but most will give an image number. This ID will allow tracing back to an original source.

3. I know of no NASA sponsored site which HAS EVERY PHOTO, although there may be one.

There are a few, but a well known one is the Lunar & Planetary Institute.

4. The only site I know of which has EVERY known image is privately run, but the images are very small low resolution thumbnails which do not use the official numbers. It is merely a catalog of all images.

Which site is this? I can point you towards a number of sites which contain all images, with most both in high and low resolution.

5. Some sites are run by Johnson Space Center, some by Jet Propulsion Lab, some by "independent" NASA sanctioned sites. Not all use the same numbering system. Some have LETTER PREFIXES, some use HYPHENS, some consist of just long strings of NUMERALS.

Correct, but once again, that image number will allow us to trace the image back to the source.

6. Some of the sites have been known TO REMOVE CERTAIN IMAGES after they have been the subject of studies, even though the same image may still be available on other websites.

I'd be interested to see examples of this, most particularly the NASA sites. They go down for maintenance, but I have never seen an image 'disappear' - it has only ever been replaced by a higher resolution image.

7. Virtually ALL IMAGES MAY BE STUDIED as photographs, regardless of file numbers. A file number is NOT NECESSARY to study the images. They only provide access to "documentary information" WHICH I ALLEGE IS FALSE. To remove my studies from the forum because I allege that the file numbers are fake is pure one-sided censorship.

A file number is necessary to determine which mission and when an image was taken, especially if context is important. Showing an altered crop of an image gives a false impression of the context of the image, unless the alteration is stated when presenting the image.

8. Since all the photos are seemingly faked, it follows that all documentation and file numbers are also false.

Circular logic. By your reasoning, if one image is true then the documentation must be true. The file numbers have nothing to do with the authenticity of the image; it is merely a way of determining which image is being referred to.

9. "File number afficianados" may be at a loss for explanation (only their usual insults) when they see an upcoming Aulis study. An IDENTICAL image has been found on two different websites WITH TWO DIFFERENT FILE NUMBERS...but with a glaring difference: One of the images HAS CROSSHAIR RETICULES, and the other image HAS NO CROSSHAIR RETICULES. Since the crosshairs are exposed in the camera when the exposure is made, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an image WITH/WITHOUT CROSSHAIRS unless they are superimposed later! Am I going to divulge the two different file numbers to you? NASA would love to know so they can start their coverup campaign. Stay tuned.

I look forward to your post. You do remember, however, you yourself have claimed that two images have been identical yet have been shown to be slightly different? This is where image numbers become important - especially if we are talking about images taken from the Hasselblads and images taken with the Gold Camera (no fidicals, IIRC). Don't forget, as you yourself has pointed out, that the same image can have two (or more) ID numbers, depending upon where it came from. Images from the Great Images from NASA server (GRIN) are different from the originals, but they still can be traced back to the original ID number.

I can probably beat you to the punch with images, if you like. Would you like me to give the images before you do? They may not be the same images as you have, but they will have the same characteristics you describe (apparently the same but with different ID numbers).

However, if he did not know he was off course, there would have been no need to descend.

Slight correction there.

I said in an earlier post they would have been using manual air plot (MAP). Upon further reading, it seems they would have been using manual track plot (MTP) for this stage. A small lesson in air navigation is necessary here.

MAP is a basic system that will take you practically anywhere. It works like this. You start from a known point (the airfield). From that point you plot your heading and airspeed for a set time (normally 30 mins). This gives you an 'air position' (a position if there were no outside effects on the aircraft). At that time (30 mins) you also plot a navigation fix (derived from navigation aids, radar, visual fix, etc). This gives you your actual position, allowing for the effects of wind. The difference between your air position and actual position is the vector (bearing) and magnitude (distance) of wind for a 30 min period. Double the wind magnitude (distance) gives you the wind velocity for 1 hour.

This now gives you a fairly accurate wind.

You then apply that wind velocity (W/V) to your heading and airspeed from the navigation fix for a three minute period, and it will give you a pretty accurate position of where you are at that time (departure + 30 mins + 3 mins). Using that information of where you actually are, plus a fairly accurate wind, you plot a course to regain your original planned course within a set period (normally 30 mins). At that time (departure + 30 mins + 3 mins) you turn onto your corrected heading.

This system will get you anywhere you want to go - almost. It relies upon an accurate navigation fix. If you dont have the ability to get an accurate fix, then you'd revert to a system called manual air plot (MAP).

Once again, you start from a known point. With this method, you do not rely upon a position fix; you base your calculations upon your estimates of the wind affecting the aircraft. You start from a known point, and applying the W/V you have calculated, work out where you should be. This system relies upon constant updates of the wind velocity (W/V), normally done at no more than 15 minute (at MOST! We used to use 6 minutes) intervals.

You determined the wind through several methods. One was to look at the sea and simply estimate the wind direction and strength. This could be very inaccurate, depending upon the observer. Another was to observe the drift on set headings, 30 degrees apart. You'd fly your base course, and looking at your track over the sea, estimate your drift (x degrees left / right). You'd then turn 30 degree left of base course and fly that heading for one minute, again estimating the drift. After one minute, you'd turn 60 degrees right (and thus 30 degrees left of base course) for two minutes, again estimating drift.

After the set two minutes, you'd return to your base course (the one minute left / two minute right effectively canceling each other out). Plotting the drifts encountered on your Mk4 speed / time / distance calculator (the 'wheel of fortune'), it would give you a new W/V. You'd apply this to your plot, and update your position.

Naturally, every time you could get a solid navigation fix (radar, navaid, landmark, etc) you'd update your plot. MAP wasn't very accurate after an hour or two, but was the only thing available to aircraft that flew off of aircraft carriers of the day. It was also used by aircraft that would fly low level over the sea that were not taking astronavigation shots (not that great at the best of times).

So they could have well thought they were somewhere they were not if the estimates were off, but IIRC they had only been airborne about 30 minutes so the nav error should not have been that great - unless conditions were considerably different from that of forecast.

This leads me back to my questioning of weather conditions.

If they thought they were over ocean, then they would descend through cloud in order to determine the W/V by looking at the sea. If, however, the conditions were clear then I question why they seemingly flew into the ground.

John,

Please let me explain.

I believe that there are UFOs and that we have possibly been visited by ETs.

I have never seen any evidence of this though I have had experience of it myself (none provable).

I await definitive evidence, but have not seen anything so far - despite ourhaving cameraphones, etc. I'll still believe, but I won't believe so called "evidence" that is unsubstantiated. Everything I have seen so far is explainable or simply faked. I really hope that one day solid evidence will come about. Until then, I'll cling to my belief though I cannot offer a shred of evidence for it.

Please see here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=103410

I find this rather unsubstantiated.

I believe in UFOs (expansion required) and that we may have been visited by extraterrestrials, but find these sort of statements (so far) unsubstantiated.

With that, I suggest the matter be closed. Jack, you were mistaken and I hope you will believe me when I say I try to moderate with fairness to all.

I can understand post incident trauma for his actions to some degree, but the fact that he didn't try to contact the RAF immediately is very confusing.

Adding to the confusion is the accuracy of various reports. If the Prince did have an attache case chained to his wrist, I seriously doubt that any competent aircrew (and the flight crew were definitely competent) would allow him at the controls in anything but the most benign situation (clear weather, high altitude, safe flight envelope, no threats).

I think this subject is going to take a lot more research to discover if what we have been told is correct or not.

Incidentally, I did NOT merge the two threads. I presume it was one of the other mods.

That is not to say I disagree with the merging, I just want to head off any implications that I did it for my own reasons.

Could the mod who merged the threads please state so? Thanks.

I totally agree. I am more than happy to leave this matter in the hands of other mods.

As only John S and Andy have access to the forum audit logs (I know I do not have any such access), I have asked them to confirm that what I have said is correct.

I didn't lock the thread Jack; it's still open and has never been closed.

I have not censored any of your posts (either via editing or deleting).

It is YOU who is doing the slandering.

OH, YEAH?...THE POSTING ABOVE HAD AN IMAGE ATTACHED.

IT HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED. I DID NOT REMOVE IT. WHO DID?

I suggest that we not review this whiners work until it is posted with image numbers, whenever that may be. If Jack can not extend the simple courtesy to post image numbers for the members of this forum he deserves to be ignored.

Can we dispense with the name calling please, thinking it is sufficient.

No Thanks.

Craig,

I appreciate your support but when it comes down to matters like this I would prefer if just myself and my opponent post. Jack has made an accusation which I can prove wrong, and inflammatory comments - no matter how well intentioned - will only distract from the situation at hand.

Thanks!

Here's that quote - unsourced, though:

Alternatively there is a story that is said to come from the only survivor Flight Sergeant Andy Jack, whose niece claimed that her uncle had told her that he had found George dead at the controls of the plane, with the clear implication that the Duke had been flying the plane when it crashed despite not having been trained to fly Sunderlands.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1546715

Another interesting point is that according to one source (not to hand, but on the internet so I can find it again), FSGT Jack said that he did go back to the wreckage and that Prince George was at the controls.

I have no idea how reliable the source is, but it does help explain a few things.

What it does not explain is why they were 'cutting the corner'. I'd still like to find out more about the weather conditions at the time. Descending through cloud is very dangerous unless you are sure of your position. Even then, that faith may be misplaced (thinking of the Air New Zealand flight into Mt Erebus).