Evan Burton

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?

There were two threads with the same name and the same time. This is the duplicate posting that we have seen time and time again. I deleted the first one - as I have done with many other people (removing duplicate posts).

For whatever reason, your image did apparently not get attached to the second thread of the same name.

May I suggest you simply edit your post and put it back?

Now, back to your claim of my locking threads; the forum software (I believe) makes an audit trail of when a thread was locked, if it was opened, and who performed the actions.

How about we ask Andy or John to get the details from the site host people, and see who is telling the truth? I will expect an apology from you after the evidence is brought forward Jack. You simply cannot go on making false and spurious claims as you have been doing.

It appears that Mr. Burton has carried out his threat to

lock a TOPIC WHICH I ORIGINATED. I spent fifteen minutes

composing a message and attaching a photo. It was rejected

and lost, and I got this message:

YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO REPLY TO THIS TOPIC.

This is a crappy way to run a forum devoted to research.

Jack

The thread has NOT been locked and it has NEVER been locked.

I suggest the workman examine himself before blaming the tools.

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.

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

Well said.

Weather was fine (as the government pointed out in the House of Commons). The weather reports for that day confirmed this. Captain E. E. Fresson, who piloted an aircraft over the same area and at around the same time as the crashed Flying Boat, confirmed that conditions were fine in his autobiography, “Air Road to the Isles”. However, this was removed by the publishers. After his death, his son, Richard Fresson, published the censored chapter in the "Scotsman" newspaper in 1985.

Well, that makes it quite interesting. Looking at the initial track, I got the impression that they thought they had passed Wick, turned north, then turned north-west after passing John o'Groats. Those days you were using manual air plot, a reliable navigation method - if your navigation fixes were accurate (that was one of the first styles of navigation we learnt as navigators).

If the weather was poor, I'd be favouring a nav error and descent into ground.

If the weather was fine, however, that theory is completely ruled out. They deliberately turned over land. The track over land now becomes interesting; it wasn't a straight line so they apparently weren't just trying to 'cut the corner'. Why the course alterations?

Looking forward to hearing more.

Myra,

Apologies for not looking at this sooner. I tend to concentrate on the non-JFK area, and leave this section to people like John G, Stephen, Gary, Antti, and Kathy. You are lucky that I am actually here right now; I should be at work but got sent home because I've got a cold.

I call shenanigans.

Why did you crop and rotate two of the images, Jack, and were then so reluctant to give the image numbers? Why did you crop out the arm in the other two images?

Was it because you wanted to give people the impression they were deliberately framed shots, rather than clearing shots? Hoping no-one would check up on your work?

That's why I continue to waste my time on stuff like this - to ensure that such disinformation does not go unaddressed.

The four shots are part of a clearing series, advancing the film by about 6 frames to avoid them getting sunstruck. The pole turns out to be where the Solar Wind Collector was hanging prior to being removed and then taken back to Earth.

The images are from Apollo 11, AS11-40-5967 to AS11-40-5970. The other two clearing shots were prior to those four, AS11-40-5965 & AS11-40-5966.

Here are the uncropped shots, in numerical order (5967 to 5970):

Ladies, gentlemen!

Please could we not insult each other by changing words a little (ThomASS, B****)? It's very unbecoming.

Thomas, I'd ask you to cease claiming Myra "harassed" someone out of the Forum. I am not aware of the background of the incident in question, but if John / Andy did not take any action over any claimed harassment, then I'd ask you to leave it at that.

Thanks all.

John,

Could you clear something up? You mentioned the official report which said "...descending through cloud..." but elsewhere I get the impression it was good weather.

Is there a weather report for the area on the day in question?

Jack,

I have not threatened to delete your post; I said I would lock the thread if at least a mission number were not provided.

I have not questioned your honesty; I said that without an image number - as far as I am concerned - they might be non-genuine and not worthy of wasting time. If you do not have an image number for them, then for all you know they might not be the genuine images. They look genuine to me, but without an image number I cannot be sure.

I do question your sincerity when you ask a question but withhold information that will help us answer your question. There are close to 6000 images from six missions that landed on the lunar surface; as good as I think my Apollo knowledge is, I am not omnipotent and do not know every image off the top of my head. If you have details of the image numbers or missions, then you are being frivolous.

Without the information I asked for, I answered as best I could:

- There are multiple examples of a series of images taken of a seemingly uninteresting feature.

- The object may be a gnomon of some type, or possibly a core sample tube.

There are other than Apollo threads on this sub-forum, and people have expressed concern that they are being pushed to the bottom of the list because the Apollo threads are dominating. Locking a frivolous thread will help address that problem without deleting your original post.

So, again, please provide a mission number or image IDs (if known). If you do not know what mission or image numbers they are, please say so. Otherwise I will lock the thread later this afternoon.

Today I came across this odd Apollo series of four photos.

They are four consecutive photos of a stick stuck in the ground.

They are nearly identical. Someone please tell me what was so

important about this stick that four shots were used on it.

No, for purposes of answering this, you do NOT need the file

numbers. If you are such experts, you already know them,

or can find them easily. I will not do your research for you.

Thanks, Bernice, for posting the image.

Jack

There are many such shots where multiple images of seeminly 'uninteresting' features have been taken. It might be a core sample tube. It might be an early gnomon of some type. I really don't care, Jack, because you are being frivolous.

Unless you can tell us which frames they are (or at least which mission), as far as I am concerned they might be non-genuine and not worthy of wasting time.

We are not playing your games, Jack. You can provide an image ID of at least one image to show it is a genuine image, or I'll lock the thread. I'll check back tomorrow.

Jack, do you know why you are unable to upload images yourself? I recall you mentioning it was a problem with the forum software and your Mac. Is that correct? We can try to see if there is something we can do about it.

You know, with all this back and forth, I've been waiting for someone to highlight a very basic problem about the original claim. So far no-one has done so, so I'll now raise it. Please note that I am in no way an expert in this, so please correct me if I err. I'm going to limit my points to equipment that was in use around this era, not modern day lighting sources.

We are being told that the object we see in the "enhanced" images is a light bulb. If you look at the shape produced, it does have the appearance of a bulb. So this must be fairly strong evidence for the proposition that it is a bulb, right?

Well, no. In some ways it is exactly the opposite.

If we think about the "enhanced" images, what are we seeing highlighted? Basically, the areas of the brightest light (the particular "enhancement" used might be showing differing wavelengths of light; without knowing how it was "enhanced" I can't be sure).

So the areas of the brightest light are being shown, and a bulb would certainly be this. What, however, makes the light inside a bulb? Depending upon the type of bulb involved it could be a filament, a carbon arc, or some type of gas discharge (that list is not exhaustive). In each case though there is a distinct element within the bulb that is producing the light.

So if the images were as claimed a light bulb of some description, why don't we see the light-producing element within it standing out? Instead, we see something (possibly an artifact of JPEG compression) that has the shape of a bulb - even though it is not a bulb.

I've been looking at some of the various claims; seems Jarrah has been wrong at least twice.

He accused svector of "editing" the Apollo 11 footage so as to make it appear continuous (which disproved Jarrah's claim), yet when Jarrah's source footage and svector's video were compared, they were exactly the same.

He also accused svector about making a 'bold face lie' regarding the 10 minute length restriction on YouTube videos, yet that was also proven wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih51BSly8JY

Does Jarrah also follow the policy of correcting himself when he has been shown to be incorrect? I wonder...

Once again, Duane, your "evidence" fails the litmus test. When called to account on specific items used in your claims you wave your hands and claim you don't have time to check the records.

Let me turn this around a little (and apologies for derailing the thread with this): IIRC you deal in antiques? If someone brings you a widget they claim was made in 1776 and is very valuable, do you check or accept their word? Do you check if widgets were made in 1776? Where and by whom they were made? Do you check if the method of manufacture was in use at that time? Do you check what the relative value of those 1776 widgets is today?

If from your experience in these matters you know that widgets weren't made until 1792, and that they were hand-made not cast, would you think the person was justified in dismissing your knowledge? If they claimed you were just trying to rip them off of a valuable item?

Craig, I agree with your assessment but please phrase it in more polite terms.

Duane, please do not call Craig dishonest unless you can substantiate that claim.

Gentlemen, let's please leave the insults out of this. It's very easy to become heated but it adds nothing to our various opinions.

Duane,

Kevin has a very valid point. You have not presented the slightest bit of evidence to show why Kevin's video is incorrect in redressing the claims.

You have been told time and time again - saying "No it isn't" does not constitute proof. If you want to persuade people that your point of view is correct, then you have to offer a counter as to why the redress is incorrect.

It doesn't matter how many times I say that the sun is a holographic projection and is in reality a cube of swiss cheese; no-one will take me seriously unless I can provide evidence of my claims and that evidence can withstand scrutiny.

Evan ... The YouTube video you posted here has not refuted any of David Percy's photographic evidence , which has proven that the Apollo photos and videos are studio fakes ...

svector's Lunar Legacy series is nothing more than a bunch of nasa's cobbled together faked footage of a missons that never got anywhere near the moon .

This has been proven by Bart Sibrel and David Percy , and no amount of nasa's new smoke and mirrors routine is going to change the fact that the Apollo photography was forged .

Despite the fact that the individual Sibrel / Percy claims were wrong? About a transparency? About being in LEO? That vid clearly showed that what they said was wrong. They showed how you can test the claim yourself.

Which reminds me... how come you complain when we promptly point out the flaws in people's claims about a hoax; but then when another claim isn't dealt with you then accuse people of "restricting" themselves to only one part or being "unable" to address a claim?

You want it both ways, AND you don't hold yourself to the same standards of proof. You type a lot of words but there isn't any substance to the text.

David Percy's videos haven't been refuted? I'd say this YouTube pretty much destroys - again - such claims:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFIyhtu0QZ0

That pretty much destroys Jarrah's claims.

Thanks Jack.

Duane,

All you are doing is answering rebuttals with frivolous images, claims about how people have voted, and generally insulting people (though you are not alone in the last).

How about addressing the rebuttals? Not just repeating your own claims again, but providing evidence why the rebuttal is incorrect?

To be fair, I haven't seen you do this yet. You simply repeat your claims or shift to a new claim.

Prove me wrong - address the rebuttals, giving evidence why the rebuttal is wrong.

Here is an image of the steerable S-band antenna fitted to the LMs:

(Source: The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal)

Now, this is the image Jack provided:

Look similar?

Jack,

You are showing a cropped image that has been altered (colour values, contrast, whatever) by the person who has supplied it to you.

Without a reference (image ID number) there is nothing to even say it is a genuine Apollo image. I don't believe, however, you would be so foolish or dishonest as to try and pass off a 'faked' image as the real thing. I'm sure you have checked the source image yourself, and agreed with the providers conclusions.

In that case, why not give the image ID number?

At first glance, I am thinking that it may be either the Rendezvous Radar antenna or the steerable S-band antenna on the top of the LM:

Here is a crop of the RV antenna from a shot that I took of the LM in the KSC Saturn V Hall:

Here is a similar shot from the same day of the S-Band:

I'll look for better shots of the two, and post them.