Evan Burton

I can merge posts - but that might remove other material from the same post that rightly belongs in the thread.

I'll see if I can just do quotes of the various portions. If anything is omitted, a new quote can be added or a link placed to the original post... or just restated!

Would it be worth starting a thread on the USS LIBERTY incident?

Okay.

The matter of the e-mail has dragged on for long enough. Duane has made his points, Dave has made his. There is enough of it through the thread for people to make their own conclusions about the matter.

Since it is not a matter of this forum, I'd direct EVERYONE to drop the subject now (and I say this with my Mod hat on). I consider it verboten. If you want to discuss it further, take it to another forum or do it via PM.

If one party raises the topic again, then the other party is advised NOT to respond to it but to report it to a Mod. If ANY of the two parties raise the matter in a post, I'll consider it a violation; no further warning. Once again - either discuss it via PM or take it off the Forum.

Duane,

I am not trying to "character assassinate" Jack. I'm simply pointing out that Jack has done the same things as Dave - altered images to illustrate his points. As long as you show an original image and say what you have done, then I see no dishonesty in that. Trying to pass off an altered image as an original image I'd consider dishonest - but I am not aware of any time that either Jack or Dave has done that.

Evan ... Jack has never STRETCHED OR ALTERED a shadow in any of his Apollo studies to 'win' an argument ... Jack's use of photoshop and cropping the phony Apollo photos is done for one purpose only ... to enhance the anomalies , so we can see them better ... Jack does NOT bend or STRETCH shadows or alter the photos in any respect .

Really? But he will bend or stretch an image to make a point, in other words, to illustrate the thrust of his argument:

Bottom right-hand corner.

"Oddly, they can be made to match by computer stretching."

So, once again: either they are both dishonest or they are both illustrating their points.

Which is it Duane?

If you are telling the truth , why are you even hesitating about this ? ... Here is your golden opportunity to humiliate not only Jarrah , but me as well ... So go ahead and do it ... PROVE ME WRONG and I will gladly admit my mistake here and on YouTube ...

Well Duane?

I'm not sidetracking the issue Duane. This e-mail business is about another forum, not this one. That's distracting from the issue on this forum - the image Dave has presented.

So, back to my original question - if Dave is being less than honest, then so is Jack. If Jack is being honest, then so is Dave.

Which is it Duane?

And of course, we eagerly await Duane's reply to my post about alteration of images.

Point taken - I'll relay that on to him for his consideration.

How many of the mobile phones in the world are routinely operated in close proximity to wild beehives, anyway?

Good point-and is the same effect noted if you put, say, a housebrick next to a hive? It might just be that bees don't like evidence of intruders.

Or that they don't recognise the hive so well when it has altered surroundings.

In fact, given bee navigation (also refer Srinivasan and team at ANU), you might well expect something like this.

if an increase in radiation causes navigation issues then you need to wonder WHY the system has suddenly self destructed to such an extent (reports of up to 70% of bees missing).

if it is true then I wonder whether it's an example of a chaotic system that has reached a critical step and then 'broken'

It would be a huge environmental plus if we could remove all the feral bees that do so much damage to the natural environment. They are already a serious pest in some regions and likely to become worse unless something is done to curtail them.

Der Kritischer Agrarbericht (Critical Agricultural Report) with an Albert Einstein quote: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."

what about bird or mammalm or beetle or wind or water pollinated plants?

Feral bees in Australia and New Zealand actually disrupt pollination (as nectar robbers that actually dmage plants), and they usurp the nectar and pollen from valid pollinators. They outcompete native bees and other nectar feeders - and they invade tree hollows, so that birds cannot use them for nesting.

and there is no data to suggest that Apis mellifera is declining in Australia or NZ, and the main cause of bee hive deaths in NZ is from the varroa bee mite..

both countries have mobile phones and associated networks..

Yeah, i was thinking about something similar and wondered if bee numbers were affected in countries where mobiles are not so widespread.

In the last 50 years in the US the domesticated honeybee population—which most farmers depend on for pollination—has declined by about 50 percent, scientists say.

This mite bee a mobile phone problem – mite not. Mite bee mites – at least that’s the buzzzz.

Varroa destructor is an external parasitic mite that attacks honey bees.

Other bee enemies are pesticide misuse, habitat destruction, light pollution, loss of nectar corridors and even bee paranoia.

http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/iss...emr.php?id=bees

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

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

DISCLAIMER: The above quotes do not necessarily represent my own opinion.

I think it's pretty clear that Dave is doing his best to verify the e-mail to you, Duane. I don't know about in the US, but AFAIK in Australia it is an offense to forward a private e-mail onto a third party without the permission of the originator. I would suggest Dave does NOT forward the e-mail onto anyone (including disinterested third parties) without permission.

Dave is contacting the originator for permission to make the contents public; that seems fair to me.

So all the mods here are against you Duane? What about Antti Hynonen? I haven't checked but I don't recall him even ever making a post with regard to Apollo. What about Kathy Beckett? Again, I don't think she has ever made a post regarding Apollo. John Geraghty? Unsure. Gary Loughran? Again, unsure. Seems to me you are making wild assumptions here Duane.

Your site was hacked? You were banned because you were too close to the truth? It seems everyone is out to get you.

Now, back to the image. IIRC, Dave posted the original image and then the modified image, explaining what he had done and why he did it - to illustrate and highlight his point. Duane claims this is being deceptive / dishonest, that the original image should be able to stand on it's merits.

Duane, you do realise that by your own standards you are painting Jack with the same brush? He, too, has cropped or altered images. he has done this to illustrate or highlight his claims, but he has nevertheless done it:

So which is it Duane? Are they both being deceptive, or are they both simply illustrating their claims?

I couldn't help but laugh when people were volunteering to be spankers! I'm sure the UK members will understand my amusement. Anyway, but to the real discussion...

As a sailor, I am reasonably versed in the use of profanity. I have been privileged to witness some outbursts from true masters of the art; the use of profanity in these cases has been... well, sheer creativity. This is, though, a dying art. Quite properly, we must watch our language when it might cause offense.

Personally I think it not matters a wit. Sticks and stones, etc. Poor use of profanity, in fact, simply demonstrates the inability to use profanity to emphasise a point (e.g. You $#%&**! are nothing but %^$#&@@* and all your $%#*&%$ ideas are $%#&%$$ **$#%!) or inability to craft a statement that is sufficiently powerful without such use. On the other hand, prudent use adds - eloquence? - to a statement.

That being said, this being an EDUCATIONAL forum and in expectation of younger minds reading these posts, I think we should show are ability to restrain ourselves from using profanity.

That, of course, leads back to the discussion of what IS profanity. I have been quite surprised by what I would consider nothing more than "colourful" language being considered profanity by my American friends (e.g. bloody).

I really don't know - could we all mostly agree on a list of words that are considered 'profanity'?

Thanks - the mobile phone theories were posted independently on the science forum. Would anyone be interested in seeing some of the replies?

That's an interesting post, Craig. I'll read through the whole of it later (I dislike long posts) but a friend recently did a talk on Conspiracy Theories, and came up with 10 tests to apply. I think it is relevant to this thread so I'll post it here:

This makes no sense unless you define what a conspiracy theory is? Is seems that your friend defines it as anything he disagrees with.

John,

Not quite. The paper was written in regard to the Apollo Hoax, but it is meant to help people ask pertinent questions. As he said, if the answer is YES to most of the questions, then it should be seriously considered and may well be correct. Some of the comments may indicate the bias of the author, but they are still worthwhile tests to apply.

Is what is being said factual?

Is it relevant?

If correct, what implications does it have?

Is it consistent with the rest of the theory (e.g. is this argument and other arguments mutually exclusive?)

Is this supported by relevant experts? (In a sense linked to point 1, but necessary for some arguments)

Is it just an opinion?

Does it have supporting evidence?

Is it the only alternative explanation? (Quite relevant for some theories)

Can the theory discount other explanations?

Can you demonstrate claims for yourself?

If something is merely an argument rather than an alternative theory then all tests would not apply - but some will allow you to evaluate the significance and credibility / value of argument.

It's looking like it was a Chinese student who went postal after an argument with his girlfriend.

Please don't be like that loose change mob, who are claiming it was a 'Manchurian Candidate' operation to deflect attention from Iraq.

That's an interesting post, Craig. I'll read through the whole of it later (I dislike long posts) but a friend recently did a talk on Conspiracy Theories, and came up with 10 tests to apply. I think it is relevant to this thread so I'll post it here:

Tests to apply to conspiracy arguments

When a person presents a conspiracy theory, the theory is made as a series of arguments which are intended to support the theory. But the theory is only as reliable as the arguments used to support it. If the arguments don’t work, then neither does the conspiracy theory.

Accordingly, if someone presents you with a conspiracy theory based on a number of arguments, don’t accept it blindly. Instead, look carefully at the arguments to see if they work. How can you tell whether they work? Well, here are ten tests which you can apply to the arguments. If most or all of the arguments fail, then the conspiracy theory is probably wrong. If most or all of the arguments work, then the conspiracy theory is probably right.

Test 1: Is the argument factually correct?

It’s remarkable how many conspiracy theories are based on arguments which are simply factually incorrect. If you’re presented with a conspiracy theory argument, check the facts. Many incorrect arguments are repeated in ignorance. But there are also some people who knowingly repeat conspiracy arguments they know are wrong.

Test 2: Is the argument relevant to the theory?

A second problem with conspiracy theories is that people cloud the issue by attaching true, but irrelevant, arguments. Just because an argument is true doesn’t mean it’s relevant to the theory you’re testing. This is a form of guilt by association, and suggests the theory is being padded.

Test 3: If the argument is true, what implications does it have in other areas?

An argument on its own may appear to be plausible. But if we apply the argument to related fields or subjects, does it continue to make sense? Or would it require the world to be very different from how we see it?

Test 4: Is the argument consistent with other arguments used to support the theory?

There’s a temptation to judge a theory simply by the number of supporting arguments. But amongst all these arguments, there’s the danger that some of them contradict each other. This immediately means that at least one of the arguments is wrong, but in the context of conspiracy theories, it’s perhaps worthwhile doubting both.

Test 5: What do relevant experts say about a particular argument?

Conspiracy theorists often tout their apparent expertise with a body of knowledge in order to bolster their arguments. But, perversely, they also often dismiss other experts in the field. This is often because the expert consensus in that field is contrary to the argument presented. Similarly, they sometimes quote experts speaking inaccurately outside their field of expertise.

Test 6: Is it an argument or an opinion?

An argument which merely expresses an opinion, but which doesn’t have any supporting evidence, adds nothing to the theory, and should be ignored. Conspiracy theorists are certainly entitled to their opinions, but they’re not arguments.

Test 7: Does the argument offer any supporting evidence?

Some arguments are presented with words such as “could have” or “maybe”. Without any supporting evidence, these aren’t arguments – they’re speculation. They too should be ignored.

Test 8: Is the explanation provided by an argument the only possible explanation for the evidence?

There are cases when an argument presents two alternative explanations for an event. One is the conspiracy explanation, while the other is said to be the official explanation. When the official explanation is debunked, the conspiracy explanation appears to be correct by default. But sometimes the official explanation is something different, or misrepresented.

Test 9: How does the argument deal with positive arguments which contradict it?

Theories aren’t built out of opposition to other theories. Instead, they’re created to better explain the evidence than previous theories. Therefore, a conspiracy theory has to address evidence which contradicts it. Ignoring the evidence should be treated as a major weakness of the theory.

Test 10: Would an experiment of your own help shed light on an argument?

Some conspiracy arguments rely on you accepting them without question, perhaps by an appeal to common sense. Sadly, common sense can lead us astray. This is where simple experiments, or even just careful observation of the world around us, can help test the accuracy of an argument.

Conclusion: Is the conspiracy theory a coherent theory?

A problem with many conspiracy theories is that they exist only as a challenge to the official version of events. Yet if the conspiracy theory is true, a series of events must have occurred to make the conspiracy happen. However, many conspiracy theorists are unwilling to spell out exactly how they think the conspiracy was achieved. This appears to be a tacit acceptance that their arguments don’t add up to a coherent theory. What they often have, instead, is an ad hoc collection of arguments which, if put together, make no sense.

Quick question from a person who knows little - if anything - about the JFK debate:

Does any claimed alteration of the film do anything to disprove the suggestion of more than one shooter?

For instance, if the film were proven to be altered, does this strengthen the Warren Commission 'lone assassin' assertion? Or does any alteration - or lack thereof - merely mean that certain theories regarding more than one assassin are weakened or strengthened?

Kathy,

Point them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_3

The quote I am thinking of is:

Then, according to Binder, there was this exchange:

MISSION CONTROL: What's there? malfunction(garble).Mission Control calling Apollo 11.

APOLLO 11: These babies were huge, sir. enormous, Oh, God you wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other space-craft out there lined up on the far side of the crater edge. They're on the Moon watching us.

Someone I knew, who was a Kennedy Assassination expert, said he knew somebody who had a certain type of radio and tuned it into NASA's frequency when the astronauts where about to land on the moon the first time. He heard one of the astronauts say, "They're all over the place. I think they're watching us." He was talking about UFO's. And the moon was a station for them.

Kathy

That sounds suspiciously like one of the bits from 'ALTERNATIVE 3', a UK 'mockumentry' from the 70s. Although done as an elaborate April Fools prank, many conspiracy theorists have taken it as being proof of everything from the "Apollo hoax" to the existence of UFOs.

The show is full of fictional people, inaccurate dates, times, and hardware, and they said themselves that it was a stunt for entertainment purposes. This, however, has not stopped some people taking it as fact.

The bottom line is this ... If the shadow matched the position of the astronot in this silly faked photo , then you would not have had to stretch and skew it to match it up .

The bottom line is this... He didn't skew it at all, and only stretched it to make it easier to see, not to 'match it up'. It matches up just fine in the original, which you can't see for some reason, so he gave you a better view.

Yep, agreed. He made clear what he had done; no attempt to hide anything. You do yourself no credit by harping on this, Duane.

In 1955, President Eisenhower proposed an 'Open Skies' policy to the Soviet Union. It would allow surveillance overflight of each others countries in order to reduce the possibility of secret military preparations and help build trust through transparency. As Eisenhower stated, 'Open Skies' would have the effect of "lessening danger and relaxing tension" between the two heavily armed rivals.

In the climate of the Cold War though, this proposal was rejected by the USSR on the belief it would be used for extensive spying.

On 4 OCT 57, the USSR launched Sputnik 1 to a huge fanfare from around the world, and apparent shock in the US. The US had been planning to launch a satellite but was not yet ready. The first US orbital satellite was Explorer 1, launched on 1 FEB 58.

What is unknown to most people is that the US could have launched a satellite as early as 20 SEP 56, nearly a year earlier than the USSR. On that date, a Jupiter C rocket was launched Cape Canaveral on a test flight. The fourth stage of the vehicle was deliberately disabled to ensure that it did not achieve orbital velocity.

Werner Von Braun and the Huntsville engineers were furious at the launch of Sputnik, knowing they could have beaten them. Von Braun had warned of this many times. The day after the Sputnik launch, Von Braun briefed Secretary of Defence McElroy that he could have a satellite in orbit within 60 days (although General Medaris, the Huntsville commander, said 90 days). When Project Vanguard failed to launch a satellite, Von Braun was given the go-ahead on 8 NOV 57. His team delivered as promised.

Why did the US apparently give up this first to the Soviets? The general claim is that no resources were to be taken away from the military rocket programmes (the Jupiter / Juno series were a derivative of the Redstone MRBM) and Project Vanguard (started in 1955) would achieve the launch.

In my opinion, the Eisenhower administration made a shrewd move and purposely allowed the Soviets to launch the first orbital satellite.

With the rejection of the 'Open Skies' proposal, the only suitable surveillance would be manned overflight by high flying aircraft. These however, were becoming increasing vulnerable to ground based missile systems. Satellite photo-reconnaissance was not yet possible but it shortly would be. If the US took the lead in 'spy satellites', there would be a possibility that the USSR would oppose their use in space, claiming illegal overflight of Soviet territory.

On the other hand, if the USSR were to first launch a satellite, then they could hardly complain if another country did likewise. Allowing the USSR to be the first nation to launch an orbital satellite set a precedent to which the US could take advantage of.

Thoughts?

These are ridiculous selective questions , which no one even bothers to seriously debate anymore , as there are so many other more important questions which can't be so easily dismissed .

But you were quite supportive "Dr Hawkins" claims - until they were proven quite wrong; you then reversed position and said that he may be a 'disinformation agent'. What if your current beliefs are proven equally inaccurate?

He calls us disinformationists while he leaves things that he knows are false online to mislead others.

Kevin,

Please refrain from saying a member knowingly posts inaccurate information.

I agree insofar as Jack has posted on the Aulis website claims which - IMO - are totally wrong. We have to consider, however, that Jack totally believes in his claims and does NOT consider them to be inaccurate in any way. He may consider his claims so strong that they need no reply to rebuttals.

My approach would be the following:

- Demonstrate where you believe Jack has erred, giving as much supporting evidence as possible;

- Give Jack the chance to rebut your claims of inaccuracies; and

- Allow members (and lurkers) to decide for themselves whose claim is stronger.

I would encourage "lurkers" (whether they be board members or simply people who have happened across this forum) to post their opinions, whether they be pro-Apollo or con-Apollo, on the board. If you are not a board member, I would encourage you to join and post your opinions.

Someone apart from we regular "Apollogists" may discover a decisive facet which further supports our views; likewise, someone else may discover something that has not yet been considered which placed doubt on the veracity of rebuttals.

Let's convince others of the accuracy of our relative claims, and Jack's claim he is willing to correct himself if proven wrong.

It's what we don't know -- space -- that scares me and I would bet many people.

Indeed it is. Still, with some knowledge, we have to make that first small step to understanding the unknown and conquering our fears, do we not?

Ambrose Redmoon once said:

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear."

I think that applies very well to the space programme.

The fact that none of the Apollo missions killed any of the astronots is completely unbelievable ...

Well, three Apollo astronauts were killed during the Pad 34 fire of Apollo 1.

It's a testament to the rigor applied to Apollo that so many missions went off without losing the life of an astronaut - even though there were close calls. That has been cited as one of the many reasons for the shutdown of project Apollo; many thought that it would only be a matter of time before their luck ran out and there was a disaster in space - one that claimed lives. Some thought it was better to end on a high note. I can see their point, but I disagree.

Especially since there was no way to test the LM being launched from the lunar surface

There has to be a first time for everything, but the testing of the LM was pretty thorough. Remember all the reports I linked to regarding LM tests? Remember how the LM was tested unmanned in Earth orbit twice, tested manned in Earth orbit, and test manned in lunar orbit? All the manned missions included test firings of the ascent stage from the descent stage, so they had a high degree of confidence that it would work.

Perhaps you think there should have been an unmanned test landing of the LM on the lunar surface? That was considered, and there certainly were advocates of that approach, but a persuasive argument was: if we have confidence in this craft, and are going to spend so much money putting it on the surface.... why not put a man in it?

Perhaps some people remembered Mercury-Redstone 2. They wanted to send Al Shepard up on that flight, but the Huntsville engineers were still worried about some of the faults that developed during the MR-1 flight. They wanted to do another unmanned test flight to be sure... and their view was supported. MR-2 went off without a major hitch, and Shepard flew on MR-3. Problem was, if Shepard had flown the MR-2 flight as some had wanted, the first man in space would be recorded as Alan B. Shepard instead of Yuri Gagarin.

...( which is completely radioactive by the way ) ...

That is a little misleading. Yes, astronauts are exposed to cosmic radiation. Yes, the astronauts are exposed to secondary radiation. The key factor here is exposure duration. The astronauts spent up to a little over 7 hours duration on their EVAs (in the latter missions) out of the LM. Those latter missions had up to 3 EVAs. The longest time on the surface was 3 days and just shy of 3 hours during Apollo 17. When they weren't on the surface, they were in LM - which provide protection against much of the harmful radiation. When they were on the EVAs, the suits provided a measure of protection.

For short duration missions, this was an acceptable risk. For long duration missions such as are being planned (e.g. weeks on the surface), a greater measure of protection must be provided.

So except for the alleged technical problems on Apollo 13 , which also never harmed any of the astronots , no other major problems occured .

Well, I am sure the surviving Apollo 13 astronauts would disagree with your use of the term 'alleged technical problems'. Additionally, there were problems on most of the missions - some which were actually major (though downplayed in light of the overall mission success). Would you like to tell us about them?

Jack posted this in the 9/11 thread, and I think it's pertinent to the discussion:

My definitions:

DISinformation...an untruth which is deliberately originated by someone. It is

still DISinformation regardless of the person who later may be espousing it, whether

or not they are witting of the lie. If it was DISinformation when it reaches you, it is

STILL DISinformation when you pass it on, whether or not you are witting of the lie.

MISinformation...an untruth which is originated by someone who is merely MISTAKEN

in their facts and often without knowledge that the basis is untrue. If it is MISinformation

when it reaches you and you pass it on, you are only guilty of not checking the facts, but

it is still MISinformation.

A CROCK OF DISINFORMATION is a compilation of deliberate lies, such as Posner's

"Case Closed". If you bought that book and read it and tell others what it says, you are

spreading a "crock of disinformation".

Jack