Evan Burton

Craig ... Your hatred of Jack couldn't be jealously could it ? ... I mean after all , he is famous , even among the untruthful game players on the clavius forum , and nobody here or even there for that matter , ever discusses any of your work .

Actually, Craig's work has been discussed on a couple of pro-Apollo forums.

I would agree with Craig's assessment that Jack's Apollo studies are regarded as infamous within the pro-Apollo community. There are also people have great regard for Jack's JFK work who believe his Apollo work is incorrect.

That would be your job , as a defender of nasa and their bogus Apollo photography .

No, my job has nothing to do with NASA or Apollo, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop insinuating that I'm some sort of disinfo agent.

Duane - final warning about insinuating people do this as some sort of job.

I've been trying to get my head around this subject, and - as a layman - I think there are aspects of both Duane and Craig's arguments being correct.

It would appear quite correct that NASA changed the images from what was originally seen. The dispute would be appear to be over why the original images were changed.

My brief reading of this subject would indicate that it is actually quite complex. Colour (I'll use Australian spelling) calibration charts used were for what we would see under a pretty much Earth-normal daylight. The original images were 'uncalibrated'. When the correction was applied, some areas appeared correct but other colour values appeared wildly off. Because images were due to be released, a 'compromise' correction was used - much favouring the traditional 'red Mars'.

The problem seems to be that we are not exactly sure what is the "correct" colour. Factors such as atmospheric colouring due to dust, etc, cannot always be properly accounted for. Similarly, all areas of Mars are not necessarily the same colour (or rather shade).

Think about this - you take a photo of a house here on Earth during midday under a clear sky, then take another of the same house when the sun is low with a deep red effect (perhaps through clouds). Which is correct? Well, they both are.

Duane has said that the Martian sky is blue; at times, this would appear to be correct:

Using the proper color filters one can determine colors of Martian features, usually red; however, we have found that certain atmospheric clouds display blue-to-blue white color at times [beish et al, 1988]. Even without filters there are a few clouds that appear bluish, such as the "Capen Blue Syrtis Cloud."

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rhill/alpo/mar...es/FILTERS1.HTM

This is not always the case, though.

My best advice is to read through some of the links below, and try to get your head around the problems involved in producing a 'true' image of Mars:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rhill/alpo/mar...es/FILTERS1.HTM

http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_...projects_1.html

Getting a bit heated in here, gentlemen. Don't let it slide over to insults.

There are Apollo 17 photos of the same mountains, taken behind the LM .. and depending on where the photo was taken , the distance to the mountains behind the LM shows in one , where the mountains look huge , but then in most of the other photos from the same scene , the mountains behind the LM look like small hills , very close to the LM .

So how could this have occured if everything photographed in a vacuum does not show correct distance or depth perception ? ... How could these changes of distance and mountain size be accounted for ?

I think I answered that here.

The answer is obviously number 2 .

2. It's a single tyre track placed in the photo as a joke.

It's NOT an artefact that was mistakingly created in the moon set dirt ... It was put in the photo later, during the editing process as a JOKE !

You know what a joke is don't you Dave ? ... That would be you , defending nasa's bogus , painted moon photos .

Do you have any evidence favouring this theory instead of the "mundane artefact" theory?

I think not:

... that it shows a a donut shaped tire track around a pile of rocks ( which it does )....

<snip>

Can I prove this ? ... No ...

Wasn't this broadcast LIVE?

No ... It was taped in advance so the astronots could get their lines right and their facts straight ... Something which they are incapable of doing now , when being interviewed live .

Do you have any proof of that or are you just making it up?

Kevin - please watch your tone. Fabrication is akin to an accusation of lying. You should have left it just as "Do you have proof of that?".

There are other factors to this unraveling mystery.

There were supposedly 500,000 people at this "concert".

HOW DID THE ORGANISERS GET A PERMIT TO HOLD A ROCK CONCERT FOR HALF A MILLION PEOPLE?

It is a fact that the Police and city officials had anything but an amiable relationship with the "hippie" movement... and yet they granted them a permit?!?

Hippy: "Hi, pig. I'd like a permit for a rock concert."

Police: "Okay, how many people will be attending?"

Hippy: "Oh, at least 250 000 - hopefully 500 000, maybe more."

Police: "And you'll have sufficient catering and sanitary facilities for this number?"

Hippy: "Oh, nature will provide, man, nature always does."

Police: "Medical facilities?"

Hippy: "Errr - I think I have a first aid kit in the van somewhere..."

Police: "Security?"

Hippy: "We don't need your fascist stormtroopers, pig - we love our fellow man. When you got love, you don't need security!"

Police: "Is this a political rally?"

Hippy: "Damn straight, brother! We gunna protest your damn illegal war, raise money for our oppressed Asian comrades, motivate the masses and storm your Nixon's Reichstag baby! You is going DOWN, Jack! The people are taking over!"

Police: "And there will be zero tolerance of any illicit substance use, right?"

Hippy: "My ass! We going to be so high, man, we'll wave 'hello' to your little astro-nuts. A little bit of the good Doctor's prescriptions, and our minds will solve the world's problems like that baby! Expanded consciousness, dude! Hell man, this is going to be so far freaking out! We gunna be passing out the joints and dropping trips on each other like there was no tomorrow... you dig?"

Police: "Okay, here's your permit."

Righhhhhhht......

I found this, and it does nothing to convince me that "woodstock" was real.

This photo is meant to be of the famous guitarist Jimmi Hendrix playing at Woodstock:

Notice something strange?

I thought that Hendrix was meant to be famous for being a left-handed guitar player... but here he can clearly be seen playing RIGHT-HANDED!

Hmmmm.

Oh, Woodstock might have happened (I'm yet to be convinced) - but if it did, it wasn't a real "festival". It was a combination of Satanism, the Military-Industrial Complex conducting a mass experiment under the MK-ULTRA programme, and the NWO making initial preparations for it's eventual world takeover. Have a read of this:

The largest concert after Monterey Pop, the "Woodstock Music and Art Fair, " would be what <Time> magazine celebrated as an "Aquarian Festival " and "history's largest happening. " The term "Aquarian " was carefully chosen. The Aquarian age signified that the "Age of Pisces, " which is the age of Christ, had come to an end. At Woodstock, a small town in upstate New York, nearly half a million youth gathered to be drugged and brainwashed on a farm. The victims were isolated, immersed in filth, pumped with psychedelic drugs, and kept awake continously for three straight days, and all with the full complicity of the FBI and government officials. Security for the concert was provided by a hippie commune trained in the mass distribution of LSD. Once again, it would be the networks of British military intelligence which would be the initiators. Woodstock was the brain child of Artie Kornfeld, the director of EMI's Capitol Record's, Contemporary Projects Division. The original funding was provided by the heir of a large Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical company, John Roberts, and two other partners. It was another pharmaceutical company, the Swiss-based Sandoz Laboratories, which had first synthesized LSD. Roberts would later be accused of using his company for the mass drugging of the attendees. Little adequate preparations were made for the nearly half a million people who came. Joel Rosenman, one of the three partners, writes, as the concert neared, "Food and water were clearly going to be in short supply, sanitary facilities overtaxed, tempers short, drugs overabundant. Worst of all, there was no way for anyone who wanted to, to leave. " Sitting in your own excrement was actually part of the plan, as John Roberts jokingly wrote, "We're going to hand out bananas at the gate to bind our patrons. " A hippie commune called the Hog Farm, had a special role at Woodstock. The Hog Farm was led by a man nicknamed Wavy Graver, who was a former member of Ken Kesey's MK-Ultra operation, the Merry Pranksters. Communes like the Hog Farm were commonly found in the remote parts of California and served as the breeding grounds for Satanic cults, as well as terrorist groups. Members of these communes continually interchanged with other communes and were the recruiting grounds for the Process Church and Manson. Hog Farm member Diane Lake was a member of Charles Manson's Family, at the time of the massacre of Sharon Tate and her guests. On August 14, one day before the scheduled opening, the entire festival security force, comprised of 350 off-duty New York City cops, pulled out. A spokesman for the New York police claimed that no official arrangement was ever made with the city, a claim the promoters vehemently denied. In an August 15, 1969 <New York Times> article, the head of Woodstock's security said, "Now I don't have any security at all. I've been struck. We're having the biggest collection of kids there's ever been in this country without any police protection. " Not surprisingly, the Hog Farm was put in charge of security. Woodstock funder and director John Roberts, openly admitted that he was well aware of the Hog Farm's connection to drug distribution. He writes, "their fee was simply transportation to and from the festival... a peace-keeping force that looked, talked, and smelled like the crowd would be both highly credible and highly effective... and the most important, they were wise in the ways of drugs, knowing good acid from bad, good trips from bummers, good medicine from poison, etc. " The Hog Farm at the time was living in New Mexico's mountains. Roberts chartered a Boeing 727, at a cost of $17,000, and flew 100 of them to New York. To clear the final path for the planned drugging of half a million youngsters, the district attorney for the area agreed privately that there would be no arrests or prosecutions for violations of drug laws. John Roberts writes, "The District Attorney...recognized early on that many of our customers would be using illegal drugs, but also recognized that such use would be the least of our problems over the course of the weekend. He acted, therefore, with compassion and good grace throughout. " Roberts also writes that he was meeting continuously with the FBI up to and including one day before the start of the concert, and had their full cooperation.

http://webusers.physics.umn.edu/~duvernoi/satan.html

Half a million people without food or water for 3 days? Yeah, sure.

I'm siding with Mark at this stage. The article was right about it being a large-scale test of LSD, but the victims were probably brainwashed to think there were that many people. It was probably no more than 100 - for security reasons.

I agree with you that Sibrel's tactics leave a lot to be desired , but he didn't make the Apollo astronots look bad ... they did that all on their own .

If Sibrel was so off base and if the astronots had nothing to be guilty or ashamed of , or had nothing to hide , then all they had to do was to go along with his wishes , and then politely ask him to leave ... but that is not what happened .

Instead they sweated bullets telling conflicting stories , looked completely uncomfortable while while they struggled to answer questions they didn't have the answers to , and then got so ticked off with Sibrel that they shoved him , kicked him , cussed him out and then one of their sons threatened to have him waxed by the CIA , and he wasn't kidding ...

If each of the astronots had not acted so guilty in their own way , then Sibrel would have had no material with which to make this documentary .... but he did have material .. Plenty of it .. and whether you agree with his tactics or not , is besides the point ....because he proved his point .

It's your opinion that they acted guilty; it's mine that they were peeved off.

Try a hypothetical. Say someone contacted you, asking for an interview. They are putting together a programme to try and expose the "hoax" (such as Mr Sibrel would). They read some of your posts, and would like you to appear.

You agree.

You meet them, and the interview seems to start fairly normally, then the interviewer accuses you of criminal acts - let's say beating up your girlfriend and using drugs. You strenuously deny this. The interviewer asks you to swear on the Bible that you didn't. You agree, and the interviewer says that it is simply another lie on your part.

You would remain calm, collected?

Then this footage appears on a documentary. You would still be quite happy with this?

Evan ... Just because they remembered to put the tire tracks in photos AS17-137-21012, AS17-137-21013 and AS17-137-21011 , does not mean that they remembered to put tracks in AS17-137-21010 ... because they obviously didn't .... I noticed you used DIFFERENT photos to try prove a point about the photo in question ....So who is being intellectualy dishonest ?

Sorry Duane, I probably didn't make myself clear & you misunderstood the question.

That series of images are part of a pan sequence, moving from right to left. In 21010, the area with the tracks I'm talking about is not in frame.

In 21011 to 21013 (the examples I have used), they do show tracks leading towards the LRV position.

In those same examples, they do NOT show any tracks DIRECTLY behind the LRV; only tracks a small- to far- distance away from it.

So why would there be tracks leading to the LRV position in those images, but no tracks directly behind the LRV in those very same images?

You might argue they lowered the LRV into position for those images - but then why are there tracks leading to the LRV position but not behind it? Why have tracks leading to that position but then nothing behind it... in all those images?

Could the answer be the tracks directly behind the LRV are not visible to the camera? That the sun angle makes them difficult (if not impossible) to see?

I'd like to try a little experiment here. It may fail but hopefully - if nothing else - it will prove enlightening & possibly entertaining.

Forum readers will be aware of the heated debates between the "Apollogists" and the "Apollo Hoaxers".

As an "Apollogist", I am sometimes frustrated by what I see as illogical reasoning and a willingness to disregard counter-evidence.

So, as two of most notable "hoax proponents" on the Forum, I'd like to invite Duane and Jack to participate in a challenge.

I would like them to either jointly or separately give an example of a major event that they have no doubt happened as history recorded, i.e. a 'mainstream' belief. This event should ideally have images recording it, preferably involve the USA, and they should examine the event such that they can state they are sure it really did happen.

Myself and other "Apollogists" who wish to participate will then take a contrary stance, arguing that the event was faked somehow, that supporting evidence for that event has been altered / faked. This may not necessarily be our opinion, but we will take a contrary view and use what in our opinion are similar techniques or errors used by the "hoax proponents" to support our arguments.

The aim of this exercise is to illustrate methods, devices, techniques, and errors that are used when either supporting or countering a proposition.

Jack, Duane - are you up for it?

Edited to add:

The event / topic should NOT be something that is already discussed on the Forum. This will prevent this thread from distracting from the 'genuine' discussions.

I think people might be surprised how many lurkers there are out there who read this and other forums.

Our first big example was, and still is, the fact that not one close range photo of Hale-Bopp has ever been released from the Hubble Space Telescope, or any other major U.S. observatory.

Hale-Bopp observations with Hubble

Hale-Bopp images, including those from the Astronaut Memorial Planetarium & Observatory, Cocoa, Florida

Hale-Bopp images, including those taken from STS-85 in Earth orbit

Hale-Bopp images, including those from the Limber Observatory, Pipe Creek, Texas

We are also painfully aware that live, uncensored or delayed, broadcasts of space data and photos are simply no longer available.

http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/monitor/

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

http://iono.jpl.nasa.gov/latest_rti_global.html

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/latestimages.html

http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest.html

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2007055/

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/GOES/

http://gipsy.jpl.nasa.gov/center/products/...x.html#realtime

Sorry, but I think those guys lack credibility.

Let's have a close look at some of the other images taken of that scene that Duane has shown us (AS17-137-21010). It was part of a pan sequence taken at Station 4, otherwise known as Shorty Crater. The shots immediately after that moved from right to left (anticlockwise).

The following are crops from the hi-resolution scans of AS17-137-21011, AS17-137-21012, and AS17-137-21013. The crops are generally from the left hand middle of the image.

In each case, I'll show a crop with no alterations, and then the same crop with levels altered to highlight the detail. You can use the unaltered versions to be sure that nothing was added to the image because of the level changes.

Crop of AS17-137-21011

Crop of AS17-137-21011 with levels altered

Crop of AS17-137-21012

Crop of AS17-137-21012 with levels altered

Crop of AS17-137-21013

Crop of AS17-137-21013 with levels altered

In each case you can see tyre tracks leading towards the LRV position. In each case you cannot see any tyre tracks directly behind the LRV.

If they "lowered" the LRV into position for the images, why are there tyre tracks leading towards that very same position?

I will withdraw nothing ... I know what I read ... and I will take some time this weekend to see if I can locate the book where I read this information ....

Good. I look forward to you supplying this information. Please do NOT forget to grab the edition / revision details, publisher, and ISBN.

So are you now saying that because books are hard copy that they are not edited when necessary ?

I find it pretty absurd to claim that NASA "revisionists" go around replacing every single copy of a specific edition of a book. For my part, my German Shepherd has not alerted me to anyone trying to replace various copies of Apollo books in my library (including replicating the inscriptions that are within them)

If you read what I did in a book about the Apollo 11 mission and believed it to be untrue , would you not report it to someone at nasa , in hopes of having the book pulled and corrected ? ... Of course you would ... So don't pretend that books are not edited when obvious glaring mistakes are made ... Or new stories don't quite jive with the old one's .

I would certainly question the discrepancy, most normally with the author of the work. I'd ask them on what they based their statements.

Of course in nasa's case , their stories don't jive quite often ... but luckily for them , they have people like you to cover for them .

That's close to an accusation, Duane. Please refrain from making such statements unless you have verifiable proof.

Consider that a warning.

I really don't understand why everyone can't see how phony looking they really are ... Some of them are down right laughable they are so faked looking .... Like those silly looking panoramas , for instance ... The 'sun ' is nothing more than a huge spotlight and the mountain backdrops are nothing but painted cardboard ... You would think with nasa's budget they could have produced some more realistic looking photographs .

You seem to be making some claims there.

Even so, you are taking Jack's claims over Craigs. The number of professional photographers who agree with Jack are limited to but a few (as I said earlier). Although untested, I would imagine that the support on Craig's side would dwarf those on Jacks.

So you accept Jack's claims over others. You have said because it makes more sense to you.

If another person, without photographic knowledge, chooses to believe Craig's explanations over jack's versions - because it makes more 'sense' to them - why is their stance any less valid than yours?

Both parties base their opinions on a foundation of ignorance.

If a funtional buggy had been used for all of the photos then there would be tire tracks behind the buggys and between the front and rear tires in all of the photos ... but there isn't ... So the only explanation I can think of for this error , is that dummy buggys might have been used and instead of pushing them into place , causing obvious bootprints along the way next to the buggy , they dropped the buggy props in by cable , so as not to disturb the moon set dirt .

So if there were tyre tracks in the LRV images where there appear to be no tyre tracks, this would negate your argument - correct?

What I mean is that Dave will never admit the photos are fake because he believes that would imply that the missions were faked ... but that is not necessarily the case .... nasa could have gotten to the moon and found things they didn't want us to see .. So they faked the photos to cover up what is really on the moon .

What do I believe personally ? ... That both the Apollo photos and the Apollo missions were faked .

But I don't discount the possibly of an alternative technology landing men on the moon ... A stealth technology that our military wants to keep hidden from the world .... and if this alternate space program did take place behind the scenes , then Apollo was just the smoke screen paraded out in front of the TV cameras and the world ... The conventional technology used by Apollo didn't look like it could endure a fall off of a balcony , much less a trip through deep space to land safely on the moon .... I could be wrong , but you asked me to clarifly my position and that would be it .

Thank you for that.

"Would you be able to recall with certainty all the events that happened to you some 30 years in the past?"

If I had flown and landed on the moon I would .

I don't necessarily agree, but that is a valid point. Can you prove that Al Bean did not / does not suffer from any memory recall affliction?

"Who is "everyone"?"

Everyone who writes about the Apollo missions in wonder and amazement that not one astronot ever got hurt or ever got ill from any of the radiation exposure going through the belts or on the radioactive moon ..

Could you quote those who question it and have the necessary knowledge to determine what effects are significant and what is not?

"There are also the aspects of female physiology to consider."

So what are you trying to say ? ... That females need more protection from radiation then males do ? ... That's a new one on me .... and I thought I had heard them all .

Great! Something you haven't heard of. Is it then your position that radiation effects between males and females are immaterial?

"So what you are saying is that exposure duration to a radiation source is irrelevant to possible harm that exposure can do?"

Yes ... It's all bad if the shielding is not adequite .

Okay, IMO you are evading the question (because I said possible harm) but nevertheless - revised question: is exposure duration to a radiation source at a given level irrelevant to possible harm that exposure can do?

I'll quickly add some points before returning to Duane's latest post.

Duane,

Your assertion seems to be that the images were faked because there are no tyre tracks from the LRV visible in some of the images. You would seem to claim that either NASA "forgot" to put in the tyre tracks. Your claim would further seem to be that the reason that there are no tyre tracks is because the LRV was "lower" into position for the images.

I previously asked, why would there not be a 'functional' LRV to drive onto the "moon sets"? IIRC, you said because there were non-functional (for still images) and functional (for video footage) LRVs, based on cost grounds.

Again - why would they not use a functional LRV in the "fake" images? Especially ones where we see the LRV beginning to move? (As in this image from your post)?

If NASA had unlimited budgets for this "fakery", why would cost enter into it?

You know what the most annoying thing is about Apollo defenders ? ... They can never admit it when an Apollo photo is proven to be a fake ...

If the Apollo images are truly correct - as I believe - then the reverse is also true: the "Apollo Hoaxers" refuse to admit that they might be wrong.

It doesn't mean the missions were fake Dave ... Just the photos ... but then if nasa told fibs about where the photos were really taken , then I guess they could possibly have told a few little fibs about their missions too , right ?

Is this a change in position? You have previously claimed that it was impossible for the Apollo astronauts to travel through the Van Allen Belts (VAB) without serious physiological damage. If it was impossible to travel through the VAB, then it was impossible for a manned landing on the Moon.

If it was possible for Apollo astronauts to travel to and land on the Moon, you have to explain why the images were "faked".

Based on your statements, I request you clarify your position.

It would be simple if I can find the same book again ... or if this was in Armstrong's autobiography , find a hardback first edition ....

Books are not like an internet site which might be changed at will. Books are hard copy productions, produced in their thousands. If your claim is correct, then surely someone has a copy of this... dare I say 'rogue'?.... edition?

I know I have a reputation for not quoting things exactly and also a tendancy to rush through reading things , and not remembering every single word I have read or what web site I read it on ...

Then perhaps this might be an object lesson for you. When you want to state things as an assertion, then make sure you can back it up. I'm guessing that the JFK researchers would be most unforgiving of inaccurate claims.

but I do remember this dialogue very well and there is no mistaking what it said .... Buzz asked Neil where the soil sample was and Neil said he forgot about it and left it in the zippered spacesuit pocket that he threw out on the lunar surface ... This was the same book where it claimed they took their scheduled nap .... So if Neil didn't write this stuff and it's not in the book I thought it was , then some other clown made up this stuff and didn't care if it didn't match up with nasa's previous moon stories .

Then withdraw the assertion, gather the proof and - when you have it - then remake the assertion with the proof. Making unsupportable or inaccurate claims does nothing to reinforce your credibility.

I can tell the difference between a planet and a moon set .... What's yours ?

I don't make claims that things were filmed on a "moon set". I examine the images, listen to both sides, and then base my opinion on what experts in the field can explain to me about relative effects.

I don't make claims regarding photography on any professional basis. When, however, someone says something is impossible and I can reproduce that "impossible" image with ease... well, I place less faith in that person's professional opinion.