Evan Burton

Oh - and notice how, as always, Jack will not try and defend his claims. He's wrong, and he knows it. If he tries to debate his claims, his errors become more & more apparent - so he does a "hit and run", relying on people being ignorant of the facts.

He's a tin-hat, crazy conspiracy theorist.

Just some things to ponder:

The witnesses who saw the aircraft - http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

DNA matching for the victims aboard the flight - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

The remains of the aircraft - http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

The finding of the Flight Data Recorder - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699

The people aboard the flight reporting it was hijacked - http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22...11/pdf/sec1.pdf

Oh - and Al Qaeda admitting they did it - http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../14-610042.html

There is also the ASCE Building Performance Report - http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

And it is worth having a look at the Popular Mechanics article that discusses the Pentagon - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=6&c=y

A member of the ApolloHoax.net forum, reynoldbot, has been trying to join here but can't get a validation e-mail. I thought I'd post his comments on his behalf:

"Jack in one of your studies you show two pictures of one astronaut taken consecutively and claim that the height of the astronaut has changed. You claim that the astronaut in the second picture has straightened his legs while they are bent in the first. How do you know the legs are straight in the second picture? The view is frontal so any bending of the legs is not going to be obvious. The astronauts almost always kept their legs bent when they stood up, which makes your claim of straight legs nothing more than speculation.

Not only that, but you get very selective in what you decide is a big anomaly. You say that the boots are "almost aligned" but that the helmet line does not match at all and therefore is anomolous. Why do the boots get to be "almost aligned" but not the helmet? To me, it looks like Aldrin's legs are probably still bent in the second photo (judged on the fact that they almost always bent) and that he stepped back a bit and is bending over. You can see the bootprints he left from when the first photo was taken and that he has stepped back at least a foot or so. Follow the bottom line you drew across the two photos and you will see that the bottom of the boot in the first photo is the same distance below the line as a horizontal bootprint in the second which also happens to be exactly as far away from the solar wind experiment as the boot in the first photo. Notice also how the waist is aligned almost perfectly in the two shots and that the misalignment begins from the waist up. That is good evidence that he is bending over from the waist up in the second shot.

I'm at least glad that you didn't try to claim the LM in the background to be anomalous because it appears to change size between photos. The photos appear to be cropped at different sizes. Compare the size of the fiducials in each photo. I guess you've learned your lesson since you were exposed for cropping the two south massif photos to suit your unfounded claims about mountain backdrops.

Oh yeah, as for the "domes": Do we really need to remind you that the "domes" you show also appear to be in front of objects like mountains, LM's, astronauts, etc? That except in the very selective examples you provide, they appear as a complete circle interfering with objects? Doesn't that sound like lens flare or some other camera artifact to you? I don't think a single person on earth buys your stupid "domes" theory, even your kooky sycophants."

TOO PRECISE FOR WORDS / SUSPENDED BY A WIRE?

In this claim, Jack firstly says:

He left no footprints and kicked up no dust as he jumped...

If you have a look at the image below, you'll see the footprints Young left behind.

AS16-113-18339HR CROPPED & ENLARGED TO 150% OF ORIGINAL SIZE

Secondly, he did leave dust behind - as shown in the video and in the image (as highlighted by Craig in the other thread). Even Jack, in his previous claim, has said there was dust! This is just another example of Jack's inconsistencies.

Jack then says:

Without a running start for the second pose, "Young" managed to jump up to the SAME PRECISE POINT... as his running jump, and "Duke", even WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A VIEWFINDER, then managed to keep his camera lens in the exact LOCATION and snapped the shutter at PRECISELY THE RIGHT MOMENT to catch the PEAK of the jump, just as he had on the first shot...

Once more, inconsistency and inaccuracy. Young stopped, paused, took a step forward, paused, then jumped; he did not take a 'running jump' as is implied. Jack even said so in his previous claim! Jack simply changes events to suit his own beliefs.

Next, take a look at the images Jack has provided; Young did NOT jump to the same "precise" point. Look at where the lines go through the points on the LM; look at the line and the top of Young's PLSS backpack - they are not identical. They go through very close points to each other - but not the exact same points. He jumped to about the same height - as might be expected. The fact his height off the lunar surface was about the same in both images is proof of nothing more than they were taken when he was about the same height off the lunar surface.

Jack also mentions the lack of a viewfinder. As has been explained time and time again (and which Jack continually ignores), the astronauts trained to use the camera without a viewfinder. It was practice, practice, practice. If you look at the video again, see how Duke leans back slightly (but noticably) when he was taking the shots? From his training, he knew the approximate position he had to be in to obtain a reasonable shot. He leant back (I guess) to allow for Young jumping up. Do you always have to use a viewfinder? Is it "impossible" to take a shot without one? Think about some of the multitude of scenes that have shown reporters & photographers crowded around a subject. Think about how many times you have seen a photographer hold their camera up in the air, and snap off a few frames. Think about how many fantastic (or even acceptable) pictures have been taken that way. The lack of a viewfinder is not an impediment to taking a good shot - if you practice.

Jack continues:

And the camera location is TOO PRECISE... to be from a camera without a viewfinder attached to a moving person's chest taking a photo of a moving person. The camera of necessity must have rested on a tripod, perfectly levelled and precisly aimed for PERFECT COMPOSITION...as a professional photographer might do.

To repeat again - a viewfinder is not essential to take a good photo. Grab a digital camera, and go practice doing it yourself. Determine to your own satisfaction whether it is impossible or not. Then, take a look at the video again. This time, watch Charlie Duke as he takes the images shown. He leans back, then remains still while he takes the two photos. A tripod is NOT necessary. Duke was NOT moving as Jack has said - another one of Jack's many mistakes. A deliberate mistake, to give you a false impression of what was happening? Decide for yourself.

I've put this here because it is a continuation of Jack's Aulis.com work.

Cloud of dust proves fakery of jump salute photo

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1a.html

Firstly, as I always recommend, don't just take anyones word for events or just accept the images people show you. Do your own research, and make up your own mind about what is correct.

To begin, have a look at the video footage of the two 'jump salutes' made by John Young on the lunar surface:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg

This is a 2.7Mb MPEG of the TV footage, dealing only with the 'jump salutes' by Young. The ALSJ tells us:

The astronauts take each other's pictures beside the flag. Ken Glover writes: “The RealVideo Clip has a frame rate of 15 fps. This clip was produced from a high-resolution AVI file which I captured from the VHS source, but the RealVideo clip itself was optimized for streaming over slow (56k modem) connections and is therefore somewhat degraded in terms of resolution. For students interested in analyzing John's 'Big Navy Salute', I have made a short, 2.7 MB MPEG-1 clip of better resolution and at 29.97 fps, showing only the two jumps.”

The RealVideo clips are available here:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/video16.html#alsepoffload

Jack says:

... now I have proof that the Hasselblad photo... was a staged photo - not shot at the same time as the video of the same scene, shot from the opposite side with a video camera "remotely operated from Houston"... In the video, "Young" runs, stops, bends his knees and jumps mightily...though he only rises about 18 inches in one-sixth gravity. But as he stops and jumps, he RAISES A HUGE CLOUD OF DUST! The Hasselblad shot shows NO sign of the run, the stop, or the DUST, despite the better lens and camera speed!

The initial problem with Jack's analysis is that he shows you some still images of the jump BEFORE Young has reached the top of his ascent. Take a look at the video again, and pay particular attention to the amount of dust raised when he first jumps and then how much remains when he is at the vertical peak of the jump.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg

You'll notice that he raise a little dust as he walks to his "jump" position, but when he stops there is no dust to be seen. As he jumps, he does indeed leave dust behind his heels - but by the time he reaches the apex of his jump, there is none to be seen (on the video image). As Young takes his second jump, less dust is left behind.

I've made a comparison image of Jack's work and the top of the jump (by my reckoning) from the video. If you look, you'll see that at the top of the jump (left image) Young is a little higher than Jack's image (right). I've added some arrows to highlight the difference in height from the jump.

By the time Young had reached the top of the jump (and after) there was no dust to be seen. Compare the video still image on the left to the image taken by Charlie Duke. They are roughly the same height (do your own investigation to be sure that what I am saying is correct).

Craig has shown some settling dust in the first jump image (AS16-113-18339) which was captured by the camera. The second jump raised less dust and was not captured by the camera.

Overall, it's a little bit of 'smoke & mirrors'. Jack has shown you the images at the start of the jump (where dust is seen), while the Hasselblad image is slightly later.

Jack also mentions the height to which Young jumps; The ALSJ says:

[John bends his knees slightly, springs about a half meter off the ground, and salutes. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. This superb picture is AS16-113- 18339. Note that John's total weight - body, suit, and backpack, is about 30 kilograms or 65 pounds. In Houston, Tony chuckles with delight.]

Now, think about how high you could jump in Earth-normal gravity. Can you reach 18 inches or so? Then put on an EVA suit (even if, for arguements sake, it was simply a lightweight but bulky costume); could you still jump 18 inches or so?

Yet again - Jack is wrong.

I've put this here because it is a continuation of Jack's Aulis.com work.

Cloud of dust proves fakery of jump salute photo

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1a.html

Firstly, as I always recommend, don't just take anyones word for events or just accept the images people show you. Do your own research, and make up your own mind about what is correct.

To begin, have a look at the video footage of the two 'jump salutes' made by John Young on the lunar surface:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg

This is a 2.7Mb MPEG of the TV footage, dealing only with the 'jump salutes' by Young. The ALSJ tells us:

The astronauts take each other's pictures beside the flag. Ken Glover writes: “The RealVideo Clip has a frame rate of 15 fps. This clip was produced from a high-resolution AVI file which I captured from the VHS source, but the RealVideo clip itself was optimized for streaming over slow (56k modem) connections and is therefore somewhat degraded in terms of resolution. For students interested in analyzing John's 'Big Navy Salute', I have made a short, 2.7 MB MPEG-1 clip of better resolution and at 29.97 fps, showing only the two jumps.”

The RealVideo clips are available here:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/video16.html#alsepoffload

Jack says:

... now I have proof that the Hasselblad photo... was a staged photo - not shot at the same time as the video of the same scene, shot from the opposite side with a video camera "remotely operated from Houston"... In the video, "Young" runs, stops, bends his knees and jumps mightily...though he only rises about 18 inches in one-sixth gravity. But as he stops and jumps, he RAISES A HUGE CLOUD OF DUST! The Hasselblad shot shows NO sign of the run, the stop, or the DUST, despite the better lens and camera speed!

The initial problem with Jack's analysis is that he shows you some still images of the jump BEFORE Young has reached the top of his ascent. Take a look at the video again, and pay particular attention to the amount of dust raised when he first jumps and then how much remains when he is at the vertical peak of the jump.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg

You'll notice that he raise a little dust as he walks to his "jump" position, but when he stops there is no dust to be seen. As he jumps, he does indeed leave dust behind his heels - but by the time he reaches the apex of his jump, there is none to be seen (on the video image). As Young takes his second jump, less dust is left behind.

I've made a comparison image of Jack's work and the top of the jump (by my reckoning) from the video. If you look, you'll see that at the top of the jump (left image) Young is a little higher than Jack's image (right). I've added some arrows to highlight the difference in height from the jump.

By the time Young had reached the top of the jump (and after) there was no dust to be seen. Compare the video still image on the left to the image taken by Charlie Duke. They are roughly the same height (do your own investigation to be sure that what I am saying is correct).

Craig has shown some settling dust in the first jump image (AS16-113-18339) which was captured by the camera. The second jump raised less dust and was not captured by the camera.

Overall, it's a little bit of 'smoke & mirrors'. Jack has shown you the images at the start of the jump (where dust is seen), while the Hasselblad image is slightly later.

Jack also mentions the height to which Young jumps; The ALSJ says:

[John bends his knees slightly, springs about a half meter off the ground, and salutes. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. This superb picture is AS16-113- 18339. Note that John's total weight - body, suit, and backpack, is about 30 kilograms or 65 pounds. In Houston, Tony chuckles with delight.]

Now, think about how high you could jump in Earth-normal gravity. Can you reach 18 inches or so? Then put on an EVA suit (even if, for arguements sake, it was simply a lightweight but bulky costume); could you still jump 18 inches or so?

Yet again - Jack is wrong.

That is a lie. I have never said the landings were faked. I have always

said THE PHOTOS ARE FAKED. That is why Burton has zero credibility.

Jack

I was revisiting this thread, and came upon Jack's petulant outburst again. I thought it might be enlightening to have a look at what Jack has said about Apollo, and some of the non-photographic errors he has made with regard to it.

Grave doubt exists that the Apollo missions to the Moon were anything more than the most incredible hoax of all time. Did astronauts actually go to the Moon? I do not know. But NASA's own evidence shows that all photos of the Apollo feats had to be forgeries.

Real missions should have produced real photos.

To understand the "why" of faking "landing a man on the Moon by the end of the decade" that had been promised...

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

This is where the confusion starts. Jack says that grave doubts exists. He then says he doesn't know if they actually went, but then follows with "..all photos of the Apollo feats had to be forgeries." He then talks about "real missions" and "faking" a landing.... If they were all the images were faked, and discusses faking lunar landing missions, then why can't Jack simply say he believes the lunar landings were faked? Why resort to inuendo and being mealy-mouthed?

Then, of course, we must ask how he has proof that ALL the images were faked. If at least one image can be proven to be true & correct, then Jack's whole proposition has to be placed in doubt.

But the Soviets likely knew that sending a man to the Moon was an immensely difficult task and that JFK's rhetoric was a hollow promise.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

It was indeed a difficult task - and that was part of the reason it was chosen. Both countries would have a roughly even chance of achiving the goal. Yet if the USSR knew it "was a hollow promise", why did they continue on with their own lunar landing programme? By the end of the 1960s, they had developed a lunar orbital craft and a lunar lander. They had astronauts in training for lunar landing missions. What let them down was their launch vehicle, the N-1. It failed it's first flight tests. Even so, and even AFTER the Apollo 11 mission had successfully landed men on the lunar surface, they still persevered with attempts to launch their own mission. If they knew it was impossible, why go to all that trouble? Why divert so much funding to a project that would never be achieved? Why not, if the US missions were "faked", fake their own missions and accompanying images? The US would not be able to call their bluff if the US missions were faked.

He must have thought, "...the experts say we can't go to the Moon like Kennedy promised, but I say we can! We can FAKE IT!"

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Firstly, can Jack show anything where LBJ ever said anything like this? Secondly, the experts did NOT say a lunar landing was impossible - quite the contrary. They knew it was possible with various scenarios. They knew, however, it would take a concerted national effort and a significant amount of money.

It boils down not to just studying the photographs for signs of fakery, though I have examined every available Apollo photo for more than three years (and discovered many fakes).

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

It has proven in the preceding pages that Jack has NOT looked at all the available imagery ("What is this big thing on the LM?" to name but one) or the volumes of data available on the missions. Additionally, his claims of "fakes" have been to be flawed, at best - and deceptive, at worst.

Each of the six successful missions landed two astronauts "on the Moon" in a flimsy craft NASA originally had called the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, later shortened to LM), an unproven craft which never had an opportunity for a lunar landing test flight. But it landed and then took off six times with spectacular "success" on Apollo missions 11 and 12, and 14 through 17...once even landing within 200 feet of a pre-selected target.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

To begin, it was a "flimsy" craft in Jack's opinion only. Remember, Jack has no training or experience in spacecraft (or aeronautical) design. In actual fact, it was very sturdy. It was designed to operate in an airless, low-G environment. It was a combination of design trade-offs between weight, redundency, reliability, and structural integrity.

It was NOT "unproven". Engines, structures, and systems were tested time and time again on Earth. There were unmanned flights of LM test articles in Earth orbit. There was an manned Earth-orbital test of the LM during Apollo 9, and there was the final checkout of the LM during Apollo 10. Apollo 10 closed near the lunar surface but did not land. It tested the descent engine in lunar conditions, it tested the guidance systems, it tested the environmental systems, it tested the abort system and ascent propulsion system. It tested the rendezvous radar and guidance system.

Jack forgets to bring these facts to light.

The principal objective of all six missions was SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH projects to be carried out by the two astronauts.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

This is wrong. The first missions were to prove the systems and ensure extended stay was achievable. The 'J' missions, starting at Apollo 15, were the scientific missions.

The US flag was planted in the moondust on each mission. All of this was done before any experiments were initiated.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Wrong again. The flag placing was done quite late in most of the latter missions; the prime concern was to gather scientic data. It was done early in the first missions because there was concern about shortened lunar stays; the flag planting was in those cases a bit ceremonial. Jack, you should read the Lunar Surface Mission Plans - they detail what was to be done, what the priorities were, contingency plans, everything like that.

Oddly, not a single photo exists in the public domain (at least that I could find to date) of the astronauts assembling and equipping the LRVs.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Once again, poor research. There are no still images of the LRV being unloaded from the LM (it was a two-man job, so no-one could take a still photo) but there are the TV video footages of the LRV being deployed from the LM. Once again, Jack omits this little fact. There are MANY images of the LRV being equipped after its deployment.

During the LRV travels ("traverses"), both men rode, and when moving, had no opportunity for photography.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Once again, wrong. There were many images taken during the traverses. One astronaut drove the LRV, the other had opportunity for taking photographs.

Though I could find no time given by NASA, surely it is reasonable to guess that it took at least an hour to unload, assemble and equip and test a rover?

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Another example of the poor research. The time allowed by the checklist (based on trials done during training) was less than 20 minutes. On Apollo 15, they were to start deploying at 25 mins into the EVA and test drive the LRV at +42 mins. Equipping the LRV did take time, though.

Almost incidental to the main astronaut tasks was PHOTOGRAPHY. Each astronaut had his own camera. (Apart from the Apollo 11 EVA.) It was a square-format specially-built Hasselblad. It was mounted on a chest-plate for the astronaut to operate. The astronaut had to manually set the shutter speed and apertures while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves and without being able to see the controls. The cameras had NO VIEWFINDER, so the astronaut could only guess at what was being photographed. Each camera had a bulk film magazine holding more than a hundred exposures. The film (mainly Ektachrome color film) had a very narrow exposure range, which required PERFECT aperture and shutter settings, because according to NASA, the cameras did not have automatic exposure capability.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

This is a common claim, and is erroneous. The aperture and shutter controls were modified to enable the astronauts to sets them - while wearing gloves - easily. The shots were mostly "pre-set". On their cuff checklists, they had apature and shutter speed settings, and a distance from an object to be photographed. On Earth, they practised this and were able to take good shots without the need for a viewfinder. They became very proficient at this (practice, practice, practice) and did not need to "guess". That being said, not all shots were acceptable. There were misfires and poor shots on most magazines.

The film allowed for a wide margin of error, and the experts for this film type - and Jack is not one of them - can tell you how they allowed for this and so where able to get very good shots in most cases. Planning pays off.

There are multiple references for what I have said, and I'd be glad to provide references for them if anyone would like.

Edited to add:

General overview of the Apollo cameras:

http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

Just a slight clarification there; KCAS is Knots Calibrated Air Speed. It's normally used for higher speeds / altitudes. KIAS is Knots Indicated Air Speed. That's the speed that will be displayed to the pilot 'uncorrected' and is normally used at lower speeds (such as approach and landing). There is also KTAS which is Knots True Air Speed; as the name suggests it is the true speed you are flying through the air.

Let's have a look at what you have said, and deal with it point-by-point:

"witnesses" that can neither prove effectively what they "saw" or "thought they saw" cannot be held in any great regard largely due to the fact that the average american is more interested in getting on the news than remembering in great detail they "type" of plane they amy or may not have seen. The fact that the source for these "eyewitness reports" come from mainstream media or "a friend of a friend" makes them less compelling.

The majority of people did not report a 757; they reported a large airliner in American Airlines livery.

I could link to witness reports from the official investigation, but I suspect you would discount them immediately. If you place so little faith in the 'mainstream media', then let's have a look at reports from PRO-CONSPIRACY sites:

Proponents of the no-757-crash theory have tended to minimize the many eyewitness accounts that a 757-like aircraft flew into the Pentagon and exploded. Many simply cherry-pick one or two accounts that seem to indicate a much smaller plane, and ignore the larger body of eyewitness evidence.

http://911research.com/essays/pentagontrap.html

While searching through wreckage inside the building, firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached." Burkhammer also "spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane" within the building.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

I have seen those "pieces " of something strewn on the lawn and again, how these constitute a commercial aircraft in anyway is quite beyond me.

Just because it is 'beyond' you does not mean it is not true. Could you tell me your experience with aircraft and aviation in order to support your supposition?

The very simple task at hand here is go beyond that. show me where the rest of the plane is. the 6 tons of engine etc etc...

and while using these same photos as a reference, show me how you can fit a commercial airliner into an 18 foot hole, with wings, engines and everything else.

The Purdue study shows how the aircraft most probably went through the building:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon...due_lsdyna.html

Then there was the FEMA Building Performance Report:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

If you want to dispute these reports, you have to show what aspects you dispute and your proof that they are inaccurate. Simply saying 'I do not believe it' is not proof; it simply says that you do not agree.

lets assume, so we are all on the same page here, that because your eyewitnesses have no proof of what they think they saw that it is off the table here.

No, because you have not produced anything that negates their reports. Once again, just saying "It isn't so" doesn't make their testimony wrong.

if in 50 years of plane wrecks, 98% leave huge debris fields. how is it that this one magically didn't.

Firstly, could you produce an authoritive reference that "98% leave huge debris fields".

Secondly, as was mentioned by another poster, the debris left by a aircraft crash site depends on the type of aircraft, the speed and angle of impact, etc. In general, no two are the same.

Do a Google search using the keywords 'Nias', 'Shark 02', 'Navy', and 'SeaKing'. This was a SK50 aircraft that crashed from about a 100ft hover. Very little of the aircraft remains. That was from a low altitude hover into soft ground - not a high speed impact into a building.

You may also want to have a look at what a high speed impact does to an F-4 Phantom II, a 24 000Kg fighter:

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video...lery/index.html

Notice how the front part of the aircraft has already been destroyed with no major parts identifiable.

i havent asserted any conspiracy either, i simply said that from the "evidence" put forth, it isn't very compelling to believe a plane the size of a 757 was anywhere near the 18 foot hole that was the "damage" tp the pentagon.

Then you are in the minority. Even most pro-9/11 conspiracy sites admit that a B757 hit the Pentagon, and they claim that the arguements over 757/no 757 is merely a distraction from more important matters. In additon, once more, just because you don't belive it happened is not prooof. You have to give evidence that it did NOT happen.

...and aside from wild accusations from buffoons as to my spare time activities, i have seen nothing offered here except the same tired crap.

so you experts tell me? did the wings, fuseilage, tail, luggage, bodys etc all fold up into a neat package and fold into the building? is this what you are asserting?

See above reference the Building Performance Report and the F-4 video.

i also never said anything was planted or bodies were stolen or it was lizards and UFO's contrary to what Mr Nobel Prize Winner posting on a mssg board might have you think.

Fair enough. Then do you dispute that there was identification of all the bodies aboard but one?

it's really simple...

Where is the 757...

Where is the plane.

You have to try an accept it - unless you can provide PROOF to the contrary - a B757 hit the Pentagon. Two airliners hit the WTC and caused their collapse. The onus is on YOU to provide verifiable alternative scenerios.

If we talk about 'did the US Government orchestrate the attacks', then that is an entirely different matter. I don't believe it, but it is a far more defensible position. In that case, you can agree with the physical evidence; it is only the motive that becomes contentious.

P.S. Don't forget to send the $1000 to Andy & John.

Okay, I see where you are coming from.

All the witnesses lied.

All the wreckage was planted.

All the images are faked.

It's not evidence if you don't accept it.

If people don't agree with you, it's a conspiracy.

Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby.

Talk authoritively about subjects you don't have any expertise in.

There is no sense in talking about the subject to you, because you have already made up your mind and nothing will change it.

Actually, I have a better idea.

Blair, you can send the $1000 to John and Andy for use in maintaining the forum. That way everyone can benefit from your brash post.

Alan Wallace usually worked out of the Fort Myer fire station, but on Sept. 11 he was one of three firefighters assigned to the Pentagon’s heliport. Along with crew members Mark Skipper and Dennis Young, Wallace arrived around 7:30 in the morning... (snip) ...Wallace and Skipper were walking along the right side of the truck (Young was in the station) when the two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away—the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. “Let’s go,” Wallace yelled. Both men ran.

Don Fortunato, a plainclothes detective with the Arlington (Va.) Police Department, was walking into his office, when he heard a muffled explosion—construction, he thought. Then his radio started squawking news of a plane crash at the Pentagon. “I grabbed my radio, ran to my car and pulled on my bulletproof vest and headed toward the thick, black smoke billowing out of the sky,” he said. “Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think.”

Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/

When do I get my $1000?

and here

and here

and here

Shall I PM you the address to send your $1000 to?

I will go to the bank and withdraw a thousand dollars US for anyone who can show me the plane that hit the Pentagon and the resulting plane debris. Same goes for the other non WTC plane.

I have seen all of the US military photographs from seconds after the strike and there is no way in hells half acre that anything the size of a 757 or 747 hit that building. Period.

The debris from the aircraft is shown here:

and here

and here

and here

and here

Sometimes the eyes get fooled, or you assume things about what you can't see:

Captain Chris Boyle

Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

Also see here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

It appears to be much of the same 911 errors that are going about. In contrast, have a read here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html

and here

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__other_.html

and here

http://www.911myths.com/html/what_s_new_.html

Another site worth visiting for explanations different to what Mr Griffin contends is:

http://www.houstonwade.com/0001to0100/issue0016.html

Instead of originating research and discussing a VARIETY of topics, they only post messages ATTACKING ONE PERSON or ONE SUBJECT...

Perhaps it is because they have expertise in that one area, and wish to refute the errors in that area. They don't delve into areas where they do not have the necessary expertise.

They never post any research...only vilification of anyone who promotes truth.

That's strange - I posted lots of stuff showing where you are wrong.. and the research that proves it as such. Yet you never say anything about it.

You are not above some 'disinformation' yourself, are you Jack?

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_5.html

The "Two different views" - an image was simply reversed, but you don't tell people that - do you?

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html

"Double crossed" - Hasselblad have explained how the shadows appear. Craig Lamson has explained how the method you say was used is actually impossible - and challenged you to demonstrate that it is not. You don't offer any proof of your impossible method, and don't refute the 120-year expertise of the Hasselblad company... yet you allow your false claims to stand.

You continually mistake one side of the LM for another - but you never admit your mistakes or withdraw your claims.

Just who is putting out the disinformation Jack?

Reminds me of an old joke:

"Pot, Pot, this is Kettle - You are black. Over!"

If I am wrong, don't start name calling or claiming I work for NASA or something - JUST SHOW HOW I AM WRONG.

Stick to facts, Jack!

Don't worry that you didn't take any pictures this time; here are some for you:

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/contrails/

You could follow my advice and take note of when you see them. The same people as in the last link want people to report contrails they see:

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/reporting.html

You might also like to consult a meteorologist about them. Here is what John Day - a meteorologist - said:

Chris Lydgate of the Willamette Week (Oregon) wrote a detailed report on Sept. 26th, 2001 on the "CHEM TRAIL" phenomenon. Lydgate wrote about Portland observers of the "Chemtrails," and even New Mexico's own Cliff Carnicom (see http://www.nmsr.org/chemtrls.htm). He also included comments from an old-timer meteorologist who puts the kibosh on the "Trails." He wrote "If there is a giant conspiracy to spray chemicals from the sky, chances are good that Professor John Day is not a part of it. The author of six books on meteorology, Day is a world-renowned expert on clouds, a professor emeritus at Linfield College and a regular contributor to the McMinnville News-Register, ... When he hears the word 'chemtrail,' however, Day's frosty mustache droops, and his sky-blue eyes darken. 'I don't happen to warm up to that phenomenon,' he sighs. Despite his reluctance to be drawn into the controversy, Day graciously agreed to examine photographs of chemtrails to see if he spotted anything unusual. 'This is a perfectly normal situation with cirrocumulus cloud and a single spreading contrail,' he declared after inspecting one photo for a full minute. Then he flipped to the next. 'Nothing weird about that. Cirrostratus cloud...' And the next. 'The criss-cross pattern is a consequence of planes flying criss-cross patterns....' And the next. 'I've seen many situations like this one....' Contrail formation, Day explained, depends on the relative humidity of the atmosphere-- he ratio of what is to what could be at a particular temperature. When relative humidity is low, contrails dissipate within seconds. But when relative humidity is high, especially at the subzero temperatures of the upper atmosphere, the addition of even a tiny amount of water vapor acts as a catalyst. Under these conditions, contrails may linger and spread to cover the whole sky. ...At length, Day extracted from his bookshelf a well-thumbed edition of Peterson's Field Guide to Clouds and Weather, which he co-authored in 1991 (a good 10 years before chemtrails became widely discussed), turned to the section on contrails, and pointed to a photograph of a thick, white plume--a plume that looked for all the world like a chemtrail..."

Source: http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/News1982.html

The New Mexico Attorney Generals Office asked some advice when it received lots of letters about "chemtrails":

Attorney General's Office

State of New Mexico

I have finished a review of letters sent to the Attorney General of New Mexico's office from several writers. In each of these letters, the writers express concern that aircraft are spraying biological or chemical materials into the atmosphere for unspecified purposes. One of the letters quotes anecdotal incidences of sickness that might be tied to the aircraft activity. The letters refer to "chemtrails" as well as contrails.

I have read the letters and reviewed the referenced web pages . In so doing, I have viewed a number of photos purporting to be of aircraft spraying the chemical or biological material into the atmosphere. I have also discussed these letters with another scientist familiar with upper atmospheric phenomena from Sandia National Laboratory and an retired general and fighter pilot who is an Air Force Hall of Fame Member inducted in at the same time as Neil Armstrong and former President Ford.

In summary, there is no evidence that these "chemtrails" are other than expected, normal contrails from jet aircraft that vary in their shapes, duration, and general presentation based on prevailing weather conditions. That is not to say that there could not be an occasional, purposeful experimental release of, say, high altitude barium for standard wind tracking experiments. There could also be other related experiments that occur from time-to-time which release agents into the atmosphere. However, not one single picture that was presented as evidence indicates other than normal contrail formation.

The variation in presentation is explained by the tropospheric conditions and, to some extent, the positioning of aircraft engines. When the troposphere experiences a relatively stable, supersaturated condition (water vapor in excess of 100% humidity without condensation), then any disturbance that causes formation of ice crystals provides nucleation surfaces for the supersaturated moisture to condense upon. When a jet engine burns its fuel, the major byproduct is water vapor. When the exhaust passes over the rear stabilizer of an aircraft, the tips or ends of the stabilizer cause the exhaust to expand rapidly. When it does, the temperature decreases rapidly within a turbulent flow, and ice crystal formation is forced. Generally, this makes it look as if the jet were spraying a cloud from the ends of the stabilizer. If the atmosphere is not at saturation, the contrail will not persist. The formed ice crystals will sublimate into the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, the appearance of a short, well formed vapor trail. If the water content is very low, then no discernible contrail will form at all. All the exhaust water will be absorbed by the atmosphere before there is time to form ice crystals.

If the atmospheric water content is not consistent with altitude (picture atmospheric "waves" of high water vapor content below a layer of low water vapor content much like waves on the ocean), then a jet will alternately pass through air that allows contrail formation and air that does not. This gives the appearance of a dashed line if the plane is flying at, or near the perpendicular to the waves. If the atmosphere is highly supersaturated, then the formed ice crystals may act as nucleation centers for a continual spreading of the contrail. In other words, the contrail actually causes the supersaturated moisture to condense, spreading out from its original path. This causes the formation of a cirrostratus cloud structure, far in excess of what would occur from a simple contrail.

One other phenomenon observed is the formation of contrails off wing surfaces along with the engine exhaust contrails. This can be caused when the air is highly supersaturated and the expansion of the air coming off of the wing surface is sufficient to cause ice crystallization. In this case, it appears that the whole plane is leaving a trail. This can often be observed by a passenger flying in a commercial airplane when entering cold, supersaturated air, particularly in the winter when close to a storm front.

There were no pictures or evidence that indicated anything other than the above contrail formation phenomena. Anecdotal stories of persons getting sick after contrails from obviously supersaturated tropospheric conditions lend no basis for belief that there are chemicals or biological agents being released. This type of story provides as much credence to "chemtrails" as does the belief that drinking milk is causally linked to heroin addiction. (Almost all heroin addicts in the US drank milk as children.)

Please contact me if there are any questions.

Sincerely,

M. Kim Johnson, Physicist

And it seems the people who promote these "chemtrails" aren't always exactly honest:

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/index.html

BTW, posting in all capital letters is akin to shouting.

Some questions:

1. Could you please provide an authoritive reference that says contrails do not spread out?

2. Could you please provide the chemical analysis results from your so-called "chem-trails"? Surely if chemicals are being dumped in such large amounts (multiple trails) as you claim, then you have taken air samples / soil samples / water samples, and had them analysed by a reputable lab to back up your claims?

Or are you, once again, spreading disinformation?

Here's a suggestion:

Take a series of photographs of the aircraft as they fly across the sky. Intervals of about 10 seconds or so.

Note your position, and the direction in which the images were taken.

Note the date and local time.

That will show us the formation of the contrails, and the resultant dissapation.

With the location, direction, date, and time, you can find out what the aircraft was. You can also find out the weather conditions (air temp, relative humidity, wind speed & direction) at the time the aircraft passed in the images.

Pretty simple stuff to do.

THE END!

Now, at last we come to the end of the individual replies to each of Jack's "new & irrefutable evidence".

All have been proven inaccurate, deceptive, idiotic, or just plain wrong.

In most of the cases, Jack has demonstrated misidentification, misinterpretation, and insufficent investigation of the subject material. His so-called "analysis" can be describes - at best - as incompetent.

Not one of the claims has been able to stand up to close scrutiny.

If Jack believes any of my responses are inaccurate, let him demonstrate where & how I have erred. If I have made a mistake, I'd be only to happy to admit it and correct the error.

Somehow, though, I don't think we'll hear from Jack; he dislikes public debate where his claims can be openly examined.

Lastly, I'd like to thank some people for their assistance. There are hundreds of sites out there which provide a valuable resource on researching Apollo - but I can't name them all. To those of you who I have failed to acknowledge - my thanks.

Eric Jones, of the tremendous Apollo Lunar Surface Journal - the essential reference when studying the Apollo lunar activities.

Kipp Teague of The Project Apollo Archive, a treasure trove of high quality orginal scans from the Apollo missions.

The Lunar and Planetary Institute's Apollo Image Atlas for all those 'hard to find' images.

Hasselblad cameras for their photographic expertise and information on the Apollo lunar cameras.

Takeshi Muto and his Apollo Maniacs website. Excellent technical information, images, and CGI renderings.

The Apollo Saturn Reference Page

My Space Museum, an excellent reference for technical details of both the US and Soviet space programmes.

The Field Guide to American Spacecraft, which lists the locations of all known Apollo hardware.

Clavius Moon Base, the FIRST stop when investigating so-called "moon hoax" claims.

Phil Plait and the crazy people of The Bad Astronomy / Universe Today Forum.

The knowledable people of ApolloHoax.com; if you don't believe we went to the moon, ask these guys. Between them they know most everything about the programme that is worth knowing.

and finally - but far from least - Doug Bennet of New Zealand, who downloaded all the original replies and images which saved me hundreds of hours in recreating this work. Onya Doug!

NASA'S OPEN DOOR POLICY

Well, the light exposure does have a rectangular shape. That's about the extent of it, and of Jack's "proof".

So does another frame - the frame which is actually the last one on that magazine, AS16-116-18724:

I like the way Jack demonstrates his "photographic expertise" with the statement:

"ONLY AN IMAGE PASSING THROUGH THE CAMERA LENS can register an image. Sun striking the film during a magazine change CANNOT create an image"

Absolute bullxxxx. Light leaking into the film magazine can take various forms:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/107/17419.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/107/17580.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/107/17582.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/108/17584.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/37/5434.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/40/5970.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/46/6868.jpg

BACKDROPS IN A STUDIO

Jack has seriously lost the plot with this one.

He says:

Using a chest mounted camera, a seated astronaut on the Apollo 17 rover managed to take dozens of pictures with the rover's mounted camera ALWAYS IN THE SAME LOCATION, regardless of whether it was going uphill, downhill, or sidehill.

Firstly he claims the astronaut could not take images seated in the LRV from the same position each time. When the camera is chest-mounted, and you are sitting in the LRV, it would be unusual NOT to have the view of the TV camera always in front!

Because of photo requirements to get sharp images, pictures could not be shot with the rover moving.

Then he claims the images could not be taken with the LRV moving. Horse-hockey! The camera settings were pre-calculated, so all he had to do was point & shoot. The only requirement was to make sure that the object he was trying to photograph was within the focus range of the camera (e.g. that might be something like no closer than 3 feet, no further than 100 feet).

Since the mounted camera is always vertical, it could NOT be on the rover, which was not always on LEVEL ground.

The mounted camera was on the LRV and was a television camera, not a still camera.

Just more bizzare ramblings from Jack.

NOT A SPECK OF DUST ON THE LANDING PADS

Answered nicely here.

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htm

also talks about the dust. Here's an extract:

4. There is no dust on LM footpads. -- According to Kaysing and Fox, this is the strongest evidence that the Moon landings are faked. They allege that with the swirling dust from LM descent engine, the foot pads should be covered with dust.

As with all the other Moon Hoax charges, this one is flat wrong on several counts. First, the allegation that there is no Moon dust on the landing pads is wrong. Second, it is far from accurate that there should be dust on the pads. Finally, contrary to the claims made by Fox, an absence of dust would actually prove, rather than discount, that the LM had put down in an alien environment.

It was fairly easy to disprove Kaysing's claim that there was "no dust" on any of the Lunar footpads.

Here is an Apollo 16 picture, NASA frame AS16-107-17442. Obviously, the moon dust can be plainly seen on the footpad. Now, it is remotely possible that the dust got there by being kicked onto to it by one of the astronauts, but since this is not the pad below the ladder, that's unlikely. Still, the fact that there is dust there at all is really a matter of luck as it does not necessarily follow, as Fox and Kaysing wrongly assume, that the "swirling dust" should settle on the footpad.

As we have already shown, the descent engine of the LM is not nearly as powerful as Kaysing and the Moon Hoax advocates assume it is. Beyond that, the thrust does not behave in the airless vacuum the same way it does on Earth. As an example, the thrust in a vacuum is spherically shaped, as opposed to a tight, coherent tube on Earth. Further, without the air to help push around the the dust particles of the Lunar surface, there is very little distribution of the particles. So Kaysing's expectation of the dust swirling around the LM is just wrong, only a small amount of dust in the direct path of the thruster blast would be affected.

There is also the issue of the height of the LM off the Lunar surface.

The LM had landing sensors built into three of the four footpads. When one of the six-foot-long sensors scraped the Lunar surface, a light went off in the cabin and the LM pilot cut the descent engine. Without air to circulate the dust particles, the swirling of the Lunar dust essentially ceased within seconds of the engine cutoff. As a result, it is not at all unexpected that there would be little or no build up of dust on the footpads -- there simply wasn't much to settle on them in the first place.

Additional proof of this can once again be obtained from the earlier Surveyor unmanned landers.

Pictures transmitted from the Lunar surface of the Surveyor foot pads show that -- just as in the Apollo case -- there is little or dust build up on the footpads. In fact, only when the Surveyors were commanded to "hop" on the Lunar surface by briefly firing their main thrusters did any significant amount of dust build up on the footpads.

What these images prove is that it is entirely reasonable -- if not normal -- for there to be little or no dust build up on the footpads. Assumptions to the contrary are based on ignorance of not only the physics of landing in an airless alien environment, but the previous experience of the Surveyor program.