Evan Burton

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: 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! 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). 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.

LEM BLACK PATCH ANOMOLY This is a good example of why you should check things for yourself, and not take anyones sayso on things. Not Jack. Not me. Check for yourself. If you do, you discover a couple of things. Firstly, the visor reflection. Look at the high resolution version of AS17-134-20482. This is what you'll see: AS17-134-20482 (high resolution, cropped, annotated) It's the reflection of the lunar surface. You can see the LM shadow clearly. Now, Jack's other claim: NO OTHER PHOTOS OF THE FLAG DECAL SHOW THIS BLACK PATCH AS17-134-20488 You can see the 'black patch'. It's a piece of the black material that forms the covering on some sections of the LM. This section is loose and is hanging down. OH! And look! A reflection of an astronaut in the visor! That has to be proof it's a fake, right, because "there is nothing in the photo to create such a reflection". AS17-140-21370 Another example of the "black patch". You can see it's hanging over the top right corner of the US flag decal. Now, the "editors" comment: Obviously it is not part of the LM. Obviously all the other images which show the same material (from all the landings) is just a coincidence. Just remember: if you ignore it, it's not really evidence.

OVERLAY USED TO ADD US DECAL TO LUNAR MODULE Jack has a thing about overlays. Pity it's not the case here. It's just material used in the LM construction. The same material that is placed on Quad III. To us, it looks like black paper. Have a look at the previous two frames on the magazine, AS11-40-5862 and AS11-40-5863. You can see the same material in those shots. Also check out the LM photos after undocking from the CSM. You can also see it there, albeit not as clearly. Use the hi-res images. Also, ask yourself - why use a detectable "overlay" - why not just put the decal on the LM when you took the shot? If the decal was missing from some type of "faked" image - why use that image? Why not simply replace that image with something else, reshoot the image (there are plenty of LMs), or simply 'spoil' the image and say it was a poor shot? None of it makes any sense - unless it was a genuine image of a genuine LM on the genuine lunar surface. Once again, it's not some attempt at a coverup.

COLOUR PHOTOS VERSUS GOLD FOIL Jack is getting petulant here, and drags up the "photos on the footpad" claim again. Notice he only shows the gold foil on the footpads, not any of the mylar and other packing materials. See the previous post on page 1 of this thread for the whole story.

WITH AND WITHOUT EXTRA LIGHTING This has been explained many times, and Jack yet again demonstrates his lack of photographic knowledge by even claiming it. This is an exert from Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy website. He discuss this very effect: Here is another good website discussing photography you should visit: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

THE MYSTERY OF THE APOLLO MOONROVERS: CHAPTER 5 - WHAT WAS IN THE PACKAGE? Once more Jack shows the MESA package (which is very well documented). If you want images of the MESA package - of which there are many - please ask. There was only video of deployment because, as I have said many times, it was a two-man operation. And similarity of packages? No - because the LRV did not have any covering. After landing it would be deployed so there was no need for any type of covering. Have a look: AP15-71-HC-682 No covering of the LRV package inside Quad I. An outer panel was fitted (seen in other images) and that was all. Nice image also showing how it all folded away into the LM. Wrong again, Jack!

THE MYSTERY OF THE APOLLO MOONROVERS: CHAPTER 4 - WHY WERE NO PHOTOS TAKEN? This has been explained before. LRV deployment was a two-man operation, so there was no-one to take still photos of it being deployed. There was, of course, television footage of the deployment. See previous post.

THE MYSTERY OF THE APOLLO MOONROVERS: CHAPTER 3 - THE ONLY OFFICIAL EVIDENCE Jack says "not a single photo of a LRV attached to the port side of the LEM (sic) can be located" - yet he shows two! The preflight fitting of the LRV to the LM, and one inflight! Of course, Jack discounts these because they do not support his fantasy. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...5-70-HC-911.jpg Apollo 15 crew in front of LM & LRV mockup prior to flight. LRV located Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...5-S71-21324.jpg Apollo 15 crew preflight. Note MESA package open in QUAD IV and LRV in front of QUAD I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...KSC-71P-206.jpg LRV uncrated at KCS (shows packaged form) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...SC-71PC-224.jpg Same again http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...SC-71C-2210.jpg Apollo 15 LRV check fit at KSC. LRV in Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...KSC-71P-281.jpg Apollo 15 LRV check fit. Quad I. http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/galler...C-71P-282_t.jpg Apollo 15 LRV check fit. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...5-71-HC-682.jpg LRV fitted to Apollo 15 LM. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...5-71-HC-684.jpg Apollo 15 LRV check fit. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...SC-71PC-415.jpg Apollo 15 LRV check fit, showing same configuration as Apollo 16 inflight image. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...15-91-12336.jpg Apollo 15 S-IVB, showing stowed LM and LRV visible at top left. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...-71-HC-1452.jpg Apollo 16 LRV deployment test. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...16-72-HC-57.jpg Apollo 16 crew deploy LRV from LM mockup. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...6-118-18894.jpg Apollo 16 LM in lunar orbit with LRV visible. No "retouching" in this image. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...KSC-72P-212.jpg Apollo 17 crew deply LRV from LM mockup. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...7-148-22695.jpg Apollo 17 inflight just prior to docking with S-IVB. LRV can be seen stowed at top under thruster. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...7-148-22698.jpg Apollo 17 inflight during docking with S-IVB. LRV stowed can be seen at top under thrusters. Quad I. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...151-23201HR.jpg High resolution image of Apollo 17 LM after undocking from CSM in lunar orbit. LRV can just be seen. Quad I. "Jagster" and "Eta C" from the Bad Astronomy / Universe Today Bulletin Board also pointed out there are a number of online videos showing the LRV deployment. They were taken with cameras that had already been set up prior to the LRV deployment: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/video15.html#deploylrv Yep - "not a single photo of a LRV attached to the port side of the LEM (sic) can be located". Of course if you don't look for something, you can't locate something.

THE MYSTERY OF THE APOLLO MOONROVERS: CHAPTER 2 - THE INTERNET "GOON SQUAD" If pointing out blatent errors is being a goon, then call me Spike Milligan. I think this is what pyschologists call "denial". Everything - images, documentation, plans, etc - everything says the LRV is mounted in the Quad 1 bay on the descent stage. The APOLLO 16 images Jack posts even SHOW the LRV stowed on the LM in the Quad 1 bay. Jack cannot present even a single piece of LM documentation that has the LRV in Quad IV. It's only Jack, however, that can see it's all a big coverup - and he is the only one who knows the truth. The LRV was really stowed in the Quad IV bay, and all the documentation is merely disinformation. All the images are doctored. All the equipment builders are liars. All the astronauts are "in on it". (For those who think this is a little harsh towards Jack, I would point out he calls highlighting errors and revealing the truth a "vicious personal attack", and includes me in an "internet goon squad")

THE MYSTERY OF THE APOLLO MOONROVERS: CHAPTER 1 - TRACKS WHILE STILL PACKAGED These are hardly mysteries - they are simply mistakes which Jack makes time and time again. So many times it makes you wonder whether it's error or intentional deception. 1. The open side is the MESA, not the LRV. (From our viewpoint MESA left of ladder, LRV right of ladder). You'll see this is a continuing theme throughout all these "mysteries". 2. From the ALSJ: The LRV had been unpacked LONG before the image was taken. The MESA package is covered in the image to stop lunar dust getting into the package.

THE PROOF IS IN THE DETAIL 2 Indeed it is - only it's not the proof Jack wants to see. In Jack's post, the left hand image is correctly labeled as AS17-147-22488. It's taken from inside the LM looking west. The right hand image, which Jack has also labeled AS17-147-22488, is actually AS17-147-22494, and also looks west. It was part of a pan sequence called Jack's 4 o'clock pan (a17pan1174743). It consisted of frames AS17-147-22492 to AS17-147-22521. As you can see in the pan shot, it was taken from about 15-20m NNE of the LM. So the difference in the images is about 20m north/south. Now look at the images Jack has chosen (and again cropped for his own reasons), as well as the image just prior to 22494, which is 22493: AS17-147-22488 (annotated) This 22488, the first image. I have labeled some items to help identification. AS17-147-22493 (annotated) This 22493, the frame PRIOR to the second image Jack used. We are now some 20m right (north) of where the original photos were taken. We are alos closer to the ground, so smaller objects are more difficult to identify. We can, however, still identify some of the objects from the first image. AS17-147-22494 (annotated) This is frame 22494, the other image Jack used. We can still see the objects identified in the previous images. They have moved, as expected when the camera viewpoint was changed from inside the LM to about 20m north of the LM. And contrary to what Jack has said, we are NOT closer. We are at the same distance, or more likely, slightly further away. Once again, no anomoly, no skullduggery. Once again, Jack is wrong.

THE PROOF IS IN THE DETAIL 1 Jack has tried this one on before but with a slightly different tack. Exactly how far away is that rock, Jack? From the ALSJ: This is an error which has been reported today to the ALSJ. The boulder is WEST-NORTHWEST of the LM, as is apparent from the image. The distance, though, is still about 200m. The SEP site is 150m ENE of the LM. So now Geophone Rock is 350m away from the camera. See here for the details of what Jack tried to claim with the same images - and was proven wrong.

CONFUSED LIGHTING This is once more a variation of the effects discussed here, here, and here.

MOUNTAIN BACKDROP CHANGES AGAIN No, it doesn't. This is one of the many times where Jack calls something wrong when it is perfectly correct, even to the Apollo novice. Look at the top B&W image. We looked at this in detail previously. The frame is taken from 150 metres east-southeast of the LM. Confirm this for yourself by looking at the previous post or looking at the high resolution image of AS17-143-21933. Look at the aspect the LM presents to us. Remember that the "back" of the LM (the big flat side) is east. Now take a close look at the high resolution image of AS17-134-20435. Look at the aspect of the LM. We are now 150m east-northeast of the LM. We were looking FROM the ESE, then we were looking from the ENE. In other words, our view has shifted to the left, and the background has moved to the right - perfectly consistant with the images shown. Jack is wrong again.

APOLLO 17 LM DISAPPEARS Actually, it doesn't. The top image Jack has correctly labeled is AS17-134-20435. It was taken from the SEP site, which is about 150m ENE of the LM. Notice how the LM is relatively small at a distance of 150m. The bottom image, which Jack does not give an ID for, is AS17-146-22387, taken from Geology Station 8, over 4km to the northeast of where the previous image was taken. Links to the bottom image: AS17-146-22387 AS17-146-22387 High Resolution Reference to the ALSJ also tells us that the LM is actually in the frame! It is a long distance away, but is shown in this high resolution image, a17det22387, by Bob Fry.

ROCKS LIGHTED FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS Firstly, from the ALSJ: Look at the images. The shadow direction changes because the LRV is turning between frames. Also look at an image of the LRV again, and look where the dish antenna is located and how it is mounted. AS17-146-22367 Now, look at the full images of 20588 and 20589 again. Look at the shadow on the camera in 20588. The shadow under the lens shade indicates the sun is pretty much behind the photographer. It is centralised across the top of the TV camera lens, basically horizontal. Notice also that the shadow of the TV camera is pretty much uniform across the camera base immediately under the camera itself. That also indicates the sun is pretty much behind us - and reasonably high in the lunar sky. The LRV turns to the right. Now look at 20589. The shadow across the TV camera lens has changed, and tilted to the right. Notice how the right hand side of the camera mount is now sunlit, as is a portion of the central section directly under the TV camera. The left hand side of the mount is still in shadow. The shadow of the antenna dish changes shape because it is now being lit from a side angle. Its shadow also moves to the left as the the sun (relative to the dish) moves to the right. THIS IS ALL CONSISTANT WITH A RIGHT TURN OF THE LRV AND THE SUN NOW BEING HIGH OVER THE RIGHT SHOULDER INSTEAD OF THE PREVIOUS DIRECTLY BEHIND. Once again, Jack is wrong.

BASE OF CAMERA MOUNT CHANGES BETWEEN PHOTOS Yet again - no it doesn't. Firstly, please have a look at the 'base' during a final fit of the LRV to the LM. It is the high resolution version of ap17-KSC-72PC-411. Here is a crop from that hi-res image: AP17-KSC-72PC-411 (high resolution, cropped) As you can see, the mount is covered with a highly reflective material, in squares. I'm guessing that this is for thermal control reasons. Now look at a crop of the mount from AS17-134-20475, which is the left-hand image in Jack's post. AS17-134-20475 (high resolution, cropped) You can see the silver squares reflecting part of the LRV's gold-coloured coating. Now look at a crop from AS17-134-20453, the right-hand image in Jack's post. AS17-134-20453 (high resolution, cropped) Once more, you can see the silver squares, this time reflecting what might be the lunar surface. The material on the camera mount made up of highly reflective, silver / mirror finish squares. The positioning is the same, and you can see some type of securing screws around the mount edges in all the images. There is NO change in the mount appearance. In Jack's example, he has deliberately cropped out portions of the base to make it appear to have changed.

THEY GOT THE PERSPECTIVE BACKWARDS This is a tremendous example of how Jack has no understanding at all of perspective. Jack never learns. He's used similar images in this example to others which have been proven wrong before. When you are close to an object (e.g. the LM), its apparent size in relation to a distant background object (e.g. mountains) is much greater than when you are further away from the object (LM) and compare its apparent size to a distant background object (mountains). See the Clavius website for a more detailed explanation. It doesn't matter how many times you say it Jack, it won't alter the facts. When you are wrong, you are WRONG.

MORE APOLLO 17 STAGEHAND BOOBOOS No, it is Jack who continually gets things wrong. AS17-143-21973 sequence taken from LM, looking west at the South Massif about 7.5 km away. AS17-136-20707 sequence from nearly 200 metres WEST of the LM (i.e. closer to boulder) at the ALSEP site. From the ALSJ: Inset has no identification and same error. See the previous posts about knowing where the images are taken from, and see the next post for an explanation on perspective. Don't forget to look at the FULL images, and not just the crops that Jack gives you.

OOOPS... APOLLO STAGEHANDS MAKE ANOTHER MISTAKE Ooops.... Jack makes the same mistake he always makes. He only looks at one portion of the image, crops it, then claims he has evidence. The only evidence that is demonstrated is that of Jack's ineptitude at dealing with the Apollo images. Look at the FULL image of AS17-147-22515: AS17-147-22515 Now look at the FULL image of AS17-147-22521: AS17-147-22521 Firstly, they are part of a pan sequence, a17pan1174743, called Jack (Schmitt)'s 4 o'clock pan. It comprises of frames AS17-147-22492 to AS17-147-22521. Look at 22515. You can see that the LM leg appears at the very right hand edge of the crater. Directly behind the crater, you can see another small crater. To the top-left of that small crater you can see a set of 'twin rocks', about even with the left hand edge of the large crater. To the top-right you can see a fair sized rock. It is about 2/3 along the crater's horizontal width. Now look at 22521. The LM leg is now about 1/4 the way inside the crater width (from right to left). The 'fair sized rock' is now about 1/4 along the crater width (left to right). Only the far right edge of the 'twin rocks' is now visible. Note also the footprints now visible in front of the primary crater. Once more, the photographer has moved a little during the pan sequence. between 22515 and 22521, he has moved further away from the original point and has moved a little to the right. YET AGAIN, JACK HAS BEEN UNABLE TO NOTICE CLEAR DETAILS IN THE FRAMES, AND HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACCOUNT (DELIBERATELY?) OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE CAMERA POSITION.