Evan Burton

I agree Dave. There are some things which have the potential to cause harm, but the overall good of Wikileaks is more important. I am placing trust in the people running it to know the difference.

Commercial planes are marked for easy identification. Military planes are not.

Jack

Is this a military aircraft?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/3/2/1801234.jpg

Is this a military aircraft?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/6/3/1791368.jpg

Is this a military aircraft?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/2/7/1757724.jpg

Is this a military aircraft?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/3/2/0540231.jpg

Is this a military aircraft

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/7/3/0071374.jpg

You can still access the Wikileaks site using the IP address:

http://213.251.145.96/

Download what you can.

The last time I e-mailed that web site owner, he told me that his entire data base had been destroyed, so even if it does return to the internet, all of the previous information is gone.

Well, they are wrong. Plenty of it is still available via the internet archive. For instance here is your first post on the "We didn't go to the Moon?" thread on WOS in March 2006.

That is being addressed, Bill.

Thanks John but I didn't write the piece. It originally came from a website called websurdity, which doesn't appear to be active any longer. It is probably still available on the wayback machine.

Once again you are anomaly hunting, and arguing from ignorance.

Those are very "clever" put downs, which are completely predictable coming from someone whose debating style usually includes several of 'The 25 Rules of Disinformation'.. It also shows that your arguments have run out of steam.. So of course the wisest thing for you to do now, is to use this sort of ad hominem distraction tactic.

I don't think you know what they mean.

You are anomaly hunting because you are searching the records, then when you find something that does not make sense to you (the anomaly), it must indicate something is wrong. The argument from ignorance says that you arrive at a particular conclusion without a necessarily logical course, that because something is not proven wrong then it must be right.

For example, you bring up Gene Cernan and his comments regarding the Apollo 11 landing. He implies that Apollo 11 also shut down the DPS above the surface on the Moon when the contact light illuminated, however we know that Armstrong didn't shut down the DPS engine until just before touchdown.

The anomaly hunting is that you highlight this, and the argument from ignorance is that you say that Cernan must be lying and is therefore proof of faked Apollo landings. You do not consider or dismiss that he was not involved in Apollo 11 and in fact was training as backup for Apollo 13/14, that he may have referred simply to what was SOP and not knowing exactly what happened during the Apollo 11 touchdown, nor do you allow for a simple memory error from a man who is in his mid-70s.

Far from distracting, I am pointing out exactly why your assertions are flawed. And pointing out your errors is not an ad hominem attack.

Medical emergency... or co-ordinated attack?

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/passenger-dies-four-treated-in-melbourne-airport-medical-emergencies-20101202-18hbm.html

One air traveller has died and four other passengers required ambulances in a string of unrelated medical emergencies occurring in quick succession at Melbourne Airport this morning.The drama began at 7.45am when a woman in her 50s - who had just arrived on a domestic flight - fainted and was put on oxygen in the terminal.Three minutes later, a woman in her 30s suffered an asthma attack in the valet parking area. Then, at 8am, a woman in her 60s, who was departing on a domestic flight, suffered a cardiac arrest. First-aid trained airport and airline staff were first on the scene and an airport staff member used one of the emergency defibrillators stationed on a pillar in the terminal. Ambulance and firefighters arrived shortly thereafter. But despite their combined efforts, the woman died at the scene at 8.58am.

At 8.40am, a woman in her 20s arriving on another domestic flight lost consciousness.

Then, at 9.30am, a man in his 80s arriving from an international flight required emergency medical attention, suffering severe abdominal pains. Melbourne Airport spokesman Trevor Stafford said the Air Service's emergency firefighters responded to the incidents within four minutes of the travellers falling ill, along with a number of ambulance crews who also rapidly attended. The paramedics and firefighters on the scene for the first patients who fell ill also attended the subsequent collapses. Mr Stafford said such a sequence of medical emergencies was unusual but were unrelated.

"It's very hard to have any handle on when a medical emergency arises, but to have so many incidents in the one morning is an unusual thing," he said.

"They're all individual, unrelated incidents, coming from different places."

It is believed seven ambulances attended the incidents.

David, Tom:

Thanks for your offers; they are very much appreciated. John will let you know.

http://www.debunking...m/questions.htm

We've all heard the "official conspiracy theory" of the Death Star attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-defended battle station ever built. And we've all seen the video over, and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely obliterated that massive technological wonder.

Like many, I was fed this story when I was growing up. But as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into the rabbit hole I went.

Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a problem.

Below is a summary of my book, Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis of the Death Star Attack, which presents compelling evidence that we all may be the victims of a fraud of immense proportions.

1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?

2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station's large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?

3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?

5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn't? In the video of the Death Star's destruction, Lord Vader clearly exclaims "I have you now" then fires two shots. Those shots never impact — anywhere. Were they merely "added" to the "official" video after the event to make it appear that Lord Vader had at least attempted to fight off his alleged son?

6) Nerf-Herders defy the laws of physics? How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to "bullseye womprats" on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be "impossible, even for a computer." Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. How did the missile make a right angle turn after entering the exhaust port? How could a missile shot in the vacuum of space–that would tend to keep going in the same direction as it was released, according to the laws of physics–be *sucked* into an *exhaust* pipe? "Exhaust" means to exhale or blow out... Wouldn't the missiles have been blown awry of their target rather than sucked in? If it had been an intake pipe, then the "bending" path of the missiles could be plausible. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?

7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader's son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader's teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?

8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?

9) Prior to the destruction of the Death Star a smuggler named Captain Solo was reportedly given a large sum of money. At a crucial point in the battle, Captain Solo had an unobstructed shot on his choice of the fighters pursuing Skywalker, yet Solo did not take advantage of this opportunity to kill Darth Vader. Although Vader was in the process of firing upon Skywalker's X-wing, Solo attacked the defensive fighter instead. In the aftermath, Vader escaped, while Solo still had crates of money in his cargo hold. Captain Solo eventually made his way to the Bespin system, where he was seen dining with none other than Vader, who was reportedly obsessed with obtaining Captain Solo's ship (and the money contained therein). Solo's ship was then seen flying into the super-structure of the second Death Star, destroying it just after Vader was able to get out (he was seen leaving a shuttle piloted by none other than Luke Skywalker). Yet through this whole sequence of events, the money was never seen removed from Solo's ship. Was it used to bribe Darth Vader, who (allegedly) assassinated Palpatine? Did anyone other than Vader and Skywalker actually see Emperor Palpatine die?

10 ) During pilot debriefing we leaned that Obi Wan was the one who told Luke to turn off his targeting computer. He said he was told by Obi Wan to "Let go" and "Trust me". This is the same Obi Wan who was, according to the official story, killed after sabotaging the Death Star by none other than Darth Vader BEFORE speaking to Luke. His convenient death places him inside the Death Star just before the explosions on the surface occur. By faking his death Vader would have given Obi Wan time to plant explosives. The only evidence of his death is his Jedi robe on surveillance cameras. And even that can't be found because they decided to conveniently let the evidence burn in the planet atmosphere. Also, why are there reports from Endor that Lord Vader, Obi Wan and Yoda were seen together AFTER their deaths? And who other than the Empire has the capacity to fake their deaths?

11) Lord Vader executed an officer for incompetence by allowing the rebels to escape. He then orders another officer to disable the Millennium Falcon's hyper drive. The rebels once again escape using the disabled hyper drive. Why was the officer responsible for caring out Lord Vader's order to disable the hyper drive not executed? Why was he in fact given NO disciplinary action what so ever? Why did Lord Vader only disable the hyper drive? If Lord Vader didn't want the rebels to escape, why didn't he disable the ship entirely?

12) Why did the captain of the Imperial Stardestroyer not fire upon the lifepod with the droids carrying Death Star plans? The "official story" says he didn't find the any signs of life. He said "Hold your fire. There are no life forms. It must have been short-circuited." Why would he be looking for life when it was electronic plans he should have been looking for. Why did he jump to the conclusion it was "short-circuited". Is he a lifepod engineer?

How can all this be just incompetence and coincidence? IMPOSSIBLE!

The most important question of all is why would a shadowy group in the Empire want to destroy such a technological wonder? Is it an excuse to invade Hoth and steal their oil; a planet which didn't have anything to do with the attacks. Or is it to take away your religious freedoms to practice the dark side of the force? As incredible as this sounds it makes more sense than the official story.

The only way we will ever get answers to these and other troubling questions is by voting into the office those who will make an investigation into the official story a priority. Listen to the "Bombad General" of Gungan. A whistleblower with connections to Emperor Palpatine.

Donate now to the "Jar Jar Binkss for Senator" campaign and the "Galaxy for Death Star Truth". Also buy Darth Ray Jones "The Truth about the Death Star".

Debunking the Death Star: It says that Luke was born with the force then says he was trained in the force. Which one is it? Was he trained or was he born with it?

There's no image in that second post .. It's text that looks to be cut off.

Look at the file extension. It's an image. The image may be of text, but it's an image. I gave a link to the full post, so that anyone can read the post in full.

I highly doubt that Gene Cernan would have forgotton how he landed the LM on the Moon during his alleged "greatest achievenment for all mankind."

I was referring to his recall of the Apollo 11 mission, not his own. In fact, he had just come off the Apollo 10 mission, and went straight into training as backup commander for Apollo 13 (Apollo 14 after the crew swap). That was in response to your claim that he contradicts details about the Apollo 11 mission:

In this final segment of his documentary, Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan completely contradicts the Apollo 11 story of how Neil Armstrong shut off the descent engine AFTER the LM landed.

Cernan probably thought that that is what Armstrong did, because it was what was supposed to happen and what he did on his own mission. As I have shown in a previous post, Armstrong didn't do so.

Once again you are anomaly hunting, and arguing from ignorance.

Do you say that every single one of the Apollo astronauts who claimed they walked on / orbited the Moonpeople is a xxxx?

Very simple question. Yes or no is sufficient. Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

A good friend of mine, Steve Symonds, is a retired meteorologist. In 2007 he wrote an article about "chemtrails" which is worth posting here. Used with permission of the author:

One of the great things about being retired is that one has time to wander leisurely round the golf course encouraging the ball with numerous whacks to drop into the hole. While waiting for fellow ball abusers to play, one can watch the day unfold and the clouds develop and vanish in the sky. My golf course lies under the flightpath between Sydney and Brisbane and it is not uncommon to see a dozen or more condensation trails or contrails across the sky from north to south.

The older ones are moved east by the strong westerly winds resulting in parallel lines. It is a delight to watch them and think of the people cooped up in an aluminium tube while I attempt to get the ball onto the green with a blow from my 8 iron. Contrails are very much a feature of living under flightpaths. Canberra residents know all about them as the dozens of flights between Sydney and Melbourne each day leave their mark. Melbourne people don't see them very often. There are plenty of planes flying into and out of Melbourne but very few flying over so there are few contrails. If they want to see contrails, all Melburnians have to do is drive up the road a bit.

So what are contrails? Before I get onto that, let me tell you what some people think they are. They are chemtrails. They are trails of chemicals being sprayed out behind military aircraft, strange white planes and some commercial aircraft. This has been going on since 1998 or 1999 but some claim to have evidence going back to the 1960s. The chemtrails are, supposedly, different from contrails. They are longer lasting; they spread out into dripping feathers and mare's tails, sometimes into complete sheets of cirriform cloud; they are laid down in parallel lines, X shapes, square blocks and cross hatches.

Chemtrails

There is some basis to the chemtrail conspiracy theories — aeroplanes do drop stuff into the air. For a start, aircraft exhaust gases contain all the usual stuff as well as droplets of oil and minute pieces of metal worn from the moving parts of the engines. Aircraft are involved in crop spraying, fire fighting and cloud seeding. Some aircraft dump fuel before landings in emergencies and some have been known to empty the aircraft toilets although this is not a common practice. The 1960s James Bond film Goldfinger had poison being spread from the air. The mechanism to do it exists so what is being done — supposedly?

Chemtrails first came to the notice of the world through radio programs hosted by Art Bell and Jeff Rense with journalist Will Thomas, who was the first to report on them. Another chemtrail investigator, Clifford Carnicom, has analysed air samples taken at ground level under chemtrails.

He claims to have found airborne barium, calcium and magnesium, and microscopic fibres in areas supposedly exposed to chemtrails. ¹

Chemtrails have some support from the US Government in that The Space Preservation Act forbids them. The Act is not law but has been introduced four times. It has, alas, failed to make it out of Committee on each occasion.

Speculation — mild to ga-ga

Many people think we are being subject to mass vaccinations to protect us from bioweapons. The mass immunisation of the military against anthrax supported that idea. Not everyone drinks the local water so adding vaccines to the water supply is not an option, but everyone breathes the air. There are many reports of people becoming ill after "spray days". This is argued as a reaction to the vaccine in the same way that some people suffer from side effects of more normally administered vaccines. The next level of paranoia involves weather modification:

Edward Teller's [inventor of the hydrogen bomb] proposal to reduce global warming to the US involves spraying minute aluminum particles to deflect the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays but still allow the Earth's heat to rise through them. This seems to be supported by rainwater tests after heavy spraying in Espanola, Canada, which contained seven times the allowable limit of aluminum. In this instance, the areas with the least ultraviolet protection, as in the Southwest, would be the heaviest sprayed. Most often, this does not seem to be the case. ²

This even occurs in Australia:

We had a wonderful storm coming, I did not see it, but I told my wife in advance that it must be coming, as dozens of planes turned our blue sky to total dirty skies for 2 days in a row, without one bit of blue sky! Sure enough, the storm came yesterday, but without a drop of rain!!! Same story for at least 4 years!!! Almost every time that we are expecting a good rain they come and spray the skies about 2 days in advance, and we get instead just a few drops, if any. And all our corrupt scientists are afraid to talk about chemtrails! ³

Chemtrails have been blamed for droughts. It is because of them, not El Niño, that Australia has had such a bad drought recently.

We have drought in Australia since they started the chemtrail spraying about 4 years ago, and now they have the audacity to blame it on El Niño! ⁴

Obviously there were causes other than chemtrails for previous droughts such as the terrible one at the time of Federation. Perhaps the politicians caused that one.

The sky's the limit

The powders being sprayed in grids and canopies, according to another idea, are ionizing the air, poisoning the people, dehydrating the land and drying up water resources. This is being controlled by Monsanto (who else?) so that once these conductive materials have covered everything, only genetically modified crops will grow. This is being augmented by the distribution of mobile phone towers which control the electrically charged people.

Electro-sensitivity is being created so that the populace will respond in a predictable way to various forms of broadcast energy being used for control and coercion. There are also implants being used on a broad scale, in places such as veterans' hospitals, and dental labs, and these are used also for coercion, and act as tracking devices too. Finally, the two Bush gulf wars were nothing but testing fields for biotech infections that react to electronic broadcast fields. ⁵

What most Americans don't realize is that the upper echelons of the United States government is no longer a government 'of, by, and for the people'… The United States government—as with all other major governments of the world— is under the total domination and control of the Illuminati [architects of the so-called New World Order]. The Illuminati's plan to reduce the global population by 4 billion people before the year 2050 was laid out in the Global 2000 report assembled by the Carter administration in the late 70's. It should be obvious that in order to REDUCE the world's population from its present size of six billion down to 2 billion (even over a fifty year span) would require that the majority of people now living would have to be exterminated in some way. ⁶

So the chemtrails are there to exterminate us and it is all the fault of the Illuminati but never fear, there are things we can do.

We also know that informed citizens can take precautions to offset the effects of CT spraying by limiting time outdoors on spray days and by building their immune systems with vitamins, herbs, Colloidal Silver and other therapies. ²

The Colloidal Silver remedy is supported by others —

At the very least, take colloidal silver on a regular basis. Even if you did nothing else to improve your immunity (and you should), colloidal silver will substantially increase your germ fighting capabilities since no bug, even a bioengineered one, can develop a resistance to its germicidal action. ⁷

That certainly sounds good but if you really want to get going you should look up the Sylphs and how they are helping us.

The proliferation of chembusters around the country led to another dramatic development in early 2004 — legions of huge air elemental beings called "Sylphs" by ancient Greeks made their presence known by assuming cloud shapes that often look like wispy winged angels or animal forms. ⁸

Sylphs eat chemtrails and turn aluminium and the other nasties into air and water. They originate on comets and on Jupiter and Saturn.

There have been a number of photographs of a very large sylph totally enveloping Mount Shasta, Mauna Kea and Mount Fuji. ⁹

Their activities can be boosted by orgone energy.

We are talking about nothing less than the demise of the chemtrail spraying operations! Chemtrails cannot exist in the presence of these giant air elementals and they are being destroyed as rapidly as they are being sprayed out of spew planes. You must read these articles and see the photographic evidence for yourself. All of the information posted below is interesting and informative, but it is now HISTORY. We are winning the battle against chemtrails and defeating the satanic traitors at their own game. Spread the word: DEPLOY ORGONE GENERATORS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD and you too will be free of chemtrail laden skies! ⁸

We are now well away with the pixies and it gets worse but I'll leave the delights of such things as communication channels for submarine warfare for you to discover. Just Google "Chemtrails".

Now consider some science

So, what is it all about? I asked the question earlier 'What are contrails?' It's about time we considered some science. In the 1930s aviation was pushing its limits with planes flying faster and higher. As they started flying above 20,000 ft it was noticed that many of them left a white trail behind. These condensation trails were investigated and it was learned that they could be forecast. This was very useful during WWII. When bombers were on a high level mission, they would climb to the layer where they started leaving contrails and would then drop just below the layer. This meant that any fighters attacking from above would be easier to see as they would be leaving contrails.

Water vapour in the air changes its phase constantly; it condenses into water droplets and the water droplets evaporate. When the rate of evaporation exceeds the rate of condensation, the air is clear and dry; when the rate of condensation exceeds the rate of evaporation, cloud forms. The rate of evaporation is related to the temperature; as the temperature falls so the rate of evaporation decreases. Eventually a temperature is reached where the two rates are exactly the same. This is called the dewpoint and at this temperature we have 100% relative humidity and the air is said to be saturated.

A sudden drop in pressure can also increase the rate of condensation and lower the temperature. Wingtips of aircraft create vortices and it is often possible to see streams of cloud coming from the wingtip. This is particularly noticeable on showery days when the plane is coming in to land. These trails forming in the vortices are one form of contrail but they are very short lived. The contrails we are talking about are not caused by the vortices from wingtips but by the engines themselves. One of the by-products of burning petrol or kerosene is water vapour. Aeroplane engines pump huge quantities into the air behind the plane. The air is very cold and the temperature of the exhaust quickly drops below the dewpoint. This causes the water vapour to condense or, at those altitudes, freeze, and leave a trail behind the plane. If the air is dry, the water droplets or ice crystals quickly evaporate and the contrail is short lived. If the air is very moist, the contrail will take longer to evaporate.

Before water vapour will condense into water droplets or freeze into ice crystals, it must have something onto which it can condense. These are called condensation or freezing nuclei and can be minute particles of dust or salt. Cloud seeding introduces freezing nuclei into the tops of clouds to encourage water droplets to freeze. Sometimes, the air is very clean and there are very few nuclei onto which the water vapour can condense or freeze. The air becomes supersaturated. Enter one aeroplane with big engines pumping out billions of particles in the exhaust gases — instant condensation nuclei and instant cloud.

It is these contrails that spread out and can take over the sky. It is these that last a very long time and often form feathers and mare's tails. We have been seeing them since the first high level flights seventy years ago. They are nothing new. The contrails before the chemtrail hypothesis started in the 1990s were exactly the same as the contrails afterwards.

The winds at the levels jet aircraft fly are very strong. Winds in excess of 200 knots have been recorded in jet streams at those altitudes. This means that anything pumped into the air is going to fall to Earth (if it ever does) a very long way from where it was released. This would be a very inefficient way of poisoning or vaccinating anyone. It also means that air samples taken under supposed chemtrails would have no relationship with the trails thousands of metres above the sample point.

So what of the observed patterns of trails — the parallel lines and cross hatchings? The parallel lines I see from my golf course — lots of planes flying the same route a few minutes apart with the winds pushing the trails out of the way of the next one. In Australia there are not too many air routes that cross each other but there are plenty that do in the USA. If conditions are conducive to contrails then east-west and north south trails will appear and create lovely cross patterns. I could, of course, be wrong and the Governments of the world are bowing to pressure from the Illuminati to decrease the population.

I'll get my orgone generator out and point it at the sky to encourage the Sylphs to eat the chemtrails while I take my colloidal silver. I wonder if it will improve my handicap?

Notes

1. Chemtrail Theory. Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_theory

2. Chemtrails — Frequently Asked Questions

www.rense.com/general4/fre.htm

3. Australian Chemtrails and Corrupt Scientific Community

www.rense.com/general52/corpt.htm

4. ibid

5. Your Life as a Human Test Subject — Chemtrails

www.rense.com/general53/yourlifeasahuman.htm

6. Introductory Overview of Chemtrails

educate-yourself.org/ct/#intro

7. ibid

8. Chemtrails

educate-yourself.org/ct/

9. Sylphs Transmute Chemtrails

educateyourself.org/zsl/sylphstransmutechemtrails06jun04.sht

Duane, you are on moderation because you were unable to remain civil when debating with people. If no-one is around to review your posts within 30 minutes of your posting them, then that is a consequence of being on moderation. Perhaps you might think about that.

I have no idea why you decided to post some of my moderated posts immediately, but waited until now to post the others, but I assume you have your reasons .. Reasons that usually involve some kind of game, since that's what you do best here.

That's because I'm not here all the time. The first thing I do when I log on to the Forum is check for posts awaiting release and review them. Sometimes moderators will consult with one another regarding posts. You still don't seem to understand that we are not here to jump at your beck and call. If it takes days for your post to be released, then perhaps you should have thought about that before behaving in a way that got you put on moderation.

I took you up on your invitation to return to this forum without being on moderation, just to see exactly how long that would last.. I believe I posted here unmoderated for about two weeks, before you managed to find an excuse to place me on moderation again.. Many other members of this forum are "uncivil", yet they continue to post without being moderated.. So I suspect your reasons for placing me on moderation again have more to do with my opinions about Apollo and less to do with my being "uncivil".

You are on moderation again because you continually break the Forum rules. This was not a unilateral decision. Besides, if I wanted to "silence" you, why didn't I just get you banned? The reason is that your own actions are the reason you are on moderation, and I want you to be able to post. You and others do more to damage the credibility of the hoax believers than anything I could do!

As for the constant character assassinations of Jarrah White, posted by you and your Apollo defending pals on apollohoax.net, all I can say is that the garbage you all spew about him there is as transparent as the rest of the tactics you use to defend the Apollo fraud.

Let the evidence about Jay Windley vs. Jarrah White speak for itself.

And here's an e-mail from Jarrah White to propagandist Phil Plait.

And finally, this is the type of TRASH that ALL conspiracy researchers have to endure while attempting to expose the Apollo fraud.

This would not be necessary if Apollo happened as advertised.

We have had sufficient talking about direct confrontations between the pro and con Apollo sides. I am happy that people have enough information to research the dispute for themselves, and make up their own minds.

Please make your final statements in regard to this subject, then we'll leave it.

As for this statement...

There are a multitude of interviews where the astronauts talk about moon hoax claims. Ask me for a list of them - please!

Please show me a list of interviews where any of the Apollo astronauts willingly sat down to conduct face to face interviews with any of the conspiracy researchers.. This does not include NASA propaganda documentaries where NASA controlled what could be discussed, or where the astronauts stated their opinions of the hoax evidence.

Let's review EXACTLY what I said:

If the Apollo astronauts have nothing to hide and are being truthful about landing on the Moon, then why pull the plug on interviews that ask hoax questions? .. I would think they would want to debunk the "conspiracy nuts" and the hoax evidence, for all the world to see.. But instead, they run away from them and their questions.

But your own posts contradict that! You yourself posted a video where a conspiracy theorist asked them about moon hoax claims. There are a multitude of interviews where the astronauts talk about moon hoax claims. Ask me for a list of them - please!

I'm not very good on logical fallacies, but I think what you have done here is change the goalposts. I said there are a multitude of times they talked about the hoax claims; I didn't say there are a multitude of time where they spoke to hoax believers. Even so, you think it is unreasonable for people who wish to now have private lives face fanatics who bombard them with insults and accusations?

As for Gene Cernan's claims of how he allegedly landed the Apollo 17 LM on the Moon, it's obvious to anyone not wearing Apollogist blinders, that he completely contradicted the Apollo 11 story of how Armstrong allegedly landed the LM, while at the same time claiming that they both landed it the same way... A bold faced lie, or an inability to get their stories straight? .. Either way, it's a lie.

You didn't allow for an aging person making a minor error about an event that happened 40 years ago.

Let's put it this way: can you say that you have never made a mis-statement? That you said something about your past which was not 100% accurate, that may have happened many years ago?

That you have never made a statement about a close associate that you made in error, that was not 100% accurate?

Be careful - what you say could come back at you and be used against what you now claim.

The second link you posted was NOT an image.. It was text written by Jarrah White that looked to be cut off for some reason.

Well, no, it was an image. Here is my post.

Notice that the link ends in PNG. Although I have been there, it is not Papua New Guinea.

What is a PNG file extension?

Portable Network Graphics is a bitmapped image format that employs lossless data compression. PNG was created to improve upon and replace GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) as an image-file format not requiring a patent license.

Duane - you obviously know your own mind, so the question should be easy to answer:

Do you say that every single one of the Apollo astronauts who claimed they walked on / orbited the Moonpeople is a xxxx?

Very simple question. Yes or no is sufficient. Thank you.

BTW, let's just get something clear here.

Every single astronaut who has flown a lunar mission claims they went to the Moon. Those who were CMPs say they orbited the Moon, those who were LMPs or CMPs (caveat for Apollos 8 and 10, which were lunar missions but did not land), stick by their experiences on / around the Moon.

So Duane - you therefore must say that every single one of these people is a xxxx, claiming they walked on / orbited the Moon (especially since you have said that Gene Cernan is a bald faced xxxx).

Yes or no, please.

Well, so far it just an opinion about a person (who is a conspiracy theorist). I think it is more appropriate in the PC section but for the moment I'm happy with it being here - unless John would prefer it moved.

FWIW, IMO he has espoused so many way out theories I consider him not worth discussing. Does he have a following? Yep - but almost any nutter will have a loyal group of followers.

Yes Jack. You hate me for proving you wrong so often. We know that. Thank you for your contribution.

Duane, you are on moderation because you were unable to remain civil when debating with people. If no-one is around to review your posts within 30 minutes of your posting them, then that is a consequence of being on moderation. Perhaps you might think about that.

Mention of my age is irrelevant and obviously an ad hom. I am in complete control of all my mental abilities. I wish

I could say the same for my arthritis. I know sarcasm when I see it, and Lewis does not.

Jack

So these posts by you must also be ad homs then:

After my message appeared, Burton then posted Duane's message IN AN ATTEMPT TO EMBARRASS ME.

Duane being placed on moderation is proof of Burton's bias toward anyone WHO OPPOSES THE DECEIT OF THE APOLLO PROGRAM. Burton brought his bias against Duane here from the "Unexplained Mysteries" website, where they had clashed before. Burton joined this forum to oppose studies by Jack White being posted here. He worked to gain power as moderator, and immediately found ways to put me, Daman, and

Lemkin on moderation for our Apollo views. Burton is abusing his power and should be removed as moderator for his bias.

As is to be expected, Burton never presents research...only "debunking".

In another thread, Burton admits that he removed alll my postings about Spirit Aerosystems from this thread.

(Which was completely untrue)

Mr. Simkin has emailed me that he had absolutely nothing to do with Burton's harassment of Mr. Daman and the alleged banishment and reinstatement.

(Again, no such harassment)

Burton calls me a xxxx and then blocks me from responding to his silly de-BUNKing photos.

(I never did either)

I read your posting on recruiting provocateurs to join the forum for the specific purpose of attacking White and Daman. You think you have ANY CREDIBILITY HERE? And you continue with every posting

to repeat that I am a xxxx. Dry up and blow away, Burton!

etc

etc

Lewis...was that a correct quote from you on another forum:

PERHAPS BURTON IS MORE EVIL THAN WE THOUGHT...?

Or did I misread it?

Thanks.

Jack

Its called sarcasm Jack. I realize you probably don't understand it.

It's perfectly understandable why Jack wouldn't think you were being sarcastic...

Because he doesn't understand it, like I said. Perfectly understandable at his age. My grandparents had trouble with sarcasm too. What's your excuse?

Edit to add: I would like to note that the above is not intended as an ad hominem. Jack IS older, he didn't seem to understand the obvious sarcasm in my post, and I HAVE known older people (most notably my grandparents) who had trouble with sarcasm.

Mention of my age is irrelevant and obviously an ad hom. I am in complete control of all my mental abilities. I wish

I could say the same for my arthritis. I know sarcasm when I see it, and Lewis does not.

Jack

So is that an attack on a member? Just like you claim Matt's post is?

Now let's get back to correcting the errors regarding the Moon landings. BTW Jim, Jack, Duane, I should remind you that these are accepted as fact. Thousands - if not millions - of scientists of various specialities around the world have no problems with them... and saying "they must be lying" does not count unless you can PROVE they are lying. Opinion is not fact, despite the efforts of Jim to convince you otherwise.

Lest we lose track of the reasons for faking the Apollo landings, here is a thoughtful review of our history at the time.

Wagging the Moondoggie

By Dave McGowan

July 2000

Adolf Hitler knew a little bit about the fine art of lying. In Mein Kampf, he wrote that: "If you're going to tell a lie, make sure it's a really <DELETED BY MODERATOR> big one." OK, my German's not that great so that may not be an exact translation, but it captures the gist of what the future Fuhrer was saying.

He went on to explain that this was so because everyone in their everyday lives tells little lies, and so they fully expect others to do so as well (which is why, by the way, you should never lie about getting <DELETED BY MODERATOR> from an intern). But most people do not expect anyone to tell a real whopper. You know, the kind of brazen, outlandish lie that is just too absurd to actually be a lie.

The kind of lie that is so over-the-top that no one would dare to utter it if it wasn't in fact the truth. That is the type of lie, according to Hitler, that will fool the great masses of people, even when the lie is so transparently thin that it couldn't possibly stand up to any kind of critical analysis by anyone actually exercising their brain rather than just blindly accepting the legitimacy of the big lie.

Well, that's nice but yet again there is no PROOF. I can make a similar claim that people who sell books and make radio programmes about the JFK lie, the 9-11 lie, the Apollo lie, etc... are all following exactly the same principle! The problem is that rational, thinking beings want to have proof supplied to them. Anyone can tell a whopper, but you need proof that they did so before treating them as such. Imagine a justice system built on the principles that Jim and others apply: they look guilty, so they must be guilty!

Edited to add: well, lets face it, the situation already exists - there is already a great example of how people can be convicted without evidence and how eager those who cry "freedom" are the first to point the finger at others, demanding their culling. I think they would be wise to read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" and re-examine their actions.

BTW, let's just get something clear here.

Every single astronaut who has flown a lunar mission claims they went to the Moon. Those who were CMPs say they orbited the Moon, those who were LMPs or CMPs (caveat for Apollos 8 and 10, which were lunar missions but did not land), stick by their experiences on / around the Moon.

So Duane - you therefore must say that every single one of these people is a xxxx, claiming they walked on / orbited the Moon (especially since you have said that Gene Cernan is a bald faced xxxx).

Yes or no, please.

I see you only posted the clavius link .. What about apollohoax.net and BAUT, where Windley, you and the other disingenuous apollogists character assassinate Jarrah White constantly? .. And then you wonder why he replied in kind.. Priceless!

You actually WANT them brought up? Well, okay. But remember: we are talking about Jarrah and his obsession with Jay, and how Jay treats Jarrah. I have no problem admitting I have zero respect for Jarrah, but we are talking about Jay.

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1109

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/nest/133905495?c=1

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/103611-Jarrah-White-fan

Here's where we prove Jarrah lies and misrepresents:

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2564

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2321

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2757

This is a good example of Jay's vicious attacks on Jarrah:

I've seen in this thread that Jay issued a challenge for Jarrah to debate him on any moderated forum.

I should clarify: those are the terms under which I agree to debate Jarrah directly, should he wish it. It isn't so much a challenge, since I really don't pay much attention to Jarrah's videos.

Here's the background.

About a year ago Jarrah contacted me by e-mail and presented a list of questions he wanted to debate -- in e-mail. One of those was the now-infamous question regarding Brian O'Leary, but there were others. I told Jarrah that I do not debate in private. That is not a limitation reserved for him; it has been my policy for quite a number of years for both ideological and practical reasons. Practical in the sense that I do not wish to repeat myself in endless private debates. Ideological in the sense that I don't wish the debate to be represented elsewhere in "he said, she said" fashion. Let the debate be in public where any and all can see exactly what was said. And Jarrah's handling of email subsequently has borne out my wisdom. He has tried hard to spin up the hypothesis that I lied about my correspondence with O'Leary. However, the fact remains that a well-known associate of O'Leary, Wade Frazier, witnessed our correspondence and stands ready to confirm it. To date, Jarrah refuses to contact him or even to acknowledge the evidence. Hence I don't trust him -- or anyone -- to fairly represent a private conversation in public.

Now I appreciate that the DI forum is obviously a woo woo forum but I assure you that the moderators there are generally sensible and fair-minded.

We seem to differ on what constitutes fair and sensible moderation.

What I require from moderation is preventing the debate, and Jarrah's contribution in particular, from devolving into the mudslinging and irrelevancy for which he is so justly infamous. Although he says he has reformed since 2004, his most recent attempt (2009) still required moderator intervention to deal with his abusive temper. Jarrah still hasn't substantiated that he is capable of adult debate without supervision, hence I require that supervision as a condition of my participation.

In a long-running debate at IMDB (in which, ironically, our fanboy Wwu777 subsequently participated), Jarrah suddenly arrived and asked if IMDB constituted a suitable forum. Naturally it did, since I have posted there for many years. He presented the same questions there that he had in private e-mail, and we began to debate them individually. Jarrah has since abandoned that debate, but the point I wanted to make was that IMDB enforces basic rules against personal attacks, abuse, and so forth.

What I further desire from moderation is the enforcement of a meaningful debate. What I mean by that is some means to keep Jarrah (and everyone, for that matter -- even myself) from sidestepping, evading, changing the subject, and generally employing other debate tricks that distract from testing the ideas at hand. IMDB doesn't enforce that, but BAUT certainly does. So does ApolloHoax, to a lesser extent. And in the IMDB debate Jarrah indeed tried desperately to change the subject when it became apparent he was not able to display sufficient understanding of solar physics. While no moderator held him accountable for his claims still on the table, the other readers made it pretty clear they wanted him to stay on topic. I believe that's why he fled.

Yes, it does seem especially pedantic. But in years of watching hoax theorists and other pseudoscientists debate, I've seen how distraction and evasion plays a big part. Those proponents create a semblance of credibility through artfully dodging and weaving. That's not what the truth is about. Seeking the truth means presenting ideas that endure the worst and most withering assault your critics can manage, not one that dodges every test. There are many of us here who undergo examination in the form of peer review, design review, or other formal tests of strength. We are used to such rigor. The hoax theorists are not, nor do they want to be.

So I'm wondering if anyone here is willing to take up the gauntlet if Jarrah does show up?

That would depend on the the nature of the forum. As I implied, I don't consider David Icke's forum to be especially moderated.

The other issue that arises is the personal nature of debate with Jarrah. Put bluntly, he has an unhealthy personal fixation on me, Phil Plait, and perhaps upon others. This comes to the fore in his materials, and in those of his colleagues, as deeply abusive personal attacks and arguments that have nothing to do with the Apollo hoax theory but are instead simply aimed at making me and others seem generally dishonest and foolish.

Toward that end, as much of his handwaving seems directed at the notion "Jay Windley is a proven xxxx!!!" as toward any particular hoax theory. In other words, even if Jarrah's accusations were true on some point, and I were wrong, it would not affect any Apollo hoax claim; it's simply ad hominem. So it seems wise to approach such a debate cautiously, until the proponent decides what he's actually trying to prove.

Many conspiracy proponents, likely including Wwu777, envision some sort of gladatorial combat where two champions enter the arena and only one will triumph. That's not how the intellectual process works. Jarrah debated at IMDB largely ignoring the questions and comments of others and fixating only on my contribution. That is sad, because others brought up important points and deserved to have their questions addressed. And the same would likely occur in a subsequent debate involving Jarrah. The debate over hoax theories is a test of ideas, not of personal skill. This is what many hoax claimants don't understand. It's not a matter of vindicating the "genius Aussie" as some sort of superior litigant, besting all comers. It's a matter of whether his ideas stand up to scrutiny by all interested parties. Yes, many of these proponents chafe under what seems to be an outnumbering of critics. And that's how academic and professional reviews occur in the real world, so my advice to them is to suck it up and quit complaining.

It's just that one guy is presenting one side of the argument and claiming that the skeptics are afraid of this Jarrah.

I dismiss it as saber-rattling, which is why Wwu777 seems to be posting only to sympathetic audiences. Jarrah tried to debate outside the protection of YouTube, failed, and ran. And any who read that debate will see where Jarrah was offered specific invitations to present his findings to qualified professionals for endorsement, and he ignored the invitations entirely. As far as I'm concerned, Jarrah can resume that debate where it left off any time he wishes. I should also add that Wwu777 himself opened a number of threads in the IMDB forum, was roundly refuted, and never made any followup posts. It's clear to me who's hiding.

You also cut off the text in the second link you posted.. Did Jarrah write something you didn't want anyone here to see?

The second link was an image - is that what you meant? I've tracked the post to a quote of Jarrah's, but I can't find the original. Please note that this is Jarrah posting, quoting himself, so this is not made up.

In September 2005, I had joined the Apollo Hoax Yahoo Group under false pretenses, thinking it was a forum where one could civilly debate the moon hoax theories. But after seeing Jay Windley was already there, it quickly became apparent that I had actually signed up to a group dominated by the vultures who get some kind of perverted pleasure out of character attacking intellectuals and misrepresenting their arguments. Jay Windley is the worst offender. He had gained notoriety through both his Clavius website and his deceptive Hasselblad experiments on the pro-NASA documentary The Truth Behind The Moon Landings (Windley appears in MoonFaker A, for those who don't know him). I had been outraged for years, and seeing as I had already joined I gave him a piece of my mind. Windley responded and tried to have a go at me, twisting my words and taking them out of context even though my original message was there and in context! I replied, and at the end I rightfully called him 'a xxxx and a coward and a propagandist.' He replied again, getting nastier than before, I spent the next month writing a rebuttal to it. But when I posted the message in October the same year, surprisingly it wasn't uploaded, instead I awoke the next day to find my membership on Yahoo wiped and all my James Bond Junior fan clubs deleted.

I had to start my groups from scratch, and rejoined all the groups I was a member of. But when I repeatedly tried to upload my message, the mods never uploaded them but the messages attacking myself were given the go ahead. The mods even contacted me directly, saying that the context of my message was bullxxxx and that's why it wasn't uploaded. When I ask them to validate such a statement, I was promptly given a virus and I had to go offline for the next three days whilst my computer was being repaired.

When I got the computer up and running, I continued my line of questioning, which immediately resulted in myself getting banned from the Yahoo Group.

I always suspected Windley was behind this, as he had everything to gain from my silence.

Almost a year later I was at the Loose Change forum, and I posted a link to this animation I made about the moon hoax.

<video link removed>

A user directed me to Jay Windley's website, to which I responded thoroughly, focusing in particular on his misrepresentation of Bill Kaysing's character. This is when Windley began changing arguments and started attacking me over BAUT and ApolloHoax.net, in his saving face, he even attributed a argument of mine to Bart Sibrel to make it look as though Sibrel was self-contradicting himself. He even had the gall to invite me to join BAUT and debate with him in a civilized manner. What is this? He wants me to debate with him civilly at a place where all the active users make cheapshots and insults?

Here are some examples they said about the users who post at the Loose Change Forum.

http://forums.joerogan.net/showthread.php?page=5&t=56457

also: http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=138828&postcount=107

Notice this line in particular:

"A user directed me to Jay Windley's website, to which I responded thoroughly, focusing in particular on his misrepresentation of Bill Kaysing's character. "

Notice that the Clavius website does not have a forum per se, but directs you to the ApolloHoax forum. But did Jarrah ever post on the ApolloHoax forum? Have a search for it. Go back through the Wayback machibe in case it was deleted without trace.

DON'T TRUST ME - SEARCH FOR IT YOURSELF.

Okay, enough about the apollogist's sick obsession with Jarrah .. Let's discuss why Gene Cernan told a bold face lie about Armstrong allegedly landing the Apollo 11 LM exactly the way he did on Apollo 17.

Cernan claims to have shut off the LM engine BEFORE landing, to let it freefall to the surface, while Armstrong shut off the engine AFTER the LM allegedly soft landed on the surface .. It appears that Cernan is covering for the fact that none of the Apollo photos show any evidence of dust on the LM pads, much less any type of blast craters beneath the descent engine.. What ever happened to NASA being afraid the blast craters might be so deep that the LMs might fall into them?

Now let's examine this one again, but firstly: you have said "Gene Cernan told a bold face lie". So if I find that you, for instance, have said one thing about an area in which you are passionate about, and then a couple of years later (never mind nearly 40 years) said something completely different about it, then would that mean that you told a bold face lie? I am not accusing you of this, mind you - I just want to ascertain the conditions upon which you would say that someone (including yourself) would have to meet in order to have told a bold face lie. So, if you did this, would you apply the label to yourself?

Next, did you read any of the replies, look at any of the images? The ones where you see evidence of a "rocket blast"? The explanations about dust on the footpads? I know you have regarding the last, but for whatever reasons you have chosen to ignore them.

Lastly, could you please show any NASA documents which talk about "...being afraid the blast craters might be so deep that the LMs might fall into them..."? Note the use of the words "blast craters"; craters have always been of concern, but not "blast craters". Since you are talking about the landing and engines and dust, you must be talking about a "blast crater" being caused by the DPS.

Cernan also claimed to be able to see stars while on the lunar surface, by standing in the LM's shadow, while Armstrong claimed that he couldn't see any stars from the surface without looking through the optics, while astronomer Phil Plait claims that stars can easily be seen from the Moon, just by looking up at them .. No "LM shadow" or "optics" are necessary.

What he actually said was: "If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day."

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

And his statement is absolutely correct. Your eyes, like the iris of a camera, would need to adapt to the conditions:

"To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day. So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!"

Many of the Apollo astronaut's "moon" trip stories contradict each other .. None of the Apollo astronauts will sit down with any of the conspiracy researchers for face to face interviews, which is the reason Bart Sibrel felt the need to use the tactics he did, to try to get an interview with Aldrin.

So if a camera crew and interviewer asked you for an interview to discuss claims that you are a paedophile, or a drug dealer, or perhaps that you had been totally untruthful in saying that you had been involved in the antiques trade or having been a part time musician, despite there being recording of you playing or having records of you attending antique actions, buying and selling antiques, etc, you would gladly accept an interview? Would you accept an interview where you were a public figure and people were going to call you a xxxx to your face?

If the Apollo astronauts have nothing to hide and are being truthful about landing on the Moon, then why pull the plug on interviews that ask hoax questions? .. I would think they would want to debunk the "conspiracy nuts" and the hoax evidence, for all the world to see.. But instead, they run away from them and their questions.

But your own posts contradict that! You yourself posted a video where a conspiracy theorist asked them about moon hoax claims. There are a multitude of interviews where the astronauts talk about moon hoax claims. Ask me for a list of them - please!

There would be no reason for the Apollo astronauts to run away like a pack of cowards and refuse to answer certain questions, if Apollo happened as advertised.