Evan Burton

Logic and evidence are not his strong suits.

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

"Raising of the American flag also revealed several faults. There is no atmosphere on the Moon, it consequently means that there can be no wind. As it was said, a flagpole had a horizontal slat on the top so that it could be possible to unfurl the flag wide. It looked rather strange that a corner of the flag fluttered and one of the astronauts even had to pull it down. Probably, some stupid worker in a film pavilion, where the documentary was shot, opened the door and let the wind inside. In a word, there were lots of strange things connected with the Mood landing expedition that produced such a sensation all over the world."

Another old chestnut that most Apollo Hoax Believers (HBs) don't event fall for. The flag was an ordinary nylon flag. When it was unpacked on the lunar surface, there was no strong gravity to "pull" down on the flag and straighten it out, and so it had a 'rippled' appearance. Additionally, when they set up the flag on Apollo 11, there was a problem with the support arm and it didn't fully extend. This enhanced the 'ripple' effect. Later crews thought it looked good, and did the same with their flags. Lastly, movement of the flag itself: it occurs when the astronauts touched the flagpole, trying to plant it into the lunar regolith. Quite normal.

"Future life of the astronauts was also a mystery. Within a year since the sensational expedition, 11 people connected with the Apollo program died. 7 people died in car accidents and 3 burnt down in test capsules although they were high-class pilots. Is it possible that the people were liquidated because they wouldn't keep the secret about the fake Moon expedition?"

More disinformation. Yes, astronauts were killed... over the life of the programme, not "within a year" of the Apollo 11 landing... and not all in car accidents. In fact, most died in aircraft accidents, quite understandable when you consider the risks associated with aviation, military aviation in particular and especially when you understand the majority of these people were test pilots. The Apollo 1 fire took the lives of Grissom, Chaffee and White in 1967 - two years prior to the lunar landing.

"As the Northrop Grumman corporation, the one that developed and constructed the Moon robot, told an American magazine that all negatives and records concerning the event were liquidated. It is rather strange, because we know that America treats its achievements and the history with trepidation."

Again, just plain wrong. Some detailed drawing were discarded when no longer required, but the vast majority were kept by Grumman and by the US government.

http://history.nasa....lsj-LMdocs.html

http://www.space1.co...ng_archive.html

******************

So, the article contains little factual information and is wildly wrong in several areas. If people ignorant of Apollo history read it, they can get the wrong impression. The fact that Prof Fetzer uses it demonstrates the Professor's ignorance regarding the Apollo space programme.

It may also seem strange that not a single picture of the Earth as seen from the Moon was made during the expedition.

It may seem strange, but the author of this article has not done the most most basic of research before making / parroting claims:

Resized to 67% (was 904 x 899) - Click image to enlarge

Apollo 11 image during lunar orbit

Resized to 67% (was 904 x 907) - Click image to enlarge

Apollo 17 from lunar surface

(continued when I get a chance)

"It is strange but not a single star could be seen on the pictures of the Moon flight. Stars are even brighter in space than as seen from the Earth. Instead, there was blue light streaming into the illuminators of the space ship, at the time when it is known that open space is absolutely black."

Oh god, not this claim again. Does anyone with a modicum of intelligence and having checked reality believe this? Let me explain. If you can't be bothered, see here.

The eyes see things that are not recorded on photographic film, at times. It all depends on the sensitivity of the film to light (the ISO setting), the amount of light let in (the aperture) and the length of time that light is allowed to get in (the shutter speed). The film was optimised for the condition either inside the spacecraft or on the lunar surface, not for taking images of space. Here is an experiment you can try. Take your camera, and switch it from AUTO to say apature F8 at shutter setting of 500 (1/500th sec). This would be acceptable for a lot of daylight photography. Even try it in fairly low light, such as indoors under interior lighting. Go even more, trying a couple of fluros in small area like the command module. Then go outdoors at night. Let your eyes adjust (there's a clue) for about 15 minutes. How many stars can you see on a clear night? Now point your camera with the aforementioned settings at the sky and take a photo. Do you see any stars? Do you see all the stars you saw with your eyes? Congratulations - you are part of what some people call "the Apollo Conspiracy".

"Apollo landing was also strange: running of the engine didn't move a single stone or a speck of dust on the Moon surface."

Once more - wrong. Firstly, during the final stages of the landing the LM descent engine was running at about 10% of thrust, not maximum thrust. Secondly, there is evidence of the thrust from the LM descent engine on the lunar regolith.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...1-40-5921HR.jpg

"After that, the module settled on a flat surface. Pressure of a jet engine would inevitably make a crater on the place of landing while braking. As is know, the Moon gravitation makes up 1/6 of the Earth gravitation. A cloud of dust thrown from under the Apollo wheels should have been six times higher than depicted on the photos."

Apart from the fact that the throttle setting was at about 10% of thrust, the claim that thrust would have made six times "more" dust is ridiculous. F = M a. BTW - they were not wheels, but landing 'pads'.

"As for the shadows that astronauts and their apparatuses cast on the Moon, they were of different length and direction, at the time when it is known that the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon."

Another well disproven claim. I could do it here, but instead please look at these links:

http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html

http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html

*sigh*

If you are not convinced at this stage that the Pravda article is anything but, then have a look here.

(continued)

As per normal, Jim ignores the answers that were provided to him in July:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16258&view=findpost&p=198224

Let's examine what the article say, and check the accuracy.

"Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn't allow to perform complicated space maneuvers"

That statement shows a large degree of ignorance regarding science. The basics of manoeuvring in space were worked out by Sir Issac Newton and Johannes Kepler, further refined by people like Tsiolkovsky, Oberth and others (see here). The development of small rocket engines and thrusters allowed the provision of impulse. The four gimbal gyro allowed a spacecraft to maintain a stable reference platform in space. Radar could be used for accurate distance calculation. All were available well before the first manned flight into space.

"Right at that very time John Kennedy addressed the Congress and asked for $40 billion for realization of a Moon shuttle program."

That's not quite right. Kennedy set the task for the US to "...before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth...". The paragraph in the article also gives the incorrect impression that this occurred right after the USSR launched Sputnik; in fact it was after the US had placed it's first man in space. Also, he was asking for about $8 billion over the next five years. The total cost of the entire programme would not be known until much later. The total cost of the Apollo programme, including the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program and Skylab, was about $19.5 billion (source).

"Some of the pictures revealed unnatural shades and sometimes even disagreed with the fundamental physics laws. American engineer Ralph Rene was the first who notices these faults: he declared that there was no Moon landing at all and that all pictures and films about the flight to the unexplored planet were a fake. "

The "shades" have been explained and there was NO conflict with physics; in fact the appearance conformed with physics rather than what people "thought" they should see.

Ralph Rene (1933 - 2008) claimed to be an engineer but admits he is "self taught" and held no formal qualifications whatsoever. Some of his other claims were that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was wrong, that Newton's Law of Universal Graviation was wrong, and that Pi was in fact equal to 3.146264.

"What is interesting, only several tens of pictures about the Moon flight out of the total number of 13,000 pics held by the NASA were published in fact."

Completely wrong. There are multiple sites that have every single image taken during the missions. A recommended site is the Project Apollo Archive - Image Gallery. Images from the missions were available shortly after the astronauts returned from the missions. All images could be requested from NASA (this was in the days before the internet!).

"Scientists and engineers studied all information concerning America's Moon flight more carefully and passed a severe verdict: flight of American astronauts to the Moon is just a carefully considered leg-pull."

Lies. The scientific community, nor the aerospace engineering community, did no such thing nor ever gave any such 'verdict'. Notice the article does not give any reference regarding this. This would be exactly the same as my publishing an article regarding the JFK assassination and saying "all the experts have studied the evidence and concluded that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone".

"Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn't allow to perform complicated space maneuvers connected with docking and undocking of the Apollo carrier rocket that was separated from the module with people inside it."

See my previous response. Also, transposition and docking in orbit was demonstrated with the Gemini spacecraft with the Agena and adapter spacecraft. Please also note that the LM was NOT manned when 'separated' from the S-IVB stage.

"What is more, return back of the carrier rocket was also quite a problem. The Apollo onboard computers performed even poorer than present-day calculators. "

Yes, the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) had less memory than a modern day digital watch, or calculator. The fact is, it didn't need to have a large memory like today. Firstly the majority of calculation were done on Earth prior to the mission or during the mission using the Mission Control computers (which were quite large and powerful, in terms of those days). Secondly, the onboard computers were sufficient for what was needed. The concept had been proven prior to Apollo, once again with the Gemini flights. Don't believe it? You can get the original specs for the Apollo AGC and build your own. You can programme it with the original programmes and see if it can handle them. Whats more, go see experts in digital computing and ask them if the whole thing is possible. You could read this book, but best if you go talk to experts yourself and get the details direct from the experts.

"Former NASA staffer Bill Kaysing, the author of the book "NASA Never Landed a Man on the Moon", confessed that even the Agency itself considered the possibility of man's landing on the Moon was 0.0017% at that period (which was practically nothing!)."

More blatant disinformation or poor research on the part of the author. Bill Kaysing was an employee of Rocketdyne, the company that built the F-1 engines for the first stage of the Saturn V rocket. He had nothing to do with the spacecraft, in either design nor construction, nor was an employee of NASA. Worse still was that he was a technical librarian, not a member of the design or construction staff of the engine. Note again there is no reference for the figure quoted.

"It is not ruled out that Americans did fly to the Moon, but didn't advance further than its orbit. Robots did the rest of the work. However, it is also unlikely that 382 kilograms of Moon soil could be delivered to the Earth after three expeditions (Soviet Moon research vehicles brought just 0.3 kg), because additional kilograms of burden are risky for a rocket."

So the samples were obtained by robotic means? Then how is it that the Soviets - who held the lead in robotic exploration - returned so little? "It was faked" I hear some cry.... but scientists can tell the difference.

"When the Apollo-Moon module system was studied more carefully, it became clear that two astronauts in space suits couldn't find room in the module, not to mention the Moon robot that couldn't be placed there even non-assembled. "

Strange. I'm not sure what they are talking about. Are they talking about not fitting inside the Lunar Module?

Resized to 67% (was 900 x 712) - Click image to enlarge

"What is more, astronauts couldn't squeeze through a narrow tunnel between the space ship and the module."

Wrong again. Remember, they didn't wear EVA suits when going through the tunnel.

Resized to 67% (was 904 x 897) - Click image to enlarge

"In fact, an exit hatch opens inward, not outside as the legendary documentary demonstrates. The documentary was probably shot in a cargo bay of a swooping supersonic airplane to create an effect of weightlessness."

Again strange. All the images and footage show an inward opening door for the LM. I'd like to see any mission images which show an outward opening hatch.

(more to come)

Yes, the ad says a collection of material without commentary. That's what makes it sound quite interesting.

Could I ask - from all sides of the debate - what people think of this programme for a JFK neophyte? It looks like it will be quite interesting.

A lot of people have your number, Burton, and trashing a thread you don't like is one of your familiar moves. It should have been preserved intact, like the vast majority of other threads on this forum. It was a corrupt act but entirely consistent of what the world has become accustomed from you.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that the debate is over, since you withdrew. That is when I merged the threads and am resuming my duties with respect to the thread.

Just more Fetzering...

Well, strictly speaking, I was not posting them on behalf of Duane. I liked them and wanted to post them because they make excellent points very clearly. So I posted them with his permission. I recommend reading them more than once because they make important points extremely clearly. Not to accent the obvious, but Even Burton has repeatedly violated the terms of this debate, as set forth in his first post:

I will cease all use of moderator powers in this thread, with the exception of making invisible posts by persons other than the debate participants (Burton, White, Fetzer and mods). I will not edit or otherwise action posts made by the debate participants regardless of their content. All decisions regarding the debate will be made by the mods, and their decisions shall be full and final. The mods shall NOT include me in any discussion regarding their actions. If the mods wish to ask me a question, they shall post the question openly on the thread. The mods may consult with Jack White / Jim Fetzer privately, keeping their communications with them confidential from both myself and other Forum members.

So it appears to me to be the height of hypocrisy to allege that Duane has been violating forum rules when Evan Burton has repeatedly violated these. For Evan Burton, however, that is simply par for the course.

More Fetzering....

Despite repeated requests, the study authors have been unable to confirm a specific number from NASA for the level of radiation protection in grams per cubic centimeter (the standard unit for radiation shielding) provided by their current space suit. (However, several experts associated with NASA have said that, for all practical purposes, the space suit provides no radiation shielding protection whatsoever.)

So? They are talking about their current suit, not the Apollo suits. Even so, the suit - as stated - offers only minimal protection. The materials used and construction of the suits is detailed in numerous publications.

Nice try to distract from the claim that travel through the Van Allen Belts was impossible though. That relied on minimising exposure through trajectory, the construction of the spacecraft themselves and the radiation protocols in force.

Better luck next time.

Jessie Ventura? Sorry - watching that... person... causes your IQ to plummet. I can't afford the loss.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that the debate is over, since you withdrew. That is when I merged the threads and am resuming my duties with respect to the thread.

Just more Fetzering...

Well, strictly speaking, I was not posting them on behalf of Duane. I liked them and wanted to post them because they make excellent points very clearly. So I posted them with his permission. I recommend reading them more than once because they make important points extremely clearly. Not to accent the obvious, but Even Burton has repeatedly violated the terms of this debate, as set forth in his first post:

I will cease all use of moderator powers in this thread, with the exception of making invisible posts by persons other than the debate participants (Burton, White, Fetzer and mods). I will not edit or otherwise action posts made by the debate participants regardless of their content. All decisions regarding the debate will be made by the mods, and their decisions shall be full and final. The mods shall NOT include me in any discussion regarding their actions. If the mods wish to ask me a question, they shall post the question openly on the thread. The mods may consult with Jack White / Jim Fetzer privately, keeping their communications with them confidential from both myself and other Forum members.

So it appears to me to be the height of hypocrisy to allege that Duane has been violating forum rules when Evan Burton has repeatedly violated these. For Evan Burton, however, that is simply par for the course.

Good! Then why would you make the ridiculous claim this was not an accusation of dishonesty, which is expressly prohibited in the forum rules?

Because it is not. Calling someone a xxxx is forbidden. Being "dishonest" is a grey area, and it is left to the moderator's judgement as to whether it is a violation or not. In this case, we didn't think it violated the rules.

And why do you still refuse to even discuss the rule which prohibits personal attacks and insults? Why isn't that rule enforced?

Because almost every time it is, the accused party claims it is being applied unfairly and other accuse moderators of not letting adults discuss things, or not having a sense of humour. That particular rule HAS been discussed of late, and moderators have been loath to enforce it, except where it is clearly an unwarranted attack.

It is assessed by seeing if the post is reported, how many people reported a post, and most importantly, it is left to the judgement of moderators.

Next, we consider if Skylab is not important because it is "only" in low-Earth orbit.

Skylab is just as important for many reasons, not least because its orbit took it through the South Atlantic Anomaly, a lower part of the Van Allen Belts and therefore the Skylab crews had GREATER exposure to the Van Allen Belts than Apollo crews.

...Because the path periodically passed through the South Atlantic anomaly, a well-known region where the Van Allen belt bends closer to the Earth, another objective was to determine whether light flashes would occur as a consequence of the many energetic particles trapped there....

...Together, the two neutron experiments have led to important conclusions for the design of future space stations. First, the flux of neutrons observed in Skylab was much too high to be attributed to solar neutrons, Earth albedo neutrons, or even neutrons induced by cosmic rays in space-station materials. The other conclusion is that the higher neutron flux must come primarily from bombardment of space-station material by trapped protons in the Van Allen belt. However, the neutrons did not pose a biological hazard to the crew, nor did they produce significant film fogging....

...Package closure south of 25° latitude also provided partial shielding from the Van Allen belt radiation, which penetrated Skylab's skin as Skylab passed through the South Atlantic anomaly...

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-404/ch5.htm

This is confirmed by the relative dosimeter readings from Apollo and Skylab crews:

Come on - claim that Skylab, Mir and the ISS are all faked.

Jim,

If Duane wants to say something then he can post himself, and have it subject to moderation. Posting on behalf of a moderated member will be considered a violation of Forum rules.

Thanks.

Now, Duane suggests that the author's expertise is only with Skylab. Now forgetting the numerous other people - including Dr Setlow - who are experts and agree that radiation was not an insurmountable problem, did Duane forget these (which were in the same post):

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT – PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (NASA Technical Note D-7080, March 1973)

THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY FOR THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (M191) (Johnson Space Center, May 1973)

VISUAL LIGHT FLASH OBSERVATIONS ON SKYLAB 4 (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION AND MEDICAL DOSIMETRY FOR THE SKYLAB CREWMEN (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

Mn CARBONATES IN THE MARTIAN METEORITE NAKHLA: POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF BRINE EVAPORATION (Johnson Space Center, 2003)

PHYSICAL DOSIMETRIC EVALUATIONS IN THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE EXPERIMENT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

APOLLO LIGHT FLASH INVESTIGATIONS (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

HEAVY COSMIC-RAY EXPOSURE OF APOLLO ASTRONAUTS (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

FLUX OF HIGH-LET COSMIC-RAY PARTICLES IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

DOSIMETRY DURING SPACE MISSIONS (Johnson Space Center, August 1976)

In addition, we find during the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association and Meetings of Related Organizations (26-30 October 1970, Convention and Exhibit Hall, Civic Center Houston, Texas), there is a presenter:

Radiation Exposure of American Astronauts. J. Vernon Bailey, Ph.D.

(Bolding mine)

I got your point, BTW.

Of course, Jack can photograph contrails and he'll claim they are "chemtrails". As people have continuously told Jack and others, gather evidence regarding flight number, altitude, heading, etc, and correlate that with know whether conditions at those altitudes. Better yet, take airborne samples of the contrails (to avoid contamination) and have them analysed by an independent laboratory then have those results contrasted to typical airborne samples (e.g. jet exhaust). Ground samples are NOT of any use because they cannot be correlated with an aircraft nor can contamination from the ground be ruled out.

As for your "meeting", I think you just made that up, didn't you Evan?

No, I didn't. Contact any other moderator or administrator, and ask them to check the Report Center.

I'm going to refer to this post of Jims from another forum:

http://www.deeppolit...55&postcount=14

A forum member raises the issue of a radiation paper, and Jim attempts to dismiss the paper because he couldn't find the credentials of an author, J. Vernon Bailey. In a prior post he asks that Dr John Costella comment on the paper. Since Dr Costella is a member of this forum, I would welcome his comments on the report, BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO (NASA SP-368, NASA Science and Technical Information Office, 1975), specifically section II chapter 3: Radiation Protection and Instrumentation, which was authored by J. Vernon Bailey.

As always (it would seem), Jim doesn't give you all the facts (lest you be informed). He fails to mention that all material for the publication was reviewed by an editorial board. Who was on that board?

Not only was he qualified enough to be on the editorial board, he was in good company.

So, who was J. Vernon Bailey? Well, he was the Chief of the Environmental Health Branch at the Johnson Space Center, Houston.

http://ieeexplore.ie...rnumber=4328485

He co-authored NASA papers like:

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT – PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (NASA Technical Note D-7080, March 1973)

THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY FOR THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (M191) (Johnson Space Center, May 1973)

VISUAL LIGHT FLASH OBSERVATIONS ON SKYLAB 4 (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION AND MEDICAL DOSIMETRY FOR THE SKYLAB CREWMEN (Johnson Space Center, January 1977)

Mn CARBONATES IN THE MARTIAN METEORITE NAKHLA: POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF BRINE EVAPORATION (Johnson Space Center, 2003)

PHYSICAL DOSIMETRIC EVALUATIONS IN THE APOLLO 16 MICROBIAL RESPONSE EXPERIMENT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

APOLLO LIGHT FLASH INVESTIGATIONS (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

HEAVY COSMIC-RAY EXPOSURE OF APOLLO ASTRONAUTS (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Johnson Space Center, July 1975)

FLUX OF HIGH-LET COSMIC-RAY PARTICLES IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT (Johnson Space Center, January 1975)

DOSIMETRY DURING SPACE MISSIONS (Johnson Space Center, August 1976)

In addition, we find during the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association and Meetings of Related Organizations (26-30 October 1970, Convention and Exhibit Hall, Civic Center Houston, Texas), there is a presenter:

Radiation Exposure of American Astronauts. J. Vernon Bailey, Ph.D.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....00037-0001a.pdf

So, just what are your qualifications, Jim, with respect to the biomedical effects of radiation and radiation shielding effectiveness for space travel? I'll save you the trouble: NONE. Once more, you arrogantly assume you know more than others because it suits your ego.

Of course, you are going to ask my qualifications in this area; I have NONE also…. but I did contact those people who did have the qualifications and expertise, and sought guidance from them. In January 2007, I contacted Dr Richard Setlow. Dr Setlow is Senior Biophysicist Emeritus at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. He is an expert in the effects of radiation on cells, and has co-authored numerous papers on space radiation. He was recently honoured for his life work:

http://www.bnl.gov/t...sp?ITEM_NO=1435

I asked:

Dear Sir,

I refer to a report which you chaired in 1996, Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions. Firstly, some quick background. I am one of the many people who, on what seems like a daily basis, try to rebut arguments put forward by people who claim that the Apollo missions were faked by NASA. I have an aviation background, not physics or biological sciences.

The above report is being discussed on a forum which (despite its name) tries to dispel the myth that Apollo was somehow faked. The link to the relevant section (a discussion on space radiation) is:http://apollohoax.pr...4878798&page=12

To cut a long story short, could I ask two brief questions:

1. Was radiation / exposure data from Apollo considered (amongst other sources) when making the report's determinations?

2. Do the report's findings (in any way) support the proposition that radiation should have killed (or at least seriously harmed) astronauts on a typical 14-day Apollo lunar landing mission?

I would also ask permission to post your reply to the thread linked above.

Thank you for your time.

He replied to me:

Dear Evan,

The Committee considered all sources of radations in Space. We concluded that Solar Particle Events (SPE) would be the major source of radiation exposures supplemented by the cosmic ray background composed of many types of particles including heavy nuclei. To the best of my knowledge, all space missions carry devices to measure the radiation doses. Astronauts should not be outside of a space craft if there were an SPE. They should be shielded inside the space craft. Hence, radiation exposures for Apollo missions would be very small. Hence, I believe that radiation exposures from Apollo missions were very small, unless astronauts stayed outside during an SPE about which they would have been informed.

You could get simple, short descriptions of what is known from 2 summaries that I wrote: (1) " The U.S National Research Council's views of the radiation hazards in space" Mutation Research (1999) 430, 169-175 and (2) " The hazards of space travel" EMBO Reports (2003) 4, 1013-1016. Radiation is only one of the hazards. Microgravity is another.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Setlow

People far more qualified than you have looked at these areas, and know they are not faked.

Look out - it's Hurricane Fetzer! Bluster away, Jim. Your arrogance is astounding and simply makes you look very foolish.

BTW, I saw a post you made on another forum about radiation and I just can't let it go unchallenged. Please repeat it here, if you wish. I'll get to that in a short while but now I must be away to buy a new BBQ for my new patio! As the Flintstones said: "Charrrrrrrrge IT!"

""You couldn't make this up But Bob Harris did"" was discussed amongst the moderators and it was decided that it did not violate Forum rules. I thought Kathy had conveyed that to you; my apologies that you were not told of the decision.

Your post where you used obscene language again, after being warned not to, has been pinked out and you'll be placed on moderation for 7 days.

You have still never bothered to contact ATC and ask what aircraft, what altitude, and what flightpath the aircraft took.

As a practical matter, therefore, I have to concede that I am confronted with an unattainable goal, where my own commitment to rationality of ends precludes me from pursuing it further.

Sorry Jim - I took this to be the debate was over, thus the thread being open. I'm going to merge the two threads now. I consider it pointless to try and debate someone who doesn't understand the subject anyway. It's like you trying to debate me on JFK: I don't have a clue about it.

Thanks Dave - you have done a far better job than I could have. I might make one addition, though:

Notice that Greer never explains why anyone who believes the moon landings are genuine would create a fake to suggest that they were really faked.

It was mentioned in a couple of posts: it was meant to attract the hoax believers who just accept things that agree with their view without checking any details. That's why so many hoax believers were embarrassed by claiming it as real when there was a disclaimer on that very site, saying that it was a spoof!

It's continuing to fulfil its original purpose, demonstrating how Jim's (and Jacks?) ego and / or arrogance refuses to let him just admit it was a spoof.

It has been mentioned before that bad language should not be used, as young & curious eyes will sometimes read these Forums. Additionally, there were two reports about the language.

A revised set of Forum rules have been under consideration for some time, and will be published when all moderators agree to them.

Whether action is taken with respect to a post depends on a couple of factors: it being reported to moderators, and / or the moderator's judgement.