Evan Burton

I tried. I really did. You had everything given to you.

I do notice, once again, you avoid taken the steps to confirm or deny your actions, like contacting the photographer where Jack and yourself made that other tremendous blunder.

Very telling.

I gave you enough clues. Horses, water, drink, etc. You should try to apply critical thinking to evidence, Jim. I know someone who can teach you all about it. PM me and I'll send you the details.

The spoof was produced by The Viral Factory. On the website moontruth.com, when the film was released, it had a little disclaimer saying how it was a spoof. Many moonhoaxers didn't bother to read that annoying little fact, much to their embarrassment when it was pointed out. Anyway, it's a spoof! Do you understand that? It was designed for people just like you, whose standards of credulity are questionable at best.

‘Moontruth’ Playing in to the hands of conspiracy theorists, a film was leaked to the public that supposedly proved that man had never in fact landed on the moon and that the moon landing was in fact staged in a television studio. This viral hoax led to 3,000 people, taken in by the footage, calling NASA to complain about their dishonesty in saying that they had conquered the moon.

I know you don't normally question things that agree with you, but how about contacting The Viral Factory and.... you know... asking some questions.

Surprisingly, Jack has a good idea: why don't you compare the "fake fake" film against the "real fake" film, as you would have it?

Warning to ALL participants: foul language will not be tolerated. Violation will lead to immediate moderation of posts and being placed on moderation for 7 days.

A strong and passionate argument does not need to resort to swearing.

Thank you.

LOL! You have become the biggest joke on the internet. Here's a clue for you: this will probably go viral in a factory.

Do try to not just accept something because it suits your views.

Come on Jim - get into this one as well:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=191161

I just know you'll be supporting it shortly.

LOL! You believe that the footage is REAL? You didn't read how the producers made it for fun? As a joke?

Wow - you'll any old junk as proof... as long as it supports your view.

That alone proves just how ridiculous you and Jack are. Seriously - here are the details:

Yes, the clip is fake. It was shot in a studio in London in spring 2002. It was based on an idea by director Adam Stewart, who was a space exploration nut. He had read the conspiracy theory sites and decided he wanted to make a spoof based on the idea that the Apollo 11 moonlanding was faked.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moonhoax.asp

You're the victim of misinformation there, Jim.

The Social Security Death Index (SSDI) will only list a name if they received SS benefits during their lifetime, or if their family send the SS office a copy of the persons death certificate.

Here is an exercise for people: do an SSDI search from victims of ANY plane crash (with American passengers) and compare that to the 9-11 victims.

With respect to the victims compensation funds: did you mention the ones that declined to take the payment and filed their own lawsuits against the airlines? Did you mention that if someone accepts payment, they waive the right to litigation?

Personally, I think it is shameful that some people dispute that these poor people haven't died and that their families must be complicit in some type of massive fraud. Very disrespectful.

Did the FOI request ask what were the methods used? Surely that is the key - or did the requester ask for DNA samples so they could independently check?

You are right, Evan. There is a lot of information out there.

I am familiar with the information from the links you have given. We have, in the "Experts ID 184" writing, a public affairs person for the Air Force Institute of Pathology assuring the public that identifications of victims at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania have been done properly.

You call that evidence, I am sure. That is fine.

My problem with this evidence is that there is other evidence from sources such as the one below that inform us that attempts have been made to get answers to questions through Freedom of Information Act Requests. This:

"request for records establishing the recovery and/or identification of the remains of the terrorists accused of hijacking American airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93"

and

"records establishing the recovery and/or identification of passenger remains of those aboard American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93, who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001"

was turned down because:

"The review has been completed and the potentially responsive documents are being withheld pursuant to the FOIA under the following Exemptions:

Exemption ((6) prohibits the disclosure of an individual's personal information viewing it as an invasion of their personal privacy; Exemption ((7)(a) which prohibits disclosure of information which would interfere of information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Additional you request is being denied pursuant to FOIA Exemption ((7)(a) which prohibits the disclosure of information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with an on-going law enforcement investigation. FOlA Exemption (b)7© also provides protection for law enforcement information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of individuals in being associated with criminal activities, including investigators."

What individual's "personal information" could "reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"? What "on-going law enforcement investigation" was being referred to here at the time of the letter, 2009?

I do not think these are valid reasons to deny the public information about the events of 9/11. After all, they went on to prosecute a war based upon this story of hijackers and victims. So, yes, I think the government is lying here.

http://911blogger.com/node/22200

...Experts from Kenyon International Emergency Services in Houston, which specializes in search and recovery of remains and personal effects in airline disasters, are working in a roped-off area in the white tent.

Kenyon was enlisted after the Flight 587 crash in November, when a few remains did not yield DNA. Its experts started the drying process with those and has since moved on to the World Trade Center cases.

20,000 DNA tests

By the numbers alone, the task has been formidable.

DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person.

The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.

Using DNA alone, 673 people were identified. Using dental records only, 187 were identified; fingerprints only, 71; photo identification, 16; miscellaneous X-rays, 45.

There have been as many as 10 identifications a day; some days there are none. About 150 people still work around the clock in the sixth-floor lab to run the DNA samples for matches.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/dailynews_halfvictimsidd.html

Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities

News & Media - News Releases

by Christopher C. Kelly

Public Affairs, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology played a major role in Operation Nobel Eagle investigations, officials said. AFIP is an executive agency of the Army surgeon general.

Many of the Pentagon casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital; the rest were killed on site. For some victims, only pieces of tissue could be found.

AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for more than two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Md., to identify victims of the attack.

"Our staff represented every branch of service," said Navy Capt. Glenn N. Wagner, AFIP director. "We also received tremendous support from the doctors, nurses and technicians stationed at Dover who participated in the investigation."

AFIP used a well-designed and tested system for identifying the Pentagon victims. When remains arrived at Dover Air Force Base, a scanning device searched for the presence of unexploded ordnance or metallic foreign bodies. FBI experts collected trace evidence to search for chemicals from explosive devices and conducted fingerprint identifications.

Forensic dentistry experts then performed dental charting and comparison with existing dental records. Full-body radiographs followed to document skeletal fractures and assist in identification, followed by autopsy inspection. At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause of death, and a forensic anthropologist determined race, sex and stature of victims when necessary.

An epidemiologist managed the tracking system for data collected during the autopsy process, and tissue samples were collected for DNA identification and further toxicology studies. Forensic photographers documented injuries and personal effects. Finally, mortuary specialists embalmed, dressed and casketed remains.

For eight days a full complement of AFIP forensic specialists worked 12-hour shifts to complete the identification system.

From DNA samples sent to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, scientists there generated DNA profiles of the victims. Their work also included the victims of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County, Pa.

The DNA lab's entire staff of 102 DNA analysts, sample processors, and logistics and administrative personnel worked 12-hour shifts, seven days a week to complete the work.

DNA identifications for Flight 93 victims were sent to the Somerset County Coroner's Office for release. The Department of Defense released identification of Pentagon victims. All but four who worked in the Pentagon were identified. AFIP identified all but one of the passengers of Flight 77.

From the January 2002 Mercury, an Army Medical Department publication.

For immediate release, Jan. 11, 2002.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/afip_pentvictimid.htm

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

Plenty of information out there.

Points like those above and others are old news and have been addressed many times. The problem will be Dean that when evidence exists contrary to your argument, you will not accept that argument.

For example, passengers were identified mainly through DNA. Now, it's no good just saying "governments lie" (which we all know they do, at times), you have to PROVE the government is lying. Where is your evidence that the passengers were NOT killed, that the identification was NOT true?

It seems that sometimes you are ignoring evidence, or are somehow unaware of it ("dead" hijackers being alive, etc).

The burden of proof is on you, and you haven't presented anything like it.

Agreed, John. It no longer serves any purpose except a negative one.

I've been quite parochial, and looked up some details. I was surprised that so many minor parties existed. The party which scores the biggest after the main two is the Libertarians (a group which I have appreciation for). They gained about 1% of the vote.

Why is it that US citizens are drawn so much towards the two major parties, and not towards the alternatives?

For example, this was the result at the last Australian Federal Election:

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/default.htm

(You can display by primary vote, etc)

Although Australians favour the two major parties, there is a large amount of the vote which goes towards other parties.

A classic example of why isolated witness reports should be treated with caution.

QANTAS flight QF32, an A380, was enroute from Singapore to Sydney. Shortly after taking off from Singapore, it suffered a massive failure of one of the engines, resulting in substantial damage to the engine. It landed safely shortly after the incident occurred.

What were some of the witness reports? What did the media say?

Kompas, a leading Indonesia newspaper, had reported on its website that it was "suspected that a Qantas plane exploded in the air near Batam".

The website report provided no source for the story.

An eyewitness, Hana, told Indonesia's Metro television that she saw a plane that was on fire overhead before hearing a loud explosion.

Meanwhile, Elfhinta radio quoted a police officer in Batam, Eryana, saying some of the plane had been found.

"We are still collecting debris," he said.

"It looked like a big plane. Like a Boeing 737 – 400. It looks like Qantas because of the red and white colour."

Reuters reported: Qantas told CNBC television that a plane that crashed near Singapore was an Airbus A380. No other details were immediately available.

For those interested:

"JFK: 3 shots that changed America", a three part series, is being shown on the Australian HISTORY CHANNEL starting at 7.30pm on Sunday 21 NOV 2010.

It is followed by "JFK: Inside the target car".

Please note: I don't say any programme is good or bad, worth watching or not. I'm just letting people know that they are on. If you have a comment about the programmes mentioned, please feel free to make it.

"Facts"? You need to look up the definition, Jack.

*yawn*

*yawn*

Is there any third choice in the US? Could a third party ever gain power?

I hope they realise what they are letting themselves in for!

Hi John!

Welcome to the Forum.

Hi Kris!

Welcome to the Forum.

Hi Martin! Welcome to the Forum.

Greg,

Do you think so? I've been disappointed with Obama's performance, but is it enough to drive people to the likes of Sarah Palin?

I know it is possible that Israel was responsible, but really: "the joos did it" is so passé!

Bloody nags!

Yes indeed! As I type this, I'm in the Wardroom running our Melbourne Cup Calcutta!