Evan Burton

I am happy to present that evidence to back up my opinion, and that is how I hope to "win" arguments: with facts and reasoned arguments.

Sorry, but you sound just like Craig Lamson who claims similar intents but rarely, if ever, delivers. That is just my opinion...no offense intended.

I am still happy to present that evidence - why don't call me out on it?

Greg - it's my opinion. There are no "authoritarian" demands, etc.

I don't automatically "win" arguments because I am a mod; I hope that I convince others that I am right by virtue of my arguments and evidence.

Furthermore, just because I am a mod does not mean I cannot have an opinion; it does not mean I cannot argue my belief with as much passion as any other member.

I point out traits which Jack has displayed, and there are numerous examples of this throughout the Forum. I am happy to present that evidence to back up my opinion, and that is how I hope to "win" arguments: with facts and reasoned arguments.

One was a crop, and one was trimmed a little. Here ya go John:

This, sadly, another furphy. The footage to be shown is the digitally remastered footage released by NASA last year for the Apollo 11 40th. There is no new footage, nothing is 'never before seen'. As the investigation revealed, the SSTV tapes were most likely reused for later NASA missions.

''New moonwalk footage another big step

Judy Skatssoon, AAP September 28, 2010, 5:39 pm Never-before-seen video footage of the Apollo 11 moonwalk discovered in Australia will be shown at an awards ceremony in Sydney next week.

The footage of mission commander Neil Armstrong descending the ladder of the lunar module will be shown at the Australian Geographic Society Awards next Wednesday, Australian Geographic said in a statement obtained by AAP.

Armstrong's descent will be among highlights of the historic 1969 moonwalk to be shown at the awards, at which lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin will be the guest of honour.

Other footage to be shown includes digitally remastered images of Armstrong's first step on the moon surface, Aldrin's descent of the ladder, the reading of the plaque and the raising of the US flag.

It is the first time the highlights reel of the restored footage will be screened.

Telescopes in remote Australia played a key role in the Apollo 11 mission, including provision of the television signal, after Armstrong decided to attempt the moonwalk early, putting the United States just beyond the horizon.

John Sarkissian - historian and astronomer in charge of the Australian side of the recordings restoration project - told AFP the unseen minutes were the "best quality of Armstrong descending the ladder".

"NASA were using the Goldstone (California) station signal, which had its settings wrong, but in the signals being received by the Australian stations you can actually see Armstrong."

"In what people have seen before you can barely see Armstrong at all, you can see something black - that was his leg.

...''

http://au.news.yahoo...other-big-step/

Everyone, please remain on topic. If the thread looks like getting derailed, I'll move the complaints to a separate thread.

I haven't seen it advertised in Australia on free-to-air or cable as yet.

One wonders. Was some type of deal made? If so, by whom and for what (apart from the release)?

No, anyone can post... as long as they abide by the rules. Both you and Jim can still post. Duane can post under moderation. Steven Gaal can post.

I think your trouble is you dislike anyone pointing out your mistakes. For instance, as soon as John Dolva disagreed with your assessments, you became belligerent towards him. It's quite typical behaviour from you.

Now more people are pointing out your glaring errors, and so you - again as usual - throw accusations at other people as an excuse for you to not face your critics or admit your errors.

Yep. Do you need the specs? They're in my manual.

John,

It was taken with a Fuji Finepix S5000. According to the metadata it was F2.8, ISO 200, 6mm focal length. The shutter speed is given as 1/150th sec, but the exposure time is given as 1/147th sec. Distance was about 1.5 - 2.0 metres.

Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS:

NUMBER NINE

No, Jack, you are wrong again. Firstly - as mentioned previously mentioned in this series - Jack Schmitt DID kneel down low to take the image. You can see him kneeling down in the reflection.

We can see an example of this in a genuine Apollo helmet. The images below were taken by me in 2008 whilst at the US Space and Rocket Center, in Huntsville, Alabama. I have reversed the images to make them the same as the reference Apollo 17 image. You can see me kneeling down, not unlike the astronaut did.

Duane is on moderation. If he has to wait for a post to be approved, then that's the way things are. Moderators will review and release moderated posts as quickly as they can but do not operate to a timetable.

Craig has to wait for his posts to be released, and he is not attempting to circumvent the system.

Jack,

There is a startling similarity to Duane's post and your post. Posting on behalf of a moderated member may lead to your moderation.

Ron,

I watched a TV program last night on the Histroy chanel about The Disclosure Project, and could barely believe what I was hearing.. I never thought in our lifetimes that any of the top brass Air Force insiders, astronauts, and commercial pilots would ever be allowed to admit that their sightings and encounters were with extraterrestrial craft.

As much as I would like to believe the truth is finally coming out, I find it difficult to believe that their motives for doing this is to be honest with the American people.

Disiformation has been the name of their game since the beginning of extraterrestrial contact, including the crash at Roswell, New Mexico.. So I don't understand why this top secret information would be allowed to be disclosed now.. It just doesn't make any sense, unless their agenda for doing this is something besides admitting the truth.

There was a TV program on the History Channel about The Disclosure Project, and who

thought in our lifetimes that any of the retired top brass Air Force officials, astronauts,

and military and commercial pilots would ever be allowed to admit that their sightings

and encounters were with extraterrestrial craft.

As much as I would like to believe the truth is finally coming out, I find it difficult to

believe that their motives for doing this is to be honest with the American people.

Disiformation has been the name of their game since the beginning of extraterrestrial

contact, including the crash at Roswell, New Mexico.. So I don't understand why this

top secret information would be allowed to be disclosed now. It just doesn't make

any sense, unless their agenda for doing this is something besides admitting the truth.

See: http://www.americanc...les/view/185304

The complicit accessories at Hasselblad have motive to falsify their statements about their part in the Apollo program.

Any statements are classified as self-serving.

Jack

So you deny any evidence that refutes your beliefs, regardless of their authenticity. Is that rational?

I don't need to say any more. You discredit yourself every time you open your mouth.

lol, what's this studio, actor stuff about. Do you mean you think the Aollo missions to the moon were faked??? If so, do you have ANY reaon for believing such an absurdity?

What other reason would there be for a spacesuit to have a fly for urinary access? LOL. LOL. LOL.

Good god, Jack, you actually revel in your ignorance, don't you? You display the very worst aspects of which people investigating subjects should aspire to avoid:

Confirmation Bias

"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true."

And that is not bringing up where you ignore evidence that disproves your theories.

• The cabin atmosphere at launch was changed to 60% O₂ and 40% N₂ at sea-level pressure (14.7 psi or 1013 millibars). During ascent the cabin rapidly vented down to 5 psi (345 mbar), releasing approximately 2/3 of the N₂ (and O₂) originally present at launch. The vent then closed and the environmental control system maintained a nominal cabin pressure of 5 psi as the spacecraft continued into vacuum. The cabin was then very slowly purged (vented to space and simultaneously replaced with 100% O₂) so the N₂ concentration fell asymptotically to zero over the next day. Although the new cabin launch atmosphere was significantly safer than 100% O₂, it was still more hazardous than ordinary sea level air with only 21% O₂. This was necessary to ensure a sufficient partial pressure of oxygen when the astronauts removed their helmets shortly after launch. (60% of the nominal 5 psi cabin pressure is 3 psi; the partial pressure of oxygen in sea-level air is 20.9% of 14.7 psi or 3.07 psi.)

• The environment within the astronauts' pressure suits was not changed. Because of the rapid drop in cabin (and suit) pressures during ascent, decompression sickness was likely unless the N₂ had been purged from the astronauts' tissues prior to launch. They would still breathe pure O₂ starting several hours before launch and continuing until orbital insertion. Avoiding the "bends" was considered worth the residual risk of an oxygen-accelerated fire within a suit.

Source

I have been doing some reading about the PLSS, and here is an excerpt

from a scientific paper which appears to document problems with the alleged

Apollo PLSS systems which are still not resolved. I have always doubted the ability

of the small backpacks to sustain life for long periods. Below, note something which

I had never read ANYWHERE previously. BEFORE AND AFTER ANY USE OF THE

SPACE SUIT, A PERIOD OF 40 MINUTES "TRANSITION" WAS REQUIRED WHEN

DONNING OR REMOVING THE SPACE SUIT. Also note problems with Oxygen loss

through fabric and seams, and that a tiny leak would be fatal. The problems of

rigidity is also discussed. I have highlighted problems apparently never solved

with the Apollo PLSS.

The paper is at: http://www.lpi.usra....-1106/ucb01.pdf

Jack

Space Suit Background

Technologies for protection from harsh environments, where pressure and temperature

extremes are not compatible with human physiology, have had some remarkable

milestones over the last sixty years. The beginnings of helmet and pressure suit

innovations date from 1934 when Wiley Post with Goodrich Rubber Company developed

the first pressurized high-altitude suit, which in its final design, consisted of a can-like

aluminum head unit with a front window and rubber waist entry (Mohler 1998). From

these early roots, the modern space suits of today evolved.

The current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) is an improved version of the original

developed in 1975 by Hamilton Sundstrand and ILC Dover. The two major subsystems of

the EMU are the Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) and the Space Suit Assembly

(SSA). The SSA is comprised of a Hard Upper Torso (HUT), Lower Torso Assembly

(LTA), boots, gloves, and other integrated components. The EMU provides life support

functions, such as oxygen supply, carbon dioxide removal, a pressurized enclosure,

temperature control and micrometeoroid protection. The suit and PLSS contain 7 hours of

expendables including O2 for respiration and pressurization, water for cooling via the

Liquid Cooling garment (LCG), a battery for electrical systems, and lithium hydroxide

for carbon dioxide removal.

The SSA provides full body pressurization and respiration at 4.3 psid using O2. A Prebreathe

of 40 minutes is required to transition from 10.2 psia habitat or cabin pressure to

4.3 psid (Furr 1987). This period of out-gassing is essential for transitions to a lower

pressure environment and is analogues to the precautions taken in deep sea diving.

Inadequate pre-breathing will result in nitrogen bubbles forming in the blood stream; a

condition known as the bends that can be fatal. Airflow, supplied by the PLSS, enters the

suit at the helmet and flows down to the torso and extremities. Used air containing water

vapor and CO2 is removed at the elbows and feet to be transported back to the PLSS

where CO2 is removed and water vapor is condensed using a sublimation system. The

water is then recycled back into the cooling system.

The Liquid Cooling Garment in which water is circulated through a network of fine

tubing to remove excess body heat performs thermal regulation. The excess heat is

subsequently removed at the sublimator and transferred to the outside environment.

Problem Statement

The use of O2 in current EMU's to pressurize the whole body presents a number of

problems. Even under normal operating conditions, current EMU's lose up to 50 liters of

O2 per eight-hour EVA through the many joints and seams of the suit. This great loss of

O2 limits current EMU endurance and makes it inadequate for long duration missions. A

single pressurization system also puts the suit at a high-risk of micrometeoroid puncture.

With current EMU's, even a small puncture could result in rapid decompression of the

entire suit. This catastrophic situation can easily be fatal, as studies have shown an

astronaut has from 9-11 seconds of consciousness in which to save his or herself. (Parker

and West 1973)

The Sublimation cooling system is designed for use in a hard vacuum and will fail under

terrestrial conditions, such as those found on Mars. Even with only1/150th the pressure of

Earth, the delicate balance of the sublimation system will be disrupted and the astronaut

will overheat.

Current EMU's have rigid torso and arm sections and soft joints for movable parts. When

pressurized, these soft joints become very rigid, limiting mobility, especially in key areas

like the hands. The complex designs of current space suits incorporate several control

systems that contribute to the weight and complexity of the unit. For example, the liquid

cooling layer alone adds 6.5 pounds when dry. These systems have a profound impact not

only on resource consumption and cost but on safety and mobility, as well. The more

complex the design, the more troubleshooting required, and the more components that

have the potential to malfunction or break.

Jack,

You just continually display your ignorance in these matters. The Apollo atmosphere was 100% O2 at a pressure of about 3.5 PSI, so no pre-breathing was required. Pre-breathing is required to remove nitrogen from the body when an Earth-normal atmosphere is used. High altitude pilots do this, such as SR-71 or U-2 pilots. Because the Shuttle uses an Earth-normal atmosphere, they have to pre-breathe before EVAs. Apollo did not.

You also don't understand the layers of the suit that protected the astronauts, ensuring that suit leakages was kept to a tiny minimum. Even so, allowance was made for leakage in the O2.

Briefly, the EMU was a multi-part system designed for wear outside the spacecraft in the harsh lunar environment. It consisted of several sub-assemblies. First, the IMU or Intravehicular Mobility Unit and the basic EMU were the suits worn inside the spacecraft during launch and critical mission events which had the potential of breaching the hull of the spacecraft. The IMU/EMU consisted of the Pressure Garment Assembly (PGA) plus the Communications Carrier (Comm Carrier - the "Snoopy Cap"), the Pressure Helmet Assembly (Bubble Helmet) and Pressure Gloves. The PGA was made up of the Torso-Limb Suit Assembly (TLSA), the Integrated Thermal Micrometeroroid Garment (ITMG), and the PGA Electrical Harness. While inside the CSM the crew also wore the Constant Wear Garment (CWG), on the moon the CDR & LMP wore the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG).

Source

Lastly, there was no external waste ports in the suits. If you had to go, you defecated into the "nappy" you wore or urinated into a special bag attached to the penis. There was a protective cover over the zipper seal of the suit for early Apollo missions, but later missions had suits that that were sealed diagonally across the front.

The Urine Collection Device

Later PGA with different zipper configuration.

Now you have been told this before. I can only think of two reasons why you appear to ignore the answers previously provided to you: you are being deceptive by re-introducing topics you know have been resolved, or your mental faculties are letting you down and you cannot remember that this has already been answered.

It comes from a lack of understanding of meteorology.

For instance, Jack will claim this as evidence of chemtrails:

But it's not. It's a roll cloud that can be often seen in northern Australia called the Morning Glory. It's been reported since 1942.

Explain this:

Since lens flares are caused by internal reflections, the light of the flare doesn't hit the film or fiducal at the same angle as the light coming from outside the lens. So the fiducial leaves a shadow in the flare in a slightly different location than the shadow it leaves in the normal image.

HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA

Over four and a half years ago, in response to the same claim but regarding an Apollo 14 image, Jack was told the reason:

Hello Mr. Burton,

The effect you can see is caused by interference from the reseau plate. The image of the sun on the film is partly reflected and acts as a secondary strong light source. The reseau plate is a 4 mm thick glass plate and the distance between the surface facing the film and the film itself is around 0.1 mm in outer areas (less in center areas).

The strong light reflected from the film is reflected again from the reseau plate surfaces. Due to glass reflection properties (total reflection at larger incidence angles), the radius of corresponding "halo" is maximum around 7-8 mm. The shadows of the two hair crosses close to the periphery of the halo are caused by two types of reflections from the reseau plate.

The OK looking cross comes from two reflections in the front surface (facing the lens) and one reflection in the rear surface. The final reflex hits the hair cross at a similar angle like ordinary light and therefore the hair cross looks OK.

The skew cross comes from one reflection in the front surface with the light hitting the hair cross coming at an angle not too far from the total reflection angle of around 42 degrees. Outgoing light has a large exit angle (more than 60 degrees probably) making the offset you see in the image. You can also see that the skew line looks to be pointing at the halo center, which indicates where the original light comes from.

Hope that above explanation is understandable. Please come back for possible additional clarification.

Best regards

VICTOR HASSELBLAD AB

Erland Pettersson

Product Manager Camera Systems

Tel. +46 31 102450

Fax. +46 31 135074

Does Jack claim to know more about the camera than the people at Hasselblad?

Second Fetzer/Burton Debate images, REFLECTIONS IN HELMET VISORS:

NUMBER SEVEN

(typo fixed)

Again, false claims. The high resolution scan is available here. It never went missing; Jack just didn't look correctly.

Can we identify the astronaut in the visor? It's very difficult, as the smudges on the visor obscure things. I've indicated on the image below what I think is the astronaut, but I can't be certain.

Jim,

The photographer themselves said it was from a quad bike and taken at Golden Bay Beach in Malta.

Did you or Jack contact the photographer, as I suggested, and ask for permission to use the image? You were given their website address which had their e-mail address at the top.

That is the only portion where I have acted as a moderator in this thread, as we did not want to risk the Forum being accused of copyright violation.

It's been the same all the way through. When one of Balsamo's technical experts decided that the evidence did not point the way Balsamo wanted to, and publicly disagreed with him, Balsamo denounced him and even made threats against him. He's mentally unstable.

After multiple complaints and discussion with moderators, Duane has been placed on indefinite moderation for breeching civility rules and questioning the motives of posters.

Explain this:

Since lens flares are caused by internal reflections, the light of the flare doesn't hit the film or fiducal at the same angle as the light coming from outside the lens. So the fiducial leaves a shadow in the flare in a slightly different location than the shadow it leaves in the normal image.

Precisely Kevin.

This was confirmed by the good people at Hasselblad themselves. This was conveyed to Jack what - 3 years ago? - but he still ignores it.