Evan Burton

REPLY TO BURTON'S FIRST RESPONSE (IN THREE PARTS)

Part 3. That my contributions are proceeding at a snail's pace has to do with the fact that (i) I am new to this, (ii) I do not have replies that I can take "off the shelf", and (iii) that I am giving these issues a fresh look, but I am going to make some mistakes along the way. That should not be too surprising, since everyone else involved in this knows more about the "moon photos" than I do. But it occurs to me that, if I had some fake "moon photos", I would surround them with "artist's conceptions", "training photographs", and "photo composites" to create a background against which discoveries about some of these anomalies could be deflected by alleging that they were "mixed up" with the real Apollo photos, were not from the right set, and all of that. That makes it easier to disarm finds.

That's a nice hypothesis Jim, but it's not the case. All Apollo images have ID numbers, so we can tell what was taken on what mission, on the ground or inflight.

No-one has claimed that that "artists conception" or other images were taken in flight... as a matter of fact, Jack is the only one who has made that claim.

Now that I am getting my feet wet, I am not surprised that I might have made a mistake in suggesting that the moon rover may have been located "using a crane", which is less likely than at least one alternative. It would have been cumbersome, but it might have used a harness (or "cradle") to lift the rover. Either driving it or pushing it would not have left the areas between the tires undisturbed by rover tracks, which is the oddity that indicates these images have been staged or otherwise faked. The best method to have used to do that may have been much simpler, such as the use of photo compositing, a technique that has been around at least since 1858! (See THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, p. 44 and p. 139.) Something like that might have been more efficient.

Again, nice hypothesis but it fails when we apply Occams razor. Why lower it in, why use photo retouching (which might be detected) when you have a perfectly servicable LRV that can be rolled into position?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Apollo_15_Lunar_Rover_training.ogg

A more systematic approach to the issues before us, therefore, would involve the application of the four stages of scientific investigations: PUZZLEMENT, where something simply does not fit into our background knowledge and beliefs; SPECULATION, enumerating the possible alternative explanations that might account for the anomalous phenomenon; ADAPTATION, comparing the alternatives with respect to their respective explanatory power, using likelihood measures of evidential support; and, finally, EXPLANATION, accepting the hypothesis with the highest likelihood, when the evidence has "settled down" and all points in the same direction. When the evidence is inconsistent and does not hang together, then the probability of fabrication is great.

No Jim - that is YOUR explanation process; you have used it many times, funnily enough always to do with 'conspiracy theories'.

The 'scientific method' involes the following steps:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

But I return to what I have already said: which is more likely? We have evidence that an LRV existed and that it was capable of movement - even powered movement. So why fake that?

When some of the evidence has been fabricated or faked, then its exposure as fabricated or faked will be what “points in the same direction” as the evidence that is authentic. In the case of the assassination of JFK, for example, establishing that the weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed him, that he was on the 2nd floor at the time of the shooting, that the palm print on the barrel was created after his death, and that the back-yard photos of him were his head pasted on someone else’s body all serve to reinforce other indications that he was the “patsy”, not the assassin. See, for example, “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?” < http://www.und.edu/i.../jfkconference/ > and “JFK Assassination. How Patsies are Framed: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald” < http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=16224 >

The likelihood of an hypothesis h, given evidence e, equals the probability of evidence e if hypothesis h were true. Thus, we are looking for the hypothesis that would have the highest probability as the cause of producing the evidence as its effect. The probability that the weapon could not fire the rounds, that he was not on the 6th floor, that his print was planted, and that the backyard photos’ were faked, if Oswald was the assassin of JFK, is exceedingly small, since it should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man. The probability of those same effects, if Oswald was the “patsy”, however, is very high. Since one hypothesis is preferable to another when it has a higher likelihood on evidence e, the patsy hypothesis, whose likelihood is very high, is clearly preferable to the assassin hypothesis, whose likelihood is exceedingly small. The evidence suggests he didn’t do it.

Kevin West has argued that “The missing tracks between the wheels are easy to explain. The astronauts had to stand between the wheels to get on and off the rover. They had to walk around the rover to use the equipment on it. They walked all over the tracks and destroyed them in the process. It's clear when you look at the other pictures from the same time, the soil around the rover, including between the wheels, is stirred up from the astronaut activity, but you can see the tracks in the areas they haven't walked yet.” So we need to consider the likelihood that he is right as opposed to the alternatives that this was done using a crane, that the rover was carried or driven into position, or the photos faked.

The problem for Kevin (Evan, Greer, and the others) is that the area between the wheels is too smooth and unperturbed for rover tracks to have been “covered up” by kicking the dust while performing other activities. Consider posts #91, #92, and #93. #91 and #93 show no indications of rover tracks at all, yet, if the rover had been driven or pushed to those locations, its tracks would have to be present. There is no indication of activity by astronauts that would have obfuscated them or “covered them up”. #92 seems to show some dust or dirt falling off the right front tire, but even in that case there are no tracks where we would expect to find them between the wheels, which suggests these photos are fake.

The likelihood that the rover was driven or pushed into position, in view of the absence of tracks between the tires, appears to be vanishingly small, since the dust or dirt would have had to reconstitute itself, rather like a rake smoothing over disruptions in a bunker during golf. Remember, there is no atmosphere on the moon; dust and dirt aren't being blown around. The likelihood that it was carried to its locations, given it only weights 80 pound on the moon, is clearly higher than its having been driven or pushed; but on Earth, where I believe these photos were taken, it would have weighed 480 pounds. The use of a crane would at least be consistent with the missing tracks between the tires. Absent further evidence, the most likely explanation appears be that some were created by compositing and others perhaps by using scale models.

If compositing appears to be the most likely and therefore preferable explanation for the absence of tracks in some moon rover photographs, then it should not be surprising if the same technique is employed in other contexts in creating the moon landing photographic portfolio. Evan has given links to his arguments, which I consider rather inappropriate. It is far better to present his arguments here in the thread itself, since many readers are unlikely to turn to them. Moreover, it is not entirely obvious what he is actually arguing, so I will offer my take on what he claims and then explain whether I agree or disagree. Remember that only some of the photos have to be exposed as fakes to impeach NASA's integrity.

Jim pushes the point about there being missing tracks, and this pointing towards fakery... but do we have Earth-bound examples of missing tracks? Yep. Do Jim and Jack suggest that all these images were faked or the vehicle lowered into position?

(Source)

(Source)

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER ONE: To explain the inconsistency, Evan says, “It is a composite!” Possibly, but how and by whom was it composed? The suggestion that reflection from a space suit has caused the back of the lander to be illuminated is highly improbable. Consider that these space suits do not carry a concave mirror on their fronts that would concentrate the light to illuminate it like a flashlight or a beacon. The rather crinkled suit would have reflected light in many directions, not focused in on the lander. The likelihood that this could explain what we see in the photograph is extremely small. Indeed, I would say that it is virtually zero, which means a second source of light from an artificial source, which was present on the set, appears to have created unintended effects.

I can't find these replies, but I can still address what you are saying. If i said it is a composite, then I presume it is this image of Apollo 11 on the lunar surface. It is a composite of the images AS11-40-5863 through to AS11-40-5869, created by Ed Hengeveld. The images were taken from different angles and thus lighting angles will be different. Yes, the Apollo EVA suits reflected light and that's why we can say it was not a second light source. Even the

.

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER TWO: Shadows cast do not have to be parallel, but it is a function of the distance between the source and the objects of illumination. If you have a small lamp on a table surrounded by small objects, for example, then those objects cast shadows in different directions. But that is because of their spatial proximity. The Sun is at a enormous finite distance from the moon, which implies the shadows thereby cast should be virtually exactly parallel. They are obviously not. The likelihood that these shadows, which run in distinctly different directions, were caused by the light from the Sun as their source cannot be correct. The rectilinear propagation of light from the Sun confers a probability of zero on this explanation. It required a separate, artificial source of light when the only available source, according to NASA, was the Sun. The photo has to have been faked.

Just plain wrong. See the aforementioned

, or here and here and here.

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER THREE: The center of the photo does not appear to be on an extension of the line of sight from the camera. Indeed, one of the gross oddities about the moon photos is that they should be so uniformly well-focused and centered, given the primitive equipment—externally mounted camera with no focusing ability—being used. Moreover, as http://www.ufos-alie...smicapollo.html has observed, variations in temperature that the film itself would have had to endure on the lunar surface “were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunlight. How could the film emulsion have possibly withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots.” Surely the film would not have survived under such conditions and the astronaut’s lives would have been jeopardized. This photo, too, is another fake.

Sorry Jim but you are again making mistakes. The camera was hardly primative; it was a Hassellblad 500, which had the option of being mounted onto a handle. It had a large focus ring to allow the astronauts to change focus. The astronauts practised extensively on Earth, becoming very familiar with the camera. The film was a modified Ektachrome film, prepared for a large temperature extreme but protected by the silver body of the camera. Of course, that temperature range was reached if the camera was left in direct sunlight or shadow for an extended period, or if there was heat transfer via conduction (the camera touching the lunar surface or similar). This becomes obvious when you think about the images taken during Gemini, Earth-orbital Apollo flights, Skylab EVAs and Shuttle EVAs. The camera had to stand up to the same conditions.

LIGHT/SHADOW NUMBER FOUR/FIVE/SIX: More could be said about the others in this set, but what is important is that many of these photographs display anomalies that are inconsistent with their authenticity as genuine photographs taken from the moon. If Evan wants to discuss these three as well as those I have already addressed, then I invite him to do so in the thread itself. Remember, if some of the photos can be proven to have been faked, then the jig is up. There should not have been necessary to fake photos of real moon landings. I have been struck by another companion thread on the forum entitled, “NASA has been CAUGHT retouching and switching photos”, which is accessible here:

http://educationforu...pic=16532&st=15

where Duane Daman has observed, “Nice find Jack, but we already know that NASA alters it's faked Apollo photos from time to time … Conspiracy researcher Ralph Rene discovered that fact many years ago when he asked NASA to send him a copy of their "C" rock photo, but they switched the ID numbers, so they could send him a different faked photo instead of the one he asked for. Then months later, when he finally did receive the correct photo, the "C" has been purposely airbrushed out”, observing that “NASA is always correcting their mistakes by altering their faked Apollo photos.” It sound very plausible to me that what Duane is describing is what NASA has been doing.

An illustration comes from the cover to the magazine, AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, which, Duane reports, “just happens to be one of the best examples [of the use of front screen projection], showing where the foreground of the set ends and the back wall of the set begins... Those front screen projection special effects really were amazing, considering how new that technology was during the filming of Project Apollo". Duane also provides a link to front-projection-screen “frolics” compliments of NASA here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWSg8pXqyMI

where the vertical wall front screen projection can be seen between time stamp 1:13 to 1:38. So I would like Evan to address this technique, which may also explain how the moon rover photographs were produced with missing tracks between their moon rover wheels.

Jim, but Duane argued about the supposed "C rock" and the cover showed it was not on the original and appeared only on one set of copies. It was a hair or similar. He totally ignored that fact it disproved his claim and went on to the 'front projection' claims.

And as we have discovered, Jim (or Jack) DID make a mistake. The image was taken here on Earth, and was never claimed to be a NASA image.

REPLY TO BURTON'S FIRST RESPONSE (IN THREE PARTS)

Part 2. One of my colleagues at the University of Minnesota Duluth used to day, when he was confronted with an argument that defeated his position, "I take it back and assert the opposite!" Kevin West has questioned the authenticity of one of the photos of rover tracks that I have had Jack post on my behalf (on the discussion thread), "I ask because those don't look like rover tracks at all, the treads are way too deep and the wrong shape, and there are a variety of different shoeprints in the image." Remarks like these caused me to pause and question whether or not it was taken on the moon. "What image was this photo supposedly from?", he asks.

To which John Dolva has posted a very interesting reply:

"Mission 17 http://demilo.public...7/images17.html

Where are they too deep? Its a long shot. The tracks pixelation closeup is the same near as far. Far the tracks are at pixelation size. Near a number of pixels make up the tracks. Looks like they dropped the southern end on the SEP, drove, letting out the cabling, set up the north SEP unit, Gene stayed there, Jack drove back in a wide turn, and took up position for the photo Gene then took.

http://demilo.public...134-20436HR.jpg

What has stuck me in the meanwhile is that this photo, which Fotosearch.com identifies as CSPO67 k0672620 and calls "Mark of the Moon Rover", where "CSP067" stands for "Fotosearch.com" itself and "k0672620" for that specific image, has evidential value whether it was purportedly taken on the moon or not. Notice, in particular, that Kevin has acknowledged "a variety of different shoeprints in the image". So if this IS an "official moon rover photograph", as I suspect, then it demonstrates that these photos are faked.

Among my reasons for thinking so (i) that the setting looks like that of many other "official" moon rover photographs, (ii) John Dolva has offered a counter-argument to Kevin's suggestion it was NOT taken on the moon, (iii) other photos offered by Foto Search are identified as "artist's renderings", for example, if they are not "official" moon landing photographs, and (iv) Foto Search has s price list as follows:

Web Resolution

501 KB / 72 dpi / 5" x 6.7" / RGB

USD $15.00

Low Resolution

1 MB / 72 dpi / 7.1" x 9.5" / RGB

USD $20.00

Medium Resolution

10 MB / 300 dpi / 5.4" x 7.2" / RGB

USD $40.00

High Resolution

25.9 MB / 300 dpi / 8.7" x 11.6" / RGB

USD $60.00

Super High Resolution

52 MB / 300 dpi / 12.3" x 16.4" / RGB

Enhanced License USD $99.00

I can't imagine how they could be charging prices like these for an image that was NOT "an official moon rover photo from the moon". Even more importantly, however, is EITHER THE PHOTO IS FROM THE MOON OR IT IS NOT. If it is an "official" photo FROM THE MOON, then the variety of different shoe prints in the image proves that the photos are faked. But IF IT IS NOT FROM THE MOON, then the resemblance to other "moon landing" photos gives us clues about where all of these photos were faked. Either way, it matters--where Jack has posted the image (with sneaker impressions circled) in post #98.

So while Burton wants to suggest that I made a mistake, I could cast this differently, namely, as BEGINNER'S LUCK. And I am asking Jack to post an enhanced image that highlights the variety of shoe prints that are present in this image. And I would ask Evan not to evade the dilemmas I have posed! I find it fascinating that, in attempting to diminish the "Mark of a Moon Rover" photo, whose origin is not presently known, Kevin West has located others that are similar and were probably taken by the same photographer around the same time::

Kevin M. West, on 08 September 2010 - 12:14 AM, said:

Ready for a laugh? Same artist on fotosearch. Title "Desert Tracks".

http://www.fotosearc...SP067/k0672584/

http://www.fotosearc...SP067/k0673508/

Kevin may think this is a laughing matter, but Duane Daman has replied recounting an observation by Neil Armstrong that supports my conjecture that they could all have been taken at the same location:

"Armstrong: 'The surface is much like the high desert of the United States.'

"Correction: The surface IS the high desert of the United States.

"It really is difficult to tell the 'moon' and the desert apart, isn't it?

" *Edited [by Duane] to delete the word 'lunar' from Armstrong's quote ... He never said the word lunar before the word surface ... So I guess he [Neil Armstrong] really is an honest guy after all!"

So tell us, Steve...what WAS the landing speed, and how did the LM pilot see the landing area through the big cloud of Newton dust?

Certainly Jack - that information is readily available. If you listen to the calls Buzz was making during the landing, the descent velocity was amongst it.

"Landing conditions are estimated to have been 1 or 2 ft/sec left, 0 ft/sec forward, and 1 ft/sec down; no evidence of vehicle instability at landing was observed."

(Source: Apollo 11 Mission Report, MSC-00171, dated November 1969, section 4.10.3, page 4-9)

There was no cloud of dust, as Neil Armstrong explains.

[On a final note about engine shutdown, Ken Glover calls attention to the following from an interview done with Neil on 19 September 2001 by historians Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley at NASA Johnson.]

[Brinkley: "Was there anything about your Moon walk and collecting of rocks and the like that surprised you at that time when you were on the Moon, like, 'I did not expect to encounter this,' or, 'I did not expect it to look like this'? Or included in that, the view of the rest of space from the Moon must have been quite an awesome thing to experience."]

[Armstrong: "I was surprised by a number of things, and I'm not sure (I can) recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon. I was surprised by the trajectory of dust that you kicked up with your boot, and I was surprised that even though logic would have told me that there shouldn't be any, there was no dust when you kicked. You never had a cloud of dust there. That's a product of having an atmosphere, and when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust."]

["I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised."]

It's obvious that the EF tag team of Burton, Greer, West, and Lamson (Lewis must be working on another forum) has no interest in the truth about Apollo, but only uses this forum to suppress the truth, by any means necessary.. Their disingenous mind games are quite transparent.. And from what I can see, several of the other members here have actually fallen for their dishonest games, which is understandable, since not many people are willing to accept the fact that NASA lied about Apollo and staged the photography.

Final warning Duane. ANY infraction of the rules (attacking another member, questioning their motives - as you have done above) and you'll be on moderation. If you are incapable of a civil debate then you have no place here.

Since you're one who runs this forum, you have my sincere apologies for breaking your rules .. In the future I will state only the facts of the Apollo Hoax, instead of my opinions of those who defend the official story.

btw, I looked for my bio but didn't see it, so it might have been deleted.. Would it be okay if I post a new one?

I don't run this Forum, and you are breaking Forum rules, not mine.

As far as the bio is concerned, by all means.

Thank you.

Come on Jack - how was the LM constructed? There are detailed records, so show us where thumbtacks were used.

No, not thumbtacks. But lightweight construction for a vehicle that will only operate in space.

REPLY TO BURTON'S FIRST RESPONSE (IN THREE PARTS)

Part 1: Evan claims to have "demonstrated" that the tracks left depend on the surface it is traveling over, that the wheels can throw lunar soil or dust and cover those tracks, that astronaut activity around the rover can obliterate tracks, that light, shadow and angle can hide tracks in photographs, and that it makes no sense to lower the rover into position when it could be rolled or driven there.

Or, as John Dolva has observed, the rover tracks might have been brushed out by the cleaning lady during breaks between shots (on the discussion thread in post #108). John, no doubt, meant this as a witty remark, but it reflects the weakness of Evan's response. He offers suggestions as to how the rover's tracks might have been obscured in some cases, but they suffer from serious weaknesses:

(1) He treats possibilities as though they were probabilities and seeks to convert them into certainties. This is analogous to the defense of the "magic bullet" theory by arguing that the shots attributed to Oswald were "possible". When you consider the relevant evidence, the theory is not only false but provably false and not even anatomically possible ("Reasoning about Assassinations").

It's funny how Jim has switched it around here; he and Jack treat the absence of LRV tracks as PROOF that Apollo was faked. They decide that the absence of tracks in some locations can only be explained by fakery. On the other hand, we "Apollogists" show that that there are far more mundane explanations available, any one or a combination of them which could explain the lack of tracks. We ask you to think: which is more likely? Convoluted lowering of machines into positions on a sound stage and "overseers" forgetting about that in numerous images on numerous missions, no-one ever noticing... or walking over tracks, boots kicking up dust, and just plain lighting which makes things difficult to see?

(2) The acid test of Evan's rebuttal is the ground between the tires. There would appear to be no good reason why there are no tracks between them, when tracks would have been made whether the rover was driven or pushed into position no matter if that was forward or backward. The fact that there are no tracks between the tires in many photos, including Evan's own, proves the point.

Take a look at the dirt on the LRV. Look how dirty the astronauts got. Look how they get on and off the LRV... right over the area between the wheel. Have a look at

, whatch how the dust is thrown around. Isn't it possible that activity and dust have covered the tracks? On the other hand, if Jim and Jack are right, then no tracks should ever be visible because the LRV never moved, right? Again - which makes more sense?

(3) The virtually complete absence of atmosphere on the moon makes his suggestions even less plausible. Unless he wants to claim that the astronauts were crawling under the rover, the most it would be reasonable to expect from his alleged "explanations" would be the partial obfuscation of those tracks. What we have is complete absence of tracks at the place we most expect to find them.

While Evan's suggestions may sound initially plausible, that appears to be due to the psychological tendency to draw comparisons with experiences on Earth, where the wind can blow and dirt be scattered. But there is no air on the moon. What we are looking for is the most reasonable explanation for the absence of moon tracks in some of these photos. Evan, alas, has not provided one.

Jim unintentionally gives support to my argument. In air and under normal gravity, dust tends to billow and to blow around. In a vacuum, the dust follows a parabolic curve and does not billow. Watch the LRV footage; watch how it behaves. The behaviour demonstrates that the footage was taken in a vacuum, low-gravity environment.

Where on Earth is that? Nowhere. It's on the Moon.

No Jim, I'll continue to moderate outside that thread. If your actions require moderation, all mods will be consulted before any action is taken. I will not moderate you unilaterally. The fact that we are debating on a thread where i accept you can make personal attacks on me does not give you carte blanche to make personal attacks on me and others outside of the debate thread.

Evan,

Surely even you can appreciate that, as a participant in our "debate", you should not be moderating either the

debate thread or the discussion thread. Ask John to appoint someone in your stead to fulfill those roles with

respect to both threads. If we have a moderator for the debate thread, he should moderate this one as well.

Jim

Jim,

You have made repeated personal attacks on members. These are to cease or the moderating team will consider disciplinary action.

Gave Duane a further and final warning. ANY infraction will result in his being placed on moderation.

It's obvious that the EF tag team of Burton, Greer, West, and Lamson (Lewis must be working on another forum) has no interest in the truth about Apollo, but only uses this forum to suppress the truth, by any means necessary.. Their disingenous mind games are quite transparent.. And from what I can see, several of the other members here have actually fallen for their dishonest games, which is understandable, since not many people are willing to accept the fact that NASA lied about Apollo and staged the photography.

Final warning Duane. ANY infraction of the rules (attacking another member, questioning their motives - as you have done above) and you'll be on moderation. If you are incapable of a civil debate then you have no place here.

Number 4:

The image is AS15-88-11901, taken at the LRV's final resting place, and part of a pan sequence. If we look at other images taken to the left of the LRV, what do we see?

Look to the right of the LRV:

More tracks.

I'll stop belabouring the point and not worry about the rest of the LRV images. What Jack and Jim are doing with all these LRV claims are anomaly hunting.

Click on image for maximum size!

NUMBER THREE.

Number three is AS17-140-21354, taken from inside the LM just prior to the third EVA. Even if you discount all the LRV tracks in the distance, you can take a look at the area behind the LRV.

The first thing you'll notice is the footprints - lots of them, obliterating most traces of tracks.... but wait! What's this?

Let's take a closer look:

LRV tracks... just where they should be.

Thanks Steve.

I've sent an e-mail off to the lunar sample curators, but your last link seems to answer the question:

This troublesome material is every-where on the Moon's surface. The powdery grit gets into everything, jamming seals and abrading spacesuit fabric. It also readily picks up an electrostatic charge. This characteristic causes it to float or levitate off the lunar surface and stick to faceplates and camera lenses. The fine dust might even be toxic.

(My bolding)

I don't know, John. I would image the dust could become electrostaticly charged. I might see if I can find an e-mail addy and ask the people at the lunar samples lab.

Dust was certainly a problem o0n the Moon, getting into everything. Making seals and joints dust proof is one of the big challanges for long term lunar exploration; it was said that the 3 x EVAs of the latter Apollo missions pushed the suits to the limit.

Warned Duane about being civil to other members and not to discuss their personal lives.

Duane,

Your remarks regarding Craig's personal life, whether true or not, are way over the line.

One warning and one warning only - debate in a civil tone or you'll be placed on moderation.

Duane,

Your remarks regarding Craig's personal life, whether true or not, are way over the line.

One warning and one warning only - debate in a civil tone or you'll be placed on moderation.

Warned Jim Fetzer about repeated personal attacks.

You have made repeated personal attacks on members. These are to cease or the moderating team will consider disciplinary action.

Jim,

You have made repeated personal attacks on members. These are to cease or the moderating team will consider disciplinary action.

Warned Jack White that he must use either the Report button on posts or use the Complaintrs thread when making a complaint.

Jack has been warned that if he starts new threads specifically for a complaint, the thread will be deleted without warning.

Jack,

Use the Report button on posts or use the complaints thread, do not just start a new thread.

Any further infraction will result in the new thread being deleted without warning.

I'll go through the posts made invisible, remove the image, and restore the posts.

Have you contacted the copyright holder and asked them if you can use them? They may be happy for you to do so if you acknowledge them as the source.

Click on image for maximum size!

NUMBER TWO.

The image is AS17-143-21933.

Same thing again. Activity around the rear of the LRV. Have a look at the ALSJ from around 170:09:00 GET.

OK...NUMBER ONE (separate numbered post for each study)

Click on image for maximum size!

Once again Jack fails to give an image number, making it harder for independent researchers (one wonders why he does that). The image number is AS17-137-20979.

Jack answered his own question here. Footprints. As before, there has been activity around the LRV, including attaching sample bags and causing lots of dust.

The image was taken at about 143:46:34 GET. The LRV had been parked since about 142:43:37 GET - nearly an hour. During that time there has been extensive activity at the rear of the LRV, including removing dust using brushes:

142:45:21 Parker: And, 17. Jack, we'd like you to check the SEP for us. I suspect we'll have to turn it off and open the mirrors and dust them.

**********

142:46:47 Parker: Roger. Let's turn off the (SEP) power and the recorder, open the blankets, and dust it.

142:46:57 Schmitt: Power's off; blankets are open; and, Gene, you'll have to dust it.

142:47:05 Cernan: I'll get it. I've got a lot of dusting to do here, Jack.

***********

143:18:19 Schmitt: Well, I'm getting it from this way, and they like that. Did we kick any dirt in under there?

***********

It's exactly the same reasons as given before. Footprints and activity covering tracks.

Thank you.

I'll start preparing my replies.

Oh yeah - he never talks publicly.

http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/43-robert-seamans-and-neil-armstrong-on-the-apollo-program

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw225qEiWWo

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1722270428583799532#

etc

etc

Seeing as you are a friend of Jack, and considering the amount of trouble Jack could be in, I would hold my tongue regarding Mr McCarthy. He owns the copyright to the image and Jack appears to have violated the copyright in several ways (removed watermark, altered image, illegal use, no accreditation).

You should always read the terms and conditions regarding the use of images.