Evan Burton

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.

Gary / Antti:

1. Am I allowed to address the plethora of new LRV images Jack posts, one post per image?

2. Am I allowed to address the three-part post by Jim, one post per part? Or am I allowed only one post to address all three posts made by Jim?

I need to have this clarified because I can respond, as it determines what my responses will be.

Thank you.

hi moderator, the edit button appears not to be working, could you check i have tried 3 times now, and it does not appear to click after one has made their corrections, so the spellum goofs are still there...thanks..b

p.s now the upload for attachments is not loading...have a look many thanks, tried twice...b

Both my edit and upload fucntions seem to be working.

Could another member please confirm if they are experiencing the same problems as Bernice?

Bernice, which browser are you using?

Robert,

The new board allows formatting to be retained, such as if I copy and paste a section from another page, the original formatting is retained. This can cause a few problems on occassion.

I'll have a look around the board settings and see if there is anything that could help, but in the meantime I might suggest you type up your posts in Word or similar, then copy and paste into the Post field.

But they are still politicians.

We had a similar act in WA: Section 54B, IIRC. A gathering of more than 3 people in a public place without a permit was illegal.

Duane still has another week to organise the link to his bio.

Duane: if you need any help getting that organised just PM me and I show you how to do it.

Cheers!

And a B5 fan, too? How did you rate it compared to Trek? Personally i thought it was outstanding. You could see the shift in series 5, where JMS had to finish the story arcs early, and I thought it hurt the show. I became a fan of Crusade, too. A clunky start but it was just starting to find its feet when cancelled.

Hi Steve!

Fellow Trekker / Trekkie.

You mention ST:TOS; is that your main focus? What about TNG, DS9, etc?

Correct Dave. It's a basic of photo interpretation.

SHADOW

Geologists like low sun angle photography because of the features that shadow patterns can help identify (e.g. fault lines and fracture patterns). Church steeples and smokestacks can cast shadows that can facilitate their identification. Tree identification can be aided by an examination of the shadows thrown. Shadows can also inhibit interpretation. On infrared aerial photography shadows are typically very black and can render targets in shadows uninterpretable.

Example of how shadow aids identification

Source: http://rscc.umn.edu/rscc/v1m2.html

Duane, copyright violation is not a joking matter.

Unapproved posts which contained an image, which may be the subject of copyright violation, until we confirm we have permission to reproduce the image on the Forum.

Jim,

If you have any doubts about the images, I suggest you follow Mr McCarthy's advice and contact him via his website listed above.

Jack,

May I suggest you do likewise and apologise for your use of his image? Unless Mr McCarthy allows otherwise, we will remove the offending image.

Evan

I have been asked to post this on behalf of William Attard McCarthy

Dear James,

By means of these few words let me assure you that, yes, I am the real deal. If you doubt Mr. Burton (as you do seemingly do doubt everything around you), please do not hesitate to visit my website www.mccarthysphotoworks.com and contact me through the site. Let me also assure you that not only am I the real deal, but so are my attorneys. I do not take lightly to people using my images without any form of consent whatsoever. The image in question is allowed to be sold on fotosearch.com through another stock agency. (hint hint... why don't you try to search for the same image on Fotolia.com and Dreamstime.com... just to save you the hassle of waiting for fotosearch's reply about the image's origins??)

Not only have you and Jack reproduced my image without consent, but you have also went as far as to publicly show it in an altered state... messing around with it just to show those Nike Air Max sneaker marks. May I again remind you that I take copyright violation very seriously and if anything of the sort ever happens again, you will know through my attorneys how much of a "real deal" I am.

Oh, and by the way James.... yes, that image unfortunately was not shot on the moon, and was never part of some Nasa cover-up... Well, to be plainly honest with you it wasn't even shot in the Sahara! There you go, James.

The image was shot at Golden Bay Beach in Malta.... and yes, they are quad bike tracks.

Oh, moreover, the prints in the foreground (which admittedly do resemble those left behind by 70s astronauts' footwear) are in fact those left behind by Crocs... yes, Crocs.

Just as another hint... why don't you go back to the image at fotosearch.com and take a closer look at the listed keywords for the image? DO you think I would have put in keywords such as beach and sand if it was shot on the Moon?

And for clarity's sake, I have the absolute right to name my images however I please. It is my work, and I name it and describe it and keyword it as I please. In fact, I am quite amused at how easy it was to fool the likes of you and Jack with a simple photo shot on a beach! Haha, just name it Tracks of the Moon Rover...and voila'! ... we got you and Jack screaming "Conspiracy Theory" LOL

Oh, and by the way... did you possibly fail to spot the patch of dark grass at the top of the image in the background?? Is there grass on the Moon????

Au Revoir!

William Attard McCarthy

BTW, in case anyone asks, I do not know Mr McCarthy except by contact via his website regarding the image Jack posted.

Evan, I have repeatedly asked you to explain who removed my original post #7, which I reposted as #42,

on the debate thread. In fact, I asserted that it was you, since no one else had the motive, the means, and

the opportunity. You have protested with moral outrage that you did not do it but that available records will

show who did. Well, you have had plenty of time to check the records. So who was responsible, if not you?

If you were innocent, I would have expected to hear about it long before now. Inquiring minds want to know.

And I have already told you that it is inappropriate for me to investigate it and that I asked Gary to investigate - publicly. Ask Gary or Antti to answer your question, not me, since I should not be involved.

François,

Your posts have become unacceptable, attacking other members. You are being placed on moderation until further advised. You can make posts, but they will need to be approved by a moderator.

No problems John.

The point is to ask questions, find resources, evaluate evidence and come up with your own conclusions. I would also add to look at the Moon hoax websites, look at the claims that people like Jack make... but investigate them the same as you would any pro-Apollo claims. Keeping an open mind means listening to all sides of the argument. I am less open minded now because the depth of my research has convinced me... but I still investigate each new claim. IMO though, the problem lay in that there have not been any new claims but rather rehashes of the same claims I have investigated to my satisfaction.

Oh - I forgot about the images from the LRO:

Yep - lunar north is the same as our north.

John,

The image is AS16-107-17446. The medium resolution and high resolution images are available through the Project Apollo Archive in the Image Gallery section.

The best source for finding out the context of images are the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (for surface activity) and the Apollo Flight Journal (for inflight activity). They often are also a source of ancillary documents and material, including videos.

With reference to the ALSJ, you can find out details of the image:

AS16-107-17446 (OF300) ( 228k or 1069k )

Looking at the timeline, we can find out what was happening:

144:15:49 Duke: I've just got to get a picture with the 500 of the old Orion sitting out there. Just spectacular. (Pause) Okay, I'm going to take a couple of North Ray, Tony. (Pause)

144:16:05 Young: Most of these rocks have a whitish cast to them, Houston, but...(Pause)

144:16:13 Duke: Okay, Tony, I'm up to frame count 90 on magazine Lima.

RealVideo Clip (2 min 33 sec)

144:16:21 England: Okay. (Pause)

144:16:27 Duke: Wow! What a place! What a view, isn't it, John?

144:16:30 Young: It's absolutely unreal!

144:16:34 Duke: We've really come up here, Tony. It's just spectacular. Gosh, I have never seen...All I can say is "spectacular", and I know y'all are sick of that word, but my vocabulary is so limited.

144:16:50 England: We're darn near speechless down here...

144:16:51 Duke: (Reviewing LMP-9) Okay, we got the description...(Stops to listen) Can you guys see how really spectacular the view is?

144:16:59 England: We sure can.

144:17:02 Duke: Hey, yeah. Where's the big eye? (Turning to face the TV) There it comes.

144:17:05 England: We're looking at you.

144:17:08 Duke: Look upslope, Tony. Okay, look on upslope, and you see all this rock field that we're in here. (Pause) Okay. Anyway, I'll put the rake...The rake's coming next, John (as per CDR/LMP-9).

144:17:19 Young: Okay. I was just going to get this one sample.

144:17:21 Duke: Okay, go ahead. Then we need a pan. That's after penetrations; and then I've got to get the...Guess what's coming up? I can almost pick this thing (meaning the Rover) off the ground.

So to get an idea of what the area looked like, check out all the images that were taken around that area (Station 4), especially the pans. Don't forget that different magazines were in the same location, so check which were used. They very often took an image of the samples in place before picking them up, took pan shots or images that had known features in them as 'locators'. This enabled them to accurately place where they were when samples were collected and the various locations they visited.

The best photo of the Apollo 16 landing site? Well, I presume you mean from lunar orbit? Duane has shown a good steroscopic image from the Lunar and Planetary Institute. This is fairly good, but I don't know if it is what you are actually after:

Higher resolution versions of the same map are available from this page.

I hope you're right and I am wrong, John, but.....

That looks to be a very interesting series, Bill. Thanks for that (and thanks to Michael, too!).

Gentlemen - do not refer to each other as trolls.

I researched the image, Jack, and contacted the photographer. I visited his website and e-mailed him. He has a message for you, by the way:

I tried to reply on the forum but it's not accepting new registrants...

Can you please, by means of the forum, tell Jack and all that the image was shot in the Sahara, and it was only submitted to stock agencies. Tell him nobody ever said it was public domain, and he had no right whatsoever to reproduce it on the forum, not even in a thumbnail format.

Can you please put everyone's mind at ease and tell them that those tracks are NOT Lunar Rover tracks but quad bike tracks!

...and the sneaker marks are mine

Regards,

Will

The only thing that is fishy here are your claims.

Jim...it would be simple for such a photo to be sold (or planted) to a stock photo agency

with false information. I am curious as to why an ATTORNEY was in the Sahara photographing

what appears to be LRV tracks. Could the attorney's claim of authorship be related to covering up

an embarrassing NASA photo? An attorney could be a cutout acting for a third party. The copyright

can only be held by the actual photographer. NASA photos are public domain and not copyrightable.

I believe it is important to gather the history of this photo at each of the two agencies selling

the image, and the dates of acquisition.

Jack

PS. I note that these are two separate photo agencies. Odd, such things are nearly always

EXCLUSIVE. The two images are cropped differently. One has a watermarked logo and

the other does not. One agency identifies the image as the moon, the other the Sahara.

How did Burton come up with the Sahara identification? Something is fishy here.

It has been taken by a precicion Hasselblad with a distinkt focal point around about the rover. Near footsteps and features are not in focus. Around the rover they are. For it not to be so in the further (different) terrain shouldnt be surprising. Is there a map of that area?

Yes indeed, John.

Here is the traverse map for Apollo 16.

If you want more detail, take a look at the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report (about 54 Mb), or the Geology of the Apollo 16 Landing Area. You can refer to the orbital images for an overview.

With my political leanings, you know I am going to say this won't last. Conroy has got his net filter now...

The reason Jack won't answer is because the image is not from Apollo. It was taken in the Sahara Desert by William Attard McCarthy.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2516461/stock-photo-tyre-tracks-imprinted-in-the-sahara-desert-sands.html

The only person who made it out to be taken on the Moon ("Which astronaut wore sneakers") is Jack White.

That's a horrible deception you have attempted to pull on people Jack. Do you have rights to copy that image? Do you have rights to alter it and purport it to be something other that what it is?