Evan Burton

On a roll? With Jack misrepresenting Apollo images? I think not, Jim, I think not.

Come on Jack - which mission is it from? Astound us all. Bust this hoax wide open by simply showing us which mission this was from. You know, the image number. You do have that, don't you?

Or are you trying to pass off a fake as being a genuine Apollo image? All it takes is the image number to confirm if it is or isn't.

Why would someone be so reluctant to identify an image unless they were trying to hide something?

Matt, Kevin,

Don't give it a second thought. Jack's paranoia and need to hide his mistakes mean he is always making false accusations of people. Just ignore him.

Just how many images are going to be posted, and just how many replies do we get? Jim has decided he will reply... in three parts (posts). White posts a few extra images because "...Jim asked me too..." and yet Jim says "Argument 2 has just begun. I will comment first. Then you will see how you can say what you want to say as we move forward."

He's not sticking to the agreed format, and he isn't even sticking to the new format he then decides on!

I can address the new basket of claims Jack has made... if I am permitted to do so.

Evan, When I noticed that my post #7 had been deleted and suggested you had done it, you protested with moral outrage to

the very idea. Well, since I asked you to inform me who had done it, if not you, what is the answer? Did you delete it or not?

I think I got it from my brother. He did two tours in Vietnam, and I still remember his words: "Always pay attention to what your teachers say, but don't accept it as fact. Check what they say, confirm what you're told and think for yourself".

I asked GARY to investigate. You accused me, so it would be inappropriate to investigate myself. I know I didn't do it so have no fear. Best you approach Gary - or Antti.

Are we finished talking about the LRV or aren't we?

I think I got it from my brother. He did two tours in Vietnam, and I still remember his words: "Always pay attention to what your teachers say, but don't accept it as fact. Check what they say, confirm what you're told and think for yourself".

Yes, it is to that extent that this is a valuable exercise. I commend those who do take the time to do this. I'd be horrified if my children ever came home one day sprouting Jim and Jacks nonsense as fact.

When single images are presented with ref to originals I'll continue to support this commendable effort to the extent I can. The ease of refutation to this point has lessened it as a priority. The good reasons for engaging in it goes a long way to increase it.

The important thing to do, if your kids ever did that, would be to ask them why they accept the things as facts. Get them into things like the scientific method and critical thinking.

John,

Like Dave, I don't do this to try and change Jim / Jack's minds; at least for Jack it has been proven he will make his claims regardless of the evidence showing they are wrong (I'm pretty sure that is what is called delusional). I do it so lurkers will not get sucked into Jack's delusions (like Jim) and to demonstrate the tools and resources you have to use to discover the facts.

Jim and Jack refer to an image found at fotosearch and question its authenticity. That's why I always use the official images and always give the image number. Now to briefly return to the previous argument, I have demonstrated that:

- tracks being left behind the LRV depend on the surface it is travelling over; some tracks may be deeper than others, or no visible tracks may be left at all;

- the wheels of the LRV itself can throw lunar soil / dust and cover tracks;

- astronaut activity around the LRV can obliterate tracks;

- light, shadow and angle can hide tracks in photographs; and

- it makes no sense to lower into position an LRV when it could be rolled or driven into position.

Now, the next flood of images. Since Jim is relying on Jack, and Jack is using his same old discredited "studies", the ones he claimed that no-one had ever debunked, I've already addressed them a few years ago:

Light / Shadow No1

http://educationforu...indpost&p=51965

Light / Shadow No2

http://educationforu...indpost&p=55905

Light / Shadow No3

http://educationforu...indpost&p=52047

Light / Shadow No4

http://educationforu...indpost&p=51968

Light / Shadow No5

(I know I've done this one but can't find it; see below and I'll repeat the effort)

Light / Shadow No6

http://educationforu...indpost&p=52043

Okay - No5 redux. Another good example of why you need to use the hi-resolution images and not the small images Jack wants you to look at. Links to the hi-res images are:

AS11-40-5874 HIGH RESOLUTION

AS11-40-5875 HIGH RESOLUTION

Now let's have a look at what we see.

There is the "missing" shadow. A thin pole, a low camera angle, and it tends to disappear on the surface.

Can't see them? Okay; I thought the arrow pointing to them would help.

Moving onto the next claim? Okay. If any readers want me to further disprove Jack's claims, please post in the comments thread and I'll oblige.

The sequence is POST IMAGES/BASIC ARGUMENT then you comment, I reply,

you respond, I conclude. In the alternate, POST IMAGES/BASIC ARGUMENT

then I comment, you reply, I respond, you conclude. If either of us does not

reply to something the other has said, that doesn't matter. It's done when we

conclude one or the other sequence, alternating. That was our agreement.

Now for Argument 2, I am commenting first, you reply, I will respond, and

you will conclude. I do not see the tracks you claim to see. That's all. It's

done. That's why we agreed in the beginning. Otherwise, this could drag out

forever. Argument 1's over. Argument 2 has just begun. I will comment first.

Then you will see how you can say what you want to say as we move forward.

Gary,

Am I going to be allowed to address the LRV images before Jack posts yet more images on a different topic?

Jim,

I don't think you are even bothering to read my replies. I've pointed out track a couple of times now.

John,

When do you think we'll get a government out of this? Days? Weeks?

Since this is not the debate thread and Jim has made the complaint here, I will say this: the board has security logs, which Gary can read. They detail all the actions taken by moderators, etc. It will show, once again, just how baseless these accusations are against me. After a time I really do tire of them.

I have just discovered that my most important post

on the debate thread--in which I outlined what I was

going to cover during the course of the debate--has

been DELETED by Evan Burton, who did not notify me

that he intended to do that and which needs to be

RESTORED. This is quite outrageous. I am willingly

participating in this debate, but Burton has, time

and time again, abused his position as MODERATOR

and PARTICIPANT to take advantage of the situation,

not only by deleting Jack's original posts about the

missing moon rover tracks but even about what I plan

to cover during the course of this debate. Stunning!

An accusation has been made against me. I have e-mailed Gary and asked him to investigate. As previously agreed, I will say no more about the matter and let Gary report.

Number 5.

Again Jack fails to provide the image numbers.They are AS15-85-11470 and AS15-85-11471. have a look at them, the hi-res images available through the links. Take a look at these areas, shown below. You can see how the wheels spill dirt on the area that the track would be. You can also see that the wheels depress very little into the lunar soil, again explaining why the wheel tracks are shallow and easily covered. See the footprints, confirming the location of the wheel.

Number Three.

Yet again, no image number. It is AS17-140-21354. If you have a look at the hi-resolution image (use link) and have a look at the area behind (left and down) of the LRV, this is what you'll see:

An excellent example showing how the tracks get obliterated by astronaut activity. The image was taken post EVA-2, at 151 hrs 23 min 55 sec Ground Elapse Time (in future posts I'll just use the format 151:23:23 GET).

Boy! How many things can Jack get wrong in a single post! This must be some type of record. You should see a doctor, Jack, because you are having trouble with seeing or perhaps your memory. Whatever it is, you are making big errors. The other alternative is to think you are deliberately deceiving people, and that couldn't be true, could it.

My studies posted on the Aulis website ALL HAVE NASA NUMBERS.

No, they do not. Some examples:

TIFF format cannot be used on the Simkin forum.

No, TIF is an acceptable file format.

Therefore I posted here my JPG versions, which do NOT have the numbers. To post here versions with NASA numbers I would have to search for all the TIFF files and convert them to JPG. This would serve no purpose other than to humor Burton. THE NUMBERS ARE NOT NECESSARY. The studies speak for themselves. Burton

seeks to insinuate some sinister motive to the lack of numbers when there is nonesuch. The numbers on the studies are all available at http://www.aulis.com...ies_index1.html so just go there and the numbers are available.

Excuses, excuses, Jack. Other people have asked for them, too. It called being open and honest, allowing people to examine claims for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Some of the studies were done more than ten years ago, and no study has ever been debunked by Burton or anyone else.

Jack

Strange - contrary to what you say, the debunkings are right here on this forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911

Just another "mistake" on your part Jack.

A deposition doesn't make it correct. Strange how no professional organisation of airline pilots supports his view (wacko pilots for 9-11 truth don't count; they are not a professional organisation).

I disagree with your assessment, John, but that is to be expected since I am politically opposed to your views.

You know, i really think we'll be going back to the polls soon. No matter which party forms government, I see the other obstructing things such that a new election has to take place.

Time will tell!

Well, my question is pretty simple, and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer.

When did they decide to put the American flag and sign that read: "UNITED STATES" on the side of the lander

and why did they do it with posterboard and tape like it was a grammer school romper room project?

And when did they put it on?

You've already answerd the second one. It was not done on the moon you say, so it had to be done on earth.

BK

My apologies Bill - I didn't answer your questions.

When was it decided to put a US flag and the words UNITED STATES on the LM? I don't know... but it was carried on the Mercury capsule and on the Gemini capsule, so it's not unreasonable to assume they planned to put it on from the original planning stage (as these early design studies would indicate).

Why did they do it that way? As I posted earlier, weight was everything. The outside of the descent stage was covered with the Mylar film, so the easiest, lightest and most logical solution was to tape it on.

When did they put it on? Shortly before the spacecraft was placed in the SLA, I believe, though I don't believe there was a specific schedule. Systems were still being worked on and checked prior to launch. Apollo 9, 10 and 11 images don't show it on until just prior to mating to the launch vehicle. They were placed on the Apollo 12 LM well prior to the mating. They could have been placed on the spacecraft at the same time that the plaque was attached the the LM landing strut.

Sorry, but I don't really know. I'll do some research but have never read about that particular activity before.

Okay, Image No2 - which again Jack has failed to give an image number for, despite being asked to do so.

It's AS17-143-21933 (hi-res image linked).

Once again I will ask when it plainly shown they created a lunar rover that could drive - whether or not it was filmed on the Moon - why they wouldn't simply drive / roll it into position? Jim may say they made a mistake, but think about it... isn't it easier and more logical to push the LRV into position for a "photo shoot". Why would someone say "Hey - get a crane and lower this baby into position!". Think.

Now, why isn't there a record of the tracks?

1. The lunar regolith varied; in some places it was softer an in other harder. This is why tracks can appear in some areas but not in others.

2. Take a close look at how the LRV tyres were constructed; it was a special reinforced wire mesh (since they couldn't have inflated tyres on the Moon) and didn't always leave tracks the way regular car tyres would, especially where the regolith was harder.

3. Was the image Jack shows taken immediately after the LRV was parked? No. It was parked about 170 hrs 01 min Ground Elapsed Time (GET) and the image was taken at about 170 hrs 19 mins GET (source). That's 18 odd minutes of activity around the LRV, when tracks can be obliterated. They were also specifically working around the rear of the LRV, removing samples and equipment for transport to Earth. Have a look at the LRV just as it was being parked... and what do you see? Tracks! Compare the rear of the LRV here with the rear of the LRV in Jack's image.

(AS17-143-21924, cropped - original available through link)

Bill,

Notice Jack won't engage me directly, and simply posts image and says trust me.

I say do not rely on me. Read some of the references i have given you. Find a university in your area, and speak to people in the engineering departments. If your uni has an aeronautical or aerospace engineering department, even better. Got to those who are trained and qualified in the area. Don't rely on what I say, and for your own sake do not trust Jack.

While you are waiting to do that, have a look at this site which details just how it was build. Look underneath the "gold foil".

Remember - this was build by engineers. Experienced engineers from Grumman, a company with a proud history in aerospace. Do you believe if Jack were right that none of these people would have noticed something amiss, like using tape?

You might read the interview with Tom Kelly, the LM lead design engineer, on the S/CAT site (linked above) about the building of the LM. You might want to have a look at the Oral History series interview with him. An excerpt:

KELLY: Yes. The LM had to have a very lightweight thermal protection system. In fact, the LM had to be very lightweight in general, because for every pound that we took down to the surface and brought back to orbit, we had to add over three pounds of propellant. So it was like a four-to-one growth factor for weight. So that’s what was driving the LM to be so lightweight. Well, we had to thermally isolate it from the space environment, because in space it’s basically 250 degrees in the sun and minus 250 in the shade. We couldn’t stand that, so we basically wrapped the LM in a very thin aluminized Mylar cover that in a vacuum operated like

a vacuum jacket. So the whole LM was wrapped up in that multi-layered aluminized Mylar cover. We combined that with the micrometeoroid protection by putting a thin aluminum shield on the outside…of it. So we had a combination of meteoroid protection and thermal shielding which was very lightweight. It was something you had to be careful with on the ground, because it was very delicate. But that’s basically what it was, filled in with the multi-layer insulation blankets.

RUSNAK: How well did this design work structurally when you were first trying to make this function?

KELLY: It worked very well. We didn’t really have any problems with it. It was strong enough that it didn’t tear itself apart in the G loads, mainly because it was so light, but it was also very effective as a thermal insulator.

We tested a full-size LM. It was called LTA-8, LM Test Article No. 8. That was tested in that big thermal vacuum chamber in Houston, full size, and with the astronauts inside for part of the mission. We put it through the complete thermal paces. It had heaters on it, heater strips, and the chamber had cold walls, so we could simulate any combination of thermal conditions that we were going to get on the mission. It performed very well in those tests. We were quite confident when we went into the mission that we wouldn’t have any thermal problems, and we didn’t.

Examine the evidence, talked to the qualified people, and based on what you have learnt you can make up your own mind.

After you have done this, if you have further questions I'll be happy to either answer or point you towards an authoritative source.

Okay - No 1. Jim has asked Jack to post this image (and Jack has not provided any image number). Then notice that some of the "images" he posts are a collage of several images - none with an image number - that I have to address. This is typical of Jack White's attempt to deceive you (and stop me answering your questions). Anyway, I suspect that a number of images that Jack will posts can be found here. For those who would like to examine the full image that Jim has asked Jack to post should look at AS17-137-20979.

Now the first thing I would ask people to consider is this: if the images were faked on a set and there were no tracks, then the only explanation is that they lowered it onto the set. We know they had built a working version of the LRV (Lunar Roving Vehicle, or the rover), so if they were 'faking' the images... why not drive the LRV onto the 'set'? Why not roll it into position and then remove footprints (if required - the 'stage hands' could wear lunar boots and therefore the footprints would look quite normal). The answer is that the wire wheels of the LRV threw up dust - thus the repair necessary as shown in the image. This dust could cover up the tracks made by the LRV.

Have a look at the image taken not long before 20979, of a greater view of the area: AS17-137-20976. Have a look at the area and how many tracks you can see.

Lack of tracks will occur in some locations.

I should also mention that Jack has failed to give any image numbers. He "claims" to have been unable to get them but they have been pointed out to him previously. Why would Jack be so reluctant to allow you to see the original images? Let's have a look. My first rebuttal follows.