Evan Burton

Why is Jack being allowed to post comments, Gary? He is not a participant; his sole purpose is to post images because Jim seems unable to do so. I should also point out that what I - or Jim / Jack - say off this Forum is no concern to the debate. If this is not the case, then I have comments posted off-site to post.

Thanks Jack - since I know considerably more than you do in this area, Bill should ask me.

Bill,

The LM was protected during the blast off and trans-lunar injection by the SLA (spacecraft / lunar module adapter) panels on the S-IVB stage. Only after it was in space and on it's way to the Moon were the panels jettisoned and the LM extracted.

SLA Panels on S-IVB

Apollo 9 LM waits extraction from the S-IVB stage in Earth orbit (Apollo 9 was an Earth orbit mission, testing the LM)

So through the atmosphere it was protected. After that it was in empty space. No atmosphere to rip it off, etc. No frictional forces.

No atmosphere during the landing.

If you've watched Mythbusters, you'll know how strong duct tape actually is (although this was not duct tape). Probably ordinary packing tape would have been fine. The only thing to consider was the effect of a vacuum and heat / cold.

Have a look at this hi-res - and very large - image of a satellite prior to launch. Notice anything?

http://www.nasa.gov/...81-04-196lg.jpg

Incidentally, that's why the LM could be built as it was; it was only ever designed to fly in space.

As usual, nothing unusual.

Yup, and those young ones are just the ones to lead it, (if they can get out of bed in time).

(Thinks of Bart and the class - school? - president election)

A new site with a variety of great images and videos.

http://nasaimages.org/

Yeah - anarchy! Lets storm the Reichstag!

Removed personal attack and warned Len Colby about this post.

I'm happy with that. Sometimes the same error or condition is repeated over a series, and can be addressed in a single post. A single exchange is all that is required.

Sometimes I need to address the fault in each image (for instance it might be claimed that something cannot be seen, and I point out where it is in each image). It requires a post from me for each image, but the overall error is still the same.

In some cases - probably rare - a series of images, purporting to be the same subject, might be posted but require different explanations and possibly requiring more than one reply to a rebuttal. In those particular cases I will notify all in advance, and have Gary decide upon the conditions to imposed.

Gary,

There is no problem here. If I have a five-part post (because there are five photos that illustrate the same problem),

then Evan can make a five-part response. But it is unnecessary to have FIVE SEPARATE POSTS AND EXCHANGES

in relation to the same issue. Please confirm that we are ready to start, that Evan is a participant and not moderator,

and that I can ask Jack to make the first post, which is in fact a five-part post about the moon rover photos. Thanks.

Jim

Warned Bill Kelly about questioning the motivations of posters.

Who on this forum is insulting, stalking and harrassing Evan and Len? I thought they were stalking CTs, as are a number of others who have joined this forum just to attack Jack White and Fetzer.

I'd just like to dispel a couple of myths here.

1. I never knew Len before here.

2. Although I came here originally to correct Jack regarding his mistake about the camera placement on the Apollo EVA suits (IIRC), but that is hardly stalking. Is there another forum where I have "followed" Jack? Is there another forum, before this one, where I "followed" Jack?

3. Because someone has views opposed to yours (or mine) does not mean they "joined the forum just to attack" people.

4. DO NOT QUESTION THE MOTIVES OF POSTERS! Why cannot some people understand that? Attack their arguments, demonstrate how wrong (or right) they are, but don't question why they are here.

That is the first and final warning regarding motivations, Bill. If you feel you have proof regarding motivation and you feel it is pertinent to the topic, then contact a moderator and get approval before posting it.

While waiting for Jim to post his first 'proof', I might ask him to prove the following statement:

It's rather on a part with NASA having spent vast sums of taxpayer's money to fund sites REBUTTING MOON HOAX THEORIES. Why should NASA do that?

It's quite the contrary. They wanted to commission Jim Oberg (a member here) to write about the claims but it was forced to be discontinued because of taxpayer complaints that NASA was wasting time on replying to "moon hoaxers". As far as I am aware, NASA has only spent any effort (not necessarily funds) on debunking the claims: here and here or possibly this regarding the Van Allen belts . If Jim feels they have spent "...vast sums of taxpayer's money..." I'd ask him to prove such.

Over a week now, and yet the country still keep ticking...

Perhaps we don't need a government after all?

There was a very good write-up of him in the paper. He's an independent you can trust to actually be independent.

The SMH tally seems to change constantly. I suppose the AECs virtual tally room is the most authoritative source.

*sigh*

Whatever. Just get on with it, please.

ETA: If there are multiple images, I'll need to be allowed one post per image in some cases, to show the reasons each claim is wrong. Sometimes they can be dealt with as a group but sometimes each will need to be addressed seperately. I don't want to leave a loophole where people claim "...but you didn't show why they were all wrong..."

Hey John - how 'bout we just toss a coin and be done with it!

BTW Gary - as soon as Jim posts his first image, I should be moved to the members group and placed on post moderation.

Cheers,

Evan

Jim,

Pick the image you wish to discuss and let's start.

ONE image at a time, please.

Thank you.

Gary,

If permitted I would like to address the points raised in this post from Jim and also his subsequent post. If you disagree I will understand; I simply want to refute some of the things Jim has said. It may distract from the thread but I would bring to your attention that Jim has raised them, not I.

Thank you.

Yes, I take back what I said about early election.

Katters an oldie, I can't remember a time without him. He's tough and wily. I find it hard to second guess him, except to say he's old school conservative. Things are changing and change brings out rash behaviour. Perhaps it's his last dash?

I notice a few people saying that. Do you think it is cunning / political savvy, or just luck? After all One Nation got a fair slug of the vote a few years ago.

I get the impression that no matter what happens, we'll have another election in about 3 months time.

Incredibly stupid of Fielding to threaten to block supply - the guy deserves to be voted out.

BTW, did you see the Press Club interviews with the independents? I always knew Bob Katter was a bit rough, but he came across as a raving nutter. I know he wants to get a fair deal for the country areas and I agree - but he came across as some type of loud idiot. I hope he isn't riding roughshod over the other indys.

John, was the costing business a bit of a fuphy? I am not certain, but I heard on radio that the Treasury costing was a service offered to the opposition but there was no requirement for them to do so.

I agree that to be open and honest they should have done so, but there was no requirement - unlike the government.

No, it didn't disappear Jack. It's on another thread. Yet another good reason to combine the thread: help keep track for those who get easily confused.

I find that offensive and demand an apology. I keep track of what you say on this Forum because you have made baseless accusations on many occasions.

The picture above was brought to my attention by a person on another forum.

I demand that Jack White publicly withdraw that vicious personal attack.

My biography is on the Forum, and the link at the bottom of the post. You have no need to ask my personal information, since you should be addressing what I say and not who I am.... but because I still want to try and get this debate underway without further obfuscation:

Officer in the Royal Australian Navy, coming up to 20 years of service. Graduate of Air Traffic Controller course and Observers course (navigator). Advanced diploma of applied science (aviation). Also 4 years as electronic mission co-ordinator on Coastwatch surveillance flights. Private pilot. Types acting as crewmember: HS748, Sea King Mk50/50A, BN-2B Islander, AC-500S AeroCommander, Reims F-406, DHC8 Dash 8. About 3500 hours experience. Served in 816 and 817 SQNs, HMA Ships SWAN, IPSWICH, BETANO, currently Staff Officer Operational Publications, and Fleet Air Arm Manager for Patriot Excalibur.

Gary - I do not want my previous posts on the matter of the lunar samples deleted; I'll just have to type them out again later.

With your permission, I'll move posts to the Moon Myth thread and then we can start afresh.

Is that okay?