Evan Burton

And the situation continues to worsen.

I wonder how future generations will look upon us for this time? Simply forgotten? Cautious restraint? Or reprehensible inaction? Who knows?

This thread has too many problems.

Jack, start another one!

Hi David,

Look forward to your input and questions regarding 9/11 on the conspiracy board.

Are you going to show the "jagged mountains", or are you going to do another of your drive-by Apollo postings?

I'll prepare a diagramme showing the vertical relief, and we can see if there are any "jagged mountains". If anyone else would like to do the same, we can compare results. It will keep me honest, eh?

No, no, no Bill - far from it. It's just you have to thoroughly investigate all conspiracy claims. Most all sound plausible or correct at first... but often the details reveal they are far from correct.

Evan,

Thanks for calling attention to the fascinating story and somewhat of a mystery of the HMAS Sydney, named after one of my favorite cities in the world.

But I don't see any conspiracy. What, that the crew were machine guned in the water and washed up in West Australia and were burried on the beach, or a Jap sub sank it?

It's pretty apparent from the German survivors that they did enough dammage to have sunk her, though its hard to believe only one guy in one lifeboat escaped, and the German survivors didn't hear or see a specatcular explosion that could explain things.

Certainly something spectacular happened that nobody lived to tell.

And if the remains of the ship could be located, even by remote robots, the shell of the ship could explain a lot.

While it certainly is an intriguing mystery, that someday may be solved, I don't see any conspiracy, except muddy waters.

If you like such nautical stories check out the catastrophie of the USS Philadelphia and first USS Intrepid at Tripoli, still ringing true.

BK

Bill,

The only conspiracy raised about the SYDNEY was raised by the aforementioned individual. Although all the claims are false, it still managed to grab national headlines for awhile. Until recently, it was best classed as a mystery. People did not know what happened to the SYDNEY. There was speculation that bodies of the crew had washed up on the WA coast and had been buried. In fact, one body was found buried at an island off the WA coast. The remains of clothing were consistent with typical clothing of the day and they are doing DNA testing to see if they can identify the body as being a SYDNEY crewmember, though nothing conclusive has yet been determined.

When the two wreckages were found, it corroborated the accounts of the KORMORAN survivors. The signs reflected the battle described, and the survivors saw the SYDNEY sail over the horizon. Very shortly after, they saw a large explosion on the horizon.

I had a quick look for the PHILADELPHIA but only found normal warship histories. Perhaps you meant the INDIANAPOLIS? Thanks!

ETA: The reason I raised the whole story (apart from raising the profile of the SYDNEY event) was demonstrating how some people will accept a "conspiracy" based solely on "evidence" provided by those making the claim. I am unfamiliar with the JFK side of the shop, but I am sure people have tried to make claims based on "evidence" which has been proven non-existent or incorrect. There are many other examples I can think of:

In the Apollo realm, it is stories such as "Una Ronald" promoted by various sites like aulis.com and others. A West Australian, the claim is that she rushed home from work to watch the Apollo 11 moonwalk live in the evening. During the moonwalk, she was amazed to see a coke bottle bounce across the screen. Repeats of the footage did not show this, but there were numerous "letters to the editor" in the paper mentioning it in the days that followed. Aulis claimed that they asked the local newspaper - The West Australian - about this, but did not receive any reply after numerous inquiries.

Being a West Australian by birth, I could not remember this incident as described and so I researched the subject. I do remember being at school in WA and watching the moonwalk live.

First error - the moonwalk happened (live) during the late morning in WA, not in the evening. The evening was filled with videotaped repeats of the moonwalk.

Second error - examination of the microfiche copies of the WA newspapers (The West Australian and the Daily News) for two weeks following the moon landing found no letter to the editor as described, nor any other reports that substantiated the "Una Ronald" claim.

It's things like this. The claim sounds genuine at first, but examination proves it wrong.

No, no, no Bill - far from it. It's just you have to thoroughly investigate all conspiracy claims. Most all sound plausible or correct at first... but often the details reveal they are far from correct.

The Background: HMAS SYDNEY was a Royal Australian Navy light cruiser. In 1941, it battled the German raider HSK KORMORAN off the coast of Western Australia. After the battle, the SYDNEY was seen to sail away, heavily damaged. Nothing more was seen or heard from the SYDNEY or its 645 crewmembers. The details of the battle were relayed by survivors from the KORMORAN. It was the greatest loss of life for an Australian warship, and became a popular mystery. The wreckages of both the SYDNEY and KORMORAN were finally discovered in March 2008.

The Claims:Michael Montgomery, son of the SYDNEY's navigator Charles Montgomery. claims that rather being sunk by the KORMORAN, SYDNEY was actually sunk by a Japanese submarine. He also claims that this was known by the British and Australian governments but had been covered up for over 60 years because of embarrassment over the sinking. As evidence of his claims were the following:

- Cablegrams between Britain and Australian authorities referring to the sinking by Japanese submarine.

- Contents from the diary of Hetty Hall, a signals operator at the British naval radio station in Singapore, referring to the sinking by Japanese submarine.

- The recollections of Major Austin Chapman, who was stationed in Japan as part of the occupation forces in 1945. Whilst there, he visited the Imperial Japanese Naval Academy and saw a mural on a wall which depicted a Japanese submarine firing on an Australian warship flying the Australian White Ensign. Since there were no other incidents between Australian warships and Japanese submarines, it must be the SYDNEY sinking.

- An expert disputes the findings of the Australian War Memorial ballistics team regarding how the SYDNEY was sunk.

All sound pretty convincing, doesn't it? However, deeper research reveals many common conspiracy faults.

The Truth:

Cablegrams - When asked to produce the cablegrams supporting the claims, Mr Montgomery admitted he could not. Mr Montgomery claims this is because the government has removed all evidence of their existence. (Absence of evidence is evidence)

The diary - When the diary was examined, it was found not to contain any reference to the incident at all. Furthermore, it was discovered that Mrs Hall was not even on duty at the time of the sinking. (Creating imaginary evidence)

The Australian White Ensign - Flown by all RAN ships, the AWE was not introduced until 1967. Prior to this Australian warships flew the Royal Navy's White Ensign. (Factual errors)

Ballistics - The expert that disputed the ballistic investigation was an expert in Forensic Sedimentology, not ballistics. The War Memorial team were experts in ballistics investigation. (People speaking authoritatively in areas where they do not have expertise)

**********************

I like the comments by Commissioner Terence Cole, president of the inquiry:

"What you have done is transfer speculation plus a possibility into a certainty of the existence of this Japanese submarine. This is not a very happy process of logic."

(Thanks to Count Zero for pointing this out)

If anyone does not believe the image is pixelated, I would recommend they download the image themselves and use the zoom function on their imaging application of choice to go into 800% of the original image size. The image pixelates because of the resolution of the scan.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...141-21608HR.jpg

We should also consider that Jack Schmitt would have been facing roughly towards the visor (about 30 degrees off) and so the PLSS backpack would not have been clearly visible.

I'd agree with Len - there is insufficient detail. Here is a crop of AS17-141-21608HR increased to 800% of normal size. You can see the pixelation, making it impossible to determine fine detail.

I'd say it is another case of an over-active imagination.

Pardon me for butting in to an area where I have no knowledge, but I saw mention of records and such. It made me think it might be worth mentioning something.

My own records record nothing of me qualifying as a marksman with the SLR (FN Self Loading Rifle), as well as a couple of other minor courses. A Commander who works with me is just preparing to leave full time service. He was going his records, and discovered a couple of things: although there was record of him going through operational flying training, there is no record of him ever having completed his observer course (Observer = Navigator). Yet he has wings, has flown for thousands of hours, and has trained lots of people... which there is also no record of. The records omit any reference to him being a Qualified Observer Instructor (QOI) even though there are numerous people who can attest to having been trained by him.

My point is this: records can omit information. Just because something is not in someone's records does not mean that they did not do something.

Just something to consider.

Irrelevant obfuscation non sequitur will fool only the unwary.

Asking about scale is meaningless. Why assume this is an

orbital photo? I have the same image from an earth telescope

and an orbital photo.

Jack

You are really demonstrating your inability here, Jack. Come on - think through it. You are talking about "jagged mountains" (which means vertical relief), and to prove it you are using a map (overhead) projection. Your "proof" consists of shadows, marked by coloured lines. You are using the shadows to indicate vertical relief.

What thickness are those lines in full scale, Jack? 1 foot? 100 foot? 1 mile? 5 miles?

What scale is the image? Do you even know?

If we refer to the map I previously provided, we have contour lines with vertical relief marked.

Show me the "jagged mountains" on the map.

I asked for clear evidence, because you have once again shown your inability in this area. Here is a clue:

Jack - what scale is the orbital image you have shown?

Here is a topographic map of the Apollo 15 landing area.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/LTO41B4S1(50)sm.jpg

Where are the "jagged mountains"? Can you show any maps that clearly show "jagged mountains"? How about the SELENE images from JAXA, a non-NASA source? Clear evidence of "jagged mountains" please, because like most people, I have no faith in your ability as a photo analyst... especially when we are talking about analysis of lunar topography.

BTW - I wouldn't use the word "striation":

Geology. any of a number of scratches or parallel grooves on the surface of a rock, resulting from the action of moving ice, as of a glacier.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=striation

Graphic being reworked. Website I obtained the image from identified

this photo as showing Mt. Hadley. I am checking to see whether that

is correct.

Jack

Yes...I doubled checked my graphic and it is correct. The two different

views from the landing site are mutually exclusive.

Jack

This shows that the two views are mutually exclusive.

Jack

And you start a new thread... where your mistakes aren't seen? Tsk, tsk, Jack.

You can actually see the 'missing' portion from what Jack has chosen to show you here:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.1472712pan8.jpg

Jack, for reasons known only to himself, has chosen to crop the image... which - if he had shown the whole image - would have easily explained the "discrepancy" that Jack "found".

As per usual, Jack is wrong and demonstrates his complete lack of ability when applied towards Apollo image analysis.

Boy oh boy - do you have a copy of each? That is some library.

Mine is mostly Apollo / space, but there are a number there I am still going to try and purchase.

Thanks Shanet!

Okay, I don't expect an answer.

The views are "incompatible" because they are images of different features.

One is of Mt Hadley, the other (the B&W copy of a colour image, AS15-87-11832) is of Swann Range.

See here.

And still no image numbers...

ETA: BTW, like the way you have removed all evidence of your previous gross error. I think in time to come, you'll claim you never made the error.

I don't think Jack will be back to reply, so let me explain why I asked for the image numbers.

The images are from different Apollo missions.

The top-left image is a composite shot including AS17-147-22515 through AS17-147-22520. It shows the South Massif in the background.

AS17-147-22517

The bottom image is a composite pan shot including AS15-87-11835 through to AS15-87-11839. It has Mt Hadley in the background.

AS15-87-11838

I don't know why Jack would post this for amusement; it simply reinforces his track record of being sadly lacking in any skill regarding Apollo image analysis. If it was meant to be some type of joke ("amusement"), it was far too subtle.

Is there a reason that you seem reticent to give the image numbers?

Errr - huh?

In one view you are looking to the south (SSW) of the LM, and in the other you are looking to the west (WNW). Remember the directional system associated with the LM?

The ladder is on the 'west' side, and the big flat panel at the back of the LM is on the 'east' side.

So the views from the LM are about 90 degrees apart. So what is the problem with the images?

BTW, please remember to identify what images you are using by the catalogue number. That way people can independently confirm what you are saying.

Jack - no reply from you yet as to how you can be so sure that Mark Cuban is being "persecuted" and the charges are "spurious".

spu⋅ri⋅ous [spyoor-ee-uhs]

–adjective

1. not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.

2. Biology. (of two or more parts, plants, etc.) having a similar appearance but a different structure.

3. of illegitimate birth; bastard.

My understanding (which may well be flawed) is that it is coming down to an interpretation of what constitutes "insider trading". Apparently Mr Cuban has committed this... though personally I think he has done nothing wrong, despite the definition of insider trading.

It's a complex subject, and I don't know who is right. There are respected, qualified scientists & researchers are on both sides of the argument; there is no firm consensus. That's why I take the side of caution until we can be sure it is not warranted.

I have no idea, but I think it's better to defend against a problem that isn't there than be caught out. Anyway, saw this article and thought it was worth sharing.

The price of dissent on global warming

David Bellamy | November 25, 2008

Article from: The Australian

WHEN I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that? The sad fact is that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming, I've not been allowed to make a television program.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: "I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?"

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children's program Blue Peter, and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy, so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line, and I wasn't doing that.

At that point, I was still making loads of TV programs and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored, but I found that people didn't get back to me. At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: "This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic," and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we've seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly, and they have not grown for a long time.

I've seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies: CO2 is not the driver. The idiot fringe has accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles. It's a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago, we'd be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn't be here otherwise.

People such as former American vice-president Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming, which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you've got no proof. And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that CO2 has anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry.

In fact, it's not even science any more; it's anti-science.

There's no proof, it's just projections, and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry-pick the ones that support their beliefs. To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there's nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.

And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that's not global warming. They're drying up for the very simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water once used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and vegetables for the supermarkets of Europe. One of Gore's biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming.

Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every tonne of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water. The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I'm still an environmentalist, I'm still a Green and I'm still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming "problem" that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world. Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are bigger problems at stake.

I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, something I've been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out, but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas. That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.

David Bellamy is a botanist, author of 35 books, and has presented 400 television programs.