Kevin M. West

I've read her work, it's nonsense. She has each ball released and start from 0 velocity as the one above it reaches its level. In reality the one above it would be impacting the one below and transferring momentum to it, and each floor would fail faster than the one before it as the momentum of the falling load increased.

Duane, projection will get you nowhere. I have never 'played dumb' or avoided discussing any issue you've brought up. You are the one who cut & pastes other people's work here then can't back any of it up with facts.

Oh I'm sure you won't believe me Duane, as it doesn't fit into your paranoid view of the world, but there is no teamwork here, at least as far as I'm concerned. I don't know or talk to any of these guys outside of the posts you see here in public (which are mostly replies to you and Jack) and on a few other public forums, most of which you've been a member of at one time. Nothing's going on behind your back. Us having similar opinions of your theories does not make it a conspiracy against you.

Bet Duane's post is a #6!

As far as I've seen, it doesn't apply to the studies either. Once he's proven wrong he tends to stop replying to the thread and disapear for a while before starting a new thread with one of his other studies.

Sorry you're both wrong still. Even if the zapruder film is fake (just an example, I haven't studied JFK), if you want to show evidence in one of the frames of the film you have to identify which frame it is.

And if you had read this thread, you would have seen that Dave pointed that out in post #208. Ask youtube, they are the ones saying 10 minutes and letting through things that are 10 minutes and a few seconds.

So? You only have to give us one of them to identify the image. Relevance? So? Just tell us where you got the image. Again, so what? Irrelevant. For example? A) Have you EVER done a study on an actual print of the photo, not an online scan? The numbers are nothing but a label, how could they be fake? Circular logic at its best (or worst depending on your PoV). Post it and we'll see!

Well I know nothing about the people who run this site and their abilities and/or willingness to do it, but there should be logs that can be searched to see if the thread was locked. On my own forums I have been called to do similar things and the result was never ambiguous.

I have to agree with Craig, although he might have said that a little more diplomatically. If you look at the history of moderators commenting on people insulting each other, they nearly always direct their posts towards the pro-apollo side. But if you look at who is doing the actual insulting, it's Jack and Duane 90% of the time, without moderators paying any attention to it.

You have to read all of Jack's threads. It's not erroneous research, it's him being deceptive, and it's way beyond that being just my opinion, it's a fact. He is attempting photographic analysis without revealing the images that he is analyzing, he is manipulating the images without identifying how, and then he is making claims based on the manipulated images when he knows those claims do not apply to the originals. In EVERY thread we ask him for the image numbers so we can see the originals, and he REFUSES to give them, claiming it's somehow irrelevant. Then we find the originals and it turns out that they were relevant every time. His 'research' doesn't make any sense in context, so he hides the context, and even admits to doing so by preemptively saying he won't give us image numbers before we even ask for them. How is that not deceptive?

Here's a tip for you Jack. Always write long posts in a text editor and then cut & paste them in when you're ready to submit. You never know when a forum might lose your session, your browser might crash, etc. By the way, the '4 sticks' photo was explained in the last thread, and yet again the image numbers that you REFUSED to give led to the answer. Can you do some honest work for once and give the source images and tell how you manipulated them?

You're probably right Dave, it's probably just an artifact of using a crappy low-rez copy then rotating it and lowering the quality more while using crappy software. My own results after rotating, scaling, and saving as jpg resulted in a more visible fiducial. But this is Jack we're talking about, who doesn't think the details are important in photographic analysis.

So Jack, or Bernice, or whoever did your work for you did you... Why did you blur out the fiducials that would have shown that the images were rotated? I guess we know why you refuse to give image numbers, seeing the originals makes it clear that you're lying about them being nearly identical.

Jack, if you seriously want an answer, tell us what the image numbers are. Apollo is well documented and the answer can be found, but no one has the entire thing memorized. Until you take this seriously, why should anyone else?

Duane, if experimenting and posting the results is what you consider 'mind games', I guess that explains why you refuse to actually post anything in support of your arguments.

Again, the features of your so-called bulb are perfectly aligned with the rest of the lens flare and the center of the frame, prefectly consistent with it being the sun, a lense flare, and overexposure. For that to be a light, a lot of work would have to go into aligning the camera and the internal features of the light. They would have to rotate the light on its axis to keep the bulb holder perfectly aligned with the center of the frame, for each shot. Why the hell would they do that? Why would they be taking pictures of a spotlight in the first place?

Here we see why Jack cut the area in question out of the original picture before 'enhancing' it. I scaled it back to the proper size and put it in the right position in the original image using the 2 fiducials visible in the 'enhanced' version. In the full context of the image, it immediatly becomes clear that the 'features' of the light are exactly aligned with the rest of the lens flare and the center fiducial. What he 'enhanced' was overexposure and lens flare. Does anyone have the image numbers for the other images used? I'd be willing to bet they are also in perfect alignment with the center of the lens, just like a flare.

His study didn't prove anything, it just provided his interpretation of an image (that he did not explain how he manipulated). What his 'enhancement' revealed, in my opinion, is the sun, with a lens flare going through it, in the middle of the overexposed area. I will do my own study of jack's study and post it here soon.

Won't waste time defending his work because he can't.

Why do you have to 'cipher through' anything? If they are all wrong, you can pick any of them, no searching required.

So like I said, you can't explain why you think it's wrong?

So you can't tell me why my video is wrong?

Why can't you give a single specific example? Just saying 'all of it' is no good, because whatever I pick you'll just say 'no not that one' when I show it's consistant. I want you to pick an example so you can't accuse me of cherry-picking the good bits.

Ah typical Duane, can't argue his position, so he just starts insulting people. What exactly is wrong with my video?