Kevin M. West

Jack, the image was never removed, you just can't find it because you're looking for the wrong image number. You have it incorrectly labeled as as17-137-20477 when it's as17-134-20477.

Yes, the type of people you're dealing with here are the type that want evidence, not stories with nothing other than your word to back them up. I've watched the videos, I saw nothing in them that showed any connection between trails in the sky and anything happening on the ground. Could you point that out in one of the videos?

Actually it's not that one, it's the lower resolution version in Jack's study: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471.jpg

And Kevin posts yet another one liner! Sorry, but where I live is none of your business. But if you want to see the proof that people all over the world are getting ill from chemtrail spraying, then watch the video evidence I posted here.. Then do some research yourself. My guess is you won't even bother though, considering the fact that you're about as interested in the truth of this subject as you are in the truth about Apollo. Don't make up stories of epidemic if you aren't willing to back them up with simple things like when and where. I find it funny that the story started with you and a friend getting sick, but as soon as it's pointed out that everyone else should have been affected, it became "an epidemic in my town of 'flu', vertigo, and rashes that appeared to be shingles." You'd think that if it were true, you would have started with that. I've seen the videos, none of them have a shred of evidence actually linking contrails with anything on the ground.

What town is that, and when?

Flu and dizziness are symptoms of a lot of things. Known for "chemtrails" which happen to look exactly like contrails? Doubtful given what I said before about how long an aerosol at altitude will take to reach the ground. Which brings up an interesting point. One of the primary identifiers of "chemtrails" is that they persist for longer than expected (although possible wih contrails) but if they are persisting and still in the air then how are they affect you on the ground at the same time miles away? I've been walking in that park every day for many years .. I never got sick until the two times the chemtrail grid was overhead.. It's a known fact that the chemicals the military is spraying eventualy reaches the ground, making people ill.. It's also a fact that this is happening all over the world. So was there an epidemic, or did they somehow get the contrails covering the sky to only target you and your friend?

Appatrently you can't read either.. Where does it say the 80MM lens was only used in the CM? 80 mm f/2.8 Lens. Standard or normal lens for the 70 mm camera with 2-1/4 x 2-1/4-inch film format. Used for general still photography when a wide angle or telephoto view is not required. Focuses from 3 feet to infinity. Has built-in shutter with speeds from 1 second to 1/500 second. Field of view, each side, is approximately 38 x 38 degrees. Apparently you can't read either.

The second quote about the 80mm is for the camera used in the command module.

Also from that page: "The Data Camera was fitted with a new Zeiss lens, a Biogon f-5.6/60 mm, specially designed for NASA, which later became available commercially."

Who said this one was dust on the lens? It's clearly not, it's scanner noise. And they're not sharp points, you made them sharp by drastically increasing the contrast. Like most non-digital photographers, West considers a photograph an "absolute". IT IS NOT. When did I say that? Why do you guys keep making up opinions for me? Of course it's not. I specifically said you altered the contrast, which is exactly the opposite of it being absolute. What you seem to be forgetting is that you're working with compressed digital SCANS of negatives. It doesn't matter at all that you can make prints of various brightness/contrast levels from the negative, since you aren't working with the negative anymore. You're working with a copy of it that was made with a specific amount of exposure that can't be changed after the fact. And to make matters worse, you're working with a jepg copy. Jpeg is a lossy compression method. Wrong Jack, I do understand it, you seem to not understand my point at all though. I'm not debating that changing the contrast can make things easier to see. I am debating WHAT you are seeing. You can't turn up the contrast until little specs that were almost invisible in the background are now solid white with sharp edges, and then claim that the sharp edges are evidence of anything. They are only evidence that you increased the contrast too much. Remember the image you just posted with the "stars" inside a crater?

Love to see you match up either of those images with actual star charts.

No, I didn't use those exact words, or anything close to them, don't misquote me. I said Jack manipulated the image, which he did. I did NOT say he did it for nefarious purposes. That would imply that he was trying to deceive, when I think he's just mistaken.

Who said this one was dust on the lens? It's clearly not, it's scanner noise. And they're not sharp points, you made them sharp by drastically increasing the contrast.

Well, according to "MRphotogod", I believe that exposure time would be about 30 seconds to be able to image stars above the lunar surface.. Too bad the Apollo astonots never bothered to use that exposure time, or even take a tripod to the Moon, so everyone could see those amazing looking, brilliant stars above the "moon". But then I guess hitting golf balls around was more important than photographing stars. As for the guy who got lens size wrong, ever heard of a typo before? .. How about an honest mistake which would not effect his ability to calculate the distance of the "earth" from the "lunar" horizon in the faked Apollo 17 photos, where NASA FINALLY remembered to put some images of "earth" into their anomalous pics. Why would you go to the moon to take pictures of the stars? The view isn't better from there, it's worse.

The AS15-85-11425HR image used by that researcher was from a Hassie high res original NASA photo, not from a scanned copy. The original photos aren't digital. The images online are ALL scanned copies.

If the stars didn't register on the film, then how would they show up on a digital scan of the same film made decades later? Why would all of the photos show the same effect? Dust accumulates over time, and can also be cleaned off. There's no reason to expect the same effect to show up on all of the photos. I don't see what's lame about any of those explanations, they are all perfectly valid explanations for a variety of so-called "anomalies" seen in the apollo photos.

Are you kidding me? OF COURSE I enhanced the photo and cropped it. That is what one does when using computer analysis. That is what I said I did. Are you kidding me? I wasn't replying to you, Jack, I was replying to Duane who implied that you didn't manipulate the photo.

Are you kidding me? If you want proof that Jack photoshopped the image, just compare it to the original. This is AS17-137-20891. What jack posted was cropped and heavily manipulated by photoshop (and I use the term generically here, it could be any image editing software). Clearly not manipulated in the same way as the picture right next to it. How can you manipulate a photo 2 different ways and then claim the difference in the results is anyone's fault other than your own?

So rather than address the arguments, you attack the posters, ignore the arguments, and post more garbage. Typical.

Jack, neither of those are crops of the images you claim they are. They have been photoshopped by conspiracy theorists. And they haven't been manipulated in the same way, so comparing them is silly. Considering you haven't shown the originals of either, or told us exactly how they were both manipulated, your "study" is worthless.

Of course he is debating Jack, Jack is posting more than just images, he's posting images with arguments included. If Jack would post just the images, and you the arguments, then it would be fair for Evan to only respond to you. But that isn't what is happening.

Has it occurred to you that the moons "furface" is not flat, and the horizon can be on a hill, reducing that 54 degrees?

If you read the moderator actions thread, he says he unapproved (not deleted, just not visible) posts (multiple, not just yours) until the issue of copyright could be determined. He did not accuse you of copyright violation.

Jim, I wonder why Evan won't answer your question about your deleted post? It might be a good idea for you to back up every word you post here, just in case some of your other posts go "missing", for reasons yet to be explained by any of the moderators. Evan already answered, he said it wasn't him and you should ask the forum admins so you get the answer from an unbiased source.

In that image? The crater and Surveyor 3 are out of frame to the lower right. See the 50m scale? 600 feet is 3.65 times that distance. Try a wider view: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20090903_apollo12.html