One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Jack White]

There are photos where the same backgrounds were used repeatedly at different locations and also photos of one scene where the backgrounds change , that seem to have nothing to do with the parallax view.

I will post some evidence of that when I have more time .

I'll be interested in seeing that, but what I am expecting is the same old mistakes ala Jack.

Thanks for posting the comparison of AS17-135-20542 and AS 17-143-21933.

I have posted such a comparison in the past, and nobody will explain why

the two rovers ARE CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY, BUT IN THE SAME LOCATION within

a few inches. And what about tracks?

The equipment attached to the rear is totally different. Where was all the

equipment discarded and why? The latter shot is said to be the FINAL RESTING

PLACE of the LRV...but why is it so far from the LM? Why should they have to

WALK that great distance back to the LM when they could have driven? Why lug

a fender and a fake fender all that way? Why did they ditch the missing

equipment? Why is the rear axle configured differently...long in one, short

in the other?

All good questions begging to be answered.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

You have been told the answer before, but you simply refuse to listen. Once again:

In your study you show two images.

The image on the left (AS17-135-20542) was taken at 141 hrs 27 mins, at the SEP site during EVA-2.

The second image (AS17-143-21933) was taken at 170 hrs 24 mins, nearly 30 hours later, at the closeout of EVA-3.

During that time, well, I guess they might have moved some of the stuff on the LRV. It would be a shame to have spent all that time collecting samples and then not take them back with you.

Some of the points Jack has raised about the LRV:

1. The rake:

ALSJ -

169:23:22 Schmitt: Say again, Bob. You want that...(To Gene, having reached the gate) I don't have a scoop, I don't even have a rake.

169:23:28 Cernan: They're both gone, huh?

169:23:29 Schmitt: Yup.

[Jack's EP-2 "locator" - AS17-143-21924 - shows that the rake and scoop were gone at that time. A comparison with AS17-135- 20542 suggests that the extension handles came out of the mounting brackets. Those are shown most clearly in AS17-146-22296 which was taken at the end of Station 6. At 169:38:29, they will confirm that the extension handles were lost, that it was a failure of the mounting brackets that caused the losses.]

[schmitt - "A bunch of Okies going across the countryside, dropping stuff right and left."]

2. This is the Lunar Seismic Profiling Experiment (LSPE), which contained explosives. No need to take unused explosives back. See here.

3. See 1.

4. Sample container bags. The samples have been transferred to the LM and the spare bags discarded.

5. The fender:

170:01:00 Schmitt: I will. (Long Pause)

[AS17-143- 21932 shows the final Rover parking configuration.]

[Cernan - "I sit here (looking at the picture) and swear that I parked the Rover with the wheels straight. That's the final parking? Well, we're behind the LM and it's about the right distance."]

[schmitt - "Why doesn't it have a fender?"]

[Cernan - "I took it off. Both of them. I took them both home."]

[At some point before he goes back to the LM, Gene will remove the replacement fender - which is now at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington. He will also remove the rear section of the left rear fender - which is now on display at the Johnson Space Center's Visitor's Center.]

also:

170:19:48 Cernan: Okay; let me get one parting shot (photo) one of the finest running little machines I've ever had the pleasure to drive. (Pause)

[Gene takes AS17-143- 21931 to 21934. One of the best of these is 21933. Note Gene has removed the replacement fender and, from the left side, the rear extension. One seismic charge (LSPE) remains in the transporter. Gene will deployit at the west end of the SEP antenna array at 170:24:16]

6. That's the LRV frame, Jack. The frame is in shadow.

7. Jack must have cut the top off the antenna when he did one of his infamous 'crop jobs'. It's clearly there in AS17-143-21933.

Here is a good diagramme of the LRV and it's equipment:

LRV details (diagramme from Press Kit) from the National Air & Space Museum

The background:

Once again, the similarity of backgrounds has fooled people. In 20542, the point Jack has indicated is NOT the same point as he has indicated in 21933. The point indicated in 20542 is actually to the left of the position Jack has marked in 21933, and can be see in the FULL frame. In this case, Jack has cropped it out.

Here is a comparison of the horizons. The top two images are the ones Jack has used (20542 and 21933), joined together, then compared with a pan shot of the horizon. The bottom image is from a pan shot taken at the LM, and consists of AS17-147-22493 through AS17-147-22497.

Comparison of AS17-135-20542 (HR), AS17-143-21933 (HR), and AS17-147-22493 through AS17-147-22497 (cropped, annotated, scaled)

The pan shot I have used above is taken from just north of the LM. You can see it in the full pan (known as

Jack's 4 o'clock EVA-1 LM Pan).

I've also made a 'locator' mud map so you can get an idea of where the images where taken from, what they where looking at, and what features you would expect to see.

Now, some things to note.

In AS17-135-20542 & AS17-143-21933, we are EAST of the LM.

You can see the LM in 21933.

In 20542, it is hidden behind the LRV. Have a look at 20541 (the preceeding frame), and you can see the LM. Both frames are taken from the about the same location, but in 20541 the LRV is still at the LM, just about to leave.

The reason that the LM appears to "move" (as Jack is bound to question this) is because they are taken from different perspectives with regard to the LM. They are both about 150m east of the LM, but remember that those "hills" are over 10km away.

Don't forget to check the ALSJ, check all the pans I have referenced, and the individual images I have presented. Make sure for yourself what I am telling you is correct.

The "editor comments" - the LRV was NOT parked "several kilometers away from the LM". It had to be 137m (that's METRES) away from the LM in order for the LRV camera to be able to pan and catch the ascent stage launching.

170:20:41 Parker: Roger. We're satisfied with the TV, Gene. We're ready for you to take the EP number 3. (Pause)

[Gene is now on CDR-33. In Houston, Fendell tells the Flight Director that the distance is "well over" the 450 feet (137 meters) he needs. An analysis of mission photographs of the LM taken at the final parking place and at the SEP deployment site indicates that Gene parked the Rover about 158 meters from the LM.]

Here is another comparison of the horizon:

[Duane Daman]

Your pictures and maps and charts ( some of which come from self serving nasa web sites )are not proof that men really landed on the Moon , or that those photographs were taken on the Moon .

All you're doing is posting fake looking PAN photos , repeating nasa's story , and some conversations between a couple of the astronots from the ALSJ , that allegedy took place on the Moon .... but could just as easily have taken place on one of nasa's many moonsets .

To quote one of the Apollo astronots , in one of the many videos suppossedly filmed on the Moon ... "These simulations sure are realistic looking " .

Well, not really .

I will post that video as well , as soon as I have the time , so we can see who let it slip that the boys weren't really on the Moon at all , but just bouncing around in slow motion on some cheesy looking moonset !

[Evan Burton]

Your pictures and maps and charts ( some of which come from self serving nasa web sites )are not proof that men really landed on the Moon , or that those photographs were taken on the Moon .

Predictable. What you mean is that you cannot find anything wrong with my rebuttals to Jack's claims. He said "... no-one will explain why..." yet the response I posted was the response I gave to his Aulis studies in MAR 06, over a year ago. It's that trick I have previously mentioned that HB'ers use: ignore the rebuttal, remain silent on the matter for a while, then raise the same thing again months later, ignoring previous replies and hoping no-one will notice this has been raised and proven wrong before.

I should also remind you the burden of proof is on you, Jack, and others who share your opinion, to provide the evidence of fakery in order to support your claims. None of you has ever been able to do that.

[Gavin Stone]

Indeed, I've spotted this before as well Evan. Infact, I've seen Duane post pictures on one site, ADMIT that he is wrong and that the explanation made sense and then post it again a couple of months later.

[Evan Burton]

Indeed, I've spotted this before as well Evan. Infact, I've seen Duane post pictures on one site, ADMIT that he is wrong and that the explanation made sense and then post it again a couple of months later.

Just off the cuff, I think that is because there are only so many "reasonable" claims they can make before the claims become ludicrous, such as a wrecker on the Moon, etc, or downright lies. The "reasonable" claims are those that might appear credible on the surface but when subjected to greater scrutiny or more detailed research is conducted, become obviously wrong. Others are ones which are testable, and recreation proves the claim false. Soon, claims become a repeat of the same situation but in a different image, and therefore have the same explanation.

In order to maintain their belief but not be forced in to absurd claims (secret cities on the Moon), they ignore the explanation / rebuttal of the claim, lay the claim aside, and return to it later with renewed fervor.

This is why I support repositories of detailed explanations. Someone makes claim A. You prove it wrong with answer A'. They move onto B, you reply with B'. Later, they return A. Instead of having to go through the whole process again (which is sometimes their aim - wear you down), you simply refer back to A'. They then try to do a variation, C2. The premise is still explained by C', so note the difference and refer to C'.

Boards where the most fanatical of HB'ers post can be telling. If you have the time and inclination, you can show where the same questions have been asked and answered time and time again, where the same situation is raised over and over. This is not always possible; a cowardly person might erase all their history so as to cover up their pattern. Sites like the wayback machine or other internet archives can negate this tactic.

[Jack White]

The wrecker was NOT ON THE MOON.

It was on the MOONSET, to lift heavy props.

Get your info correct instead of misstating. Ludicrous!

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Sorry, I was slightly misrepresenting you; you say it was - for some inexplicable reason - left on the "moonset" during the super-top-secret-faking of the Apollo 12 images.

I've stated my position on this before: it's an artifact (probably compression) upon which you have mis-applied Photoshop and then used a vivid imagination on to determine what it is.

I've also stated my challenge regarding this before: I say it is misuse of Photoshop; you'll probably say it is not. Let's pass the originals and your conclusions / analysis to the makers of Photoshop (or another equally qualified group) and let them determine if your method is valid.

The challenge still stands - will you accept it?

[Dave Greer]

The latter shot is said to be the FINAL RESTING

PLACE of the LRV...but why is it so far from the LM? Why should they have to

WALK that great distance back to the LM when they could have driven?

<snip>

All good questions begging to be answered.

Jack

These questions have been answered previously.

You asked the question on Feb 7 2007, 07:18 PM.

Source

I answered in the very next post.

It had to be parked a set distance away from the LM so that the operator (Ed Fendell) could properly capture the take-off of the ascent stage using the TV camera on the rover. Yes, he allowed for the time difference between moon and earth, knew the rate of climb of the LM, and how fast his camera could tilt upwards.

Kevin West also responded - you must have read his post because you replied to it.

Source

Evan also provided a link to another thread where this very question (and many of your Aulis studies) are answered. Here's the link again, you can use it as a starting point to see if any of your claims already have a rebuttal/explanation or not.

Link.

Jack, one of the reasons you have little or no credibility is that you keep doing this time and time again. If you at least acknowledged that a rebuttal had been provided, and either demonstrated why you believe it to be wrong, or accept it as an explanation, you might go some way to regaining that credibility.

[Dave Greer]

Your pictures and maps and charts ( some of which come from self serving nasa web sites )are not proof that men really landed on the Moon , or that those photographs were taken on the Moon .

All you're doing is posting fake looking PAN photos , repeating nasa's story , and some conversations between a couple of the astronots from the ALSJ , that allegedy took place on the Moon .... but could just as easily have taken place on one of nasa's many moonsets .

It's that troublesome wee beastie called "burden of proof" again Duane. If you want to show that history has been wrongly recorded, then you need to prove it. All you've managed to prove so far is that your original interpretation of some Apollo 15 images was wrong (by your own admission). Changing your mind over how it was faked is not proof of a hoax. You still need to provide empirical evidence that proves the photographic evidence is fake. You might think it's sufficient to simply declare an Apollo lunar photo to be that of a "cheesy looking moon set", but your argument is hardly convincing is it? At least Jack usually provides a study to demonstrate his points, even if those studies are IMO poorly conceived.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Jack White]

Posting a "REBUTTAL" is not the same as "proof".

Any "rebuttal" which quotes NASA sources is self-serving

and does not constitute "proof".

NASA is the one on trial. Any "evidence" they supply

is suspect. It amounts to the defendants claiming they

are innocent, so should be acquitted.

I have yet to see a rebuttal which is anything but

opinion.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Posting a "REBUTTAL" is not the same as "proof".

Any "rebuttal" which quotes NASA sources is self-serving

and does not constitute "proof".

NASA is the one on trial. Any "evidence" they supply

is suspect. It amounts to the defendants claiming they

are innocent, so should be acquitted.

I have yet to see a rebuttal which is anything but

opinion.

Jack

Ah! The classic HB'ers 'Get Out of Jail Free Card' No 2:

The only images of Apollo are from NASA. The voice A/G transcripts are from NASA. The only images of Apollo hardware are from NASA or NASA contractors. Deny the use of these images (because they are from a "tainted" source) and you effectively cut off any chance of your claim being disproved.

Bit wrong there, my friend. You have to PROVE - repeat PROVE - that they have been altered. You need to PROVE that the transcripts are faked. So far, everything matches up... and this from an organisation which - according to you - has whistleblowers leaving clues left right and centre, and makes tremendous blunders like leaving wrecking trucks on "moonsets".

Compare this to a person who still gets his LM Quad I mixed up with his Quad IV, cannot recognise when the viewpoint of an LM has shifted 90 degrees, still claims (and is the only one) that NASA seems to switch sides in the carrying of the LRV, that still claims a shadow must point to the centre-bottom of an image, etc, etc.

You keep on trying, though, champ. There will always be someone out there who will listen to you and believe you, regardless of anything to the contrary.

[Jack White]

I have never claimed that APOLLO IMAGES ARE ALTERED.

My claim is that they are misrepresented as being taken on

the surface of the moon, when they obviously were taken

in an earthly setting. The photos are NOT FAKE; they

are real photos. Only the APOLLO EVENTS were faked,

not the photos.

Misstating my position is unworthy of a mighty moderator.

Jack

PS...I ignore your repeated "challenges" regarding my

"photoshopping" images because they are meaningless.

Though I own the PhotoShop program, I hardly ever

use it and have never used it in my Apollo studies.

All of my chroma pseudocolor studies are easily

replicated by anyone with ANY good graphics program;

get anyone you want to replicate them. All they have to

do is change COLOR LEVELS for RGB and the computer

finds the anomalies without ANY help.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Jack White

[Evan Burton]

I have never claimed that APOLLO IMAGES ARE ALTERED.

My claim is that they are misrepresented as being taken on

the surface of the moon, when they obviously were taken

in an earthly setting. The photos are NOT FAKE; they

are real photos. Only the APOLLO EVENTS were faked,

not the photos.

Misstating my position is unworthy of a mighty moderator.

Jack

PS...I ignore your repeated "challenges" regarding my

"photoshopping" images because they are meaningless.

Though I own the PhotoShop program, I hardly ever

use it and have never used it in my Apollo studies.

All of my chroma pseudocolor studies are easily

replicated by anyone with ANY good graphics program;

get anyone you want to replicate them. All they have to

do is change COLOR LEVELS for RGB and the computer

finds the anomalies without ANY help.

Ah! Card No3 - Move the goalposts.

Just exactly what do you claim, Jack? Shall we refer to your Aulis studies? Please note that I have taken downloads of each, and services such as the Wayback Machine also take archival records of such sites. The most accurate is to repeat your claims verbatim from where you have made them, and give links to such claims.

[Evan Burton]

PS...I ignore your repeated "challenges" regarding my

"photoshopping" images because they are meaningless. Though I own the PhotoShop program, I hardly ever use it and have never used it in my Apollo studies. All of my chroma pseudocolor studies are easily replicated by anyone with ANY good graphics program; get anyone you want to replicate them. All they have to do is change COLOR LEVELS for RGB and the computer finds the anomalies without ANY help.

Ah ha! HB'ers Card No4: Misdirection. Jack, you state - IN YOUR VERY OWN STUDY - that you used Photoshop. You even capitalised it... and this is the study I am talking about. Not other studies where you may or may not have used Photoshop - but this study, and the one which I have repeatedly offered the challenge to you, and which you repeatedly ignore.

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12wreckercomp.jpg

Don't bother changing it - the Wayback machine has a copy, and so do I. You specifically stated you used Photoshop.

Edited to add: please use the link, and take a copy of the claim Jack has made about the wrecker. prove it for yourself that I am not making an inaccurate quote about what Jack has said.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Evan Burton