One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Dave Greer]

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.

Let's apply that to your question about how far away the rover was from the Apollo 17 LM.

You asked several times why the rover was parked so far away from the LM. You've been given the answer by various different people - according to NASA, it needed to be that far away so that the TV camera could pan upwards on lift-off and capture much of the ascent. Are you disagreeing with this simply it's because it is NASAs explanation? Which independent party would you like to see verify this claim? Why does it need independent verification? Why is it so important? Why would parking the rover that far away constitute an act of whistle-blowing?

The way this works is, you need to provide compelling evidence that they did not need to park the rover where they did, and also demonstrate why parking the rover in that spot is evidence that it can't possibly have been done on the moon.

It may not be fun carrying that "Burden of proof" when you are unable to prove anything, but you can't just drop it onto someone else's shoulders when it's you making the claim.

Using your "on trial" analogy, you can't just accuse someone of murder, refuse to offer any compelling evidence proving they did it, then demand they be found guilty on the strength of your accusation, and on top of that deny them the opportunity to defend themselves!

I have yet to see a rebuttal which is anything but

opinion.

How then do you define a rebuttal?

[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.

Let me just quote from your study, Jack, just to remind you again:

Using Photoshop magic wand, this object was selected and tone changed

The Photoshop ® Magic Wand enhancement made this image seem to be a twin-boom wrecker instead of a pickup truck

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

So which is correct? Your statement on the Forum, or your Aulis study? One of them is wrong. I'm going for your study being correct; why otherwise capitalise the name (Photoshop versus photoshop)? Why use the Registered Trade Mark symbol? Why refer to the Magic Wand?

[Duane Daman]

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.

There is only ONE Apollo photo where I conceded the argument ... That was the Apollo 17 Cernan visor reflection where Peri posted a picture of the visor showing scratches where I assumed "footlights" were being reflected ... At the SAME TIME I was debating that photo on the UM , I was also debating it on this forum .

If this is the photo you are referring to , then your accusation is COMPLETELY FALSE , and I suggest you either withdraw it or correct it before I report your post as dishonest flame baiting .

If this is not the photo you are referring to , then please provide the evidence for this accusation.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Gavin Stone]

Indeed, I retract my statement. I'm always honest, and I will be in this case. For some reason I was convinced you admitted to the spotlight argument being sound, not the footlights. My apologies.

That said, it says something that you have only ever accepted one argument ever from the Apollo camp.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Duane Daman]

Indeed, I retract my statement. I'm always honest, and I will be in this case. For some reason I was convinced you admitted to the spotlight argument being sound, not the footlights. My apologies.

That said, it says something that you have only ever accepted one argument ever from the Apollo camp.

I see that your pal Evan has very wisely edited your post comments to me ...Unfortuntely for you though , I already read your unedited post and in spite of your apology for being untruthful about my past posts , you still couldn't resist taking the opportunity to be insulting towards me by calling my " something " into question ... In your continuing zeal to insult me , you obviously don't have your facts straight .

If you had bothered to read some of my posts on this very thread you would have known that I have already agreed with some of the pro Apollo evidence .

To name a few of my consessions here and in the past , I have agreed that not all of Jack's studies are correct .. I have agreed that " tungsten blue" lens flare can also be caused ( though very rarely) by sunlight ... I have agreed that not all Sun visor reflections need to show "concentric spokes " ... and I even agree that "Station 8" is not the "final parking place" for the Apollo 17 rover and that someone at NASA labeled their own photos incorrectly .

I have also learned on this thread not to depend on another conspiracy researcher's "hoax evidence" as being correct , but rather to research it on my own as much as possible, so as to not make the same mistakes in the future as I have made on this particular thread .

How's that for "something" Gavin ?

So what would you say about the "something " of a person who posts a private message on the complaints thread here , with the agenda of getting the member who sent it to them banned ... again ? ... Even at the expense of that " private message " exposing the true "something" of the person who posted it here for everyone on the forum to read ?

Now that's really "something " !

Edited December 17, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

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.

What is all this nonsense about "Card numbers" and "moving the goal posts" and checking past studies on the "Wayback machine" ? .... Talk about predictable ! ... This is just the typical ad homium techniques that all of you have learned from your mentor Jay Windley ... Can't any of you who defend Apollo ever be original ? ... Or better yet , polite ?

Do you really think that Jack is suppossed to remember every single Apollo study he has ever done , even when some of those studies were done several years ago? ... How ridiculous !!

So he used the Photoshop magic wand when finding the "wrecker " on the moonset ... So what ? ..... He now uses a different method to expose the amomalies in the phony Apollo photos ....and so what if he asked you the same questions about the rover again ? ....Is no one allowed to ever forget some of this information through the years ? ... I don't know why you feel the necessity to be so rude in your enthusisiam to defend every single photo of the official Apollo record , but it really isn't necessary .

Edited December 17, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

What is all this nonsense about "Card numbers" and "moving the goal posts" and checking past studies on the "Wayback machine" ? .... Talk about predictable ! ... This is just the typical ad homium techniques that all of you have learned from your mentor Jay Windley ... Can't any of you who defend Apollo ever be original ? ... Or better yet , polite ?

Do you really think that Jack is suppossed to remember every single Apollo study he has ever done , even when some of those studies were done several years ago? ... How ridiculous !!

So he used the Photoshop magic wand when finding the "wrecker " on the moonset ... So what ? ..... He now uses a different method to expose the amomalies in the phony Apollo photos ....and so what if he asked you the same questions about the rover again ? ....Is no one allowed to ever forget some of this information through the years ? ... I don't know why you feel the necessity to be so rude in your enthusisiam to defend every single photo of the official Apollo record , but it really isn't necessary .

I underatnd your point about Jack using Photoshop, it's possible he's used it in the past and forgotten about it. IMO I don't think it's hugely important which particular package is used, as long as someone is transparent about what they do to an image, and provide the reference ID where appropriate.

However, Jack does have a habit of repeating claims he's made previously, without acknowledging responses to those claims. For instance, I think I'm right in saying he still stands by all of his studies, even though many have been shown to be incorrect. Ignoring rebuttals makes it very easy for him to claim that none of his studies have been shown to be wrong. The Apollo 17 resting place is just one such example, not an isolated incident that could be ascribed to a lapse in memory.

The best way to resolve this is for Jack to speak up and say he either agrees that the responses given for the final resting place of the Apollo 17 rover make sense. If not, he needs to show why the reasons given are incorrect. If he agrees that the rover was indeed parked where it was so that the TV camera could capture as much of the ascent as possible, then he should do the decent thing, accept the study as being debunked. (Not that anyone could seriously use this study as evidence that Apollo 17 was faked. So they parked the rover a hundred yards or so from the LM. So what?)

[Jack White]

The tool I used to lighten the "wrecker" is called the MAGIC WAND whether

in PhotoShop or one of its many lesser known clones. It works the same

in whatever program it is in. I have three different scanner programs with

the same tool.

When official information from NASA is used to "debunk" any of my studies,

I ignore them...since NASA is the one who faked the photos, and any info

from them is self-serving. If you want to "debunk"...do COUNTER-RESEARCH

and I might look at it.

So far all debunking attempts have failed.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

The tool I used to lighten the "wrecker" is called the MAGIC WAND whether

in PhotoShop or one of its many lesser known clones. It works the same

in whatever program it is in. I have three different scanner programs with

the same tool.

When official information from NASA is used to "debunk" any of my studies,

I ignore them...since NASA is the one who faked the photos, and any info

from them is self-serving. If you want to "debunk"...do COUNTER-RESEARCH

and I might look at it.

So far all debunking attempts have failed.

Jack

Wait a second, just a few posts ago you said the photos were real and not faked...so which is it.

"The photos are NOT FAKE; they

are real photos."

And sorry but your silly offset shadow claim has been totally trashed by uninpeachable empirical evidence. One would need to be intellectually incompentent and dishonest to claim other wise.

[Gavin Stone]

The tool I used to lighten the "wrecker" is called the MAGIC WAND whether

in PhotoShop or one of its many lesser known clones. It works the same

in whatever program it is in. I have three different scanner programs with

the same tool.

When official information from NASA is used to "debunk" any of my studies,

I ignore them...since NASA is the one who faked the photos, and any info

from them is self-serving. If you want to "debunk"...do COUNTER-RESEARCH

and I might look at it.

So far all debunking attempts have failed.

Jack

Ah the unwinnable situation. Present NASA Photo's with 'Anomalies' on as the gospel truth, and then refuse to deal with the NASA evidence that is shown back to you. Great logic Jack!

[Dave Greer]

When official information from NASA is used to "debunk" any of my studies,

I ignore them...since NASA is the one who faked the photos, and any info

from them is self-serving. If you want to "debunk"...do COUNTER-RESEARCH

and I might look at it.

Jack

That's got to be the greatest (or worst, depending on your point of view) example of a closed-minded approach I've ever seen.

Hypothetical situation. Let's say someone accused a friend of yours of lying about going on a trekking holiday to Machu Pichu. You choose to defend your friend, and show video footage he took of the ruins, photos he took while he was there, the llama bite on his arm, and the collection of artefacts he brought back that are only available in Machu Piccu. Using your logic, the accuser would be perfectly at liberty to say "The evidence you're using to defend your friend against accusations of lying is self-serving, since we already know he's a xxxx, hence I choose to ignore it."

Would you consider that you or your friend had been fairly treated?

Do you think that the burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove that your friend is indeed lying, given that he has lots of evidence showing he went?

If the accuser said "That photo is clearly faked because the shadows are wrong", would it be fair for you to say "Sorry you're wrong, you've made a mistake in your interpretation of the photo: as noted in his diary, this photo was taken during the morning which altered the lighting conditions in such a manner..." Would it then be also be fair for the accuser to say "This photo was taken by your friend: sicen he is on trial, we cannot accept any of his evidence as it is self-serving".

So far all debunking attempts have failed.

I beg to differ. Lurkers of this forum will no doubt have made their own minds up whether your studies have or haven't been proven incorrect.

[Evan Burton]

What is all this nonsense about "Card numbers" ...

At some stage someone posted a list of things that "disinfo agents" do, a guide to their behaviour. This is my mirror version of it, showing what HB'ers do, and pointing out as it happens.

...Talk about predictable ! ... This is just the typical ad homium techniques that all of you have learned from your mentor Jay Windley ... Can't any of you who defend Apollo ever be original ? ... Or better yet , polite ?

You see, this is yet another tactic. Card No5, I believe. If you can't defend - ATTACK! You can't defend the study (see below) so instead you attack. You accuse me of an ad hom... and you have to bring Jay Windley into it, didn't you? I haven't mentioned his name regarding this claim; not at all, I believe. But you had to drag his name into it so you could accuse me of being unoriginal. If you think I am being unoriginal - or worse, plagiarising someone else - please show examples. I'll do my best to answer them. You should note, however, this is the same stance I have taken about this particular study of jack's since my original rebuttals were posted. I might agree with others, but I am not aware they have commented on this particular study... as I have.

Do you really think that Jack is suppossed to remember every single Apollo study he has ever done , even when some of those studies were done several years ago? ... How ridiculous !!

So he used the Photoshop magic wand when finding the "wrecker " on the moonset ... So what ? ..... He now uses a different method to expose the amomalies in the phony Apollo photos ....and so what if he asked you the same questions about the rover again ? ....Is no one allowed to ever forget some of this information through the years ? ... I don't know why you feel the necessity to be so rude in your enthusisiam to defend every single photo of the official Apollo record , but it really isn't necessary .

It's quite simple. I've explained it multiple times to Jack, and I'll explain it to you.

Jack claims there is a "wrecker" in the image. That implies that the image could not be a real image from the Moon, that it must have been taken in a studio and carelessly the wrecker was not scrubbed out, etc. That it is evidence of "fakery".

I say it is simply Jack's misuse of Photoshop - or whatever imaging tool he used. I therefore challenged Jack to have the original image he used, his method of investigation, and his results, studied by people who are professionals in the field and let them determine whether he has uncovered something in the image or whether it was simply some type of artifact which has been exaggerated by the misuse of an imaging programme, and subjected further to Jack's fertile imagination. In short - that his method was incorrect.

Now, Jack (and you?) are saying it wasn't Photoshop (even though Jack's study specifically states it was, using capitalisation of Photoshop, using the term Magic Wand, and using a Registered Trade Mark symbol next to the word Photoshop). That's okay; as long as we know the methods jack used, and the tool Jack used, we can have experts in its use determine if Jack's methods were valid or not. Quite simple.

So - are you up to it Jack? I believe not; I believe you'll just spew invective at me, accuse me of all sorts of things, and ignore the challenge. As you always do when your claims are put to the test.

[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.

The tool I used to lighten the "wrecker" is called the MAGIC WAND whether

in PhotoShop or one of its many lesser known clones. It works the same

in whatever program it is in. I have three different scanner programs with

the same tool.

When official information from NASA is used to "debunk" any of my studies,

I ignore them...since NASA is the one who faked the photos, and any info

from them is self-serving. If you want to "debunk"...do COUNTER-RESEARCH

and I might look at it.

So far all debunking attempts have failed.

Jack

Wait a second, just a few posts ago you said the photos were real and not faked...so which is it.

"The photos are NOT FAKE; they

are real photos."

And sorry but your silly offset shadow claim has been totally trashed by uninpeachable empirical evidence. One would need to be intellectually incompentent and dishonest to claim other wise.

Yep. Jack says all sorts of things these days. I think he is having memory recall problems.

Jack, instead of making incorrect statements, why not go back and check if you have said any such thing, or done any such thing, or used any such thing? Or say that you don't believe you have said / done but are willing to be corrected if someone will give an example? It would be far preferable, instead of making yourself look silly when you make such obviously wrong statements.

[Duane Daman]

Instead of constantly picking on Jack for his work through the years in exposing the faked but "real photographs" of the Apollo Program ... or getting into an unecessary argument about where Evan learned his particular method of attacking the Apollo conspiracy researchers , I thought it would be more relevant to post a very good example of one of NASA's SELF SERVING photographs !

Here is aerial view of the alleged Apollo 15 landing site that NASA has posted on their ALSJ , which is almost too ridiculous for words .

NASA has pointed to a couple of white spots as being the "LM" and to make their nonsense even more silly , they have pointed to a shadow that is obviously many miles in length , as being the SHADOW OF THE LM !!

Sorry guys , but it doesn't get any more RIDICULOUS or SELF SERVING than this one !

Edited December 18, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

Instead of constantly picking on Jack for his work through the years in exposing the faked but "real photographs" of the Apollo Program ... or getting into an unecessary argument about where Evan learned his particular method of attacking the Apollo conspiracy researchers , I thought it would be more relevant to post a very good example of one of NASA's SELF SERVING photographs !

Here is aerial view of the alleged Apollo 15 landing site that NASA has posted on their ALSJ , which is almost too ridiculous for words .

NASA has pointed to a couple of white spots as being the "LM" and to make their nonsense even more silly , they have pointed to a shadow that is obviously many miles in length , as being the SHADOW OF THE LM !!

Sorry guys , but it doesn't get any more RIDICULOUS or SELF SERVING than this one !

How do you come to the incorrect conclusion that the shadow is many miles in length? If that was the case, why can we not see Hadley Rille in those images, since it is only about a mile or so to the west of the LM, as shown in this image? Perhaps you'd care to point out exactly where on the moon this image was taken, if as you claim the shadow is "obviously many miles in length".

These two photos are perfectly consistent with what we know about Apollo 15. It shows darkening in the immediate vicinity of the LM, disturbed soil caused by either bootprints or rover tracks leading to the ALSEP site, shortened shadows as expected due to the higher sun angle.

Do you have any actual evidence that these photos are faked, rather than just your own opinion?