Jump to content
The Education Forum

More of Jack White's Apollo studies explained


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

PLEASE NOTE: All studies here are copyrighted by Jack White and reproduced under the Fair Use doctrine of Section 107 of the US Copyright Legislation.

APOLLO 11 PHOTOS SHOT OUT OF SEQUENCE / The flag that flew too soon

11flagtoosoon.jpg

This has a similar explanation to one made by Jack some time ago, where he claimed we could see a ladder or lighting scaffolding (or similar) in the LM window.

It involves marking that were made on the LM window, to aid the Commander (CDR) to tell where his landing spot would be. The Lunar Module (LM) had the ability to do a completely automatic landing on the Moon, without the astronauts touching the controls (it could not land unmanned though). The onboard computer used radar and velocity information to compute exactly where it would land. On the CDRs window, a grid was marked on the inner and outer panes. This was called the Landing Point Designator (LPD), and it could be used to show the CDR where the onboard computer was planning to land the LM. The CDR would ask the Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) for an LPD:

102:42:33 Armstrong: (On-board) (With some urgency in his voice, possibly as he sees West Crater) Give me an LPD (angle).

102:42:34 Aldrin: Into the AGS, 47 degrees.

When given a number, the CDR would look through the scale on the window. They would look for the LPD angle given, and that would show them the point on the lunar surface that the LM would land. The system was simplicity itself, allowing for different heights of the CDR by having the CDR line up the inner and outer scales. This is what the LPD looked like:

lpdin.jpg

Okay - so what does that have to do with Jack's claim? Well, the "staff" of the "flag" Jack see is in actual fact the LPD. The "flag" is just a reflection of one of the Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters on the LM.

How can I be so sure of this? Two reasons.

Firstly, the "flag" reflection appears on the RIGHT window (looking from outside the LM). The flag was on the LEFT of the LM.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...S11-40-5886.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1-S69-40308.jpg

(Remember that the LM landed with the Sun behind it, and in one image you can see the TV camera which was on the RHS (LHS looking from outside the LM)).

Next, the CDRs LM window reflected objects from ABOVE or level with and to the RIGHT (looking from outside the LM). Have a look at this example from the LM at Kennedy Space Center.

post-2326-1264847233_thumb.jpg

Zoom in on the image on the window. Recognise it? It's the edge of the Apollo 12 mission patch which is to the right of the LM.

Think I am telling porkys? Go to KSC and take your own photograph. Recreate the position and see if you think it could reflect an object on the surface. Please - post your results here.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That appears to be the newest clam that I can find. If anyone can find a claim I have not addressed, I would appreciate it if you would point it out to me. Also, if you disagree with one of my assessments, please challenge me to defend it. Unlike some I am happy to take on all comers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just amazing to me that it is still necessary at this late date, to refute a pack of blatantly distorted lies and machinations manufactured by a periodical, The Liberty Lobby's Spotlight newspaper, which were apparently surreptitiously crafted on demand by a person who has a long history of "seeing" things which are just not there in order to "prove" points which have as their ultimate goal nothing more than an anti-USA and anti-Government anarchistic agenda.

This same approach was used by The Liberty Lobby's Spotlight and their sister publications after the Tim McVeigh OK bombing, after the Randy Weaver incident, during and after the Waco, Texas incident, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and after several other similar incidents. I think it is time that we start discussing the motivations of these anarchistic, anti-Government and anti-USA types who might very well be guilty of several seditious, insurrectionist and treasonous offenses.

Certainly they are taking unfair advantage of their rights to free speech in my opinion while spreading nothing more than salacious and scurrilous statements designed with but one thing in mind: To inspire a violent insurrection against the rule of law and order and to bring down the Government of the USA by spreading these false statements and inciting susceptible citizens to riot or to perform treasonous or insurrectionist acts of violence as a protest against the government. You can neither shout "Fire" in a crowded, darkened theater nor scream the equivalent of "treason", "revenge", "Jihad" or "insurrection" from the highest mountain tops in my honest opinion, no matter how subtly it is accomplished.

The net result is that certain susceptible people then act out their hidden impulses and we have another Ft. Hood massacre, another 9/11 terrorist attack or yet another OK bombing tragedy. And then the same people who incited these acts in the first place step in after the fact, to try to place the blame on official US government agency acts and yet another susceptible nut perpetrates yet another act of violence, retribution or revenge. Who is more guilty, these anarchists and people who engage in subtle incendiary speech who incited the riots or the individual or individuals who carry out these acts of violence? To me there is no distinction whatsoever. You may be able to laugh off the wackos, nut jobs and weirdos who still claim that we never landed on the moon or that 9/11 was a controlled demolition as just freakazoids, psychos, whack jobs, space cadets or mean spirited individuals but when they start to focus on their lies about 9/11 and controlled demolitions and nanothermite, about Waco, Texas and blow torches in tanks, or about alleged strikes from space on the Murrah Building isn't it about time that we draw the line and call a spade a spade and distinguish between "Harmless 'White' Lies" and "Deliberately 'Black' Treasonous and Insurrectionist Ops by Anarchists?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on you! You GOON! This thread is nothing more than a disgusting personal attack on Jack White and he will be fully justified in opting not reply!

If the Shoe Fits, Wear It! he replied

Is he the only one who has spread, supported or enabled these scurrilous, salacious and scandalous distortions about the Kennedy Space Program? I doubt it!

And I don't think that he has either the guts, the temerity, the intelligence or the fortitude to attempt to counter the cogent arguments of Evan Burton either for

all to see for themselves and evaluate. He counts on his audience being predisposed to inanities, lunacy and gross distortions. He counts on his audience on having

both the perspicacity of a tree stump, the appetite of a dung beetle and the analytical skills of a titmouse.

What is the real purpose behind efforts at deliberately distorting and contorting reality about the OK Bombing, the Randy Weaver episode, the Waco inferno, the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Ft. Hood massacre and the legion of other fabrications and distortions promulgated by those who would engage in such behavior?

The Murrah Building bombing was not a Strike from Space it was from a fertilizer bomb whose recipe was published in The Liberty Lobby's Spotlight!

The Waco inferno was not started by a blow torch mounted on an ATF tank!

The 9/11 terrorist attack was NOT a controlled demolition from within nor a U.S. Governement Plot!

The Lunar Landing was not a hoax perpetrated by NASA or any other branch of the U.S. Government!

Anyone who believes any of these right wing inspired fabrications and distortions, needs to have either their motivations examined or their heads examined, or both!

Can anyone even trust any one of their conclusions about the JFK murder after looking at and evaluating their conclusions about these other incidents? I doubt it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John B.,

You are misinformed. You continue to believe that Liberty Lobby had a lot more power and influence than they ever did.

As I've noted before, I was a subscriber to The Spotlight. I guess that makes me suspicious in your eyes. I assure you I was not involved in the conspiracy. They were unquestionably obsessed with Israel, and tended to blame them for almost everything that happened in the world. However, they put out a great deal of good information. For instance, they were the first and only newspaper to expose the massive voting fraud in Florida (in the 1980s, a forerunner to the fiasco in 2000), when they published the "Votescam" series by the late Collier brothers. They also touted the benefits of alternative medicine and health foods long before the medical establishment belatedly admitted there was a link between diet and health.

You can call them "anti-semitic" all you want, but the Spotlight was the first and only newspaper to expose the power of AIPAC and Israel's undue influence over American foreign policy. For this, the Anti Defamation League fought a long battle to bankrupt Liberty Lobby, which they eventually did. Btw, the Spotlight was already out of existance before September 11, 2001, so you can hardly attribute any conspiracy theories about that event to them.

You might also like to know that the Spotlight turned gradually to the left over their last several years of publication. Comedian Dick Gregory, for instance, one of the most radical men in public life, sat on Liberty Lobby's Board of Directors during that time. I don't think he quite fits into your "rightist" conspiracy theory. The Spotlight also published several exposes on some other boogie men of yours, like the John Birch Society, who they were always at odds with, and William F. Buckley and E. Howard Hunt (both of whom they battled in court).

To the best of my knowledge, author Bill Kaysing started the whole apollo hoax thing, with his book "We Never Went To The Moon." This was published in the late 1970s, long before the Spotlight ever did a story on the subject (and as a subscriber, I can tell you I remember them publishing very few stories about this). I really think you're crediting them with way too much influence.

While Liberty Lobby may have started out as a typical right-wing outfit, they eventually became a populist organ that opposed almost all mainstream conservative organizations and politicians. I'm not the only poster here who has admitted to being a subscriber, and I valued the Spotlight very much, as they were about the only source one had for alternative news in the days before the internet.

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three light sources used to illuminate the CSM

17scotchcmrev2.jpg

This is easily explained. Being a layman in Apollo matters, Jack is ignorant of many of the smaller details. The "scotch tape" Jack refers to is kapton tape, placed on the outside of the spacecraft to help reflect heat. The early Command Modules (CM) were actually painted white.

ap6-67-HC-825.jpg

10074829.jpg

Don't confuse the white - sometimes light blue - colour of the Block I CMs with the white Boost Protective Cover (BPC) that was placed on top of them for launch. This was jettisoned at high altitude after launch.

The Block II CMs were all covered with the kapton tape, to assist with thermal control of the spacecraft.

You can even see the remains here:

ap11-KSC-69PC-467.jpg

There are numerous images available showing how the CM was covered with this tape… and not just Apollo 17.

The “shadow anomaly” Jack claims is likewise easily explainable. The image Jack has shown is taken from the Lunar Module (LM), which is itself covered with various materials with a high albedo. So you have the Sun, and the sunlight reflected of various surfaces on the LM.

It’s just another example of Jack grasping at straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same CSM – different look

17samecmrev.jpg

This is a deceptive claim made by Jack. As stated previously, AS17-148-22756 was taken enroute to the Moon.

Now, let’s have a look at an UNCROPPED image of AS17-145-22272:

AS17-145-22272.jpg

The two images are completely different. One was taken on the way TO the Moon, the other (22272) was taken a few days later after the lunar landing had been completed and the ascent stage of the LM was on its way back to dock with the CM.

It’s also worth looking at the hi-resolution image:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...145-22272HR.jpg

You can also check for yourself that when images are taken close to the CM, you can often see the tape lines. When images are taken from a distance, they are not visible. Pretty simple for anyone with an ounce of sense. Also, you can see various aspects between the two images that match up, proving they are of the same object but at different times:

post-2326-1265103209_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I previously did this one here, but I was probably getting tired and didn't explain it very well so I thought I'd revisit this one.

THE MYSTERY OF THE APOLLO MOONROVERS: CHAPTER 1 - TRACKS WHILE STILL PACKAGED

roverstowchap1.jpg

The crux of this claim is that the area to the left of the ladder (from our viewpoint) is where the the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was stowed.

Wrong. Nowhere in any photo, in any documentation, in any diagramme does it have the LRV stowed on the left of the ladder. In every single image, document and diagramme that is called the Modular Equipment Stowage Area. Note also that it is that area which is used for stowage of the lunar TV camera, geology tools, core sample tubes, etc, during the Apollo 11 to Apollo 14 missions... which did not carry a LRV.

Let's look at the evidence. When was the image taken? It was taken at 163 hours 56 minutes Ground Elapsed Time (GET).

When did Apollo 17 start its first EVA? When, Gene Cernan deployed the MESA at 117 hours 9 minutes GET... nearly 55 hours before Jack's image was taken. During that time there are numerous images and video footage of the LRV on the lunar surface.

So - perhaps NASA is hiding something and this image accidentally slipped through. Is there anything in the image to prove the LRV had already been deployed? APART from all the documentation to show the LRV was on the RIGHT of the ladder (not left as Jack and Aulis claim: Note to Aulis - port is LEFT), what can we see in the image Jack has provided?

post-2326-1265352245_thumb.jpg

Now, what did Grumman provide in their Apollo documentation about the LRV deployment?

S71-38189.jpg

Notice what is to the right of the LRV, attached to the lunar module? But that's just an artist's depiction. What about actual operating instructions or diagrammes?

post-2326-1265352608_thumb.jpg

post-2326-1265352836_thumb.jpg

post-2326-1265353185_thumb.jpg

Have a look at this image of the Apollo 15 LRV fit checks:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...71-HC-684HR.jpg

What's that just to the right and above the wheels?

Jack has made an error, and mistakes the MESA (left) for the LRV stowage (right). Will he admit this error and withdraw his claim? I doubt it but stay tuned; miracles have happened before...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulldust. You change the situation to 'protect' him. Let's look at what you have said:

I don't 'do' Apollo. That said, whether Jack is correct or not; whether you think Jack is correct or not on Apollo says NOTHING about whether he is correct or not on Dallas or 9-11.

I agree to a point. As far as Jack's JFK studies are concerned, I have constantly said I am not qualified to judge - being a layman and ignorant in the JFK area - and make no comment on them. As far as Jack's 9-11 studies are concerned, they have shown the same disposition towards error and inability to admit fault.

Personally, I think the endless preemptive attacks on Jack's Apollo studies are really designed, IMO, to discredit his Dallas and 9-11 work more than Apollo studies per se.

I have always primarily been here to rebutt Jack's Apollo claims. Jack has made "endless" claims and I have mainly addressed those claims - most often showing the claim I refer to. They are NOT "pre-emptive" and such a claim is not in accordance with fact... fact on which I am prepared to demonstrate.

I'm not fooled by the character assassination and the attempts to conflate separate things.

I have attacked Jack's Apollo claims and his refusal to defend them. Jack, on the other hand, constantly attacks people's motives, their employers, etc. Jack is the one who practices character assassination. Again, there are numerous examples of this throughout the Forum and I am happy to illuminate them.

I find Jack motivated by the most noble of motives, I don't think I can say that for most of his detractor-stalkers.

So you call us - me - "stalkers". If it means demonstrating that certain claims are erroneous - and their proponents fear trying to defend the validity of their claims - then I am happy to wear this badge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't 'do' Apollo. That said, whether Jack is correct or not; whether you think Jack is correct or not on Apollo says NOTHING about whether he is correct or not on Dallas or 9-11. Personally, I think the endless preemptive attacks on Jack's Apollo studies are really designed, IMO, to discredit his Dallas and 9-11 work more than Apollo studies per se. I'm not fooled by the character assassination and the attempts to conflate separate things. Several here use this m.o. For the record, I think Jack has made important discoveries of significance and moved the research forward in the Dallas and 9-11 fields [that does not mean I agree with every one of his findings or speculations in those fields - Babe Ruth didn't bat 1000 either]; but some find it easier to try to discredit him using Apollo, so do that. Let each field and the research within each be judged separately. Most of those who are coincidence theorists who now expound on the coincidences on Dallas and 911 et al. came here following Jack from other 'Apollo' sites....kind of like stalkers. I find Jack motivated by the most noble of motives, I don't think I can say that for most of his detractor-stalkers, IMHO.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." -E. Abbey

More paranoid drivel from Lemkin mixed up with personal attacks on all those who dare question St. Jack, why am I not surprised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...