Attention Simkin and all moderators

[Jack White]

Correct Jim! I have the images on my computer, and you cannot access them there. On Aulis

they are harder to find by subject, because the studies there are in order by mission number.

For instance, TRACKLESS ROVERS are all in one folder on my computer, but on Aulis are

scattered by mission number instead of subject.

Burton (and Lamson) just want to make a discussion difficult as possible for us. For some

reason, they do not want to discuss my 15 examples of trackless LRVs.

Jack

Edited August 18, 2010 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

Enough, Lamson. We all know you are a turkey breath. Jack has hundreds of studies on his computer. I am

telling him which ones I want posted. I don't have time for you or for Burton, for that matter. It is obvious the

one having his butt kicked is not me. He had to delete the evidence lest his incompetence be manifest at the

initial exchange. There are very good reasons no one takes your posts seriously. They are cheap and shallow.

Look the studies up yourself, and post the links. Quit being a child and act like an adult for once in your life.

If you want Jack to play he can take part in the debate. Quit being a shill.

Burton will destroy you on this, I can assure you. Neither you nor White has what it takes to win this one. White can't photo analyse his way out of a paper bag and you...do you even know how photgfrahic exposure wirks for example?

If YOU want to discuss the Rover images....YOU post them.

If you "don't have the time" to actually do your own bidding, then why don't you take a hike...no one will miss you.

[Craig Lamson]

Burton (and Lamson) just want to make a discussion difficult as possible for us. For some

reason, they do not want to discuss my 15 examples of trackless LRVs.

Jack

In case you have FORGOTTEN jack...YOU are NOT IN THE DISCUSSION. YOU are too busy. So why don't you just butt out and let jimmy do his own work.

[Evan Burton]

I agree with Craig - why can't Jim link to the images on Aulis? I would be surprised if he didn't have the skills to find an image and link to it. If he is incapable of doing that, then I accept that Jack can post an image - ONE AT A TIME - for us to debate. When that has been discussed, then another can be posted.

And Jack - your images were NOT deleted. Another "inaccuracy" by you. They were moved off the debate thread and placed on the discussion thread where everyone can see.

[Evan Burton]

Gary,

Perhaps I should not have acted in the thread, but Jack was already given the opportunity to participate and he declined. The agreement was already that one image would be discussed; Jack spammed the thread multiple images, all available at either Aulis or in their original format at The Project Apollo Archive.

The thread should be kept clear so that members can clearly follow the debate without distractions, follow ONE issue at a time, decide for themselves as to the validity of the claim, then move onto the next contentious issue rather than get a firehose of information which they have to try and decipher.

Comments from non-participants - including Jack - can be on a single thread.

And Jack should use the complaints thread, when he has a complaint, like everyone else does.

Lastly, despite my wanting to debate Jim, we have returned to all but the original format: Jack posts his image, I show why it is wrong, and Jim comments. Once again Jack does not have to defend his own work. If that is going to be the case, at least Jim should have to address my rebuttals.

[John Dolva]

I obviously have indicated my position re the moon program. For me it is a peripheral issue, however looking at the studies and independently assessing them is of interest to me as photo analysis is something of of interest to me. I would really appreciate it if the images posted are with a link or code that gives ready access to the images in question rateher than have to search for them. Could this (providing linking to the original images) be a part of the process, please?

[Evan Burton]

That's up to Jack to provide, John, but I am happy to provide it if Jack doesn't.

BTW, I think Jack should show a little respect to the Forum owner. If he want's to refer to John Simkin, then he should refer to him as John S, John Simkin, etc. Referring to John constantly as "Simkin" is disrespectful.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I agreed to the following format:

One issue at a time, where I have

listed the sources I will discuss.

For each source, beginning with

Jack's studies, I will initiate

the exchange. In the case of his

studies, Jack will post the images

I have asked him to post, Evan will

comment, and I will respond. Then

we will move to the next argument.

Links to images are not sufficient.

They are premises of my arguments,

which most readers will not bother

to view. Unless they are posted, I

cannot properly present my position.

Jack has them and skilled at posting

them. I am not. Without allowing

him to post the images I request him

to post, I am not going to bother.

It is unacceptable for Evan to offer

repeated rebuttals. He is the one

who claims to be an expert. I am

not. No posts offering rebuttals

will be accepted after each of the

exchanges. The audience can make

up its own mind about who is right

and who is wrong. But it will go

on forever if more posts are allowed.

Obviously, Evan has a massive conflict

of interest in serving as a participant

as well as a moderator. We must accept

Gary's offer to manage this exchange. I

cannot imagine why he would think that

it is acceptable for him to serve in both

roles. That is simply absurd, as we have

already seen from what has already taken

place on the thread. If these conditions

are acceptable, we can proceed, but other

wise, I am not wasting more time on this.

Gary,

Perhaps I should not have acted in the thread, but Jack was already given the opportunity to participate and he declined. The agreement was already that one image would be discussed; Jack spammed the thread multiple images, all available at either Aulis or in their original format at The Project Apollo Archive.

The thread should be kept clear so that members can clearly follow the debate without distractions, follow ONE issue at a time, decide for themselves as to the validity of the claim, then move onto the next contentious issue rather than get a firehose of information which they have to try and decipher.

Comments from non-participants - including Jack - can be on a single thread.

And Jack should use the complaints thread, when he has a complaint, like everyone else does.

Lastly, despite my wanting to debate Jim, we have returned to all but the original format: Jack posts his image, I show why it is wrong, and Jim comments. Once again Jack does not have to defend his own work. If that is going to be the case, at least Jim should have to address my rebuttals.

Edited August 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[John Dolva]

I think that sounds fair, The replies and accompanying comments by interested parties in the companion thread should make everything clear.

Let the show begin,,,

[Craig Lamson]

I agreed to the following format:

snip the bs

]

Lets review.

jimmy gets the first word, Evan can reply, jimmy gets the last word.

Is that your idea of fair?

Why not jimmy, Evan, jimmy, Evan?

That not enough of a stacked deck for you?

Edited August 18, 2010 by Craig Lamson