Jump to content
The Education Forum

Big Mountain, small LM


Recommended Posts

Hi Mr. Jack,

I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks

Hi...I will look at it when I have time. In general CLAVIUS and BAD ASTRONOMY

websites are populated by agents provocateur, and I do not bother to engage

them in time-wasting arguments. I prefer not to even visit their sites. When

I have time, I will look. OR, just ask me questions on THIS forum, and I will

respond to any message which does not contain PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Thanks for your interest in my studies.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mr. Jack,

I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks

Hi...I will look at it when I have time. In general CLAVIUS and BAD ASTRONOMY

websites are populated by agents provocateur, and I do not bother to engage

them in time-wasting arguments. I prefer not to even visit their sites. When

I have time, I will look. OR, just ask me questions on THIS forum, and I will

respond to any message which does not contain PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Thanks for your interest in my studies.

Jack

In other words Jack finds it difficult if not impossible to counter the debunking of his "studies" on those sites. He claims that they are fronts for NASA but has yet to produce any evidence to back those claims.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mr. Jack,

I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks

Hi...I will look at it when I have time. In general CLAVIUS and BAD ASTRONOMY

websites are populated by agents provocateur, and I do not bother to engage

them in time-wasting arguments. I prefer not to even visit their sites. When

I have time, I will look. OR, just ask me questions on THIS forum, and I will

respond to any message which does not contain PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Thanks for your interest in my studies.

Jack

Hi Len. It is not important who works for who. It is important that there is a counterclaim that needs to be refuted.

Mr.Jack

The question here is that the site ays that both mountains are eventually the same size, with the feautures on the closest mountain a bit bigger as should be, but the horizontal rige line has "eaten up" the bottom of the first mountain. That is why it looks smaller, bcz part of it is hidden by that ridge line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Len. It is not important who works for who. It is important that there is a counterclaim that needs to be refuted.

Hi Maya,

I agree, you should tell that to Jack. To him making such claims frees him from the obligation to refute their points., i.e. it's an ad hominem attack.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mr. Jack,

I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks

Maya,

I think I have dealt with this one on the following thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3589

The thread deals with all of the photographic claims made by Jack on the Aulis website. It's long but (IMO) worth reading. It's especially important to look for the situations where you can re-create the same scene yourself, and see what your own photographs tell you.

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watching a programme about the NASA plans for a return to the moon, and it struck me that the present plans are the greatest piece of evidence that Jack and other 'moon hoaxers' are wrong.

Here we are, 40 years later than the design of Apollo. Massively improved electronics. Huge advances in aerospace technology.

NASA has the chance to design an all-new system to land on the moon. What do they come up with?

"Apollo on steroids". Why?

BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS.

I'm just wondering how Jack et al are going to make up so-called 'proof' about the next generation of landings being faked. Have no doubt, they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...