I cant take your challange since it is not my area of expertise. I work in the lawncare industry.

That is clearly a possibility.

Thats one way to look at it. Looks like the good old USA is very interested in discrediting these truth seekers....why?

hokey pokey, for someone who started out exactly like yourself, I will give you a little bit of advice: go away and research this thing properly. There are credible answers for the vast majority of this stuff. Jack White's photo analysis is skewed, pure and simple. To be quite honest, while I agree with you and the 87% of Americans who believe John F. Kennedy was murdered as the result of a conspiracy, I wouldn't recommend the JFK Research forum to anybody. There are many other forums where credible lines of enquiry are followed and subsequently debated by people with serious qualifications and to a professional standard. From what I have learnt, that board I assume you frequent has little or no credibility even amongst professional JFK researchers. It is a shame really, because it seems that Mr. White's early work did turn up a number of interesting findings, but then the lime light soon went to his head.

Back yourself up, go take a long hard look at all those sites and subsequent controversies, if you still have any questions or suspicions remaining, then come back here and see what people say.

Thank you Karamoon.

Two notes to hokey pokey:

1) Go check out Karamoon's earlier posts.

2) Use [/quote] after every passage that you wish to make a comment on. Makes your posts easier to read, even if it doesn't help them make more sense.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

"What a wonderful answer! You run a cover site for the US but you say its not. Priceless!"

Are you seriously suggesting that this is the case?!?!?

I suppose Jay was also the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll too?

Jay and I go way back. He is correct when he says that Percy conveniently 'lost' a whole section of his website, when it became clear that the argument for the hoax was in very real trouble on his own website. There is also nothing on the Clavius website that requires belief in anything that NASA or the US Gov to back it up. The examples given to refute the hoax all come from areas outside NASA and the Govt.

How do we know that NASA and the Govt. are telling the truth on this one? We can verify their claims from countless outside sources. Professional photographers frequent this and other boards, and they can see nothing wrong with the Apollo photographic record. Scientists and Astronomers frequent (and own) this board and others and they cannot see anything wrong with the Apollo evidence. Engineers and computer experts frequent this and other boards. They cannot find any problems with the technical aspects of Apollo. The only people who have trouble believing NASA and the US could not send men to the Moon in 1969-1972 are people who know nothing in these areas of expertise. Doesn't that tell you something?

once a liar...always a liar.

No. If someone lies on occasion and tells the truth on occasion, you cannot generalize whether he is lying or telling the truth in some specific case based on your perception of a general trend or circumstance.

If you had been, for example, convicted of tax evasion at some point in your life, and you were rounded up by the police as a suspect for in a murder for which you had a suitable alibi, you would certainly object in the strongest terms to a case made against you which amounted to, "Well, he broke the law once, what's to say he didn't break the law in this case too?" You would certainly argue that your prior convinction for tax evasion had little or nothing to do with whether you committed the murder in question. You would properly reject an argument which attempted to establish you as a murderer based on vague references to your "criminal past".

How can you know when you are being told the truth?

Simple: by investigating each and every claim based on the merits of only that claim. This means that whatever lies the government may have told regarding JFK, nuclear testing, or any other subject are completely irrelevant to whether or not the government has lied regarding the Apollo missions. The fact that the government has lied on occasion might give us cause to suspect Apollo, but our judgment regarding Apollo is only properly based on evidence that specifically derives from or pertains specifically to Apollo.

Further, it is not sufficient simply to suspect Apollo. It is not sufficient simply to show that it is not impossible for the lunar landings to have been falsified. It must be shown by direct and positive evidence that such a hypothesis describes what actually occurred. Simply pointing to what you believe to be anomalies in the photography is woefully insufficient. Even if you can postulate how such an anomaly may have arisen, it is not a viable postulate until you can give some evidence that clearly establishes that this (above all other hypotheses) is what really happened.

In looking at the clavius photo section this one made me laugh and its a perfect example of my point that Mr. Whites work has not been proven wrong.

I make no representations as to how much of White's work we have answered. As I mentioned earlier, White categorically refuses to participate in open debate, so there is a limit to how far an external site such as Clavius can lawfully address his argument.

Nevertheless you may be interested in

http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html

which specifically addresses one of White's photos which he, on a rare occasion, allowed to be published outside his forum. You will notice that the alleged anomaly doesn't even exist. White has manipulated the photos in order to create the appearance of an anomaly. If White is so close to the truth, why does he have to manufacture evidence in favor of his conclusion? Why does he convenienty "forget" or "omit" the standard photo reference numbers that would allow outside researchers to attempt to duplicate his findings?

White constantly demonstrates his ignorance of Apollo equipment and procedures. He shows us a photo of Quadrant 3 of the Apollo 11 lunar module and says that the "zippered equipment bay" is open, but there are no astronaut footprints leading to it. The equipment bays of an H-type lunar module are on Quadrants 2 and 4 and do not employ zippers. What White claims is the equipment storage bay is simply the mechanical allowance for the tanks in that quadrant. How are we to trust the opinion of someone who can't even tell what he's looking at?

Whites claim of lifting the rover into place in the photos has not been shown false, rather we are told it MIGHT just be footprints erasing the tracks!

You seem to have an odd notion of what constitutes proof. Since Jack White is the one arguing that the rover was lifted in place, he has the burden of proof to show that this was actually done. He has provided no such proof, i.e., corroborated testimony from people who did it, photographs of the rover being so lifted, etc. His argument is based on the premise that the only way for the rover to appear in photos without visible tracks is for it to have been lifted there, for no other possibility exists. That is, instead of providing direct proof of his hypothesis, he has elected to try to show his hypothesis must be true because all the other possibilities are discounted.

Unfortunately this is not a good way of arriving at truth. Trying to compel belief in a questionable hypothesis simply because it appears to be the only viable one does nothing to address whether that hypothesis actually describes the truth. It simply creates a rhetorical framework in which one conclusion is favored over others irrespective of evidence.

White's case is based on the presumption that a photograph of a rover on the moon must always show tracks behind it, leading up to it. However if, in the expected course of legitimate lunar surface activities, those tracks may be obliterated or not as visible as expected to the camera, White's hypothesis completely falls apart. That is, the way he has structured his proof requires him to demonstrate that any other hypothesis is not just unlikely, but impossible.

Thus he must consider the possibility that the rover was backed into a particular position, or that unexpected turns may place the tracks in unexpected locations, and that depending on the lighting angles and the depth of the regolith the tracks may not be very noticeable, and that subsequent activity may hide those tracks. This is not something I'm trying to pin on him. This is a need he has created by his choice of argument. An argument which states, "X is what happened because no other possibility exists," accepts the burden of proof to show that no other possibility exists.

Is that the best you can come up with

No, I can also show photos in which the rover tracks proceed to a point of subsequent disturbance that has partially or completely obliterated them. I can also point to video and film footage wherein the astronauts kick up lots of dust when they walk, obliterating previous markings.

In short, I can show that my hypothesis is not only a viable alternative, but that there is evidence that it actually happened. White, on the other hand, cannot show any evidence that the absence of rover tracks was due to its having been lifted into place. He is merely trying to compel you to believe in that hypothesis by trying to say it's the only possibility.

Since the government has unlimited funds to do its dirty work with, I would expect their sites like clavius to be filled with "facts" which seem to support their point of view.

A non-sequitur. That the government controls large amounts of resources does not per se establish that those resources are being expended toward any particular purpose you might name.

Further, Clavius is based on principles of science accepted as true the world over. Sicence, in general, cannot be falsified. Not, at least, for very long. Because science attempts to describe the physical world, falsification of its findings would, sooner or later, disagree with the observations of the physical world and therefore be discovered.

Although it is a common argument of the die-hard conspiracy theorist that supposedly all-powerful governments can simply rewrite the laws of nature, it's simply not credible to believe that.

They are the true truth seekers.

No, they are not. Truth-seekers do not have to lie about their qualifications and credentials. They do not have to suppress the evidence which runs counter to their conclusions. They do not have to rely on speculation and poor logic in order to make their points.

No wonder the government wants to try and discredit them.

Affirmation of the consequent. You simply define anyone who disagrees with them as a government disinformationist without considering whether the disagreement has a basis in fact or reason.

Years of research has taught me one thing...if it comes from the US government its a lie.

This is not a reliable method of arriving at truth. Simply assuming everything that the government does is a coverup or a lie does not address the facts and evidence which pertain to those occurrences.

I am inclined to agree with my colleagues: you are likely to be more happy at the JFK forum were dissenting views can be effectively sidestepped.

I cant take your challange since it is not my area of expertise. I work in the lawncare industry.

Then how do you know Jack White's photographic analysis has any scientific basis?

I work in the engineering industry. I am considered an expert on the technology used to get to the moon. I have also worked as a photographer, and from my engineering training I am fairly adept at the mathematics required for photographic analysis. Further, I work (unpaid, as a hobby) in various entertainment industries and am quite familiar with the techniques for creating illusions on film, and of operating in a studio.

Which of us, me or you, do you suppose is most qualified to determine whether Jack White's evidence is sufficient to establish his conclusion?

Your personal attack on one of the most famous photo researchers of this era is noted...and had neem passed tothe researcher.

Pointing out the serious, fundamental flaws in an argument is not a personal attack. Personal attacks are what I have endured from Mr. White, who has called me an "ignorant a-----e" and accused me of libel without bothering to give any evidence of wherein I have libelled him.

Not true. Anyone is welcome to post their views at JFK if they follow the rules.

False. Membership is open only to JFK researchers, and members are expected to contribute to the JFK discussion and not just to the Apollo discussion. Since I am not a JFK researcher, I am not eligible for membership. Further, Mr. della Rosa clarified on a number of occasions that those who participate simply to discuss Apollo were generally not welcome.

Further, some of the participants here and many of them at Apollohoax.com (where some of White's photos can be seen) are former members of the JFK

Those who get banned forgot they cant engage in personal attacks on that forum.

Not true. Statements that sufficiently damage Mr. White's arguments are simply declared to be ad hominem attacks whether they are or not. Since Mr. White's analysis is sometimes based on his own claims of expertise, identifying flaws in that expertise is a valid form of counterargument. For example, if Mr. White claims that a certain photo has anomalous lighting or shadows, and that argument is based on an incorrect model of perspective, it is quite allowable to point out that the argument fails because its proponent lacks the appropriate understanding.

Further, pointing out the questionable editing and composition practices of Mr. White is also perfectly legitimate. If Mr. White "creates" an anomaly by his treatment of the pictures, it is quite appropriate to call him on that.

The debate at JFK is open and unrestricted.

Not in the opinions of those who have participated in it. In fact, I have in my possession "leaked" postings from JFK Research which quite clearly confirm that my criticism of that forum is agreed to by its participants.

What a wonderful answer! You run a cover site for the US but you say its not. Priceless!

I don't think you are sufficiently able to discern fact from speculation. You have made the assertion that I run a site on behalf of the U.S. government, a front of some kind. Yet you have provided no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. I realize that this is the prevailing opinion over at JFK Research, but I was privy to the discussions in which this was decided and I know for a fact that neither Jack White, Rich della Rosa, nor you have any evidence whatsoever of any kind that Clavius is run by the U.S. government.

I think this shows quite effectively that your basis for believing a conclusion is simply that it's the one you want to believe and not that any evidence has led you there.

Thats one way to look at it. Looks like the good old USA is very interested in discrediting these truth seekers....why?

I have to say you're being very irrational. You have simply declared these authors to be "truth seekers" without considering their evidence, argument, motives, or behavior. These men do not behave like truth-seekers. They behave very much like snake-oil salesmen. These men do not defend their arguments. They simply arrange for opposition to them to be suppressed. These men do not consider all points of the argument. They simply make up whatever they need to about science and engineering in order to make their conclusions seem plausible. You accept them as truth-seekers simply because you have already decided to agree with them.

As for Clavius, other such sites, and this forum, you have simply decided that they must be government disinformation without examining the basis behind any of them or whether their arguments have merit. You have simply found some conjectural way of dismissing them without having to worry about whether they might undermine your beliefs.

How sad that you seem to characterize yourself as a seeker after truth, yet you behave exactly in the mode of someone trying to maintain a conclusion at all costs in the face of considerable contrary evidence.

Jumbo: If the source of the debunking is a government front i guess every physics textbook writer,physics lecturer and student must be in on it too.

Hokey pokey: That is clearly a possibility.

No, it clearly is an impossibility. Science, engineering, and physics are only useful if they accurately reflect the behavior of the real world. It would be impossible to establish a bogus basis for them that would not be almost immediately detected.

Postulating that millions of people all over the world are complicit in your conspiracy theory, when there is no evidence whatsoever of such complicity (or even that there is something about which to be complicit) is quite delusional.

Ah yes...I remember that attempt to disprove Jack White. It looks really good at first glance but it too fails. Its based on the theory that the backgrounds were painted canvas or something similar. Perhaps those backgrounds were 3D.

No. This is clearly a case where Jack White's support has been subverted. That is, White makes an observation and concludes that it is anomalous. Then he postulates a hypothesis to account for the anomaly. Upon closer investigation the observation itself is found not to be true. Therefore the rest of the argument simply evaporates. If the observation is incorrect, then the assertion that it is anomalous cannot stand. And without a proposition in favor of anomaly, there is no need for that anomaly to be explained.

Specifically, Jack White notes various discrepancies in the background. However, upon closer examination, those discrepancies do not exist. The backgrounds are not identical, but display parallax-related differences. Further, in some cases where White alleged that mountains were identical, we discovered he had cropped the photographs to isolate small portions of mountain ranges with superficial similarities when the entire range in the full photo was as different as can be. That's dirty pool.

White's argument is based on the notion that his observations show things which can't be. In fact his observations are either fabricated or mistaken. Therefore they require no explanation. That little bit of logic escapes White, and those who follow him. They are so fixated on the notion of falsified photography that they would rather extend their hypothesis further into the realm of pure conjecture rather than notice that there is no longer any need for their hypothesis to exist.

But what makes you so sure we're being lied to about Apollo?

__________________
~AstroMike

Jumbo: If the source of the debunking is a government front i guess every physics textbook writer,physics lecturer and student must be in on it too.

Hokey pokey: That is clearly a possibility.

Jumbo: You need to include all the engineers and scientists too, plus I'd say a good number of computer scientists too.

Hokey Pokey. Do you honestly believe what you just said? I hope not. So what you believe is that the US government which in your opinion can't land on the moon, is capable on convincing every engineering and scientific professor, writer, teacher, graduate teaching assistant and I'm sure a bunch more folks, that have been around since the moon landings to lie; just not in the US but all over the world. The US government is sure powerful. And of course not one of these millions is honest either.

Oh and of course, the US government went and removed and replaced every single text book every printed before the moon landings occurred to ensure continuity. Again all over the world.

Oh and then the US government went and changed the laws of physics, so when some engineer designed something it would agree with what's in his text book.

So on one side, we've got the people saying the moon landings happened and on the other side we've people saying that the US government can't land on the moon, but that they went and changed every engineering and science text in the world (past and present and I guess future too) and had millions of people all over the world lie for them.

I choose the moon landings.

Actually, there's an alternative explanation for the lack of tracks. On several occasions the astronauts lifted the Rover and moved it around. It was certainly possible in the light gravity of the Moon.

Incidentally, hokey pokey, one thing the American government CAN'T do is legislate about reality. If a scientist from somewhere else in the world says something about the world, there's not a thing the American government can do about it. And remember, unless you believe the entire Cold War was faked as well, the Soviet Union had no reason to do the USA any favours over the Moon landings.

ROTFLMAO! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

__________________
~AstroMike