Evan Burton´s Jack White debunking

[obviousfan]

Am I the only one, who have missed Evan Burton´s very long thread over at Education Forum debunking the living daylight out of Jack White´s Aulis pictures ? (Nah, me think not ! ;D)

Evan had completed a fantastic, month long debunking marathon - and then it suddenly vanished from Education Forum. The entire thread ....

Well, by googling, I think that I have found the entire thread. I understand that Evan is in the process of reconstructing the entire debunking piece on a, shall we say, more "safe" website. (educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t5364.html)

Until then, you can enjoy it at the following links. Download the files, print them out on paper. It´s just too valuable to "vanish" into cyberspace one more time.

PLEASE NOTE: Unfortunately the following links breaks at the ":" - so you´ll have to copy and paste the full URL. A bit of bother, but it´s gonna be worth the effort. I promise ! :-))

If you print out the entire piece, you may well go past 200 A4 pages. (I think that I reached 210 pages or so ....)
_________________________

PART 1:

A. 64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:u4JoYpTiWLoJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=a9bcf44e6920a6d11678726f26c261c4&showtopic=3589++Addressing+Jacks+new+article&hl=en

(From April 2 to April 5)

B. 64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AOwGMaaBiNYJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=25638+This+diagramme+shows+were+the+images+were+taken&hl=en

(From April 5 to April 7)

C. 64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AdRWTjZIJ3cJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=a9bcf44e6920a6d11678726f26c261c4&showtopic=3589&st=30+WHISTLE-BLOWERS+EXPOSE+APOLLO+HOAXING&hl=en

(From April 7 to April 9)

D. 64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:4t5RpZcgRoMJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=eaca3f546bb81387a85bf4027c778b92&showtopic=3589&st=45++site:educationforum.ipbhost.com+jack+POSSIBLE+OR+IMPOSSIBLE?+evan+burton&hl=en

(From April 9 to April 10)

_________________________

PART 2:

64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:UeO56SdrODAJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3589-50.html++site:educationforum.ipbhost.com+lofiversion/index.php/t3589+evan&hl=en

(From April 9 to April 16)

Google for "http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3589-50.html"

____________________________

PART 3:

64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:9f7tD1s1xDsJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3589-100.html++site:educationforum.ipbhost.com+lofiversion/index.php/t3589+evan&hl=en

(From April 17 to April 28)

Google for "http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3589-100.html"

___________________________

PART 4:

64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:c2Hw3-l3PzkJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3589-150.html++site:educationforum.ipbhost.com+lofiversion/index.php/t3589+evan&hl=en

(From April 28 to June 25)

Google for "http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3589-150.html"

____________________________

As you can see, PART 1 should have been "http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3589-0.html", but it seems that Google only has Part 1 in tiny bits.

I hope that you will enjoy Evan´s effort as much as I have ! ;D

And, Evan, good luck with the reconstruction ! I think that I can speak for all of us, when I say that we are looking forward to it !

[edited to add following comment]

I am sorry if the above may seem a bit confusing. It was the best, that I could do. I hope that other posters with more HTML-knowledge than me can create better and more "stable" links ?!)

Sincerly,

"Obvious Fan"

[JayUtah]

I thought the Education Forum was reasonably objective. Are you saying they selectively removed that thread? Or did it just fall off the end of their retention interval? That would be sad if the Education Forum turned out to be just another walled garden in which Jack White can cavort reasonably unmolested.

[Nowhere Man]

You can make short links from long ones. Here is link A from your part 1: [url=http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:u4JoYpTiWLoJ:educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=a9bcf44e6920a6d11678726f26c 261c4&showtopic=3589++Addressing+Jacks+new+article&hl=en
]Part 1, link A[/url]

Behold the secret:[url=http://www.fantastically-long-URL.com]short description[/url]

We won't mind if you go back and change your post.

Fred

[frenat]

You could also use the site www.tinyurl.com

[Obviousman]

I don't believe that the Education Forum had anything to do with the disappearance. They had some major server problems, and it just got lost in the reconstruction.

I should have reconstructed it over my last break, but it was Xmas, had the rellies over, spent too much time watching the TV etc.

I'll start again this weekend. Promise.

I'll also try to back it up on another website. I only get 20Mb with my ISP, so it may not fit but I'm sure there will be somewhere that I can find.

Oh - and thanks for the compliments.

[Obviousman]

Thanks for those links, and the links that had been previously provided.

Since I am going to redo all of this, I'd appreciate any suggestions or corrections to my original work.

One of which I'll be doing is to put photo ID numbers under many of the pre-flight images which were shown (e.g. LRV deployment).

Thanks!

[Obviousman]

New thread started:

educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=209&t=5911&st=0#entry51880

[Kiwi]

Thanks, Obviousman, for the link to the new thread. I think there's a small error in the first rebuttal, where you say, "After taking 11470, Jim has taken a step to his left to take a stereo companion, 11471."

If you compare the two carefully (IIRC there's a white mark on the ground near the centre of the rover), you can see that Jim stepped backwards and sideways for the second photo, which he wouldn't have done to take the second of a stereo pair.

I commented on these two photos in a thread here on the old board, as follows:

...this photo is AS15-85-11471 and the journal refers to it at ground elapsed time 143:03:52. The reason for no tyre marks behind the wheels is that Dave Scott and Jim Irwin have been working all around the rover, loading it up for their second EVA. You can see the change to a lighter soil colour beyond where the astronauts trod at the rear of the rover, and in the background are tyre marks from the previous day's activities.

Round about this time Dave performed a steering check and Jim had yet to climb aboard. However, you can see dust falling from both of the wheels, so what exactly is going on?

Context. Context. Read the text of the journal, compare this photo with the previous one, and it all becomes clear.

In AS15-85-11470, the top of the dark band on the rear wheel is between 11 and 12 o'clock, and the dark band at Dave's wrist is left of the dark handle on his Hasselblad camera. In 11471, Jim has stepped back a little and to his left so the perspective has changed, but we can still see that the rear wheel has rotated to between 12 and 1 o'clock and the band on Dave's arm is forward of the camera handle, showing that he has pushed the joy stick forward.

So what we're most likely looking at in the two photos is that in AS15-85-11470 the rover is stationary, as evidenced by Jim having time to move back and to the left for the next photo, and in AS15-85-11471 we are seeing the very first motion of the rover for that day. It has moved so little that it hasn't yet laid down a visible length of tracks in the stirred-up lunar soil.

A further indication that the rover is just getting under way is that in both photos the TV camera at the front is in the stowed position, showing that Ed Fendell back in Houston is yet to start work, operating it by remote.

The caption for AS15-85-11471 in the ALSJ's Apollo 15 Image Library says "Jim has taken a step to his left to take a stereo companion to 11470." I doubt this, as he would not have needed to move so far to the left as he did, nor would he have also stepped backwards to take the second shot of a stereo pair. He moved for some other reason, probably to simply get more of the rover in the second photo.

Naturally, most of your description is much better than mine.

[snakeriverrufus]

The upper forums appear to be reaasonably well run but the conspiracy believers

[lenbrazil]

I asked John Simkin what happened when the original thread disapeered. He said something about photos and other media files hogging up to much space.

Obviousman do you know if "Evan" stored those images on the Ed Forum or on photo hosting site? Discouraging people from including those photos in replies could also help.

Interestingly Jack White said this on the new thread "I have never said the landings were faked." more about that on a new thread here.

[Mr Gorsky]

lenbrazil said:

Interestingly Jack White said this on the new thread "I have never said the landings were faked." more about that on a new thread here.

I have never seen Jack White claim that the landings were faked ... just that the photographic record is faked. I haven't seen him outline anywhere what he thinks really happened, but I haven't been paying him too much attention, I have to be honest.

To me this seems like an even more bizarre claim than the landings themselves being faked, because why would they do that? What possible reason could they have to go to the moon, and then fake photographic records that they had been there.

Aliens?

Well, as I have said before. Apollo was scuppered by two factors: Lack of political will (leading to funding cuts), and lack of public interest. Strikes me that one surefire way of guaranteeing both these things was to find aliens on the moon.

Surely, therefore, a fake photo record from Apollo would include aliens. Wouldn't it?

[Retrograde]

mrgorsky said:

To me this seems like an even more bizarre claim than the landings themselves being faked, because why would they do that? What possible reason could they have to go to the moon, and then fake photographic records that they had been there.

They forgot to bring film for the camera. Six times.

[Count Zero]

kos said:

They forgot to bring film for the camera. Six times.

Nobody's that stupid. The last two times they left the lense cap on.

[lenbrazil]

Jack's position is that the photo's were definately faked and that the missions: 1) definately 2) probably or 3) posssibly were faked depending on what post or paragraph you're reading. He said he never said the landings were faked and that Evan's claim to the contrary was a lie. If you want to know who was lying read this thread

educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5987

[Obviousman]

More stuff added. I think people will like this latest one...