|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 11, 2007 16:35:45 GMT -4
An interesting post from Jack on The Education Forum: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9042#Jack mentions the History Channel in the post, but says Discovery in the thread title. Anyone got any contacts to find out about this? I can see it as easily being a slamdunking of Jack's 'studies'. I did have to chuckle over the phrase "ten most credible"; I would have trouble finding one credible! (Edit - corrected formatting on quote)
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 11, 2007 16:39:32 GMT -4
I imagine that it could be that the producers realized Jack's past "creditials", and thus did not want to embarass themselves. That, or they read something on Clavius.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 11, 2007 17:21:53 GMT -4
I thought you meant another THC...
Given some of the other crap that Hist has shown (UFOs, Bible Codes, etc.) I wouldn't be surprised if they contacted him. But maybe he's beyond even their pale.
Fred
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 11, 2007 17:42:53 GMT -4
I do know THC was planning a program about the moon hoax, though I don't recall if it was for their History's Mysteries program. I know because I was contacted about it as well. They were interested in interviewing me but I was a bit too far out of their way. Jay and Phil Plait where both contacted as well.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 12, 2007 12:27:19 GMT -4
I thought you meant another THC... That's what I though too! ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 21, 2007 20:58:00 GMT -4
The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and other such channels are distribution media. The actual programs are produced by indepedent production companies who work under contract. If White were telling the truth, he'd have mentioned he had been contacted by such-and-such a production company working under contract to such-and-such a distributor.
The other reason I'm pretty sure White is yanking our chain is that History's Mysteries is no longer in production. There haven't been any new episodes for a number of years. If he's trying to tell us that he was part of a new episode to air in late 2006, I'd say he didn't research his fib well enough.
It would also be strange for the producers to keep White updated about what NASA was doing and thinking if the plan was to let White and NASA slug it out. History's Mysteries generally keeps an even keel. It would be a departure from their standard practice to work extensively with a conspiracy theorist over the course of weeks and then to spring it all on NASA with little or no warning. This registers pretty skeptical on my Yeah-Right-O-Meter.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 21, 2007 21:19:56 GMT -4
I do know THC was planning a program about the moon hoax, though I don't recall if it was for their History's Mysteries program. I know because I was contacted about it as well. They were interested in interviewing me but I was a bit too far out of their way. Jay and Phil Plait where both contacted as well. I was contacted by Ten Worlds Productions last spring. (Ten Worlds produced the series Declassified.) They had been green-lighted by the History Channel for a new series Debunked, the pilot episode of which was to be on the Apollo hoax theory. In June 2006 I taped an interview at their studios in Hollywood. The projected air date was late 2006, but I have heard no word about the progress of the series. At the time of my discussion with John Flynn, the producer, Jack White was not involved. Besides, I doubt Ten Worlds would give White more than about half a day of their time, not "weeks".
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Feb 6, 2007 1:47:46 GMT -4
Funy thing is, when I read the title of this thread, I took THC to mean the chemical found in certain plant product.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 6, 2007 9:37:24 GMT -4
I took THC to mean the chemical found in certain plant product. As did others earlier in the thread, which is preposterous, anyway... Jack is clearly on something much more potent.
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 14, 2007 15:55:08 GMT -4
I looked at this guys photos and like it or not there appear to be many anomolies within them. This site addresses a few of his studies however can anyone explain how the lander rotates 90 degrees while the background mountain hardly moves as shown here? www.aulis.com/jackstudies_16.html
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 14, 2007 15:57:26 GMT -4
This site addresses a few of his studies however can anyone explain how the lander rotates 90 degrees while the background mountain hardly moves as shown here? www.aulis.com/jackstudies_16.htmlIt doesn't. Jack can't tell one side of the LM from the other.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 14, 2007 16:01:38 GMT -4
To further what I was saying, just in case you need proof. Look at where the flag is, and the direction it's pointing. Now look at the left side of the LM and note the unpacked MESA on the ground. Now look at the second panarama and note the flag position and direction. Note that the unpacked MESA is now on the right side of the LM. Look at the LM AM itself, notice the differences in shape? See that in the first image it's in shade with the sun above it, in the second it is in sunlight, the sun behind the astronaut taking the images?
The first photo is of the Front of the LM, the second is of the Back. Jack doesn't know that because he doesn't know the difference between the four sides. Now I have to ask you, how reliable is someone who claims to have studied Apollo for 20 years and still doesn't know which side of the LM he's looking at?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 14, 2007 16:09:41 GMT -4
Heh, haven't relooked, I see that wasn't what Jack was saying. should remore carefully when I haven't woken up yet. I think the background's purely a perspective thing, but I'm tracking down the original panarama to make sure.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 14, 2007 16:17:32 GMT -4
Right I'm going back to my oringinal answer. I've had a closer look at the images. The LM is only rotated 45°. We're seeing the Starboard side. (the back has the large flat panel on it.) The MESA has moved only from the left front to right front, so the rotation is only a quarter of a full rotation. Half the rotation Jack claims. The mountians have also rotated 45° and so are consistant. So yes, Jack doesn't know which side of the LM is which. It also doesn't help that his images are so small. Cheak out the panarama for 16 that I linked, far more detailed.
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on Mar 14, 2007 16:30:34 GMT -4
Right I'm going back to my oringinal answer. I've had a closer look at the images. The LM is only rotated 45°. We're seeing the Starboard side. (the back has the large flat panel on it.) The MESA has moved only from the left front to right front, so the rotation is only a quarter of a full rotation. Half the rotation Jack claims. The mountians have also rotated 45° and so are consistant. So yes, Jack doesn't know which side of the LM is which. It also doesn't help that his images are so small. Cheak out the panarama for 16 that I linked, far more detailed. You might be confusing 90 degrees to 180 degrees. Look at the landing legs. The LM is rotated slightly over 90 degrees. The right side of the mountain and the LM are about half a picture width apart or slightly over. If the upper panorama really covers about 160 degrees or so, the angle between the LM and the mountain is indeed 90 degrees or something close to that. Nothing anomalous about the pictures. [EDITed for explanation for cygnusx1 and typos: In the upper panorama the LM and the right side of the mountain are about 90 degrees apart, like I explained above. In the lower panorama the photographer has moved a quarter of a circle to the left of the LM, that way the LM is rotated about 90 degrees and as a result the mountain has moved about 90 degrees relative to the LM. The right side of the mountain is now directly behind the LM whereas in the upper picture they were 90 degrees apart.]
|
|