SCEPCOP Forum

Hi Winston,

I finished your Apollo thesis. Well done. Yes, it can be fleshed out a lot more, but I understand the overall point and highlights. You are correct in the psychological aspect. The herd and money is a strong pull on why most won't go there with the Apollo anomalies. Again, I have big problems with the radiation issue concerning Apollo. How in the hell can celluloid (film) survive the trip through the Van Allan belts, cosmic radiation (alpha, beta, gamma), and on the moon let alone biologics?

Also, you might want to read Gerhard Wisnewski's book - "One Small Step."

Again, no problems with your critique overall. I'll read JFK and 9/11 soon.

Ok, Winston. I read your JFK critique. Well done. Yes, again, there is so much to flesh out with the details surrounding the assassination. This becomes a book and that is not part and parcel to your examination. I completely understand. However, I would like to offer a few points worth considering to you and the readers. I will just put them in bullet points for the sake of expediency:

*Please explore the Mexico City/Oswald connection. This has CIA all over it. Warren Commission omitted this.
*If I am correct, Oswald did not renounce his U.S. citizenship. Yes, he tried, but was kept in stasis. Check on this, please.
*Both Kenny O'Donnell and Bill Powers in the follow up car to JFK's saw the blowout. Pressure made them say otherwise.
*50 witnesses saw JFK's limo come to a STOP or near stop.
*The Zapruder Tape cannot be taken as literal evidence. It has been manipulated by the Kodak Hawkeye Works in Rochester, NY.
*The skull x-rays proves beyond a shadow of doubt that they are of Kennedy's head. They have been altered. Big Smoking Gun!!!!!!!
*LBJ was part and parcel to the assassination. However, he was NOT the brains behind it. The assassination was State sponsored with the CIA being the organizer. Yes, Hoover played his part in the assassination and cover-up. I am by no means mitigating their involvement.
*Only a palm print (Oswald) was found on the alleged assassination rifle. Not fingerprints. You explained the modus operandi quite correctly.

Two must reads: Inside the Assassination Review Board by Douglas Horne. And David Talbots - "Brothers." Wintson, get these books. Again, well done!

This should say:

An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967 , were one hundred thousand trillion to one. The above comment on the deaths of assassination witnesses was published in a tabloid companion piece to the movie "Executive Action," released in 1973. By that time, part of the mythology of the Kennedy assassination included the mysterious deaths of people who were connected with it. By the mid-1960s, people in Dallas already were whispering about the number of persons who died under strange or questionable circumstances.

Skeptics,
Here are some smoking gun photos I found that will make you slap your forehead in embarrassment. You will probably be too embarrassed to speak after this. Take a good hard look at these photos. This will be the clincher that will change your mind if you are on the fence or an Apollo believer.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

4. Buzz Aldrin spotlight photo a smoking gun blunder

The famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing in the spotlight is a giveaway in that he is being lit up in a spotlight from alleged sunlight while the ground around him is in darkness! How can the sun put a spotlight around a particular person like a stagehand pointing a spotlight on an actor or singer on stage?! This was obviously a major screw up, and NASA was reckless for thinking that no one would notice or that they could get away with it. In fact, it was such a blunder that NASA even tried to cover it up by brightening the rest of the surface in subsequent versions of it. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:



Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

Apollo defenders can’t explain this at all, so they’ve resorted to deception by claiming that the edited version is the original. But Jarrah White proved unequivocally that the spotlight version is the original one by showing newspaper clippings from 1969 which showed that one in his YouTube video “Moonfaker: Posing for Portrait”.



5. Distinct line separating foreground from artificial backdrop

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures, and indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example:



Important! Here is a much larger version that I want you to open in a new window and look at closely, because it contains a BIG NEW SMOKING GUN! View this image at its original size, and notice that behind the astronaut the edge of a WHITE CLOTH CANVAS can be seen placed over the dirt! This is a MUST SEE smoking gun that I discovered but don't see mentioned on any other sites yet!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 001114.jpg

8. Sun image on moon turns out to be light bulb in enhanced image

Here is another smoking gun that will make Apollo believers feel foolish and embarrassed. An Apollo image of the alleged sun from the moon’s surface turned out to be a big light bulb upon image enhancement! See images and enhancement below:





9. Lunar rover with no tire tracks on either side

In possibly yet another slip up by NASA are images of the 65 million dollar lunar rovers seen with no tire tracks on either end of it! Was it lowered down from above? It would seem that whoever directed this must have been in a rush on a tight schedule.

Examples:
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/tracklessrover.jpg
http://www.buckledcranium.com/images/ar ... lo/008.jpg
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo15LunarRover.jpg
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/NASA_Apollo ... ehicle.jpg

Are you guys slapping your heads in embarrassment now? lol

I'll take a look at what you posted Scepcop, though I honestly haven't looked into the moon landing much. But just to note: its not embarassing to change one's mind based on additional evidence. That's good skepticm - not a cause of shame.

took a quick look at that video - way too technical for me to form an opinon on. But I'm wondering whether they examined whether the added darkness in the newspaper photos could have been an articfact of the copying process into the newspaper? I didn't hear him mention that in the video.

I just caught this in Yahoo News. Jarrah White on moonfaker.com goes point by point on the moon rocks issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/mi ... 06269.html

Believe it or not, people are selling copies of the original newspaper on ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid= ... &_from=R40



http://www.ebay.com/itm/Friday-Aug-1-19 ... 564c30e6e2

All the pictures (including the one you think was lightened) have darker areas. I'm not sure how the different copiers would deal with it. I know photocopiers can produce dramatically different results of the same image given different settings. But I'm not an expert in this.

Why Jarrah White is wrong.
http://as204.blogspot.com/

While looking further for more info on the fellow I noticed scepcop made a few other mentions on other sites.
What perplexes me is why scepcop puts so much faith in Jarrah, a fellow whose age as indicated by photos wasn't even alive until well after the last Moon mission. How can such a self professed expert and youngster have so much knowledge from second hand sources ? It's no different than what scepcop is doing.