Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 30729 times)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #210 on: May 20, 2018, 07:23:56 PM »
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on earth.

Where they were made is irrelevant. What the observations were of is the key. Newton's laws were derived using observations of anything from a falling apple to distant planets. Are you aware of how Neptune was discovered, for example?

No matter how many times you try to say we are uncertain about the exact mechanism of gravity, it won't alter the fact that whatever new theories arise will not affect how objects within the solar system behave, nor will it affect the calculations necessary to send a spacecraft to the Moon.

Quote
I watched a documentary on the Rosetta mission and all they said was, we launched it, we caught up with the comet, took some photos and crashed into it, and they managed to make that information last 45 minutes. It was either made for ten year olds, or they just hadn’t come up with a feasible explanation at the time of production.

Or maybe they figured that since the physics of gravitational slignshots was well known by that time, but a little too arcane for a TV audience, they didn't go into that detail for the documentary. Have you tried doing any actual research into how these things work? If you're expecting to get your knowledge from TV dcumentaries it's little wonder you're so unable to fathom how things are done.


Quote
Quote
“Thank you for demonstrating how little of the record you have actually seen. That would be the 'scaled down' model that every TV broadcast from every mission includes footage of the astronauts working next to, climbing up and into or out and down from, yes?”

Where is your logic? Scaled down models to give the illusion of distance, and full size mock-ups for scenes including the alleged astronauts.

My logic comes from having seen all (and I do mean all) the footage from the lunar surface TV and film. Just because all you have seen is a few clips on YouTube don't assume they give you anything like the full picture.

"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #211 on: May 20, 2018, 07:31:20 PM »
Here’s some thoughts from some clever people, who are sceptical of Apollo. They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields.

Colin Rourke, Professor of Mathematics

http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/hadley_study.pdf

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v_evaluation.htm

Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v.htm

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov

http://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v.htm

Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin

http://www.abodia.com/hoax/moon-landing-hoax/articles/moon-landings-conspiracy-theories.htm

Let's see, Colin Rourke is indeed a mathematics professor, however he hasn't acknowledged publishing anything since 1998, so forgery is most suspect.  An e-mail has been sent with hopes he will respond with clarification.

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD and Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky only seem to exist within the domains of conspiracy websites, as no other references for their names seem be available.

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov seems to fall in line with the previous two, with this tidbit added (from http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Ivanovich_Popov):
"The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax."

And finally, Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin is merely a political activist, and nothing more.

So, when you said, "They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields", you are only correct, because those fields are BS, fraud and lies.  All par for the course.  And YOU put them on a pedestal.  Now, THAT's funny!
"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #212 on: May 20, 2018, 09:51:00 PM »
Quote from: AtomicDog
“What in blazes are you talking about? You don't need NASA to tell you that the Earth is not on the lunar horizon from Clavius crater! All you need are a pair of eyes!  Any Moon map will show you that Clavius is 30 degrees latitude and 70 degrees longitude from the lunar limb and that the Earth is not going to get near the horizon from that location.  Do YOU think that NASA is the be-all and end-all of all astronomical knowledge? Any amateur astronomer alive knows where the Earth can be seen from the Moon!”

Quote from: cambo
Wow, that’s me told. Although Mr Kubrick put a lot of work into his films, the movie in question was science fiction and was probably only intended as a showcase for the latest special effects. It was not a documentary, so take a chill pill and I’ll try not to upset you in future.

Way to change the subject. Your contention was that NASA was needed to determine the position of earth as seen from the moon. I said that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy doesn't need NASA. If that doesn't include you, that's not my fault.

Quote from: AtomicDog
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”


Quote from: cambo
Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side.

Likewise, if you can't do center of mass calculations, that's no one's fault but yours.
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1398
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #213 on: May 20, 2018, 11:58:44 PM »
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on earth.

and have been successfully applied throughout the solar system.


Quote
Quote
“do you think that speeding up the jump salute video to 1.67x speed, rendering that video, reducing it's speed by 2/3 and then comparing it with the original is a valid approach?”

A valid approach to make it look as it would on earth? The way I read the question, it would leave me with a slower speed than I started with, so either reword the question or give it to me in English. The scene you mention was aided by the use of wires, as are many other scenes regarding the astronaut’s activities, while allegedly on the moon, so we will always see that floating effect, no matter what speed we play the video.

Oh dear, this old crap again. Who operated the wires? Where was the harness attached? How did the wires somehow manage never to get tangled up with each other as astronauts crossed paths multiple times?

Quote

Quote
“If you want to engage in verbal jousting and patronising remarks about my education then I'll sure enough post a moderator report. Be warned, I've acted in good faith so far.”

Oh, have I hurt your feelings? It’s obvious that the members on here, don’t take kindly to us non-academics, who have the audacity to question your knowledge. I am criticising the education you have received, and it is not meant as an insult to you personally, so if you can’t handle one HB crashing your party, then by all means, post that report. The title of this site suggests it is a place to debate the hoax theory from both sides of the fence, but I now see that is not the case, as I seem to be the only HB here, and I’m probably in the wrong place. I doubt I’ll be here much longer, whether you post that report or not.

People here have no problem with non-academics. You might find that some people here are not academics. What we take issue with is people claiming expertise they plainly do not have and have no intention of acquiring, and who clearly have a problem with those people who have actually bothered to do that.

Quote
Quote
“I am interrogating your claims, your expertise and the your credentials by asking you a series of questions that are relevant to your claims.”

 Why is a question on radiation relevant to me personally? Why would I need to be an expert on the subject of cosmic radiation to support any of my claims? Point to an instance where I have said that radiation in space is restrictive to humans. You do realise, Mr Einstein, you are not the only one with internet access, and I would be able to answer your radiation questions with a few clicks of my mouse, so stop being a clever arse.

Being able to copy and paste is not the same as understanding something.

Quote

Quote
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”

Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side.

Gee, do you think they might have thought of that? You demanded blueprints for one reason only: you think no-one has them. That's why you aren't happy with visual documentation of the rover being packed and unpacked.

Quote

Quote
“If you think that gravity is only a theory, jump off your roof and report back to us”

Gravity is real, how it works is the theory part. Did you by any chance attend the same school as me?

The invitation to check out the theory still stands.

Quote
Quote
“Please show me an experiment where sand/dust in an atmosphere behaves like this and I'll believe everything you claim”

If you are told you are seeing dust, then you will see dust, and then logically assume it is in a vacuum. If you look at it as being sand, then it becomes obvious, the footage is fake.

So you're happy to concede that your preconceptions are prejudicing your understanding and defining you answers.

Quote
Quote
“How do you explain views of Earth in those pans entirely consistent with the day's meteorological observations?”

You need to give up on this weather pattern crap, as I can see one tiny flaw in your argument. Namely, it’s [email protected]?cks.

Nope, wrong again. You clearly have no response to the fact that every single image of Earth, whether it be still image, 16mm film or live TV, contains a unique meteorological fingerprint that is verified by images from meteorological satellites. The configuration of landmasses, and the position and shape of the terminator, in those images are exact matches for the time and date they were taken, as are the details referenced in them during the missions themselves. There is no explanation for those matches other than the images were taken when and where historical fact says they were taken. Prove otherwise.

Quote
Quote
“The particle size distribution is clearly not just sand”

And you can tell this, just by watching that poor quality film?

Yes, it's funny that you can't work out how.

Quote
Quote
“you would know how how long it would take to get the amount of "sand" required.”

Nope, but since you’ve obviously worked out the area of the movie set, and the logistics involved in delivering the amount of sand, which you have also calculated, then why don’t you tell me?

I for one have spent more time than I care to remember processing and sieving soil samples in to standard size fractions. If you want to know yourself, try it.

Quote
Quote
“The fact is that probes sent by India, Japan and China all corroborate Apollo's imagery, and the 3D models you can create using their data also corroborate the views shown in Apollo photographs.”

“The probes from those three nations also confirm evidence of human activity on the lunar surface exactly as shown by th LRO and by images taken by Apollo.”

Of course they would, but I think, using the word “fact” is a bit of an exaggeration.

Nope, it's a fact. I downloaded the raw images and processed them myself, so I know exactly what's in them even if Japan, India and China don't. Not only do the landing sites show evidence of human activity, you can take any image taken from lunar orbit by Apollo and the tiniest details are an exact match for subsequent probes.

Quote

Quote
“ I don't know, for example, that the live TV broadcast made by Apollo 11 on July 16th shows Hurricane Bernice in a unique configuration for that day because someone told me, I know because I discovered it myself”

The internet told you, as it did me.

That's the second time you have tried to imply that I have somehow not spent years trawling archives for data, checking the transcripts and video, buying contemporary books and documentation and verifying that the conclusions I have drawn are correct. The work is mine, no-one else's.

This is also an ongoing project - I updated it yesterday to include much higher resolution versions of Apollo 15 and 16's ultra-violet images of Earth than I had previously seen. Guess what - they show exactly what they should.

Quote
Quote
“Exactly what efforts have you gone to to prove your point?”

Mainly, the use of my eyes and ears, rather than taking someone else’s word for it.

When do you plan on starting this? So far all you've done is blown a lot of hot air at it and puked up some Aulis and Sibrel garbage. I have a whole website full of my own research into this, I have taken no-one's work as gospel. What I have done is listen to people who know what they are talking about and critically examined the work of those who plainly don't.

Quote
Quote
“Football scores, weather reports, news headlines. Read the transcripts”

Transcripts? So there is no actual alleged video footage of them discussing football scores, for example?

Yes.

Quote

Quote
“If you followed him on social media, you would know that Buzz Aldrin has not had his life wrecked at all”

He suffered from alcoholism and depression for years, and the internet is full of articles on the subject.

Well done. Shame you don't bother following his media appearances world wide and the rather nice life he leads since he got his act together.

Quote

Quote
“we have magic rocks that come from the Earth but have geological, physical and chemical characteristics that show they could only have formed on the Moon. Care to explain this?”

I answered this question some time back, but just for your benefit, they could have been meteorites, which everyone agrees, probably came from the moon, but with the fusion layer removed.

And how do you think they know they are from the moon?

Quote


Quote
“Where do you draw the line on what spacecraft are real, and why do you draw it there?”

I can only comment on missions, I am familiar with, in particular, Apollo, which is the reason I came here.

You are not demonstrating that familiarity very well.

Quote

Quote
“Pick a sample at random and click on it. Scroll down to the bottom and count the number of academic articles written about that one sample. Count up the number of unique individuals who wrote those articles. Then consider that there are hundreds of other samples with similar numbers of academic articles on each”

These are people who’ve studied the alleged samples from the moon, right? They are only confirming their belief that the samples have the same properties as they would expect to see in a moon rock, so I ask again, where are the public testimonies from scientists, declaring that Apollo was not a hoax, and why? I’ll keep my socks on for now until you’ve finished counting them all.

You seem to have this bizarre idea that getting your degree certificate is accompanied by some sort of swearing an oath of fealty and the signing of a non-disclosure. I own a dozen volumes of lunar science conference proceedings from the Apollo era, each of them jam packed with scientists more than happy to put their name to the samples being genuine.

Quote
Quote
“there are numerous times where the astronauts are referencing current events”

Show me some video footage, where they mention something they couldn’t have known in advance.  Although they could have just talked live over the pre-recorded footage, which just shows how gullible you are.

There is plenty, look for it.

Quote
As for it having to stand up to future scrutiny, well according to you, it has, but the vast majority of people who’ve taken the time to view the visual evidence, will tell you, you are bonkers. They must have known they wouldn’t fool future generations, but I would say their hands were tied after Kennedy went and made that foolhardy prediction.

The vast majority that have taken the time to look, to actually look, not just swallow whatever BS some youtube video has said or that they read at aulis written by some fake scholar throwing fancy terms around that don't actually mean anything when you look at it carefully, understand that Apollo happened exactly as history fully and very publicly documents.

Take your own advice. Look carefully at the information you are using as your source material and ask yourself if it is actually correct instead of allowing your prejudices to inform your opinion. Otherwise you're the one that's going to continue looking like an idiot.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 12:01:44 AM by onebigmonkey »

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1830
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #214 on: May 21, 2018, 12:52:25 AM »
Cambo, can you for heaven's sake leave on the part of the code that tells who you're quoting?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Obviousman

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #215 on: May 21, 2018, 05:01:08 AM »
Yeah, there are no air-to-ground audio recordings of them discussing sports results...

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap14fj/audio/a14-0325451.mp3

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap14fj/audio/a14-0333100.mp3




Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #216 on: May 21, 2018, 05:56:37 AM »
Cambo, can you for heaven's sake leave on the part of the code that tells who you're quoting?
Maybe cambo thinks we're all the same person?

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1398
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #217 on: May 21, 2018, 07:21:22 AM »
Yeah, there are no air-to-ground audio recordings of them discussing sports results...

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap14fj/audio/a14-0325451.mp3

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap14fj/audio/a14-0333100.mp3

The irony is he demands video footage showing something they couldn't have known in advance and he posted a video himself showing exactly that.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #218 on: May 21, 2018, 07:38:34 AM »
The hardware that got it into the air, were probably the only functional parts.

Except you then go on to cite some 'experts' who say it didn't actually work as advertised at all. Typical HB inconsistency.

Quote
Here’s some thoughts from some clever people, who are sceptical of Apollo. They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields.

And again. You'll agree with 'experts' when they agree with you, but you'll dismiss any experts that don't. Typical HB troll.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #219 on: May 21, 2018, 10:19:55 AM »
I'm out. I don't find cambo's arguments compelling or interesting. I'm off to watch paint dry.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #220 on: May 21, 2018, 11:34:30 AM »
I'm mildly amused by the circularity of his gravity arguments. They are getting almost hermetic; you can't prove gravity because you can't fly in space because you can't prove gravity.

Ignoring of course that we never measure anything, on Earth or otherwise. If I weigh an object on the simplest pan I am still trusting that gravity is working on both weights and the lever is working the way it is supposed to. If I hold up a ruler I'm not getting a length, I'm receiving photons reconstructing an image space where two objects appear to be intersecting, and reconstructing the meaning of that image in an organic processor that is incompletely described by science, of unique construction, and sealed in a black box.

Most are more obvious than that. We reconstruct a temperature based on assumptions of black-body curves and applying that same (highly inaccurate!) organic processor to compare colors. We assume microscopic grain formation in an unknown and un-assayed material. And after all of that, the newly annealed weld holds correctly. Wow...it's almost as if we DID understand what it is we can't see directly.


Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2877
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #221 on: May 21, 2018, 12:42:28 PM »
Here’s some thoughts from some clever people, who are sceptical of Apollo. They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields.

Colin Rourke, Professor of Mathematics

http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/hadley_study.pdf

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v_evaluation.htm

Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v.htm

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov

http://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v.htm

Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin

http://www.abodia.com/hoax/moon-landing-hoax/articles/moon-landings-conspiracy-theories.htm

Let's see, Colin Rourke is indeed a mathematics professor, however he hasn't acknowledged publishing anything since 1998, so forgery is most suspect.  An e-mail has been sent with hopes he will respond with clarification.

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD and Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky only seem to exist within the domains of conspiracy websites, as no other references for their names seem be available.

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov seems to fall in line with the previous two, with this tidbit added (from http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Ivanovich_Popov):
"The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax."

And finally, Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin is merely a political activist, and nothing more.

So, when you said, "They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields", you are only correct, because those fields are BS, fraud and lies.  All par for the course.  And YOU put them on a pedestal.  Now, THAT's funny!

I saw these items this morning but didn't have time to sort them out.
Great job in identifying the problems these individuals have with credibility.  And as such they fit right into aulis.com's "experts".  I made a suggestion that cambo quite pending time  at aulis and all he did was suggest that had credentials and expertise, the first is suspect the latter has yet to be demonstrated.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2877
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #222 on: May 21, 2018, 12:50:28 PM »
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on earth.

Where they were made is irrelevant. What the observations were of is the key. Newton's laws were derived using observations of anything from a falling apple to distant planets. Are you aware of how Neptune was discovered, for example?

No matter how many times you try to say we are uncertain about the exact mechanism of gravity, it won't alter the fact that whatever new theories arise will not affect how objects within the solar system behave, nor will it affect the calculations necessary to send a spacecraft to the Moon.


Quote
I watched a documentary on the Rosetta mission and all they said was, we launched it, we caught up with the comet, took some photos and crashed into it, and they managed to make that information last 45 minutes. It was either made for ten year olds, or they just hadn’t come up with a feasible explanation at the time of production.

Or maybe they figured that since the physics of gravitational slignshots was well known by that time, but a little too arcane for a TV audience, they didn't go into that detail for the documentary. Have you tried doing any actual research into how these things work? If you're expecting to get your knowledge from TV dcumentaries it's little wonder you're so unable to fathom how things are done.


Quote
Quote
“Thank you for demonstrating how little of the record you have actually seen. That would be the 'scaled down' model that every TV broadcast from every mission includes footage of the astronauts working next to, climbing up and into or out and down from, yes?”

Where is your logic? Scaled down models to give the illusion of distance, and full size mock-ups for scenes including the alleged astronauts.

My logic comes from having seen all (and I do mean all) the footage from the lunar surface TV and film. Just because all you have seen is a few clips on YouTube don't assume they give you anything like the full picture.
Excellent description of gravity and why one paper does not refute gravity nor how it works, just two (or more) masses have a gravitational attraction given by the formula F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2) where G is the gravitational constant.  That's how spacecraft are pinpointed to distant targets "using gravity assists".  But YOU knew this.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #223 on: May 21, 2018, 03:21:58 PM »
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on from earth.

Fixed that for you.

First of all, any new model of motion has to be consistent with all of Newton's laws, because Newton's laws work pretty well most of the time (for the masses and speeds we typically deal with, they're more than sufficient).  Once you start getting above certain masses, or above certain speeds, Newton's laws become inadequate and you have to turn to new models.  Newton's laws of motion could not explain the precession of Mercury's orbit around the Sun.  General Relativity explains that precession, along with everything else Newton's laws already explain.  You can see Newton's laws as being a special case of General Relativity, just as General Relativity will be a special case of whatever new model comes along to explain what General Relativity can't. 

Secondly, Newton's laws apply to objects in space just as much as objects on Earth.  Kepler deduced his laws of planetary motion based on extensive observations of the planets made by Tycho Brahe; those laws were later shown by Newton to be a close approximation of his own laws of motion as applied to the solar system. 

IOW, Netwon's laws work in space just as well as they do on Earth.  Based on observations of the motions of planets orbiting the Sun, planets orbiting other stars, stars orbiting larger stars or the center of the Milky Way, etc., we're pretty confident that gravity works the same everywhere for everybody. 

Newton's laws can be used to compute the velocity necessary to maintain an orbit at a specific altitude.  They can be used to compute path and energy necessary to get a probe to Pluto in the span of a decade.  They can be used to get several meat sacks from the surface of the Earth to the Moon and back again. 

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #224 on: May 21, 2018, 03:38:15 PM »
4/5 of cambo's links are to aulis, a lying site of scumbaggery, known to invent imaginary "experts" out of whole cloth.

That is home to the deceased Jack White, the very same that testified to the HSCA that he had never heard of photogrammetry after purporting to analyse photographs.

The same site is home to the discredited David Percy, whose nonsense was amply torn apart by svector, Jay, Datacable, STS and many others.