(Merged) Fetzer / Burton Apollo Hoax debate thread

[Evan Burton]

Next: Movies.

Well, so what? In 1968 there was a movie called MAROONED where, after leaving a Skylab-like space station, three astronauts are stranded in Earth orbit when their SPS engine fails to fire. A rescue attempt is made using the X-20 Dyna-Soar spacecraft and the USSR. In real life, the X-20 was cancelled. Nothing close to anything like that ever happened. The nearest to co-operation with the USSR was the ASTP, a largely political exercise.

In the TV series QUANTUM LEAP, Sam leaps into the body of Lee Harvey Oswald as we see how he prepares and carries out the assassination of JFK. Is this proof the LHO was indeed a 'lone nut'?

There are lots of movies portraying FICTIONAL events. Just because a movie is made that relates to real world events doe NOT make the movie fact, true, or containing hidden messages, etc.

[Evan Burton]

Conspiracy theorists.

If you claim Apollo was faked, then by definition you are a conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy is:

"...an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act..."

[Evan Burton]

Next: A hoax is possible to keep secret.

We have a number of examples quoted: The Manhattan project, Bletchly Park (Enigma), the N-1 moon rocket, etc. Let have a look at them.

The atomic bomb: It is established fact that there were many leaks to the USSR of the Manhattan Project, which greatly accelerated the USSR's own atomic bomb project. What about Germany?

...German physicists heard rumors and suspected an atomic bomb project was underway in Britain, the United States, or both...

.

Enigma: This one is slightly different. The number of people "in the know" was quite small. Each hut only knew about its own decodes and not others. Huts did not necessarily know about the Bombe or Colossus, just that they had been given a "tool" to help break the code. After the war, it was still kept secret because it was still leading to information about Soviet activities / spy rings. The secret was kept because it was a matter of national security, and when that was no longer relevant the secret began to leak. The comparison is invalid: Bletchley Park involved cipher codes during a real war and then protecting the secret because it could still affect current operations. If Apollo had been faked, there would be no reason to keep the secret, especially after the fall of the USSR.

The USSR's N-1 moon rocket: The N-1 was the USSR's equivalent to the US Saturn V rocket. Its development, along with manned lunar lander hardware, is proof that the USSR believed a manned landing on the Moon was not only possible but they hoped to beat the US. The CIA knew about the N-1 programme almost since its inception. In fact, it (along with the Proton booster) was one of the factors that led to Apollo 8 becoming a circumlunar flight.

So we see that a big secret is difficult to keep. Also, the number of people to be involved in a hoax is not small. It must include astronauts, NASA management, flight controllers, tracking stations, and more.

(An aside: notice that the top secret report talks about Soviet confidence to conduct a "... manned flight of 1 to 2 weeks; this would be adequate for a manned circumlunar or lunar landing mission...". So the USSR didn't think that travel through the VABs posed an insurmountable problem)

[Evan Burton]

Next: Apollo 1 deaths, as well as others.

Apollo 1: The deaths of the Apollo 1 crew was not only tragic but preventable. There are numerous factors that come into play, but the two over-riding factors were complacency and the pressure to achieve a deadline. Complacency regarding the use of oxygen in spacecraft had been growing since Mercury, and pressure to meet schedules meant accepting defects in the process. A common attitude was that the machine was not perfect but they would sort problems out later. This affected all aspects of Apollo; a common saying was "waste anything but time". There is a claim is that spacecraft commander Gus Grissom was going to hang a lemon on the spacecraft. This is NOT true. He did hang a lemon on the spacecraft simulator, frustrated that the simulator configuration was not keeping pace with that of the spacecraft. So was Gus satisfied with the state of the Block I Command Module? No, he was not. He expressed his complaints in various areas but believed that the spacecraft was safe enough to fly, fixing up the problems in the Block II CM. This aspect needs to be looked at closely. The hoax believer claim is that he dared not speak up lest he was killed. This is wrong because he DID speak up. Did he do enough? No - astronaut John Young (veteran of Gemini X, Apollo 10 and commander of Apollo 16) said that Gus spoke to him of the problems. Young - an outspoken advocate of safety since the Apollo days - said that he asked Gus why he didn't complain more loudly. Gus told him he was afraid they would take the first Apollo flight away from him. Now think about this: would someone who had already voiced concerns about the spacecraft remain in a craft he felt was a death trap? NO - he was not happy with the state of the craft but felt the risk was acceptable. If he really felt it was unacceptable, all he need do was complain enough and he would be replaced. There was a backup crew waiting to fly, and they would step up in a moment. This would remove Gus (and probably his crew) from the danger whilst still highlighting the problems. Now let's examine the case of a deliberate murder of the crew; if this were the case, what did it achieve? It highlighted publicly the problems with the spacecraft and delayed the programme for 18 months. Now how did that work to the perpetrator's advantage? If anything, it drew attention to the problems and programme. It simply does not make sense.

The Baron death: Thomas Baron made two reports to the AS-204 Review Board (the Apollo 1 fire), claiming various problems. The majority were just heresay and unproven (or disproven) but some were quite valid. Baron was a quality control inspector for North American Aviation, the makers of the Apollo CM and SM. After he submitted his reports to NAA (in 1966, before the Apollo 1 fire), the AS204 Review Board and subsequent House investigation, he and his family were killed when crossing a train crossing. Again, there are claims he was "removed", so let's review this. He made complaints and a report BEFORE the Apollo 1 fire. He made complaints and a report AFTER the fire. His written reports were presented to the review board and the House investigation. He gain notoriety because he leaked his reports to the media. So what did his death result in? Increased scrutiny of his claims, the last thing a conspirator would want. The hoax claimers often fail to mention Baron's mental state at the time of his death.

Deaths of other astronauts. The vast majority of astronauts in those times were military test pilots. They maintained their flying proficiency by flying high performance jet aircraft. Flying military jet aircraft, especially in those day, is a hazardous profession. Let's have a look at the statistics. How many fatal jet aircraft accidents were there in those days?

FATAL ACCIDENTS (Pilots only) / (Class A accident involves fatalities) / Astronaut numbers - deaths - percentage (death)

1965 - 153 / Class A rate - 4.57% / 33 - 0 - 0%

1966 - 139 / Class A rate - 4.91% / 50 - 2 - 4%

1967 - 117 / Class A rate - 4.54% / 56 - 6 - 10.7%

1968 - 146 / Class A rate - 3.90% / 56 - 0 - 0%

1969 - 139 / Class A rate - 4.05% / 91 - 0 - 0%

A quick review of astronaut deaths:

1964 - Ted Freeman. Birdstrike to T-38.

1966 - Elliot See / Charlie Bassett. Landing below weather minimums.

1967 - Apollo 1 crew, CC Williams, Robert Lawrence (first African-American graduate of Aerospace Research School), Ed Givens. Capsule fire, control malfunction, instructor pilot when student made fatal approach, car accident.

Astronaut Groups

Astronaut Deaths

[Evan Burton]

3 of the X-15 were built, and its last flight was a year later (in 1968), out of 9 service years in total.

Again - so what? The three aircraft made 199 flights, reaching 107 km in altitude. The pressure suits they wore formed the basis for Apollo suits, BTW.

Apollo 1 was not the first prototype but had a serial number of 012.

Again, so what? In the aerospace industry, you produce prototypes and flight prototypes. Most were used in tests before the first manned test article.

. For many years before and after 1967 both the US and Soviet space industry had from 0 to 3 death cases per year. Only in 1967, a year before the first manned Apollo flight, there were 11 death cases.

I'd like to see references. I have 6, perhaps 7 US deaths in 1967. I'd like to see the deaths detailed.

[Evan Burton]

The Apollo 1 crew was still alive for at least 15 minutes after the craft caught fire, because their autopsy found that they have managed to develop pulmatory oedema, which cannot happen if they had died earlier.

I'd like to see supporting evidence of this. The report said:

Loss of consciousness was due to cerebral hypoxia due to cardiac arrest resulting from myocardial hypoxia. Factors of temperature, pressure and environmental concentrations of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen and pulmonary irritants were changing extremely rapidly. It is impossible to integrate these variables on the basis of available information with the dynamic physiological and metabolic conditions they produced, in order to arrive at a precise statement of time when consciousness was lost and when death supervened. The combined effect of these environmental factors dramatically increased the lethal effect of any factor by itself. It is estimated that consciousness was lost between 15 and 30 seconds after the first suit failed. Chances of resuscitation decreased rapidly thereafter and were irrevocably lost within 4 minutes.

Lets see PROOF of the claim.

[Duane Daman]

In defense of the monumental amount of Apollo hoax evidence, I suggest that EVERYONE watch the videos listed here, to make up their own minds about the validity of mankind's alleged "greatest achievement".

Jarrah White is one of the leading Apollo conspiracy researchers and also one of the most ridiculed.. The constant character assassination of him, dished out by those who defend the official Apollo record, only proves how much they fear the hoax evidence he presents.. His in depth videos explain, in carefully researched detail, how every aspect of Project Apollo was staged by NASA.

Those who defend and protect the official Apollo record all pretend to have debunked his reasearch, yet all they've really done is to personally attack him, which is understandable considering how he, along with other ridiculed conspiracy researchers, have blown the Apollo Myth right out of the water.

"Young Aussie genius whipping NASA experts in Moon Hoax Debat

by WWu777 » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:36 pm

Hi all,

The whole Moon Hoax Debate, which I thought had died off long ago, has been revived by this young genius from Australia who has been kicking butt against astronomers appointed by NASA to debate the moon hoaxers such as Phil Plait of www.badastronomy.com, Jay Windley, the Mythbusters program, and other "NASA Propagandists" as he calls them.

This kid is something you have to see to believe. He calls himself Jarrah White. He looks only about 25 or so, yet he's the best debater I've ever seen. His arguments and reasoning are so thorough and scholarly. Everything he says is sourced and documented. He has documents on everything, even stuff from the 60's. He even performs scientific experiments, when he can, to back up and illustrate his argument, showing and explaining each step to the viewer. Therefore, he doesn't just make arguments, he SHOWS you the scientific facts and results through experiments right in front of you, either by him, or by others.

In doing so, he has unmasked critical errors and omissions of Phil Plait, the Mythbusters, and others. It's absolutely brilliant. I'm astounded by it. I've never seen a young guy who was so thorough and logical. His videos all look very professionally produced and his presentation is very professional as well. It's something you have to see to believe.

Here is his YouTube Channel. He has like over 300 videos now. His video series is called MoonFaker.

http://www.youtube.com/WhiteJarrah

Check out this 3 part segment where he shows an untouched flag waving on the moon, where there is no air. Then he cites the Lunar Journal's 6 speculative explanations for the moving flag and debunks them all, with simple experiments, precendents and deduction.

MoonFaker: The Flags are Alive

And here he shows you EXACTLY WHY the Lunar Module on the moon must have had a blast crater under it, contrary to NASA defenders' explanations to the contrary. All the math, science and documented experiments by NASA and other organizations is shown to you in full detail, in a five part video series.

MoonFaker - No Crater

cont.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

In this one, he gets to the bottom of the debate about whether the "C" rock in a moon photo right next to the "C" on the ground, is an original or the same photo with the "C" airbrushed out is, and whether it is a piece of hair or a marker. By simple research and deduction, Jarrah White shows that the NASA defenders are wrong and supporting an obvious cover up.

MoonFaker - Rocks and Crocks

In this funny one, he explains how in theory the astronauts should have been able to jump 14 feet in the air, according to NASA's calculations, yet the Apollo astronauts usually only jumped 20 inches off the ground, and why NASA's defenders' explanations for this do not fit.

MoonFaker - One Giant Leap

Here's another thoroughly researched one. Here he takes some famous photographs with lighting oddities and performs tedious experiments to see if NASA defenders' explanations hold up. In it, he even exposes deceit and factual errors by the Mythbusters program.

MoonFaker - Reflect on this

In this series, he dissects the moon rocks arguments, laser reflector arguments, and ham radio arguments

Exhibit D

cont.

[Duane Daman]

There's more at his channel, including many videos dissecting and scrutinizing the recent LRO aerial photos of the moon, which seem to be far less accurate than even Google Earth is.

LRO Series

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... t&rclk=pti

His Flagging the Gems series are also a must see. They reveal damning info that you have never seen before:

The only folks who won't like these videos are the establishment defenders who mistakenly believe that "authority = truth" and worship "status quo and orthodoxy" as their Lord and God, and believe that "critical thinking" can never be used against establishment or orthodoxy, only against those who would challenge it.

Remember folks, a true skeptic is willing to challenge authority and orthodoxy, and apply his critical thinking and skepticism in that direction. Those who absolutely cannot are not skeptics, they are establishment defenders. Randi, Shermer, CSICOP, the BadAstronomy.com folks, the Mythbusters, Penn and Teller, and the skeptics on my SCEPCOP forum are establishment defenders, not true skeptics.

These establishment defenders were taught in high school that "authority = truth" and therefore is never to be questioned, and that doing and believing what you're told leads to reward, while the opposite leads to punishment. They are unable to free themselves of their programming and conditioning, so in that sense, they are not "freethinkers"."

http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1567875&start=60#p12844000

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Start here and keep going until you are convinced

that we didn't go to the moon. There are 13 parts.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Center for an Informed America

Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I

October 1, 2009

by David McGowan

"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to

do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an

economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the

atmosphere and overcome the earth's gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon,

it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth.

Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one

ship alone, but a minimum of three -- each rocket ship would be taller than New York's

Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the

Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons."

Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

I can see all of you scratching your heads out there and I know exactly what it is that

you are thinking: ?Why the hell are we taking this detour to the Moon? What happened to

Laurel Canyon? Have you completely lost your mind??

*Sigh*

It all began a few months ago, when I became very busy at my day job as well as with

family drama and with what turned out to be a very time-consuming side project, all of

which made it increasingly difficult for me to carve out chunks of time to work on the

remaining chapters in the series. Over the next two months or so, I pretty much lost all

momentum and soon found it hard to motivate myself to write even when I could find the

time.

That happens sometimes. Though it sounds rather cliché, ?writer?s block? is a very real

phenomenon. There are many times when I can sit down at the keyboard and the words flow

out of my head faster than I can get them down on the page. But there are also times when

producing just one halfway decent sentence seems a near impossible task. This was one of

those times.

I found a new source of inspiration, however, when my wife e-mailed me the recent story

about the fake Dutch Moon rock, which I and many others found quite amusing, and which

also reminded me that I had a lot of other bits and pieces of information concerning the

Apollo project that I had collected over the nine years that have passed since I first

wrote about the alleged Moon landings. After taking that first look, back in 2000, I was

pretty well convinced that the landings were, in fact, faked, but it was perfectly

obvious that the rather short, mostly tongue-in-cheek post that I put up back in July of

2000 was not going to convince anyone else of that.

So I contemplated taking a more comprehensive look at the Apollo program. Toward that

end, I pulled up my original Apollo post along with various other bits and pieces

scattered throughout past newsletters, threw in all the newer material that had never

made it onto my website, and then combed the Internet for additional information. In

doing so, I realized that a far better case could be made than what I had previously

offered to readers.

I also realized that a far better case could be made than what is currently available on

the net.

I was rather surprised actually by how little there is out there -- a couple of books by

Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, a smattering of websites and a variety of YouTube videos of

varying quality. Virtually all of the websites and videos tend to stick to the same

ground covered by Kaysing and Rene, and they almost all use the same NASA photographs to

argue the same points. So too do the sites devoted to "debunking" the notion that the

landings were faked, and those sites seem to actually outnumber the hoax sites.

While suffering through the numbing uniformity of the various websites on both sides of

the aisle, it became perfectly clear that the hoax side of the debate was in serious need

of a fresh approach and some new insights. So I began writing again. Feverishly. That

does not mean, however, that I have abandoned the Laurel Canyon series. I intend to get

back to it quite soon.

And truth be told, while the Apollo story may initially appear to be a radical departure

from the ongoing Laurel Canyon series, it actually isn't much of a detour at all. After

all, we're still going to be living in the 1960s and 1970s. And to a significant degree,

we're probably still going to be hanging out in Laurel Canyon -- because who else, after

all, was NASA going to trust to handle the post-production work on all that Apollo

footage if not Lookout Mountain Laboratory?

I am very well aware, by the way, that there are many, many people out there -- even many

of the people who have seen through other tall tales told by our government -- who think

that Moon hoax theorists are complete kooks. And a whole lot of coordinated effort has

gone into casting them as such. That makes wading into the Moon hoax debate a potentially

dangerous affair.

Remember when Luther (played by Don Knotts) gets taken to court and sued for slander in

The Ghost and Mr. Chicken? And don't try to pretend like you've never seen it, because we

both know that you have. So anyway, he goes to court and a character witness is called

and the guy delivers credible testimony favoring Luther and it is clear that the

courtroom is impressed and everything is looking good for our nebbish hero, Luther.

Remember what happens next though? On cross-examination, the witness reveals that he is

the president of a UFO club that holds their meetings on Mars!

The courtroom, of course, erupts with laughter and all of that formerly credible

testimony immediately flies right out the window.

I have already received e-mails warning that I will suffer a similar fate (from people

who heard me discussing the topic on Meria Heller's radio show). Not to worry though -- I

have somewhat of an advantage over others who have attempted to travel this path: I don't

really care. My mission is to ferret out the truth, wherever it may lie; if at various

points along the way, some folks are offended and others question my sanity, that?s not

really something that I lose a lot of sleep over.

Anyway, a whole lot of people are extremely reluctant to give up their belief in the

success of the Apollo missions. A lot of people, in fact, pretty much shut down at the

mere mention of the Moon landings being faked, refusing to even consider the possibility

(Facebook, by the way, is definitely not the best place to promote the notion that the

landings were faked, in case anyone was wondering). And yet there are some among the True

Believers who will allow that, though they firmly believe that we did indeed land on the

Moon, they would have understood if it had been a hoax. Given the climate of the times,

with Cold War tensions simmering and anxious Americans looking for some sign that their

country was still dominant and not technologically inferior to the Soviets, it could be

excused if NASA had duped the world.

Such sentiments made me realize that the Moon landing lie is somewhat unique among the

big lies told to the American people in that it was, in the grand scheme of things, a

relatively benign lie, and one that could be easily spun. Admitting that the landings

were faked would not have nearly the same impact as, say, admitting to mass murdering

3,000 Americans and destroying billions of dollars worth of real estate and then using

that crime as a pretext to wage two illegal wars and strip away civil, legal and privacy

rights.

And yet, despite the fact that it was a relatively benign lie, there is a tremendous

reluctance among the American people to let go of the notion that we sent men to the

Moon. There are a couple of reasons for that, one of them being that there is a

romanticized notion that those were great years ? years when one was proud to be an

American. And in this day and age, people need that kind of romanticized nostalgia to

cling to.

But that is not the main reason that people cling so tenaciously, often even angrily, to

what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth

Fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares

people; it is what that lie says about the world around us and how it really functions.

For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and

then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the

information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community,

and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the

truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in?

That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the

possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It's not being lied to about

the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with

that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything.

. . .

For the rest, go to http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

[Evan Burton]

Next - the jump height.

The 2 metre jump height mentioned might be possible if it were not for the constraints of the Apollo EMU.

An astronaut could not bend his legs enough to jump very high; watch various video of the astronauts on the Moon and see how they have to position themselves if they want to pick something up. The PLSS meant their centre of gravity was to the rear, meaning they had to lean forward slightly to maintain balance. Even if they could jump to a great height, it would not be advisable; there was the risk they could fall over and damage their life support system. The biggest jumps were during the Apollo 16 EVA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgGFU1oDxAE&NR=1

[Evan Burton]

Next: Apollo samples.

The first thing I have to stress here is check your sources! Just because you are told that a scientific study concluded this, don't just accept it; check the study and ensure that is what it actually says. For instance, if you were to check the study by Professor Minoru Ozima you would find he did NOT say the lunar samples must have been made on Earth. What he did say was:

The high terrestrial ion fluxes from the ancient non-magnetic Earth with low atmospheric O2 (or CO2) pressure can be the source of non-solar components of N and light noble gases implanted in lunar soils.

Likewise, check the other references; the wiki entry fails to tell you about the "...and is explained by..." portions.

And the simulants? Firstly, they were in use in the 1970s and the wiki fails to tell you that the simulants replicate certain properties but not all properties. Some will replicate mechanical properties but not chemical properties; another will have the correct chemical properties but not look anything like lunar soil. Some replicated soil found in a particular location only. They don't fool geologists.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_bases/1985lbsa.conf..497A.pdf

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/jsc_lunar_simulant.pdf

http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/Documents/PDF%20Files/NASA_TM_2010_216438.pdf

http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov/simulantdev.html

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Great advice: "Check your sources!" In this case, I have the impression that your sources, all of which concern the lunar samples, do not refute the different findings by the Soviets with regard to the chemical composition of THEIR samples. None of them seems to defeat the inference that the Soviet lunar samples are genuine and the only genuine NASA samples are simulacra. While I am reluctant to suggest that you are trading in the techniques of propaganda, your sources do not seem to accomplish the task for which you have deployed them, which raises the question of whether or not you have advanced them as a smoke screen to conceal the absence of any refutation. It would be a good idea, therefore, for you to explain the differences between the samples and how your sources resolve them, starting with the Soviets'.

Next: Apollo samples.

The first thing I have to stress here is check your sources! Just because you are told that a scientific study concluded this, don't just accept it; check the study and ensure that is what it actually says. For instance, if you were to check the study by Professor Minoru Ozima you would find he did NOT say the lunar samples must have been made on Earth. What he did say was:

The high terrestrial ion fluxes from the ancient non-magnetic Earth with low atmospheric O2 (or CO2) pressure can be the source of non-solar components of N and light noble gases implanted in lunar soils.

Likewise, check the other references; the wiki entry fails to tell you about the "...and is explained by..." portions.

And the simulants? Firstly, they were in use in the 1970s and the wiki fails to tell you that the simulants replicate certain properties but not all properties. Some will replicate mechanical properties but not chemical properties; another will have the correct chemical properties but not look anything like lunar soil. Some replicated soil found in a particular location only. They don't fool geologists.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_bases/1985lbsa.conf..497A.pdf

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/jsc_lunar_simulant.pdf

http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/Documents/PDF%20Files/NASA_TM_2010_216438.pdf

http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov/simulantdev.html

Edited November 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

I must say that his thread has provided a wonderful insight to the folly that is James Fetzer. In a stunning display you have illustrated your total lack of critical thinking skills, your inabiltiy to see fact from fiction, your willingness to accept ANY source as long as it fits your agenda and of course your standard ploy of the ad hom as a debating tactic. The absolute LACK of logical thinking on display here by James Fetzer is mindboggling.

Quite the show Jim, and great to see you now aligned with the moon hoax moonbats. Thanks so much, This thread will provide many with an insight to who Jim Fetzer really is.

[Craig Lamson]

"Young Aussie genius whipping NASA experts in Moon Hoax Debat

That has to be the funniest thing you have ever posted Duane, and if you actually BELIEVE it.....well......