NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER

[Dave Greer]

Let's look at another of the claims in the initial post.

After getting back in the LEM the astronauts “repressurized their cabin.” Then “they removed their boots, slipped out of the backpacks heavy with life-support equipment that had kept them alive on the Moon, reopened the hatch, and dumped them along with crumpled food packages and filled urine bags onto the surface.” (Apollo 11) There is no airlock on the LEM, how did they open the door after repressurization and dump their suits and garbage without dying from the supposed vacuum & heat (or was that cold)?

1. Their "boots" were actually overshoes, and weren't part of the pressure suit. No problem removing them.

2. They plugged their suits into the LMs oxygen supply, so had no more need for the PLSS.

3. They re-opened the hatch after the LM had been depressurised, and dumped the rubbish and both PLSS.

4. They closed the hatch and re-pressurised.

Agree or disagree that this particular claim has been debunked?

[Duane Daman]

lets not forget that saying that a picture was "...REMOVED FROM THE BOOK to be replced [sic] with another picture..." is YOUR claim to which you have offered NO proof. If you have any proof, I am sure Jim Oberg would be interested in seeing it, as would hundreds of thousands of people.

Hey... here's an idea. IIRC, you have claimed in the past to be an antiques dealer. Why not get on the network, find a FIRST EDITION copy of 'Carrying the Fire' and check it out?

Here ya go - one is available here:

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?S...se-_-aisbn-_-na

85.00 bucks for a first addition of Mike Collin's lies ? .. I don't think so ... Tell you what ... you buy the book and then you can own your very own copy of NASA's embarrassment .

If you have any doubts about the phony Collins photo being in the original edition of Carrying the Fire , and who has been lying about this phony photo for years ( your mentor Jay Windley for one ) then maybe you need to check out this video to learn the truth ... That is if you can handle the truth .

MoonFaker: Propagandists, Liars and Truth Hunters

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kIsOAFG9L-U

[Evan Burton]

lets not forget that saying that a picture was "...REMOVED FROM THE BOOK to be replced [sic] with another picture..." is YOUR claim to which you have offered NO proof. If you have any proof, I am sure Jim Oberg would be interested in seeing it, as would hundreds of thousands of people.

Hey... here's an idea. IIRC, you have claimed in the past to be an antiques dealer. Why not get on the network, find a FIRST EDITION copy of 'Carrying the Fire' and check it out?

Here ya go - one is available here:

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?S...se-_-aisbn-_-na

85.00 bucks for a first addition of Mike Collin's lies ? .. I don't think so ... Tell you what ... you buy the book and then you can own your very own copy of NASA's embarrassment .

If you have any doubts about the phony Collins photo being in the original edition of Carrying the Fire , and who has been lying about this phony photo for years ( your mentor Jay Windley for one ) then maybe you need to check out this video to learn the truth ... That is if you can handle the truth .

MoonFaker: Propagandists, Liars and Truth Hunters

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kIsOAFG9L-U

Oh, okay, so you are will to accept Rene's word on this WITHOUT checking any of the facts. That gives everyone a baseline for the accuracy of things that you claim are true.

I'd be careful of doing that, though. Remember when you were singing the praises of Charles T. Hawkins? You were lauding him no end... until it was shown he was completely wrong. That's when you decided he was a NASA "disinfo agent". Remember when you claimed that the book FIRST MAN had been changed? Only I had a first edition and proved you wrong there, too.

You claimed Armstrong had changed his story:

But Neil apparently didn't remember that story and changed it in his recent autobiography , by making the claim that even though he was anxious to get out onto the lunar surface , he wisely decided to take their scheduled two hours nap instead because they really needed it .

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=93234

Kevin ... I didn't copy this information off of a conspiracy site , I read the two chapters pertaining to the moon landing fantasy in Neil's book , in Barnes and Noble one afternoon ... The book is quite interesting , not only in the fact that Neil couldn't get his story straight after all these years , but also that the book , which I believe had thirty some odd chapters , only devoted two of those chapters to the alleged moon landing ... and they were short chapters at that ... Mostly repeating the alleged conversations between Neil and Buzz while not napping and waiting to go out onto the lunar surface and then during their alleged EVA on the moon .

First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong the Hanson biography is the book where Neil made his "goof"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=93259

But you were wrong:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=93304

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=93348

Did Neil write another autobiography ? ... Or could you be quoting from a second CORRECTED and EDITED edition ? ... Or are have you altered the text here ?

Sorry , but I don't trust any of you to tell the truth when it comes to defending Apollo .

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=93380

I can quote from it because I have the book right in front of me, an original edition. It is divided into seven parts, and 35 chapters (not including preamble or post-material).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=93390

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=93423

[Duane Daman]

Don't change the subject here because you can't defend the phony Collins photo ... Ralph Rene' is telling the truth about this and Jay Windley , Jim Oberg and the rest of the defenders of the Apollo lie, are not .

If it's one thing you are very good at on this forum Burton , it's bringing up ancient history to fight dirty with .

I know what I read in the Armstrong biography several years ago and it has been changed ... but then Parkes has also changed their story since then as well, as to their true role during Apollo ... How you got a "first edition" stating the opposite of what I read I don't know, but I'm sure you have your sources .

As for Charles Hawkins , I hadn't read but a few pages of his silly book when I made those comments and unfortunatley for me , that was a mistake , because the creep is a NASA plant who has produced disinformation which is an insult to anyone's intelligence ... He and his "whiz kids" were probably dreamed up by one of NASA's many Apollo disinformation think tanks.

[Gavin Stone]

Too much there to debunk at once so I suggest we start with the first one

My favorite of the photo anomalies in the book is shown here as Photo 3, which René has titled “Mutt and Jeff”. The anomaly in this photo is obvious. This is a photo of Armstrong, holding the staff, and Aldrin, holding the flag. While the two astronauts are basically the same height, the shadow of Armstrong is about 75% the length of Aldrin’s. The shadows are not parallel as they should be, but converge, indicating two sources of light. René used trigonometry to discover that Aldrin’s personal source of illumination is at 26.4 degrees of altitude, while Armstrong’s is at 34.9 degrees. The sun was at 13.5 degrees altitude on the real Moon, so where were these guys? Certainly not where we have been led to believe. Perhaps a soundstage in the American desert?

I agree that the shadow is roughly 75% the length of Aldrin's. The shadows are not parallel argument is completely ignorant and has been debunked so many times it is unbelievable. "Rene used trigonometry". Is this the new trigonometry that works when surfaces aren't flat and not in any sort of geometric shape? I'll have to look that up in my maths course notes

The reason the shadows are different lengths is because the surface is not flat.

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1103147HR.jpg

Given that the surface quite blatantly raises and also has depressions, the shadow length is effected by these raises and depressions. I refer you to some excellent diagrams created by fellow forumer Dave Greer:

indicating two sources of light

Also, if there are two light sources, at two different angles; Why do the astronauts not have TWO shadows?

Can we now consider this particular part a non issue, Duane?

Should we now consider this "anomaly" explained, Duane?

[Dave Greer]

Don't change the subject here because you can't defend the phony Collins photo ... Ralph Rene' is telling the truth about this and Jay Windley , Jim Oberg and the rest of the defenders of the Apollo lie, are not .

Then you must have evidence to back the claim up. Where does anyone make the claim that the image was genuine? Edition and page number please?

[Duane Daman]

Then you must have evidence to back the claim up. Where does anyone make the claim that the image was genuine? Edition and page number please?

Mike Collins made the claim it was a genuine photo by attempting to pass it off in his book as being a picture of him "spacewalking " during his Gemini mission .

Jay Windley and Jim Orberg are liars .... Oberg owes Ralph Rene $10,000.00 .... Think Ralph will ever collect it ?

Rene' really has proven that NASA stands for "NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER" .

Watch the truth .

MoonFaker: Propagandists, Liars and Truth Hunters

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kIsOAFG9L-U

[Evan Burton]

Well, I decided to check on the claims; after all, they might have been right.

I contacted the seller of the first edition copy of CARRYING THE FIRE via the website, linked earlier in the thread.

From: Evan Burton <email address removed>

To: <address removed>

Subject: Alibris Inquiry

Many thanks for a prompt reply. Unusual question:

In the second frontispiece there are two images of Mike Collins doing a practice

EVA. The first is him in his Gemini suit in the 'Vomit Comet'; the second is the

same images reversed, and the background blacked out.

I refer to the second image with the blacked out background.

Is there any title / caption with this image?

Could you please confirm that your copy is a first edition?

Many thanks for your time,

Evan Burton

Reply 1:

In a message dated 1/8/2008 5:20:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Evan Burton writes:

>>Could you please confirm that your copy is a first edition?

Yes it is the first printing of the first edition, and give me about 1/2 hour, I'll go pull the book and look into your other question.

thanks

Reply 2:

In a message dated 1/8/2008 5:20:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Evan Burton writes:

>>In the second frontispiece there are two images of Mike Collins doing a

>>practice EVA. The first is him in his Gemini suit in the 'Vomit Comet'; the

>>second is the same images reversed, and the background blacked out.

>>I refer to the second image with the blacked out background.

>>Is there any title / caption with this image?

The first fp is the moon as a white dot with a black background. The 2nd is the surface of the moon. The 3rd is the EVA, only one image, and no caption. The 2nd and 3rd take up 1/2 of the reverse of the preceding frontspiece, and

all of the next facing page.

You're wrong again Duane. Stop believing everything you are told just because it gels with your thinking, and CHECK on what you are told.

Edited to add: BTW, this can all be confirmed by contacting the seller of the book, as I did.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Craig Lamson]

Well, I decided to check on the claims; after all, they might have been right.

I contacted the seller of the first edition copy of CARRYING THE FIRE via the website, linked earlier in the thread.

From: Evan Burton <email address removed>

To: <address removed>

Subject: Alibris Inquiry

Many thanks for a prompt reply. Unusual question:

In the second frontispiece there are two images of Mike Collins doing a practice

EVA. The first is him in his Gemini suit in the 'Vomit Comet'; the second is the

same images reversed, and the background blacked out.

I refer to the second image with the blacked out background.

Is there any title / caption with this image?

Could you please confirm that your copy is a first edition?

Many thanks for your time,

Evan Burton

Reply 1:

In a message dated 1/8/2008 5:20:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Evan Burton writes:

>>Could you please confirm that your copy is a first edition?

Yes it is the first printing of the first edition, and give me about 1/2 hour, I'll go pull the book and look into your other question.

thanks

Reply 2:

In a message dated 1/8/2008 5:20:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Evan Burton writes:

>>In the second frontispiece there are two images of Mike Collins doing a

>>practice EVA. The first is him in his Gemini suit in the 'Vomit Comet'; the

>>second is the same images reversed, and the background blacked out.

>>I refer to the second image with the blacked out background.

>>Is there any title / caption with this image?

The first fp is the moon as a white dot with a black background. The 2nd is the surface of the moon. The 3rd is the EVA, only one image, and no caption. The 2nd and 3rd take up 1/2 of the reverse of the preceding frontspiece, and

all of the next facing page.

You're wrong again Duane. Stop believing everything you are told just because it gels with your thinking, and CHECK on what you are told.

Edited to add: BTW, this can all be confirmed by contacting the seller of the book, as I did.

Ouch...thats gonna leave a mark! LMAO!

[Evan Burton]

I know what I read in the Armstrong biography several years ago and it has been changed ... but then Parkes has also changed their story since then as well, as to their true role during Apollo ... How you got a "first edition" stating the opposite of what I read I don't know, but I'm sure you have your sources .

Are you saying that I altered the text? Misquoted it? That the book is a 'doctored' version (it still has the tag from the retail chain bookshop that I bought it in)?

Are you saying that I am being deliberately untruthful in any way? Because you are getting a lot wrong. The book only came out in 2005; that is not several years ago. You say you read it but what you remember does not gel with what we have shown? Why could your recollection of the passage you read not be at fault?

Just show me one copy of either CARRYING THE FIRE or FIRST MAN that backs up your claims, and I will publicly apologise to you on this forum.

[Craig Lamson]

I know what I read in the Armstrong biography several years ago and it has been changed ... but then Parkes has also changed their story since then as well, as to their true role during Apollo ... How you got a "first edition" stating the opposite of what I read I don't know, but I'm sure you have your sources .

Are you saying that I altered the text? Misquoted it? That the book is a 'doctored' version (it still has the tag from the retail chain bookshop that I bought it in)?

Are you saying that I am being deliberately untruthful in any way? Because you are getting a lot wrong. The book only came out in 2005; that is not several years ago. You say you read it but what you remember does not gel with what we have shown? Why could your recollection of the passage you read not be at fault?

Just show me one copy of either CARRYING THE FIRE or FIRST MAN that backs up your claims, and I will publicly apologise to you on this forum.

Duanes world is falling down around him Evan. The people who he trusted and placed his faith in ( without checking their work ) are being shown time and time again to be less than honest. The real question now is how he will choose to move forward..toward finding the truth for himself or continuing to be lead by those who have been shown dishonest.

In any case it must be tough to see your world collaspe.

[Evan Burton]

True. It demonstrates, though, something I have been saying for years: you don't have to trust us... just check the facts for yourself.

Impossible photographs? Try to recreate it yourself and judge the results.

Experts claim? Contact experts yourself, ask them questions, see what they say. Use more than one expert - use many.

Something reported in a newspaper or book? Check the paper / book yourself and see if it is correct.

It reminds me of the "Una Ronald" claim. Una Ronald claims to have “stayed up late” to watch the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moonwalk when living in or near Perth, Western Australia. She was amazed to see a “coke bottle” kicked across the lunar surface. This object was only seen during the live broadcast and was removed from replays in the days following. She also claims to have seen, about 7 to 10 days later, several letters mentioning the same thing in her local paper (The West Australian).

To begin, it is claimed that she “stayed up” to watch the live broadcast. This might have been the case in the United States, but not in Perth. The first step onto the Moon occurred at 2.56am on 21 July 1969 – Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Perth is 8 hours ahead of GMT, so it occurred at 10.56am in Perth. That’s in the morning. The moonwalk video was actually received by ground stations in the eastern states before being transmitted to Perth (see http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html for more details). Being from Perth, it was easy to check on. I also remember us all being herded up in school, watching the moonwalk.

The claim regarding the newspaper reports are also incorrect. I got friends in Perth to check the archives at West Australian Newspapers Ltd, as well as the archives in the State Library. For at least two weeks following the broadcast, there were no articles or letters regarding sightings of a “coke bottle” in either The West Australian or the Daily News, the only two daily newspapers in Perth at the time.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Duane Daman]

Why would you think that ALL first edition copies of Carrying the Fire ( xxxx) had the phony Collins photo in it ? ... Are you really that clueless about books ? ... First editions are LIMITED and are also pulled from shelves and changed when necessary and when blatant mistakes have been made .... I can have a first edition copy of a certain book that can be different from your copy, even though they came out the same year .

Jim Oberg seemed to be so sure of himself about what this book contained that he apparently offered Rene' $10,000.00 ( unbeknownst to him ) to show him a copy of the book with the fake Collins space walk picture in it ... So he obviously had a copy where the publishers had been smart enough to remove it , for obvious reasons .

I have posted two videos here where a first edition copy of this book is shown close up on camera in detail and the FAKED PICTURE OF COLLINS IS RIGHT THERE IN THE BOOK FOR EVERYONE TO SEE .

So who are we to believe Evan ? ... You , one of NASA's top watchdogs , or our lying eyes ?

You and Lamson should be ashamed of yourselves for posting such nonsense here and think that anyone who bothered to look at the evidence I provided via two videos, would believe your pro Apollo disinformation.

The book only came out in 2005; that is not several years ago.

2005 IS several years ago and since the publishers were smart enough to remove the lies from Collins' book , then why would you think they hadn't done the same for the lies in Armstrong's book ?

You say you read it but what you remember does not gel with what we have shown? Why could your recollection of the passage you read not be at fault?

Because I took several notes about what I read THREE TIMES , knowing that Armstrong's story didn't match the Parkes strory , which claimed that the A11 crew went "directly out onto the surface , foregoing their two hour planned nap "

What the Parkes fairly tale failed to mention though , is that it took them much more than two hours to allegedly get out onto the surface even WITHOUT taking the scheduled nap , which Neil first claimed they did take in the UNALTERED VERSION of his biography ... I believe the new numbers of hours are eight now ... but of course that could all change tomorrow with the NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER gang .

Edited January 9, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Matthew Lewis]

Do yo ueven read what other people write? Or are you just so sure that you're right and everybody else must be wrong that you skip over everything they say? Jim Oberg agreed that the picture was in the book! That is not a question at all. This has been mentioned on this thread multiple times. What he asked for is any proof that the picture is claimed to be genuine. He never asked to be shown a copy of the book with the picture in it. He knew it was there. He asked for any proof that it is claimed to be official! Here is the quote from James Oberg provided by Evan in post #8

Dear Mr. René:

This letter supplements the one I mailed two days ago, but concentrates on the single issue of the “Collins EVA Image”. I am focusing on this issue because YOU chose to make it your lead-off argument in your book, and to establish that NASA has a policy of falsifying photographs, of ‘lying’. In the book you returned to it several times later, and have mentioned it during interviews.

I have been able to confirm your assertion that the undeniable altered zero-G airplane training image – reversed and with background blacked out – is indeed in the photo insert of the 1975 Ballantine paperback of Collins' 'Carrying the Fire'. There is one photo insert, 8 pieces of paper (16 sides), between 238 and 239. I have the 1974 hardcover edition from Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, which has an 8-page photo insert between pages 196 and 197, a 4-page insert between pages 358 and 359, and another 4-page photo insert between pages 422 and 423. The altered image there is on the ‘second frontispiece’, just after a two-page spread of moon craters out the window.

You had written: “I will bet you $10,000 that I can produce these photos in situ in an 8 page photo section (16) photos between pages 238 & 239. But maybe I not only lie, cheat and steal but I bluff too.” There is no need for such a bet because I can verify your statement about finding the images.

The very first picture in the Ballantine photo insert is an EVA suit against a complete black background. It has no caption and no description. 4 pages later there is a very similar picture, but only the bottom is black and above him you can see the zero G airplane interior. The caption of this one is "The zero-G airplane - sickening". The suit looks exactly the same. The first image is unquestionably derived from the second image.

First question: Where does Collins or anyone else allege that this image shows him on his EVA, as you state that he does and is this “a xxxx”. Please provide citation to the book’s text or to any public statements made by Collins in discussing his book. You write that the picture was “allegedly taken during a space walk”. Please cite that allegation. Would you be willing to bet $10,000 that you can find such explicit evidence?

Second question: where does NASA present this image as portraying the Gemini-10 EVA? Is there any press release photograph, any publication, any non-NASA publication citing NASA as source of this image, any website, that presents this image with NASA’s explicit description of it as showing the Gemini-10 EVA. You claim they have done so, and your exact words: “Why did NASA feel it necessary to fake pictures and lie to us as early as July 1966?” Please cite exactly where this lie originally occurred. Would you be willing to bet $10,000 that you can find such explicit evidence?

Third question: If in fact there is no documentation for either Collins or NASA asserting that this image is an actual photograph of the Gemini-10 EVA, how can you allege that they IMPLIED it when in fact Collins explicitly states (on page 254 of the Ballantine edition) that there WERE no photographs of his EVA: “One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk. [...] All we had was the film from one movie camera, [...] which recorded an uninterrupted sequence of black sky [...] I was really feeling sorry for myself, unable to produce graphic documentation for my grandchildren of my brief sally as a human satellite [...]” Therefore, by Collin's own account, can’t we conclude that any picture of him in a spacesuit is not that of the Gemini EVA?

What do you see that is sinister in this? Presumably they wanted an illustration of what the EVA looked like for the front of the original book, and since no photos of the real EVA were available, somebody at the publisher’s office re-touched the training photo they had, and mirrored it to make it look better given its position in the book. I can find not one single attempt to pass this off as an in-flight photograph, and in fact the text explicitly states that there are no flight pictures. Honestly, if they were trying to pass it off as real, it would be really stupid to include the training picture from which it was derived just a few pages later.

Can you clarify and defend your allegations and accusations about deliberate lies about this image? If not, as a man of intelligence and integrity, can you alter your judgment on this particular historical issue, based on verifiable evidence, or lack thereof? Or do you want to accept some wagers regarding such evidence?

How can you possibly get from this that he doesn't believe the picture is in the book? Others here have also agreed that the picture is there, including comments from someone selling a first edition that also agrees the picture is there. The only logical explanation seems to be that you don't even bother to read any of the comments of those replying to you. Perhaps you should do that first.

[Evan Burton]

I also contacted Jim Oberg to clarify what he said and did. He gave me permission to post what he said, and here is a section of it:

I wrote to Rene requesting the NASA site that presented the Gemini-10 artwork as a genuine documentary image, and of course he never answered.

...

Feel free to post these images and comments. I tried to register and do it myself but the site is not taking new registrations. You can also link to my home page description of all lectures (http://www.jamesoberg.com/lectures.html) and some other samples from the Apollo-hoax talk (http://www.jamesoberg.com/pall_over_apollo.pdf).

I have also invited him to become a member of the Board. As an author of numerous articles on the space programme and an acknowledged authority on aerospace matters, he'd be most welcome.