Evan Burton

Still no substance. Heating claim on Apollo 13 - why not ask Jack to ask Dr Costella if it is a valid claim. I believe his area of expertise, but I think he has the scientific background to be able to address this (although I may be wrong). IIRC, Dr Costella is a member here; he can say "Yes, the temperature inside the CM is as would be expected if the spacecraft" or say "No, the temperatures are all wrong; inside the CM it would have been too hot / too cold". He would be able to show the basic assumptions and calculations to support his statements.

Why not ask him?

It's pointless talking to you Duane; you seem to be incapable of learning.

I can post reasons why people think Bush is great, or that all gays should be shot, or that we should revert to a anarchist rural existence. It doesn't make it right

Congrats on your bait accomplishing exactly what you intended ... Ridicule of the conspiracy evidence, by comparing it to subjects that have absolutely no relevance to the discussion is also something you do so well .

You just don't understand, do you? Just because you believe something, it does not mean that that belief is accurate or correct. Just because a group of people believe something, it does not make that belief accurate or correct.

A belief can be substantiated when it is supported by evidence. That evidence should be verifiable / repeatable wherever possible.

Because such evidence does not exist because you are wrong.

Just because there is no empirical evidence that the Apollo 13 explosion was staged, doesn't mean I'm wrong.... I noticed you only addressed what I wrote and not the evidence that's contained in the article I posted, which was the only reason I replied to your bait .

I know that those who defend Apollo always have to have the final say, as that is part of your game as well .. So let's get your opinion on the numbers ... Coincidence, or one huge slap in the face to anyone with any form of open minded intelligence ?

"Hoagland argues that, contrary to the popularly believed "failure" en route to the moon, Apollo 13 actually may have been sabotaged in a "metaphysical power play".. He postulates that .dark forces. in the intelligence community deliberately staged the "accident" at exactly 55 hours, 54 minutes and 53 seconds into the key numbered lunar flight. He notes that the purported "explosion" of an oxygen tank aboard the spacecraft took place on April 13th, which he finds quite bizarre, because the mission itself was deliberately launched just days before at precisely 13:13 GMT. Hoagland interprets this as an "inside code" for an extremely crucial event in the "metaphysical history" of both the Freemasons and the Nazis - the arrest of the Knights Templar, on October 13th, 1307."

Key word - POSTULATES. I can also postulate that it is clear cut evidence that the number 13 has bad luck attached to it, and certain combinations of the number 13 will bring misfortune to those associated with it.

It doesn't mean I'm right, though.

"All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals, and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion. The most transparent was the faked explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13, named "Aquarius" (new age) at 1:13 (1313 military time) on April 13, 1970 which was the metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death (explosion), placement in the coffin (period of uncertainty of their survival), communion with the spiritual world and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate (orbit and observation of the moon without physical contact), rebirth of the initiate (solution of problem and repairs), and the raising up (of the Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius) by the grip of the lions paw (reentry and recovery of Apollo 13). 13 is the number of death and rebirth, death and reincarnation, sacrifice, the Phoenix, the Christ (perfected soul imprisoned in matter), and the transition from the old to the new. Another revelation to those who understand the symbolic language of the Illuminati is the hidden meaning of the names of the Space Shuttles, "A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis... and all Challengers shall be destroyed."

"C. Fred Kleinknect, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. It was his reward for pulling it off. All of the first astronauts were Freemasons. There is a photograph in the House of the Temple in Washington DC of Neil Armstrong (* I believe this is actually referring the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin ) on the moons surface (supposedly) in his spacesuit holding his Masonic Apron in front of his groin.

See http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theori...-hoax-site.html

Pay particular attention to post number 15.

You'll believe just about any old trash, won't you?

When will you learn to verify your facts?

TLDR, Peter, TLDR.

Very true - the ego is a very useful tool, but a poor master.

Apparently you have no respect for anyone's wishes on this forum ... I stated that I no more interest in discussing Apollo with any of you but you just keep tossing out the bait , hoping that I will bite, so you and your pals can continue your game of ridiculing an Apollo Hoax CT.

If your claims are sound, they'll stand up to - and defeat - any ridicule.

You are asking for evidence of something which can't be found, if I play by your rules.... NASA most likely got away with the scam of the century with their Apollo Program, but proving that with empirical evidence is a bit difficult when they have stacked the deck in their favor every step of the way.

Bull. Science is science. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. This is the excuse you often use when asked to prove your claims; you cry foul. Don't make claims as if they were fact when you cannot support them with at least the most basic standard of evidence.

The official story is that the Apollo 13 service module exploded while the craft was in deep space near the Moon ... And the review board concurred that the "accident" happened exactly as was reported .... and that's the end of the story ... Or maybe I should say, the end of NASA's story.

So can I prove that their "explosion" story didn't happen as they claimed it did ? ... Of course not ... but I can offer my opinion as to what happened and why .. but of course my opinion is not good enough because all you want to deal with are NASA's alleged facts, whether they be true or not... NASA can and does make any claim they please and who's to say their version of the story is not true ? ... God forbid if anyone has the audacity to question NASA's version of the story !

You seem to have a basic problem with understanding basic questions. if you say it is wrong, then WHY is it wrong? Say something like "the combustion would have been contained within the O2 tanks" or "there would have not have been sufficient force to damage the section odf spacecraft as described"; you know - details.

Well, guess what Evan ? ... Millions of people not only question NASA's Apollo stories but flat out don't believe them .

I made the claim that I believed the Apollo 13 mission was staged .... I thought I had found evidence that some of the DAC footage had been staged , but then all of you played such a good game with that, both here and on YouTube, that the CT who uploaded that video clip there, decided to remove it ... So it looks as if the Apollo defenders "won" another one ... Which I'm sure makes you all very happy.... Cuz as Evan likes to say .. Any day I can give a good pasting to some stupid, ignorant, dumb , hoax believer is a good day !

If you are wrong, then you are wrong. Deal with it. A person removed a clip? Ask them WHY they removed it.

Also, would you like to show where I said "Any day I can give a good pasting to some stupid, ignorant, dumb , hoax believer is a good day ! " because I have no memory of ever saying such a thing. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

I can't provide empirical proof that the Apollo 13 "explosion" was staged...

Because such evidence does not exist because you are wrong.

... but I can give you the reasons why millions of people like me believe it was ... and to do that I will quote another CT, Richard Hoagland, who has no doubt that Apollo 13 was staged, even if he can't provide the empirical evidence to prove it .

I can post reasons why people think Bush is great, or that all gays should be shot, or that we should revert to a anarchist rural existence. It doesn't make it right.

It is not true that all researchers fall into this category

Very true! I have met many "Apollo Hoax" people who have been more than willing to admit when they have been in error.

David,

First off can I remind people that I do believe in UFOs - the ET kind. I think the chances of life "out there" are just too great, and that there is a very good chance we have been / are being visited. I just refuse to accept shoddy evidence or get excited over misidentified images, etc.

Now, I would question some of the article you posted.

"On November 27, 1944, a B-27 of the United States Air Force,..."

Now, I am nitpicking but accuracy is important. To the best of my knowledge, the only "B-27" was a proposed high-altitude version of the B-26. It was never produced, IIRC. They may mean a B-17, or a B-24; both were heavily involved in bombing raids of Germany.

Also, the United States Air Force (USAF) did not exist at that time; it was the United States Army Air Force (USAAF). The USAF did not come into being as a separate entity until 1947.

When the pilots reported, sector radar had reported negatively, because nothing had registered on the screen.

I question this. The allies did not have a sector radar at the time. The Germans did have area radar, used for guiding fighters onto targets.

Later encounters with foo fighters led experts to assume they were German inventions of a new order employed to baffle radar.

How close they came to the truth, they learned only when the war was over and Allied Intelligence teams moved into the secret Nazi plants. The foo-fighters seen by American pilots were only a minor demonstration, a fraction of a vast variety of methods used to confuse radar and interrupt electro magnetic currents.

Work on the German anti-radar Feurball, or fireball, had been speeded up during the fall of 1944 at a Luftwaffe experimental center near Oberammergau, Bavaria. There, and at the aeronautical establishment at Weiner Neustadt, the first fireballs were produced. Later, when the Russians moved closer to Austria, the workshops producing the fireballs were moved to the Black Forest.

Fast and remote controlled, the fireballs, equipped with klystron tubes operating on the same frequency as Allied radar,

which could eliminate the blips from radar screens. This allowed them to remain practically invisible to ground control.

Once again, I question a lot of this. It helps to have a basic understanding of radar. During WWII, the Allies relied upon the magnetron for radar. This was used to generate the high frequency signals needed for accurate radar pictures. The Axis tended to use the klystron - a lighter weight but less powerful cousin of the magnetron.

To 'eliminate' the 'blips', we have to look at a number of methods. The first is to jam the signals, making it impossible to actually see any return. This was done by both sides, as early as 1940. The second would be to add many 'false' returns, so as to confuse the operator. Both sides had the technology ("Window" for the Allies, "Duppel" for the Axis). It was basically very thin strips of aluminium, cut to the length of the radar wavelength you wished to disrupt. Each little sliver of foil would appear as a 'blip'. You could saturate the screen with thousands of false targets.

The last method involves completely absorbing the radar signal, so as not to produce a return, or deflecting it away from the receiver so that the "echo" is not received. Both methods do not involve an active transmitter.

Being on the same frequency as the Allied radar would have little effect, if any.

Josiah,

It is understandable to a degree; no-one likes to admit they are wrong. When things are not reasonable clear, such as in a matter of opinion, then it can be quite justified. When evidence is clear that someone is wrong, then maintaining the incorrect position is very counter-productive.

In some cases, where the two camps are completely opposed (such as Apollo), it is more understandable. It is less understandable in cases where everyone agrees on so much - such as an outcome - but each camp has a sacred theory on the sequence of events.

It does fall back to a simple maxim, though - if you are wrong, admit it.

Ah! I thought so. Being asked to provide evidence to support your claims, you simply ignore it.

"You have been taught well, my young Jedi!"

I think the first reliable sightings would have to be the 'foo fighters', seen during the closing stages of WWII - although we don't know what they were.

So you will not be providing any evidence to support your claims?

You will not be explaining exactly why the explosion in the Apollo 13 SM could not have happened under the circumstances detailed in the review board?

When you have answered Dave, I'd like an answer to my question, too, please.

The wikileaks.org URL is coming up as "unavailable" here on an Australian server.

The Belgium site is still available, though.

Thanks John!

You didn't answer the question: why could it have not happened as in the NASA report? What portion of the NASA report is incorrect? details, please, so anyone reading the thread can investigate the matter for themselves.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, Duane.

Again - why could the explosion in the SM of Apollo 13 not have happened as in the NASA report?

There was an explosion in SM, one which was fully explained. And ground tests / recreation matched the damage experienced.

Using semantics again I see ..." Blew up" means the same thing as "explosion"... Your "rebuttals" are getting weaker all the time.

You still seem unable to understand the simplest correction, always throwing it away. It was the SM - Service Module that suffered an explosion - blew up, not the CM - Command Module. You also ignore the ground tests - that were conducted in full view of a BOI - matched the damage experienced.

So come on - exactly HOW was it wrong? What part of the explosion / damage sustained was wrong? I am prepared to go into great detail about the why and how it occurred. There is a great deal of verifiable data about the incident.

And exactly where would this "verifiable data" come from ? ... Another self serving NASA site ? ....Thanks, but no thanks.

Once again, you avoid the question: HOW is it wrong? Exactly how is the NASA report in error? It's a simple question: why could it not have happened that way?

Also - verifiable data. That means anyone with the proper equipment can reproduce it. That's what makes it the truth - other people can do the same thing and get the same results.

That is the difference between your position and others - we can most always give people the opportunity to reproduce the experiment for themselves, and let them gather their own data, and confirm for themselves that what has been said is correct.

You simply say "trust me" because you do not offer any verifiable evidence; your option has been proven hazardous many times before.

Come on Duane - show us all up: exactly why could the explosion not have happened the way described?

I believe that the entire Apollo 13 mission was staged and that NASA's story about the the CM blowing up was all part of the plan to get people interested in the "Moon landings" again ...

You believe in a lot of stuff that has been proven wrong. Why should this be any different?

You are already being inaccurate: it was never claimed the CM "blew up".

There was an explosion in SM, one which was fully explained. And ground tests / recreation matched the damage experienced.

So come on - exactly HOW was it wrong? What part of the explosion / damage sustained was wrong? I am prepared to go into great detail about the why and how it occurred. There is a great deal of verifiable data about the incident.

For a change, let's see YOU bring some verifiable details into the argument. Why is that too much to ask? Asking you to bring some verifiable facts to support your claim?

That has to be one of your most pathetic attempts yet, Duane. Gee - they forgot that someone would ask "Who is doing the filming?" during a space drama that had the attention of the world?

Right, Duane, whatever you say... (backs away slowly)

Mr Thompson,

In your opening post you used the phrase:

"...bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research..."

This perilously close to accusing Prof Fetzer of poor research, which is prophibited by our rules:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=13297

Please phrase your comments so as to not imply that. Thank you.

Thanks Evan,

I'm no expert, but wouldn't the Apollo 13 flight demonstrate that solar radiation wasn't a concern with respect to either the astronauts or the camera on the moon? While trans-lunar, Apollo 13 would have had no shielding from solar radiation, and other than turning over (rotisserie style?), the craft cabin should have reached an equilibrium with the solar energy aborption of the module.

It seems to me that the issue of solar radiation on the lunar surface isn't one.

There is something about the solar radiation whilst on the lunar surface. I can't remember what it is, but I'll post it when I find it.

... a little fact checking.

Someone had to spoil it, didn't they?

During the flight of Apollo 13, did they modulate their environmental controls to save on power?

I'm not familiar with the specific of Apollo 13, but that flight might provide insight into the effects solar radiation and of the effects on the astronauts' environment. While trans-lunar didn't they have their air conditioning system secured for periods of time?

They shut it all down except for some cabin lights, the radio, and a fan to circulate the air.

After the initial accident, they had to set up the LM / CSM combination in the Passive Thermal Control roll (BBQ mode). This was considered very important - so important that the Flight Director and Deke Slayton were arguing over what should happen first: sleep or the PTC. Eventually it was decided that even though the crew were near exhaustion, the PTC had to be done. It took two or three attempts, but they got it established.

Okay - so Len is either correct, or you are unable to prove him wrong. Thanks.

I've advised people in the past, and I'll give you the same advice:

Protect your computer.

The internet is a line into your computer, and unless you protect it, you'll be taken advantage of.

- Anti-virus software. The world's best is probably Kaspersky, but a very good free alternative is AVG. use it, run scans daily when you are not using the computer, update your anti-virus files every week.

- Firewall. I again use a free version, called Sunbelt Personal Firewall. Easy to use, effective.

- Browser. I use Firefox, but whatever you use, make sure you have all the latest updates installed. Anti-scripting updates are pretty important.

If you take all those precaution - plus have a read of some sites about protecting yourself when on the internet - you should not have to worry.

I've been on the net since 1995, and I've only ever had one virus. It's not rocket science - it's common sense.