Evan Burton

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.

Is Len being inflammatory? Maybe yes, maybe no. It is kinda moot when you have to ask:

Is what he says correct or not?

So - is what Len says correct or not? If not, where is it wrong?

I have been on the phone and online for many hours with my virus tech support four times in the past six nights trying to get this mess fixed ... and there is still a problem ... Now I know to check the security of certin web sites before opening them.

That's basic security, but you are just one of many people who get caught. It's quite amazing how so many people don't take the most basic of precautions on the internet. It also says something about the sites you are visiting; reputable sites rarely - if ever - give you those types of problems.

As for the evidence I'm looking for, it may no longer exist except on conspiracy sites and of course no Apollo defenders, like you and Dave would ever accept any information from any of those type of web sites.

Evidence generally has to be verifiable, reproducible. Concentrate on looking at those things.

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

Gee - how about that. Ask to provide evidence to support claims, and the old "dog at my homework" trick comes up.

From NASA SP-5099: Photography Equipment and Techniques

Yes Duane. Whatever you say.

Mr. TEAGUE: Mr. Baron, if things were really as bad as you pictured them by the things that, you have said to this committee in your report, do you believe we would ever have gotten a shot off to the moon? Do you think we ever would have had one successful shot?

Mr. BARON: Certainly, sir.

Mr. TEAGUE: With the conditions you pictured here, do you think we could be successful in any of our shots?

Mr. BARON: No, sir. No, sir. I don't think so.

He clearly contradicts himself.

So if Baron was not saying the thing was faked, he had at least one report submitted, he testified before the panel, and action was taken on most of the claims... why would anyone want him dead? There is no reason. It's totally illogical.

Yet I'm suppossed to know if the report had been submitted when APPARENTLY NASA doesn't even know if it was or not ? ... This discussion, as most of the discussions with Craig and the rest of you , has now become a ridiculous waste of my time.

Here's the bottom line .... Tom Baron wrote a 55 page report condeming NASA'S incompetence concering the Apollo Program ... He either submitted a 500 page report , or he didn't ( depending on which NASA source you read ) and after he and his family "committed suicide" by being run over by a train, his 500 PAGE REPORT MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED AND WAS NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN .

Whether it had been submitted or whether he was still in the process of writing it is hardly the point ! ... The point is the FACT that is was never seen after he was so convienantly killed one week after he testified in front of the commitee that Apollo was in such a shambles that NASA would never safely get a manned craft to the Moon in the near future .

I have often seen things quoted by a department which was totally at odds with what another department said.

Okay, because I do not have concrete evidence of the report being submitted, I am prepared to say this is a point of contention.

Since you are a US citizen, why don't you contact the government and confirm whether or not the report was actually lodged? It is a lot easier for you to do so than me.

Now - he did, however, testify before the committee. He contradicted himself when he said that they could go to the moon, and they couldn't go to the moon. You, yourself, in your quote above brought up the operative word: SAFELY. Perhaps at the time they could NOT have done it without loss of life. They certainly had to spend time & resources redesigning the CM, many of the changes brought about because of what Mr Baron revealed.

So again - what was so crippling? If the programme was being "faked", why didn't he say so IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE, where it would have been recorded, thereby ensuring his safety as a witness?

You'd have us believe that he wrote a report detailing all the faults of the system, and then added at the end "oh, by the way, the whole thing is being faked"?

Duane, I would not have expected you to admit you were wrong; you appear to be incapable of it. Other people, however, can examine the evidence and see for themselves.

Notice how the dot we are pointing to is in exactly the position where the LM would be? Directly above a crater (the dark shape). If it were a rock, then that rock would be visible in 7071... but there is nothing there. The only object that matches is the LM.

Mr. WYDLER: Could I suggest that if Mr. Baron has some concluding remarks, or if he would like to submit a statement for the record, that he may be afforded an opportunity? I see you have something before you, and perhaps you would like to put it in.

Mr. BARON: I think I have covered most of it. I have the report that I would like to be submitted as a part of the record, the 500-page report.

Mr. WYDLER: That means printing it. That is something we should leave to the committee, something of that length, whether we want to print it as part of the public documents. We can take it as an exhibit. Whether we will print it as part of the public record is something we should decide after we see it. Is that all right with you?

Mr. BARON: Yes.

Mr. TEAGUE: I think we are through with you. The Board has found some of the things you have said to be true. What you have done has caused North American to search their procedures. Thank you very much.

"Baron originally produced a fifty-five-page report, and finished a 500-page report that he delivered when he testified to Congress in April of 1967."

I believe you are wrong.

The sun angles match. Here is a simplified diagramme (not to scale):

"A" is Al Bean.

"P" is Pete Conrad.

Pete took a photo of Al (AS12-49-7281)

Al took a photo of Pete (AS12-48-7071)

You can just make out the LM in Al Beans visor reflection.

Crop of AS12-49-7281, annotated and enlarged to 150% of normal size

I'd request you post a single claim, and then let's discuss it. Information overflow is not a respected debate tactic.

Pick one of Rene's claims at a time then for your "rebuttals" ... If "information overflow" is posting an article that lists several of Rene's Moon hoax claims by someone who agrees with him , then I guess I'm guilty of disrespectful debate tactics .

No, you pick what you believe to be the most resilient evidence, and I'll give a rebuttal to it.

And have you tested his claims? Or just accepted them?

No , I haven't ventured into the Van Allen radiation belts yet in a flimsy Apollo spacesuit and spacecraft ... but I'm sure if I did , I wouldn't be able to report back to you with my findings ... for obvious reasons !

You belittle yourself. There are other claims he has made:

- Ability to flex hands in gloves in airless environment;

- No stars visible in background of photographs;

- The infamous 'C' rock;

- There was no-one on the surface to take the TV images of Armstrong stepping on the Moon; and

- Shaded area indicated three-point lighting.

I believe the last claim was disputed by Dave Greer and I'll leave it to him to discuss.

The other claims, however: do you support or reject them? Which ones do you support? Name what you feel is the most convincing and we'll discuss it before moving onto the other claims.

This discussion isn't about Jack's evidence , it's about Ralph Rene's.

And have you tested his claims? Or just accepted them?

Edited to add: I will not continue to address the claims in your post until you answer this question. Once you do (either in the negative or affirmative) I'll continue to address the claims made in your post.

Now, before I address the claims, i want to point out a little tactic which Duane may decide to correct: In the post, how many claims were made? How many posts do i need to make to address a single post by Duane (or should I say the source that Duane posts)?

I'd request you post a single claim, and then let's discuss it. Information overflow is not a respected debate tactic.

My personal opinion is that Rene' has been ripped to shreds and his claims "debunked" by a load of pro Apollo disinformation, just like the rest of the CT's who have dared to expose NASA's many lies about the alleged Apollo Moon landings .

In my own opinion, his claims have been debunked because they are wrong; not because of disinformation, but because the overwhelming weight of evidence dismisses the claims. I am more than happy to devote threads to a single claim by Rene; I am more than happy to arrange scientific testing of those claims in order to determine their validity.

In your case - IMO - you simply will not accept anything that goes against your own beliefs. Your own opinion is that Apollo was faked somehow; anything that supports that belief is valid and anything which negates that belief is "disinformation" or "personal attacks" or similar. For whatever reason, you seem to be unable to objectively evaluate evidence which goes against your personal beliefs.

I posted what I did to James so hopefully he would read BOTH sides of this issue and not just the list of books that Evan provided ...

Correct - you should always evaluate both sides of a claim. The emphasis being on EVALUATE, not just 'accept' because it coincides with your beliefs. This is something you have admitted you fail to do in many cases, and it reduces your credibility.

Wherever possible, you should test the claims. Jack's photographic claims regarding Apollo are a case in point; if he says something is impossible, then you should confirm that it is impossible. Many people on this forum have done so and have results that disagree with Jack's assessment.

I don't agree with him that stars should show up in the photos taken in space ... but I do agree with him that the stars would be seen and also mentioned by anyone who traveled to the Moon ... Unlike the Apollo astronots who avoided the subject of the stars almost completely.

That is not correct, and I am sure we have discussed the matter before. Perhaps you have forgotten (when we deal with a range of subjects, it is easy to do).

They have discussed seeing stars - with the naked eye or through a telescope - in transit to/from the Moon and in lunar orbit, thought rarely on the lunar surface. They have, however, mentioned that when they were in darkness they eyes could adjust and see the stars.

Wade,

As you are probably aware, I consider myself a skeptic. It may surprise you to learn that I do believe in the possibility of (if not the actual existence of) UFOs.

(I define UFOs here as extraterrestrial craft, manned or unmanned. The wider definition of "I saw something which I cannot explain" does not necessarily apply)

I am the first one, however, to admit I have never seen any convincing photographic evidence of them. I just basing my opinions on a couple of experiences, and a belief that the odds are that there is intelligent life out there.

You have mentioned in your essays a couple of links between technology and UFOs.

Is there anything that you - personally - consider to be strong evidence in favour of UFOs? Or do you simply believe that the possibility of their existence cannot be discounted?

Thanks!

Created.

Wade / Peter,

Would you like me to set up a separate thread for discussion about FE / UFO angle to FE?

I think it is a subject worth hearing more about.

It is a bit more complicated than that. In most democracies you only have the realistic option of picking from two possible candidates to become prime minister/president. If those two candidates are completely under the control of big business, as is the situation in the UK and the US, can you really blame the electorate for selecting corrupt and incompetent figures such as Blair and Bush?

In Australia, if you don't want to vote for any of the candidates (and remember there are more than just two), you'd spoil your ballot paper (informal vote). Your vote doesn't go to anyone, but the number of informal votes gives an indication of the dissatisfaction with the candidates on offer.

Any reading material you could recommend would be very appreciated. I was loaned a book called Moon Dust last year about the Apollo Astronauts which was a good starter.

Moondust is a good retrospective-type book.

For an in-depth look at the the overall programme and the people, there is probably no better book than A Man on the Moon, by Andrew Chaikin.

To learn about the more technical nature of things, I highly recommend Apollo by Charles Murray & Catherine Bly Cox. It focuses on the people who made things happen on the ground, the flight controllers, the engineers, etc.

A great overview of the space race - both US and Soviet - can be found in THIS NEW OCEAN: The Story of the First Space Age by William E. Burrows.

Individual perspectives are available, and are recommended. They highlight the different personalities, how two astronauts can have completely different opinions on a person or event:

Men From Earth by Dr Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11) & Malcolm McConnell

First Man by James R. Hansen (Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11)

The Last Man on the Moon by Gene Cernan (Apollo 17) and Don Davis

Moonwalker by Charlie Duke (Apollo 16)

The Way of the Explorer by Dr Ed Mitchell (Apollo 14)

Rocket Man by Nancy Conrad & Howard A. Klausner (Pete Conrad, Apollo 12)

Countdown by Frank Borman (Apollo 8)

Schirra's Space by Wally Schirra (Apollo 7)

A Man Called Flight by Chris Kraft (Flight Controller)

Failure Is Not An Option by Gene Kranz (Flight Controller)

Apollo EECOM by Sy Liebergot (Flight Controller)

The Unbroken Chain by Guenter Wendt (Launch Pad Chief) & Russell Still

and many, many more are available.

A relatively unknown resource is the Johnson Space Center Oral History Project, interviews done with various people associated with NASA including astronauts, engineers, administrators, etc. Transcripts of the interviews are available online free, or you can purchase audio CDs of them if desired. Very entertaining reading.

Online there is a wealth of data:

NASA Technical Reports Server - An amazing storage house of various technical reports. Want to read about the LM thermal protection system? The tests they did to determine the shape of the CM? Biomedical results of various missions? This is the place.

To get transcripts of the landings and lunar activities, you need not go any further than the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ). A fantastic resource with comments from post-mission reports and from interviews with the astronauts, describing what was happening at the time, etc. Also contains a number of links to images, reports, essays, etc.

The best source for good quality scans of the images is the Apollo Image Gallery section of the Project Apollo Archive. Images are available from both the missions and the ground-based activity, pre- and post-Apollo, with a large amount of the scans being very high resolution.

There are a number of NASA online publications, dealing with all sorts of aspects: management history, histories of the various programmes (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, etc). Some of my favourites are:

Moonport - A History of Apollo Launch Facilities & Operations

Chariots For Apollo - A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft

Stages to Saturn - A Technological History of the Apollo / Saturn Launch Vehicles

Now, keep in mind this is only a fraction of the data that is available out there. There are websites dedicated to explaining obscure bits of the hardware, personal recollections of people who were contractors to NASA, how to build a replica of the Apollo computer, even a guide to find out where each piece of NASA manned space hardware is today.

Enjoy!

Utter nonsense. Or anti-Apollo disinformation if you prefer.

The "lost" telemetry tapes for ALL of the Apollo missions are now "anti-Apollo disinformation" ?? ... It's a FACT that the telemetry of "mankind's greatest achievement" is missing.

Now who's grasping at straws ?

Well, no, you are wrong again:

Technical spokesman for the group is Bill Wood, a retired Apollo tracking station engineer in Barstow, California. He supported all of the Apollo missions at Goldstone — part of NASA's worldwide network of deep space antennas run by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California.

Wood hasn't been happy of late with some reports saying that they are looking for "missing Apollo videotapes" — as well as tabloid claims that NASA had somehow bungled a task.

"That's the furthest thing from the truth," Wood told SPACE.com. "There are no lost Apollo video tapes," he emphasized.

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-081406a.html

If you would like Bill Wood's email address, please PM me and I'll ask if I can give it out.