Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,420 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
I might not be able to find any "figures" to support my argument, but the current scientific articles are finally admitting just how dangerous deep space radiation really is for manned space flights ... and NASA has finally admittd that humans are not venturing out to the Moon or to Mars until the proper radiation shileding can be developed sometime in the future.
I don't know how many times people have to keep repeating this to you:
LONG TERM EXPOSURE.
A Mars mission will require 18 months or so, there and back. Not the 12-odd days for Apollo to go to the Moon and back.
(These times include surface activity)
The next lunar missions are not just talking about a quick 2 or 3 days visit; they are talking about staying for weeks or months.
The Mars missions will be staying for months.
LONG TERM EXPOSURE.
Think about it this way: it's okay for you to have x-rays taken of your teeth 10 or 12 times over your lifetime (perhaps even more).... but the technician will jump behind a protective screen. If it's safe for you, why not for them?
Why? Because they are subject to LONG TERM EXPOSURE.
-
Members of this forum have argued that it makes no difference who is elected president as they are all under control of the large corporations. That might be true but I would have thought that it was important to give the impression that you have a democratic republic instead of a oligarchy. Is it possible that the American Empire is becoming like the Roman Empire? If so, will it end up in the same way?
I wonder. JFK certainly took advantage of his father's power; was that wrong?
I think that Chris and Ron have highlighted the problem. Unless the people are willing to critically examine the candidates - with resources other than the mainstream media - they become susceptible to deception. If the people do not exercise a measure of discretion in their voting habits, then they probably deserve the person who ends up in power.
-
That is an illuminating commentary on youth and on society in general.
I have often joked that many people could not identify their governor, senators, or Congressman, but can easily tell you who are the remaining contestants on American Idol or who was last voted off the island on Survivor.
Don't believe me? Just go to the mall and start asking people.
I'd hazard a guess that it is true in a lot of countries; IMO it is certainly true in Australia. There used to be a segment on a comedy / social commentary programme that did interviews with people on the street, ending with the on screen visual of: "THIS PERSON VOTES!". Frightening.
The B-C-B-C succession is interesting, but I don't think you can legislate against it (Mark's comments). If so, then RFK would never have been allowed to run (which actually may have been a good thing; he might still be alive!). Would Ted be allowed to be a Senator?
It's probably just an interesting blip in history - though if people are worried then they should campaign for other people.
-
What I probably should have said was that it isn't technically possible today to send manned missions to the Moon .
No, that is still incorrect. It is technically possible to go to the Moon. How soon you can go depends on how much money you want to spend.
-
So it's not true to say that it's "not technically possible" to go to the moon, unless you're being pedantic beyond belief with your use of the English Language. (It's not "technically possible" to fly a commercial jet from London to New York in less than four hours, but only because Concorde has been decommissioned. That doesn't mean that it's an impossible feat to achieve from a technological point of view).
Dave - precisely. It is not possible to fly a commercial supersonic jet between London and New York... but it was a service that operated but a handful of years ago. The aircraft that still survive are no longer airworthy (or would take a large amount of money to make them airworthy again - if they could gain an Airworthiness Certificate). How soon could they build another aircraft? Why aren't they doing it?
-
Errr - but he submitted the report:
"...and finished a 500-page report that he delivered when he testified to Congress in April of 1967."
So the PTB waited until he testified in a public hearing, and submitted two reports, but only THEN after he had no further evidence to give decided to "off" him. Yep, that certainly drew attention away from his testimony.
A comparison: Jack White testified before a House committee (I am unsure of which) regarding photographic evidence showing that the Oswald photograph (of LHO holding a rifle and a newspaper) was faked.
Why wasn't Jack "offed" after HIS testimony?
-
I have a friend who was based in Benbecula about ten years ago when a party from the USA were contracted to work for a company called Vitro Corps helping installing the radar at the RAF base.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRH_Benbecula
Two of the team (Larry and Bob-surnames withheld) were about retirement age and had worked for NASA receiving the tv/radio transmissions from the Moon. My friend on one occasion was discussing Neil Armstrong and whether they were involved that night with the tv pictures and one of them responded with this comment.
"Don't believe everything you see on the tv"
Needless to say my friend who has absolutely no interest in conspiracy theories is convinced man, or at least Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, did not land on the Moon.
Hi James, and welcome to the Forum!
If you like, you can have your friend contact the FIRST people on Earth to receive the TV transmissions from Apollo 11.
http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missi...sion/index.html
These were people who were there, and can tell your friend exactly what was received. I've spoken to them and have no doubts. I found them more than willing to discuss what happened, the technical details, anything about those days.
Does anybody know what he meant by this?but have a small residual doubt about the landings themselves, because I didn't go, so who am I to know for sure, besides the official word and comments from my friends and colleagues who did go? Answers to my questions about activity on the lunar surface were answered strangely at times--hence a bit of doubt.
This is only my opinion, but I think it falls into two areas. Firstly, as a true skeptic, Dr O'Leary admits that because he was not actually there on the lunar surface he cannot say with 100% certainty that they were there. In this respected I am reminded of the 'Fair Witness' from Heinlein's "A Stranger in a Strange Land". When the witness is asked what colour a house is, they say that the side facing them is white. They don't mention the sides they cannot see because they cannot say what colour it is. They do not assume the other sides of the house are painted in the same colour. It doesn't matter if they were there 5 minutes ago and saw it was all white - it could have changed in those 5 minutes. So the good Dr leaves that bit of doubt.
Secondly, the replies to his questions about lunar activity might be considered strange, but we can't be sure. For a start, the good Dr was a member of the "XS-11" intake. He would have developed friendships amongst the later group of astronauts, and not necessarily have developed a relationship with the moonwalkers. This relationship has been mentioned in many books. Also, we don't know what questions he asked, when he asked them, and what the replies were; the replies may have simply been curt, flippant or incomplete answers. They may have been clouded by time. We simply don't know.
So overall, I think he was being a "fair witness" - saying he has no doubts personally but cannot swear to it because he was not on the surface with them. He has left that to the people who did walk on the lunar surface.
-
Thanks for playing messenger-boy, but I couldn't really care less about what Mr Magoo is saying to get a rise out of me on another forum.
I'll remain happy in my ignorance, foolishly believing men landed on the moon!
Along with 99% of the world!
-
How about providing a clear statement from someone with the requisite expertise saying the Apollo missions were faked?
O'Leary? No - he has clarified his statement.
O'Leary said that he thinks the landings were real because he doesn't believe his friends would lie .... That's pretty clear alright, and unfortunately not much of an endorsement for Apollo .
You seem to omit what else he did say:
"Somehow I may have given the impression that Apollo may have been hoaxed," says Dr. O'Leary. "It was real," he says succinctly. "Apollo happened."
That's pretty clear - no ambiguity at all.
Van Allen? No - he has disputed any misinterpretation of his statements.Dr. Van Allen was the first one to admit that manned space flights to the Moon were not a good idea for many reasons ... But of course the real reason being that they are most likely not even possible .... He wouldn't go as far to admit that though, because he was a team player and didn't want to rock the boat by blowing the whistle on NASA and their Apollo debacle .
Surely there must be someone who is willing to stand up and provide evidence. Evidence that can be peer reviewed. Evidence that can be independently examined. After all, there were all these "whistleblowers"... surely someone left data that could be confirmed, right?Or is it just hot air from people who do not have the requisite expertise?
I'm sure there are many people who worked for NASA who would like to make a stand against the reality of the official Apollo record , but they don't want to end up like so many people before who did make a stand against NASA and paid the ultimate price of for it with their life ... or even in some cases, the lives of their families as well .... Saftely inspector Tom Baron "commiting suicide" by train and taking his entire family with him comes to mind .
I like the way you support them when their meanings are misinterpreted - but when a clarification is given, they have been 'silenced' somehow. Very reminiscent of how you supported someone 100%, calling him a genius IIRC - then drop him and claim he was a disinfo agent. You are nothing if not consistent.
You continually raise Baron - yet forget to mention that he actually did get to testify, that his reports were submitted, and it was only AFTER he had given evidence that he committed suicide. Killing him brings attention to what he said; wouldn't the thing to do would be to kill him BEFORE he testified? You know, to stop what he said going public?
And yet his claims were investigated. Much of what he said was very accurate. A change in attitude and procedures came about. So how exactly was what he knew and said stopped?
"...taking his entire family with him..." - oh yes, that has never happened before, has it?
-
I give you a challenge: find anyone qualified in radiation in space / exposure effects to the human body that claims the Apollo astronauts could not have passed through them safely considering the shielding the CM gave and the minimal exposure times.
NASA's own scientists have admitted that manned landings on the Moon are not technically possible ... and the main showstopper is lack of shielding against the dangers of RADIATION .
Really? Please quote a source where NASA scientists say that manned lunar landings are not technically possible. That is blatently incorrect.
-
Fine then.
How about providing a clear statement from someone with the requisite expertise saying the Apollo missions were faked?
O'Leary? No - he has clarified his statement.
Van Allen? No - he has disputed any misinterpretation of his statements.
Surely there must be someone who is willing to stand up and provide evidence. Evidence that can be peer reviewed. Evidence that can be independently examined. After all, there were all these "whistleblowers"... surely someone left data that could be confirmed, right?
Or is it just hot air from people who do not have the requisite expertise?
-
This will be addressed more to Wade, since it is his text you are quoting.
The United States soft-landed the Surveyor 1 on the moon on June 2, 1966. Surveyor 2 crashed into the moon. Surveyor 3 had a strange landing. It bounced 35 feet above the moon when it landed because its rockets kept firing. Surveyor 4 failed, completely “disappearing” 2.5 minutes before touchdown. NASA never figured out what happened. Surveyor 5 nearly failed due to a helium leak, but a jury-rigged landing saved the mission. Surveyor 6 was the first craft to lift off from the moon. It did its takeoff maneuver (getting about 12 feet into the “air”) at the time of the Apollo 4 mission, in November 1967. Until Apollo 11, that was the only test in taking off.As I have pointed out repeatedly, the "takeoff manoeuvre" was practiced before. The Surveyor quotes, however, do show a distinct difference between the two craft: unmanned / automated and manned.
Let's say that NASA decided to do an unmanned landing of the LM on the Moon. It is planned to land at the Apollo 11 site (because it is a nice safe area). Let's call this mission Apollo 10B. What would have happened?
There would have been the sketchy comms / telemetry. Would this have stopped the landing? Perhaps.
There would have been the 1201 / 1202 alarms. Would this have stopped the landing? Probably not.
There would have been the boulders at the landing site. Would this have stopped the mission? Yes, in the sense that the LM may well have crashed into them... and Mission Control would have been trying to figure out what went wrong. Instead, there was a crew aboard who could react to the situation and alter their landing point.
There is nothing to say that an unmanned landing would have provide better data / made a manned landing safer.
Let's review the landings:
Apollo 11 - Armstrong has to change the landing point to avoid surface debris.
Apollo 12 - Conrad changes the landing point slightly, to make the best possible landing site at the time.
Apollo 14 - An in-flight programme alteration is required to account for an errant ABORT switch, and the landing radar needs to be recycled.
Apollo 15 - Scott moves landing point to avoid ground debris.
Apollo 16 - High gain antenna positioning fails; crew updates some spacecraft data via comms. RCS leaks require transferring of propellant from another system.
Apollo 17 - Pretty much nominal.
There is a point with a complex system whereby a manned operation INCREASES the chances of success versus an unmanned operation.
Think about the upcoming Moon missions - are they going to do an unmanned landing of the Altair LM first?
Think about an upcoming Mars mission - are they going to do an unmanned landing in the Mars LM first?
Apollo 4 was unmanned, as all the Apollo launches would be through Apollo 6, because of the Apollo 1 disaster. Apollo 4 was also the first time that the Saturn V rocket was launched, which powered the manned Apollo missions. Apollo 5 used the Saturn 1B rocket, and that mission supposedly tested the LM in earth orbit, and the mission was completely run by remote control.See? Wade himself says the LM was tested in Earth orbit.
Could they have sent unmanned Apollo missions to the moon? Apollo 6 was a demonstration of that possibility. It was the second launch of the Saturn V rocket, and the goal was to simulate the events needed to send the craft to the moon, and “man rate” the Apollo V rocket. The mission had twenty major failures, and it did not even attain the proper orbit, and the third stage burn that was supposed to send the astronauts to the moon failed to ignite. Not exactly a great record of success to build on to go the moon by 1970. The Apollo 6 mission was launched in April 1968, less than two years before Kennedy’s announced deadline. The official story is that von Braun and all of NASA pulled together and performed technical wizardry that is still hard to believe today, even by those who participated in it.[/i]Yes, it sure is hard to believe ... Especially by those who don't believe it was technically possible to even land men on the radioactive lunar surface, keep them alive under the most horrendous of conditions on every level, and then launch them again to return home, 240,000 miles back in the deadly cosmic radiation of deep space .
That sounds like complete science fiction .
Yes indeed that flight worried them. The Saturn V suffered from severe pogo. It was discovered that the natural resonance frequency of the F-1 engines was too close to the structural resonance frequency of the Saturn V. The engine failures occurred for another resonance-related reason. During ground testing, frost formed on the fuel lines. This added weight and changed the resonance frequency. In space - with no air or moisture - there was no frost on the fuel lines. They vibrated when in resonance and broke. This occurred on both the S-II and the S-IVB stages. The third engine malfunction was because of a misconnected line: the computer shut down a healthy No3 J-2 engine instead of the sick No2 engine.
People learn from these experiences.
Systems are changed as experience is gained.
Do you run Windows XP on your computer? Have you installed SP1? SP2?
Finally, you (Duane) keep on going on about the "deadly" radiation in outer space. Even my limited understanding allows me to appreciate that there are different types of radiation, and that the level and length of exposure determines the extent of harm (if any) done to the body.
I give you a challenge: find anyone qualified in radiation in space / exposure effects to the human body that claims the Apollo astronauts could not have passed through them safely considering the shielding the CM gave and the minimal exposure times.
Here is a clue:
Richard Setlow: setlow@bnl.gov
John Dicello (Ph.D., Professor, Radiation Oncology): diceljo@jhmi.edu
Ask them if what you say has the support of any scientific body.
-
They did not land - that is correct. They did, however, practice the descent profile and ascent stage launch multiple times, including two manned missions, and one in lunar orbit... PRIOR to Apollo 11.
According to NASA, but no one else can verify that data
But you see, that is the point - the data CAN be verified. There is a mass of TECHNICAL data available. The truth can be confirmed by those with the knowledge (such as aeronautical engineers, metallurgists, electrical engineers, etc). Do you think that since 1969 not one engineer has studied the LM in detail? Not one metallurgist has look at the materials used in order to solve other problems? That people haven't recreated the computer programmes used? That people haven't examined the missions in detail in order to recreate them for simulators? That any fakery would not have been exposed?
I refer you again to the first flight of the Shuttle; tell me: was that faked?The Shuttle has nothing to do with the highly controversial 39 year old Apollo missions, which claimed to land men on the Moon ... The astronauts in the Shuttle never left earth orbit and never pretended to go where no man had gone before ... or obviously since .
It has to do with the claim of "no testing" you have repeated in your posts. The LM was tested - both ground and flight testing. Both unmanned and manned. It was thoroughly tested... and the next logical step was a manned landing.
The Space Shuttle was tested on the ground and in the air (not in space)... yet its first flight was manned. There were five flight tests of the LM systems prior to a manned landing.
It is a valid comparison.
(more to come)
-
My apologies - I did not see your acknowledgment.
-
Duane - did you even bother to read some of the references? Perhaps you are confused. Tell me: what would be the significant differences of a 1/6G environment versus a zero G environment?
It doesn't matter what the differences might be because the Apollo LM never landed or launched in either enviornment until it allegedly accomplished this amazing feat on the Moon during Apollo 11.
Duane - how many times do you need to have this told to you?
They did not land - that is correct. They did, however, practice the descent profile and ascent stage launch multiple times, including two manned missions, and one in lunar orbit... PRIOR to Apollo 11.
You don't seem to understand and you don't seem to want to understand.
I refer you again to the first flight of the Shuttle; tell me: was that faked?
-
The bottom line still is that no Apollo LM was ever properly tested to land and take off in a 1/6 environment or anywhere else ... So NASA really had no way of knowing whether it would work properly or not .
Duane - did you even bother to read some of the references? Perhaps you are confused. Tell me: what would be the significant differences of a 1/6G environment versus a zero G environment?
-
Were you going to add the next piece Duane?
However, although the above points can be compelling, they do not add up to NASA faking the moon landings. They may have tried faking it if they felt they had to, but there are too many strong pieces of evidence that argue for legitimate landings, such as how the moon dust behaved, aerodynamically clumsy objects flying horizontally for quite a ways and other things flying as if they were in a vacuum, and now there is Armstrong’s leap to deal with. It has been tiring to watch the conspiracy theorists sift through the same worthless mine tailings over and over. Very little of the photographic analysis, such as shadows not running parallel, astronauts lit up in while standing in shadows, supposed differences between video and still footage, moving mountains and the like have stood up to the slightest scrutiny, and an area of evidence is easily and thoroughly explained, and then a new researcher presents the same evidence.
.
.
.
Although I think we landed on the moon with human beings, I have little doubt that the powers that be were not above trying to fake it if they had to. In significant ways, the space race was a grotesque display of nationalism, where we made a big deal of planting the flag each time (it looks like Columbus in 1492) with the Stars and Stripes all over the Apollo equipment (did somebody think they might be Chinese astronauts?). In addition, I doubt we are being told the whole truth about the Apollo program and its findings.
In case you don't know, Wade is a member here and I have asked him to join the discussion in this thread.
-
No, the landing phase had been tested successfully. The separation sequence was successfully tested (both here and on Apollo 9). It was that the ascent stage under AGS control was trying to perform an incorrect manoeuvre to rendezvous with the CM. It DID perform "wild" manoeuvres, but that was because it was trying to do what it was told to do under the circumstances.
Apparently your information is incorrect .
The Landing Module was never tested in a real landing and takeoff situation until Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed on the moon and took off. When Armstrong tried flying a stripped down version of the LM on earth, he crashed it, nearly getting killed. The LM supposedly made six perfect landings and take offs from the moon.
Apollo 10 was the closest thing there was to a live test of the LM before landing on the moon. After the LM descended and was getting ready to ascend, it began spinning wildly, and its pilot, Eugene Cernan, thought it was going to crash. He got it under control and made it back to the Command Module. The official reason for that near-disaster is that an abort switch had been incorrectly set because of an error in the manual they used. That explanation shows how vulnerable the missions were to human error, but according to NASA, human error was minimal during the Apollo missions.
O'Leary was skeptical about the Apollo missions, and his skepticism was precisely where mine has been: the moon landings themselves. The LM had virtually no testing in the environment where it would be used, and the scariest parts of all, the lunar landing and ascent, had no live testing whatsoever before Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed and took off from the moon. The LM had to come in sideways, and its rockets to fire perfectly to make a horizontal landing on the moon. Nothing like it in manned space flight has been done before or since, and it was done without having been properly tested in a real environment before the Apollo 11 Mission. In kind, it is a situation similar to NASA never sending an animal beyond the Van Allen belt to test the radiation of space's effects on living creatures before it sent men out there. Just before the Apollo 11 mission, NASA sent a monkey into earth orbit, to spend thirty days there. The monkey died in a week and the capsule was brought down on July 6, 1969."
You are repeating invalid data from a suspect site. Let me point out the errors for you:
The Landing Module was never tested in a real landing and takeoff situation until Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed on the moon and took off.
Partially correct. It had never actually landed on the Moon. The descent sequence (DOI, braking, pitchover / transition, etc) had all been tested. The staging, ascent and rendezvous had all been tested in unmanned and manned craft, in Earth and lunar orbits.
When Armstrong tried flying a stripped down version of the LM on earth, he crashed it, nearly getting killed.
This was the Lunar Lander Training Vehicle (LLTV). It was NOT (let me repeat that) NOT a "stripped down" version of the LM. The only similar aspects between them is they both had engines and they both had reaction control systems. You might as well compare it to the X-15. The LLTV (and LLRV) had a jet engine mounted vertically in a basic framework. This would be set to provide the thrust to take 5/6ths of the LLTVs weight... thus simulating 1/6 G. It had hydrogen peroxide jets at the extremities to provide rotational control like the LM. The jet engine thrust was increased or decreased in order to simulate the LM's Descent Propulsion System (DPS), a rocket motor.
It was a trainer, and quite difficult to fly. Still, all the commanders reported that it was vital training for them despite the risks.
Also: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/LLTV-952.html
Apollo 10 was the closest thing there was to a live test of the LM before landing on the moon. After the LM descended and was getting ready to ascend, it began spinning wildly, and its pilot, Eugene Cernan, thought it was going to crash. He got it under control and made it back to the Command Module. The official reason for that near-disaster is that an abort switch had been incorrectly set because of an error in the manual they used. That explanation shows how vulnerable the missions were to human error, but according to NASA, human error was minimal during the Apollo missions.
Some minor corrections: Cernan, although known as the Lunar Module Pilot, didn't actually fly the LM. The commander (Stafford) always did. Yes, everything is subject to human error and yes, it was minimised. Minimal / minimised does not mean the absence of; it means brought down to a lower level as is reasonably possible.
The LM had virtually no testing in the environment where it would be used, and the scariest parts of all, the lunar landing and ascent, had no live testing whatsoever before Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed and took off from the moon.
See above. LMs were tested:
LTA-10R - Apollo 4
LM1 - Apollo 5
LTA-2R - Apollo 6
LM3 - Apollo 9
LM4 - Apollo 10
That's two flights with test articles, and three flights with flight articles (not including ground tests). Three flights unmanned before a manned flight. As a comparison, the FIRST flight of the Space Shuttle was manned.
O'Leary was skeptical about the Apollo missions
If you believe this is incorrect, contact Dr O'Leary and ask him yourself: drbrianoleary@gmail.com
Some further reading for you:
Final Analysis of the Descent Propulsion System during the flight of Apollo 5
Apollo 5 - Final Flight Evaluation Report
Apollo 9 Mission Report - Supplement 3: LM Abort Guidance System Post-flight Analysis Report
Apollo 9 Mission Report - Supplement 8: Descent Propulsion System Final Flight Evaluation
Apollo 10 Mission Report - Supplement 6: Ascent Propulsion System Final Flight Evaluation
Apollo 10 Mission Report - Supplement 7: Descent Propulsion System
-
It was the Indian Lake one I was referring to; also I made a typo... that should have read 1.5 - 2 miles.
-
I'm pretty shocked and incredulous at this, but have to temper my attitude.
A number of people I mentioned this to have said that the McDonalds management programmes are very well respected. A person who used to be a senior recruiting officer said the ADF looked very favourably on them.
-
I'm sorry, but if you expect me to take clavius seriously, then you are sorely mistaken .
Windley's job as the founder of clavius ( the biggest NASA disinformation site on the internet ) is to attempt to discredit any evidence which goes against the reality of Apollo .
Then you should have no trouble DISPROVING what he says.
-
The "wild gyrations" were NOT part of the descent on Apollo 10. That section of the test had been completed successfully.
Oh really ? .. Where did the crew sucessfully descend and land the Apollo 10 craft then ?
This is where you should have answered the questions yourself.
They were NOT scheduled to land. That particular LM was considered too heavy with not enough fuel margin. This was the primary argument AGAINST them landing. Many people asked - quite rightly - if they had been sent all the way to the Moon with all the risks it entailed, why not make the first landing? The weight of the LM was the deciding factor.
Instead they did a simulated landing at a point far above the lunar surface. This demonstrated the descent profile accuracy, and even the performance of the landing radar.
Through a mixup, the guidance switch had been placed back into AGS instead of PNGS. After they had separated from the descent stage, Stafford placed the ascent stage back into AUTO mode. Immediately AGS tried to get the ascent stage into a rendezvous with the CM - sending it wildly moving about (because there were no maneuvering limits set for the AGS).So the Apollo 10 LM did spin wildly out of control and this burn maneuver was never sucessfully tested .
No, the landing phase had been tested successfully. The separation sequence was successfully tested (both here and on Apollo 9). It was that the ascent stage under AGS control was trying to perform an incorrect manoeuvre to rendezvous with the CM. It DID perform "wild" manoeuvres, but that was because it was trying to do what it was told to do under the circumstances.
-
I agree that he should have very tight security - but then again, so should Hillary. It seems that there are people - not government forces, NWO or illuminati, but simply wacko individuals or groups - who seem to think it's their duty to assassinate someone simply because they are different.
-
I'm sorry, but if you expect me to take David Wozney seriously, then you are sorely mistaken.
Apollo whistleblower revealed at last!
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
James, you mention the 'radar' side of things, but to the best of my knowledge they didn't get involved in the TV transmissions. There was the Deep Space Tracking Network, which was able to track the craft (and thus my association with your 'radar'). The telemetry - including the TV transmissions - were handled by the Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN), a separate organisation. The transmissions were also received in the US at Goldstone in California, but they were nearing the end of their receiving window at the time of the EVA.
I'll send you a PM with the e-mail addresses of John Saxon and Mike Dinn, who were there; they will be able to help you out with your research.
Yeah, it wasn't that clear, was it? What I meant was that his initial statement had the 'doubt' in it because he could not swear that those people were there; no-one except the lunar walkers themselves can swear to that.
When his statement was being used as "evidence" by some to say that even an astronaut did not believe they walked on the Moon, he clarified his statement, saying that he personally believed they walked on the Moon.
The difference is being able to swear to something happening, and the belief that something happened.
I have never personally witnessed a Space Shuttle launch, but I have seen heaps of video of them.
I cannot swear to them being real because I have never actually seen one - but I can swear that I personally believe they launched as advertised because of the footage of them I have seen (and seeing the hardware, having an understanding of the physics and engineering involved, etc).
Finally, the "strange replies" section of my post I think was clear enough. We don't know what he asked, and what the replies were. Were the people tired at the time, the post-flight letdown? Exhausted from post-mission publicity tours? Simply sick of being asked the same questions over and over? I don't know.
lastly, I don't know how much you have personally read into the US manned space programme, but the various intakes of astronauts sometimes tended not to mix. Sure, you worked in the same building, even in the same office... but you did not necessarily know them. People like Al Bean (LMP, Apollo 12) come to mind. He felt like an 'outcast' at times, not part of the main astronaut group. His peers were being selected for missions while he was being pushed aside over to Apollo Applications (the early name for Skylab). The people who mattered were not his friends - only co-workers. It was only that Pete Conrad decided he wanted Al as his LMP that rose him from relative obscurity.
If you like, I can recommend some books and some online material that more clearly describes the relationships.. or at least, more clearly than I can.