Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
It was an official NASA image until they removed it from the book and threw it in the trash where it belonged in the first place
Well, you are wrong on two counts:
1. NASA has NEVER said it was an official image; and
2. The image is still in the book; it has not been "removed".
The point everyone keeps trying to get you to understand is #1; NASA never said or even hinted that it was an image taken inflight. The book never said that. Rene assumed that and he was wrong.
-
The cover photo on the book shows two lunar astronauts (or astro-nots as René calls them), one reflected in the other’s visor. The reflected astronaut is not holding a camera, so who took the picture with only two on the Moon? Also, in the same photo a piece of what appears to be scaffolding with a spotlight on it appears on the left edge of the photo. I’ve seen this same photo in several other places, but it is always cropped so the scaffolding is missing.
Anyone know what image this is meant to be? I can't find a copy of the book cover online.
-
Why have you been unable to show at least one copy of the book where it says it is an official NASA image? Would that be because there is no such admission because NASA has never said it?
What silly, transparent games you Apollo apologists play on these forums .
NASA obviously had already switched the ID number of the faked Collins photo to a different picture a very long time ago , which is quite typical of what they do when being busted out with an obvious fake photo .
Rene' has mentioned several times how they would switch photo numbers that he had referenced to try to make it look as if he was being somehow deceptive and to hide their obvious mistakes ... So it comes as no surprise that they did this with a picture they probably wish they had never tried to pass off as the real deal in the Collins book .
Once again - you have been unable to show anywhere - except in Rene's claim - that NASA said this was an official NASA image, that it was taken in space, etc. You can't because it never happened. You seem to be just blindly following what Rene and others say; you admit yourself that you have not checked the veracity of the claims. If you did, you would see that they were wrong.
-
Do you know if this would be the image?
I have no idea if that's the image because I never read his book... But if that's the whip antennia , then my guess would be that's what he was referring to .
It also comes as no surprise that the antennia is missing in the photos it should have been in, taken in LEO , and shows up in a photo it shouldn't have been in, the spashdown ... NASA has obviously made many mistakes with their phony photos , even on the Gemini missions .
If your implication is that the antennia only shows up in the one photo because Rene'put it there , then you guys are more desperate to defend NASA than I realized ... Rene' only worked with NASA photos as they were presented to the public ... Like the faked photo of the Collins spacewalk ... So it's not his fault if the pictures with and without the antennia don't jive ... It's NASA's fault for never being able to get their stories or their photos straight .
No - it's because as Gavin has already pointed out, it was the HF whip antenna which was deployed after splashdown.
"During the reentry, voice communication will be lost on two occasions. Under worst conditions. the first extends from approximately 1310 seconds after retrofire to 1775 seconds after retrofire, nearly 8 minutes under nominal conditions, this time will be approximately 6 minutes. This loss of communication is caused by ion sheath formation around the spacecraft. The second period lasts about 30 seconds, starting at main parachute deployment, and is due to a delay between loss of the nose stub transmitting antenna and the erection of the descent antenna"
http://www.mannedspaceflight.com/gemini/geminiNR/sec2.htm
"The recovery hf whip antenna is extended by placing the HF ANT switch to the PST LDG position for spacecraft 5, or on later spacecraft by holding the HF ANT switch in the EXT position for approximately one minute. Voice communication via the hf transmitter/receiver is then possible by placing the HF select switch to the RRTY position and either MODE switch to HF. The hf transmitter/receiver can also be used to transmit a direction finding signal by placing either MODE switch to HF/DF."
"HF WHIP ANTENNAS
Purpose: The hf whip antennas provide transmission and reception for the hf voice transmitter/receiver during the orbital and postlanding phases of the mission.
The recovery hf whip antenna is mounted on the small pressure bulkhead, outside the pressurized area of the spacecraft re-entry module. The other hf whip antenna is located on the adapter retrograde section. The antenna mechanism housing, approximately 6.25 inches wide and 22.5 inches high, completely encloses all parts of the antenna, including storage space for the antenna elements.
The recovery hf whip antenna contains six elements which, when fully extended, comprises a single antenna mast approximately 13 feet 3 inches long. The adapter hf whip antenna contains three elements which, when fully extended comprise a single antenna mast approximately 16 feet long on spacecraft 5 and 6, and approximately 13 feet long on later spacecraft. The mast is one inch in diameter on all spacecraft. Two connectors, supported by the antenna body, provide a means of applying power and connecting the antenna to the rf connector on the hf voice transmitter/receiver. The recovery hf whip antenna weighs approximately 9.0 pounds. The 16-foot version of the adapter hf whip antenna weighs approximately 7.5 pounds and the 13-foot version 6.0 pounds. The main supporting structure of the antenna mechanism housing is the antenna body consisting of a thin fiberglass shell.
The outer shell is made in two sections which mate together and form a completely sealed envelope around all moving parts. The antenna mast elements are heat treated stainless steel strips and are stored in adc motor driven cassette.
Mechanical Characteristics : The strip material comprising the antenna elements is heat treated into a material circular section in such a manner that the edges of the material overlap approximately 180 degrees. When the antenna is retracted, the tubular elements are continuously transformed by guide rollers into a flattened condition, and stored in a strained manner in a cassette. Extension and retraction of the antenna is accomplished by a motor which, by means of a chain, drives the storage cassette core. Because of the natural physical shape of the antenna elements, the antenna has a tendency to self-extend; thus giving an extension time of approximately 25 seconds. Retraction time is approximately 40 seconds. The antenna is stopped within its desired limits by two microswitches, one for extension and one for retraction, which automatically cut the power applied to the motor at the time of extreme limits of the antenna are reached.
The rf connection to the antenna is obtained by a wiper arm sliding on the cassette core drive shaft.
On spacecraft 5 the hf whip antennas are operated as follows : Spacecraft control bus voltage is supplied through the WHIP ANTENNAS -HF circuit breaker to the HF ANT switch. The adapter hf whip antenna is extended during orbit by positioning the HF ANT switch to EXT. The adapter hf whip antenna is not retracted during orbit, but is Jettisoned in the extended position with the retrograde section. After landing, the recovery hf whip antenna is extended by positioning the HF ANT switch to PST LDG, and is retracted by positioning the HF ANT switch to EXT.
On spacecraft 6 through 12, extension of the hf whip antennas is controlled through the HF ANT switch and LANDING switch. The hf antennas are operated as follows: Spacecraft control bus voltage is supplied through the WHIP ANTENNAS - HF circuit breaker to the HF ART switch, which has momentary type contacts. During orbit, the LANDING switch is in the SAFE position and adapter hf whip antenna can be extended or retracted by holding the HF ANT switch in the EXT or RET position respectively. During re-entry, the LANDING switch is placed in the ARM position. After landing, the recovery hf whip antenna can be extended or retracted by holding the HF ANT switch in the EXT or RET position respectively. The HF ANT switch should be held in the EXT position for approximately one minute for full extension of the antennas, and in the SET position for approximately 1.5 minutes for full retraction."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/NASA_Project...HROUGH_RECOVERY
After recovery, the antennas were retracted to prevent damage, snagging, etc.
So, once more, Rene is wrong in what he has said.
-
Duane,
I know you are probably busy at the moment answering the other questions, but when you get a chance:
René’s book shows several other interesting photos which indicate various anomalies. On a splashdown photo of Gemini 6A there is a whip antenna in excellent condition clearly shown, with no burn marks or scorching (5000 degrees F on re-entry). No other Gemini had this antenna, and simple logic indicates that it would have burned off during re-entry. Such an antenna is designed for frequencies not used in space.Do you know if this would be the image?
NASA S65-61886
Unless otherwise advised, I'll assume it is. You can clearly see a big white... something at the front of the spacecraft.
However, when aboard the recovery carrier, it is not there:
NASA S65-61859
Nor is it visible when the spacecraft was in orbit:
NASA S65-63220
NASA S65-64040
NASA S65-63189
Now, for the moment assuming there is no fakery involved in the images, why do you think it might be that it was visible only in one image?
-
Thanks, Gavin.
So the image number provided is not for the image claimed. It belongs to a series of images showing Collins undergoing EVA training in the C-135. Yet no image number for the mysterious image that seems to have been taken out of every copy on the planet.
Why have you been unable to show at least one copy of the book where it says it is an official NASA image? Would that be because there is no such admission because NASA has never said it?
-
NASA allegedly shot tens of thousands of pictures of the lunar landings, yet it is very difficult to procure even a decent percentage of these, and the same ones show up in most publications.
Totally incorrect. The images can be found here.
A number of the high quality scans can be found here.
Full scans of the magazines are available here and then selecting FULL HASSELBLAD MAGAZINES.
As far as the ID of " S66-40127" is concerned, I can't find an image as yet. That is NOT to say an image does not exist; it is simply that I cannot find one as yet. I believe it is available through a lesser known server, being one of the Gemini series. I'll post details shortly.
-
Hopefully this PM from Jarrah White will clear up any confusion on all of our parts ... I didn't read the Oberg "letter" you posted here, so I was in error on some points .
"Oberg's supposed letter to Ralph was posted on BAUT forums on January 20th 2003.
Basically he tried to frame Ralph, going as far as misquoting Collins and then act as though he was trying to protect Collins. I often wonder where he got his misquote from, because I strongly doubt Oberg even has access to the 1975 edition he claims to have: stating the photos themselves were 4 pages apart and that the book itself was a paperback.
Another important thing they won't address, is why the altered image was displayed with an official Apollo 11 photograph? And why did they depict that same image of him floating against the earth on the cover.
I didn't mention this in any of my three films, but I'll bring it up now. On page F of his book, Ralph was kind enough to include the original photo's number: S66-40127.
I've searched high and low for that photograph: I search the Apollo Archive, I searched nasa.gov, I search google, I search the JSC gallery, not a single website hosts this photograph of Collins. It seems not only has the newer books been stripped of the doctored version: but NASA has made sure not to associate themselves with the original picture and thus the only place you can get it is Collins' book.
Jarrah"
Okay, I am not going to address this post for the moment. Just let me say that I disagree with the conclusion for the moment. I'll come back to it, and I expect people to remind me to return to this one.
-
I'll reply to Jarrah's reply in a few minutes or so...
Are you able to reply for yourself, Duane, or do you prefer to use others? I dislike using intermediatories; I would prefer that i directly respond to the person whose claims I am addressing.
-
René’s book shows several other interesting photos which indicate various anomalies. On a splashdown photo of Gemini 6A there is a whip antenna in excellent condition clearly shown, with no burn marks or scorching (5000 degrees F on re-entry). No other Gemini had this antenna, and simple logic indicates that it would have burned off during re-entry. Such an antenna is designed for frequencies not used in space.
okay, we have three claims here.
1. Antenna on Gemini 6.
2. No other Gemini had this antenna.
3. Antenna used for frequencies not used in space.
Are these YOUR claims Duane, or are you repeating them from someone else?
-
Let's just make sure of things...
]Everything you posted above are NASA disinformation LIES ... and here is the proof of that .Ralph Rene' is not the xxxx , but Jim Orberg and the rest of the clowns at NASA and on the discussion forums that protect NASA, are ...
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=133200
They are the same photo... And this is official NASA output!http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=133180
Here's the bottom line ...NASA put out a book with a picture of Mike Collins in it where they BLACKED OUT THE REAL BACKGROUND ( sound familiar ? ) to fake a picture of an EVA space walk .
Then they were stupid enough to include the SAME TRAINING photo in the book .
Rene' busted them out in his book and then Jim Orberg LIED about contacting Rene' with an offer of $10,000.00 to supply the photo , which NASA has since REMOVED FROM THE BOOK AND REPLACED WITH ANOTHER PHOTO to save further embarrassment on their part .
This might not be proof that the Gemini missions were faked , but it is proof that NASA once again FAKED A PHOTOGRAPH by attempting to pass it off as a space walking EVA , when it clearly wasn't .
So basically , Orberg lied because Rene' never got word of his offer and Rene's assessment of what NASA really stands for is correct .
-
matt,
Agreed. The point that Jim Oberg, myself, and many others make is that NOWHERE has it ever been shown that the book or NASA claimed this to be an image taken during a Gemini mission. NOWHERE will you find a NASA image ID on it. The only person claiming that NASA have said it was a "real" image is Rene. Oh - and Duane, who has never actually CHECKED on the veracity of that claim... although I might be mistaken.
Duane, you have contacted Rene and confirmed that the image in the book was labeled as an official NASA image, etc? You have checked this, haven't you?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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). -
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
-
Nope ... I have been unable to get my hands on a pressurised Apollo Space suit with a camera fixed flush to a bracket on the chest .
That is NOT what was required for the challenge posed by Jack:
Nobody yet has offered proof that the feet of a standing photographerare NOT directly under his head, and that any shadows of his body
necesarily will lead directly to his feet...thus TOWARD THE CENTER
OF THE BOTTOM OF AN UNCROPPED PHOTO. They produce tricked
up images showing the shadow can point in another direction, but
it is impossible, since the shadows MUST POINT TOWARD WHERE
THE FEET MEET THE GROUND.
Nothing about a spacesuit or bracket.
-
Here's the bottom line ...
NASA put out a book with a picture of Mike Collins in it where they BLACKED OUT THE REAL BACKGROUND ( sound familiar ? ) to fake a picture of an EVA space walk .
Then they were stupid enough to include the SAME TRAINING photo in the book .
Rene' busted them out in his book and then Jim Orberg LIED about contacting Rene' with an offer of $10,000.00 to supply the photo , which NASA has since REMOVED FROM THE BOOK AND REPLACED WITH ANOTHER PHOTO to save further embarrassment on their part .
This might not be proof that the Gemini missions were faked , but it is proof that NASA once again FAKED A PHOTOGRAPH by attempting to pass it off as a space walking EVA , when it clearly wasn't .
So basically , Orberg lied because Rene' never got word of his offer and Rene's assessment of what NASA really stands for is correct .
"NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER " !!!
No, a couple of problems there:
1. It was not a NASA book. If this is not so, please quote it's NASA publication number (all NASA publications have them).
2. You still haven't shown that NASA claims it was taken on the mission.
Rene' busted them out in his book and then Jim Orberg LIED about contacting Rene' with an offer of $10,000.00 to supply the photo , which NASA has since REMOVED FROM THE BOOK AND REPLACED WITH ANOTHER PHOTO to save further embarrassment on their part .Are you listening to yourself?
-
We come around to that quite often: Duane - have you done a photographic test of the claim yourself, and if so, would you post the results like other people have?
-
THE SPACEY TWINS
Jim Oberg revealed the problem behind this claim. Here is a copy of the letter he wrote to Rene:
January 30, 2003
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?
Jim Oberg, Rt 2 Box 350, Dickinson, TX 77539
NOWHERE is it claimed that that image was taken in space; that is an invalid assumption made by Rene.
-
So you're read ALL of these books have you , to make that oh so "informed" opinion ?
No, I haven't, but when I see claims like these:
"claims huge mining machines are moving about on the lunar surface"
"claims that the Moon is a giant artificial spaceship and is still inhabited"
"claims that extraterrestrials used the Moon as an Earth observation post"
"claims that the Moon is a flying saucer base"
"claims that the Moon has a heavy gravity (75% of Earth’s) and atmosphere, and that a top secret antigravity propulsion system was necessary to get on and off the Moon"
"shows quite a number of startling NASA photos indicating vegetation, clouds and domed structures on the Moon"
"claims we discovered aliens already there when we got there"
"claims that the Moon is long inhabited and that Mercury, Venus, Mars and some of the moons of the outer planets show signs of current or past inhabitation"
I'll label them as nutjobs.
-
René begins with the photographic evidence. The more one looks at photos of the Apollo landings, the more one begins to wonder. No blast craters exist beneath the lunar modules (LEMs),...
As I pedantically point out regularly, the term is LM, not LEM. It was changed in the mid-60s. No blast craters exist because none would normally be produced. First off, the Descent Propulsion System (DPS) engine - although capable of 10 000 lbs of thrust - was a throttleable engine. Just before touchdown, it was producing only about 25% or less of it's rated thrust.
...no dust arose from their rocket-softened landings, though the lunar rovers toss dust into the air as though there were an atmosphere acting on the particles.But they DID! It can be heard during touchdown of a number of missions:
Apollo 11 -
102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.
[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don't think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing dust; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving dust that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary."]
**************
Apollo 12 -
110:32:04 Bean: 50 feet, coming down; watch for the dust.
[because Al is concentrating on the computer, Pete may already be seeing dust.]
[Conrad, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "As soon as I got the vehicle stopped in horizontal velocity at 300 feet (figure 4-12 from the Apollo 12 Mission Report indicates that he stopped almost all of his forward motion at about 220 feet), we picked up a tremendous amount of dust - much more than I had expected. It looked a lot worse than it did in the movies I saw of Neil's landing. It seemed to me that we got the dust much higher than Neil indicated. It could be because we were in a hover, higher up, coming down. I don't know. But we had dust from - I think I called it around 300 feet. I could see the boulders through the dust, but the dust went as far as I could see in any direction and completely obliterated craters and anything else. All I knew was (that) there was ground underneath that dust. I had no problem with the dust, determining horizontal (fore and aft) and lateral (left and right) velocities, but I couldn't tell what was underneath me. I knew I was in a generally good area and I was just going to have to bite the bullet and land, because I couldn't tell whether there was a crater down there or not."]
*********************
etc.
It can also be seen on the Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) footage of landings.
Apollo 11
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11f.1024502.mov
Apollo 12
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.landing.mov
Apollo 14
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14land24fps_DivX.avi
etc, etc.
One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
Well, at least two images have a person visible, though I agree they are not identifiable.
AS11-40-5875, cropped and enlarged to 250% of original size (Buzz Aldrin)
AS17-146-22296, cropped and enlarged to 250% of original size (Jack Schmitt)
IIRC, there some examples from the 16mm DAC footage. How clear they are, I don't remember.