Evan Burton

Ah! I was actually referring to radio transmissions made during the missions themselves ("...magnificent desolation...") rather than a post flight comment in the ALSJ - but I never said that, so you are quite correct. I stand corrected.

Duane,

If you are so firmly rooted in your beliefs, why don't you set up a similar experiment to show your point of view? These are some of the most important things we can bring to the debate... an opportunity for people to conduct their own experiments, and verify for themselves who is - and who is not - correct in their claims.

A Day In The Life of a Conspiracy Theorist - Part III

It's unbelievable! Today, I awoke unexpectedly .and felt just fine. I am happy and content. My government works hard for me and I appreciate them. I have nothing else to say. Amazing!

bump

Seems to me that either Chaikin is embellishing his work of fantasy with lies, or Collins wasn't being truthful at the press conference. Which is it?

Neither. As you seem so reluctant to admit, he was probably replying to the section about which stars could be seen during the solar corona.

Collins saw stars on the way to the Moon, and at other times.

A surprise to some it may seem, but I actually believe in UFOs.

Firstly, I believe in the strict definition: Unidentified Flying Object. There are many objects which people see, that have a quite mundane explanation.

Secondly, I believe there are craft out there that may very well be of extraterrestrial origin.

I guess that a good 99.9% of sightings are not 'traditional' UFOs - but the remainder defy explanation.

I do, on the other hand, freely admit I have not a shred of evidence for my opinion. It's something I believe but have not yet found proof of.

I had a look at the Aulis webpage and the letter to James Hansen. I sent the following reply to David:

Dear David,

I saw your letter on the Aulis website, and I might be able to help you with your questions. Firstly, you have to remember that the section sup until PDI (Powered Descent Initiation) in lunar orbit had been practiced previous. Launch, Earth orbit, TLI, LOI, lunar orbit, TEI, and Earth entry had all been practiced - through simulation or actual flight. It was only the landing phase that had not been put through simulation. Even then, you have to take into account that Armstrong had been flying the LLRV / LLTV since early 1968. Armstrong was a strong proponent of the LLRV / LLTV, saying it gave invaluable experience in conducting a lunar landing.

They also had procedural trainers on which to practice. It is just that the full simulators, and integrated sims, were not available until later.

I might refer you to Chapter 24 of "Apollo" by Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox (South Mountain Books 2004, ISBN 0-976008-0-6). This publication is considered a "must have" for Apollo researchers. On Page 333:

'...In the case of the lunar descent, the simulation software wasn't completed until about two months before G's (ie - Apollo 11 - Evan) scheduled launch. But that was okay. The White Team was coming off Apollo 9 with "what we thought was a pretty hot hand," Kranz recalled, and they were ready. Two months was plenty for the White Team.

The first simulation of a landing on the moon, on May 29, was a major event within M.S.C. ....'

Also, from Page 334:

'...The first lunar descent sim, however, turned out to be routine. The SimSup didn't try any funny stuff at all; he just let the flight controllers and Armstrong and Aldrin determine that they could indeed put the LEM (sic) down in one piece if nothing went wrong. And so it went for the first few days of sims, "shooting the nominals," they called it - normal burns, no major malfunctions, no disperse trajectories. "But then the simulation team started putting the meat to us," Kranz said, "and, to put it bluntly, we started crashing." Or, almost as bad, they aborted when they didn't really have to.'

I hope this answers some of your questions.

All the best,

Evan

Quoting Aulis? I wouldn't say Percy couldn't lay straight in bed, but....

Well, if you're quoting Aulis, I'll quote Clavius:

Here is the relevant part of the transcript:

QUERY: I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN: The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. [...]

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

ALDRIN [actually Collins]: I don't remember seeing any.

(The First Lunar Landing As Told By The Astronauts: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins in a Post-flight Press Conference, NASA EP-73, 1989 pt. VI)

Collins' response is a followup to Armstrong's reference to solar corona photography (Fig. 3) which had been taken from the command module during the translunar coast, in which all three astronauts participated. (Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report NASA SP-214, 1969, p. 39). The reporter's question is a bit confusing since the solar corona cannot be seen from the lunar surface except when the earth eclipses the sun. Or, of course, from a spaceship positioned such that the earth is between the spaceship and the sun. Apollo 11's course provided just such an opportunity. It appears Neil Armstrong interpreted the reporter's phrase "solar corona" to refer to this data.

Ah, I've checked and I'm incorrect. There were three DACs on Apollo 14 - one inside the CM, one inside the LM, and the other was mounted on the MET (a cart) used on the lunar surface. The DAC is a 16mm Maurer film camera, and looks like it was fitted with a 5mm lens.

I don't think that is DAC footage. I'll have to check, but I had always thought the DAC was normally left mounted inside the LM, pointing out a window. Those shots are too low an angle for that.

Let me get back to people on that one.

The bottom image is labeled "AS14-71-19509" but that must be incorrect. Magazine 71 carried aboard Apollo 14 was a B&W magazine, used on the way back to Earth. I don't have a listing of 16mm DAC footage, but I don't recall them giving them individual frame numbers. Duane, could you confirm the number?

This is purely a guess, and probably not a very good one, but would it have anything to do with the three-colour wheel in the TV camera?

It's very obvious that Jack was describing the difference between a Sun's atmospheric halo , from a Sun's overexposed camera flare ... but of course you and Burton both had to play a game of semantics with his explaination , as usual ....

Actually, I quite correctly mentioned the 22 degree halo effect on a couple of occasions. I have never read anything about a 'flare' from the atmosphere, though. Of course, flare and halo are two DIFFERENT effects... you do understand that, don't you Duane? Do a google search for some photographic websites that can take you through the basics of it.

Now, I gave multiple examples of photographic websites explaining flare and halo. NONE mentioned the atmosphere.

So it would be quite easy for Jack - or you - to prove me wrong. Provide a photographic website talking about / explaining flare and show where it says it is caused by the atmosphere. Not a hoaxer website, though - just a plain ol' website discussing photography, optics, astronomy, etc.

Somehow, I doubt you'll do so. Anyone want to take up bets against me?

Drago wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building "

Colby is misstating.

I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" (emphasis added)

We could not ask for a more blatant, unambiguous, reprehensible example of his modus operandi throughout this Forum. In this case, he is misstating via selective and intentional editing and misrepresentation of my original post.

I repeat: Colby is misstating.

Charles Drago

(Edited to add misstated and misstating: removal of words banned by Forum Adm.)

This is the last straw.

Unless my original words are reinstated, I am done with this Forum.

John Simkin, the call is yours.

Colby is allowed to twist my words for his own vile purposes, and Evan Burton implicitly endorses that action by censoring MY response!?!?!?

"Misstating" my XXX!

Charles Drago

And Charles, as I said by PM, I was intentionally not taking any action with regard to your and Len's postings because I was close to the subject matter. As I told you, I passed it on to other mods for whatever action - if any - they saw fit.

I did NOT "censor" your response. It is an incorrect statement... or perhaps there would be another word I could use for it?

Evan,

I wrote the above some eight-plus hours before I read your PM, to which I responded by thanking you for what I termed a fair and honorable recusal.

If by "taking any action" you are referencing, say, placing me on moderation, then of course you are being accurate.

However, changing my posts just minutes after they appeared -- whether such alteration is characterized as "editing" or "censoring" -- surely rises to the description of "action" taken by you.

Or perhaps I'm making an unwarranted assumption. Did you make the changes?

Charles

Charles,

Fine - you did not read my PM before you posted. I've done that before myself.

No, I did NOT make any changes to your post. Whenever an edit is made to a post, the name of the person making the latest edit is noted down at near the bottom of the post 9see the bottom of this post, for example). This applies to all forum members - admins included. A full record of changes made to a post is recorded in the security log.

If you ever believe a change has been made to a post of yours, you should look for this name and take up the matter with them.

Drago wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building "

Colby is misstating.

I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" (emphasis added)

We could not ask for a more blatant, unambiguous, reprehensible example of his modus operandi throughout this Forum. In this case, he is misstating via selective and intentional editing and misrepresentation of my original post.

I repeat: Colby is misstating.

Charles Drago

(Edited to add misstated and misstating: removal of words banned by Forum Adm.)

This is the last straw.

Unless my original words are reinstated, I am done with this Forum.

John Simkin, the call is yours.

Colby is allowed to twist my words for his own vile purposes, and Evan Burton implicitly endorses that action by censoring MY response!?!?!?

"Misstating" my XXX!

Charles Drago

And Charles, as I said by PM, I was intentionally not taking any action with regard to your and Len's postings because I was close to the subject matter. As I told you, I passed it on to other mods for whatever action - if any - they saw fit.

I did NOT "censor" your response. It is an incorrect statement... or perhaps there would be another word I could use for it?

I am unaware about how reliable it may be, but you might also consider a web-based poll.

IMO you would have to leave it open for an extended time so that people could become aware of it, would have to ensure that "multiple votes" is disabled, and indeed word the question/s carefully to avoid a bias or ambiguity.

Another alternative might by an online petition, to be presented to the US Congress.

I theorize (see my website) that a radio-controlled A3 jet...

Though this is not supported by any evidence apart from your own opinion. See my previous posts regarding a fictional QA-3.

... loaded with explosives approached the building, fired a bunkerbuster missile at the last second, and exploded inside the building.

How exactly was this done? You have said "...fired a bunkerbuster missile..." but the A-3 has no external stations from which to fire this "missile". The aircraft had an internal bomb bay, but no external stations due to concerns regarding wing flutter.

You seem to be creating imaginary capabilities for aircraft in order to suit your own view.

Evidence supports this scenario.

I keep asking, and you never answer: what evidence? Every single piece of evidence REFUTES your hypothesis. Your idea of evidence would seem to be "just keep saying it enough and people will think it is true".

Please - post your evidence, not your opinion.

Numerous witnesses reported smelling CORDITE, an explosive, and did not smell jet fuel. Google "Pentagon Cordite Smell" to read the statements. Also Google "bunker buster missiles".

I have told you - with references - at least twice now... cordite was used by the British during WW I and II, and (IIRC) shortly after as a propellant rather than the misnomer 'explosive'. It is no longer in use except for legacy ammunition. So witnesses who smelled CORDITE (your capitalisation) are smelling an obsolete material unlikely to have been in use anywhere, and are most likely associate a term they have heard with an unfamiliar smell.

Len,

I agree. In the "9/11 truth" community, the "no-planers" are widely considered to be either government plants or wackos.

Peter,

You want to be taken seriously and you quote "Killclown?" That guy is a credibility vacuum.

We've discussed Mineta's testimony before, and I don't see any point in rehashing it again. IMO, he was confused about the timings and misinterpreted which event the VP was referring to.

Jack,

You raised the issue of an A-3. I continually failed to understand why people believe this when:

- There is ZERO evidence that ANY A-3 Skywarrior aircraft have ever been converted to a remote control / drone status (QA-3).

- There has never even been (to my knowledge) even a proposal that surplus A-3 airframes be converted to drone status (this can happen with surplus aircraft, the recent examples including F-4 Phantom IIs being converted to QF-4s. In most cases they are used as target aircraft for missile tests or proficiency firings).

- The aircraft debris found was consistent with an airliner-type aircraft.

- The engine remains are consistent with a 757 engine but not the J-57 in an A-3.

- THE WITNESSES:

103 people saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon.

26 said it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

NONE ever described seeing an A-3.

Splitting hairs on semantics displays desperation.

Jack

In my opinion, it displays your inability to admit when you are wrong. The flare under discussion is being caused by the sun and the camera. Atmosphere plays no part in it whatsoever, and you have continually failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

There have been multiple references given for photographic forums and societies, camera manufacturers, astronomical websites, etc, and none mentions the atmosphere causing flares.

"Atmospheric effects on Observational Astronomy"

Scattering, scintillation, absorption... no mention of flare / glare:

http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast3722/l...EffectAtmos.htm

You can confirm this by googling LIGHT FLARE.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...amp;btnG=Search

Historically speaking - impact of light flare on film - Photographic Society of America

"Flare exists in two forms. One is called mechanical flare and is caused by reflections from bright areas within the lens mount. The other is called optical flare and is caused by reflections from the lens element surfaces. Mechanical flare can be reduced or eliminated by careful construction of the lens. Optical flare is, for the greater part, an inherent quality of the optical system and some will be present in any lens."

No mention of atmospheric effect

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m130...v59/ai_13873910

Nothing else that I can find in the first five pages returned.

Flare - not one mention of the atmosphere causing it:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=f...p;x=29&y=16

Glare - not one mention of atmospheric effect:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=g...p;x=31&y=17

Halo - the aforementioned 22 degree effect:

Meteorology. any of a variety of bright circles or arcs centered on the sun or moon, caused by the refraction or reflection of light by ice crystals suspended in the earth's atmosphere and exhibiting prismatic coloration ranging from red inside to blue outside (distinguished from corona).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=h...p;x=24&y=17

Come on Jack - fair is fair. I have showed you a number of examples regarding flare / halo, and not once do they mention atmospheric effect.

Show us some photographic references where they talk about flare / halo being caused by the atmosphere (except the previously mentioned 22 degree effect).

Are you able to do this, to show some evidence? Or is merely your opinion?

...I won't even go into the atmosphere vs vacuum issue...but on earth a "flare" is caused by air particles reflecting the sunlight; in a vacuum the "air" should allow for crisper images without halos or flares.

Now THAT is garbage, Jack. That is totally wrong. Flare has nothing to do with the atmosphere. The only halo I am aware of that you get due to atmosphere (or more properly the ice crystals) is the 22 degree halo effect.

Would you care to post some evidence in support of your claim?

I'll post evidence in support of my claim that you are TOTALLY wrong.

- A discussion about flare / halo in digital cameras. Yes, I know what you are going to say, but flare / halo is caused by the lens and therefore it doesn't matter that it is a digital. See if you can find anywhere in the discussion a mention of flare / halo being caused by the atmosphere:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Cfv

- An explanation of flare and halo. Once again, see if you can find a reference to it being caused by the atmosphere:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=34974

- Flare: Light reflected from lens surfaces, the inside of the lens barrel and the inner walls of the camera's mirror box can reach the film and fog part or all of the image area, degrading image sharpness. These harmful reflections are called flare. Although flare can be reduced to a large extent by coating the lens surfaces and using anti-reflection measures in the lens barrel and camera, flare cannot be completely eliminated for all subject conditions. It is therefore desirable to use an appropriate lens hood whenever possible. The term "flare" is also used when referring to the effects of blurring and halo caused by spherical and comatic aberration.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...6α=DEF

- Spherical Aberration

Most lenses use spherical surfaces (as opposed to aspherical surfaces), so that light flux parallel to potical axis (imaged in the center of the image area, basically) does not focus on a single point in the focal plane (on the film). This is spherical aberration. It appears a halo, blur and loss of sharpness. It becomes more common at high aperture lens, and can be reduced by stopping down the lens. It can also be reduced by the optimal combination of positive and negative lenses.

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/...or/nwords-e.htm

Peter,

There are several areas with which I either disagree or would seek clarification on.

It is a FACT that most of these installations have, at the ready, fighter jets such as F-16s to be scrambled on a MOMENT's NOTICE, for intercepting troubled or problem aircraft.

I would question this. I feel that the author is playing on peoples inexperience with aircraft operations, giving a false impression.

To use the phrase "F-16s to be scrambled on a MOMENT's NOTICE" gives the impression they would be airborne within a minute or two. To do that, aircraft must be on what is called (in our side of the pond) "strip alert". This means the aircraft is prepared for flight, on an invert off the runway, with the pilot strapped in and ready to go. All that has to happen is for the engines to be started, stabilised, and the aircraft to be launched. During the period of 9/11, there were very few - if any - aircraft on this standby. I freely admit I am unfamiliar with USAF operational doctrine but I don't think I am too far wrong on this. The planned exercises may have had some effect on this, but not too great an effect. You can only keep people on strip alert for a very limited amount of time.

More likely aircraft were kept at ALERT 10 or ALERT 30. That means the aircraft is ready to taxy 10 (30) minutes after receiving the order.

It is a FACT that air defense units DID receive alerts from Air Traffic Controllers and FAA officials on a number of aircraft across the East Coast which had broken communications and deviated radically from established flight paths on the morning of September 11.

I am unsure as to which communications you refer to, to which units, etc, but in general a commander cannot just order their aircraft to intercept and shootdown other aircraft. They would be reluctant to launch their aircraft on a "intercept and observe' mission alone unless they were sure of the circumstances. Amongst the confusion of the initial part of 9/11, I doubt any commander would have ordered his aircraft to intercept targets without a clear instruction from higher authority.

It is a FACT that standard intercept procedures for dealing with these kinds of situations ARE TOTALLY ESTABLISHED, IN FORCE and ON-LINE in these United States 365 days a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

<< Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E 'Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective Date: December 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2. Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2FAA

Sorry - that is a bad link.

<<Guide to Basic Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,' (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4 "Interception Signals" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4

Another bad link.

<<FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

<<FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1

<<FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense Liaison Officers (ADLO's)" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205

<<FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service" Full text posted at: http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2

<<'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1 June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects," 4. Policy (page 1) PDF available at: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf

<<For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and Air Traffic Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory Dennis and Emina Torlak at: http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm

Unsure how many more bad links there are. Yes, procedure for aircraft intercepted are published. It is in every FLIP (FLight Information Publication). It doesn't necessarily say HOW an intercepting aircraft will conduct its mission; it just says how you are to respond to being intercepted.

It is a FACT that Air National Guard and Air Force air defense units of the United States WERE PROHIBITED from carrying out their STANDARD INTERCEPT PROCEDURES as detailed above on the morning of 9.11; AFTER they had received the alerts from ATC and FAA.

Could you provide more detail on this? How they were prevented, by whom, references, etc? Thanks.

Absolutely NO executive-level input of ANY KIND is required for standard intercepts to be scrambled.

That is probably quite correct. Opening fire would be a different case, though. The main point to appreciate is that with multiple aircraft being told to land, and many of them having to land at unplanned destinations... which aircraft do you decide to intercept?

There was NO indication in any alerts received by air defense units that "SHOOT-DOWNS" may be required as opposed to intercepts -- i.e.; that the planes were definitely under control of "hostile" forces -- because ATC/FAA could NOT have KNOWN that.

Unsure if the statement is correct, but I can understand that most - if not all - air defence missions were going to be "intercept and identify". An order to engage would be very, very rare.... unless the US was under mass attack.

When the first alerts were received from Air Traffic Control, ALL that air defense units were required to do was scramble STANDARD interceptors to make contact with the incommunicado and off-course jets. F-16s and other fighter planes WOULD HAVE overtaken EVERY SINGLE HIJACKED PLANE on September 11, BEFORE they had reached their targets! (See below for locations of air bases.)

I strongly dispute this. I would like Peter to obtain from the author details of what alert status the various units were at, their actual response times, the estimated intercept times required, etc. What is a "standard" interceptor? What weapons are fitted? How long does it take for such weapons to be fitted to a non-alert aircraft in a real-world event?

I have not the time to address the remainder of the post for now. Bedtime awaits!

Okay kids - enough rough-housing. Playtime is over. Thread locked.

Jack,

PM the mods with your concerns. Consider, though, it becomes very difficult to restrict someone just because they are a prodigious poster. If their posts are not pertinent, then they might be removed. If the posts are not in accordance with the conditions of this forum then we can remove them.

On the other hand, just because they make a certain number of posts.... well, that would be up to the board owners. I appreciate and understand your concerns - valid as they may be - but the mods can only act on certain circumstances.

Raise your concerns to the mods if you have not already done so.