Evan Burton

Other companies that have a finacial interest in the aircraft:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/do...7&partytxt=

According to the FAA registry, the aircraft mentioned in the article, N987SA is owned by:

Name DONNA BLUE AIRCRAFT INC

Street 4811 LYONS TECHNOLOGY PKWY STE 8

City COCONUT CREEK

State FLORIDA

Zip Code 33073-4346

County BROWARD

Country UNITED STATES

The site for aircraft history is down for maintenance right now; it should be available again in a few hours.

I have set a number of posts from Peter and Craig as invisible.

Peter, please raise the issue directly with the Admins, not publicly. John or Andy can take the necessary action, and make the posts visible again if required.

Craig, I have set your posts invisible because of the quotes within them, not because of the reply content.

Cheers Bill - gave me a laugh. But seriously - who else fits the bill?

Michael Hanley... but he was cleared. Can we be sure that he was properly cleared? After, Philby was.

There have been numerous articles about who might have been the "Fifth Man" of the Cambridge spy ring.

The first four were:

Guy Burgess

Donald Maclean

Kim Philby

Anthony Blunt

Peter Wright, in his book 'Spycatcher', believes it was Sir Roger Hollis. Another book I read said it was Victor Rothschild.

Have we learnt anything more since the early 90s?

Are there other candidates?

Has evidence emerged from Russia about who really was the "Fifth Man"? If not, why haven't they said who it was?

So we have at least one other candidate who fits the movements described by the cable.

Now, to play devil's advocate: once again, is there any reason why the Russians would want protect Hiss if it actually had been him? I can't think that there would be many people around who would want this, but this subject is not my forte.

Was the Russian researcher given access to all files? Do they have a bias?

John,

Thanks for that article by Kai Bird and Svetlana Chervonnaya. That answers my question about other possible candidates.

Is there a possibility the Russians did not want to name Hiss?

If the person mentioned in the cable was NOT Hiss, who were the other candidates?

They couldn't name Hiss if they did not even know him. The one telling fact which came out after the fact relates to the IBM analysis which concluded beyond the shadow of a doubt that the typewriter style or font used to produce the Pumpkin

Papers did NOT EVEN EXIST when these papers were allegedly found and typed.

Any other discussion, speculation or prevarication must first accept the fact of the forged papers as historical truth. The only discussion worth having in fact is WHO persecuted Hiss and why did they choose him as a target?

I think the answer is Wickliffe Preston Draper of The Pioneer Fund and his close crony Nathaniel Weyl who inadvertently admitted to me in a phone conversation that Weyl himself was guilty of a violation of the Neutrality Act during the Bayo

Pawley affair involving anti-Castro exiles. He lived out the rest of his life in the fear that he would be arrested and charged with this crime and others he admitted to in the course of the conversation including being an accessory after

the fact to murder as he watched some of the anti-Castro exiles being shot in front of his eyes.

He also denied knowing either Draper, Osborne or Vonsiatsky despite the fact that he co-authored a book with Osborne one of Drapers cronies.

That man was a paid, pathological xxxx and a mercenary beyond imagination.

John,

Thanks for the reply but I am a little confused. I don't understand your reasoning for saying they would not name him. I am looking at it like this... possible scenarios are:

- The Russian research was complete and accurate, and the statement made that there was no evidence (from Russian sources) of spying was accurate;

- The Russian research was incomplete and / or inaccurate, and the statement made was based on the best available information; or

- The Russian research was complete and accurate but for unknown reasons, the Russians are choosing to deny that Hiss was an agent when in fact he was.

I have no reason to believe the Russian are not being truthful - but can anyone else come up with a reason why they might want to deny his involvement?

I'd like to get clarification on the second part of my original questions, too. Your mentioning of font / typeface style doesn't answer my particular question, IMO. The cable that mentioned an agent being in the State Dept, accompanying FDR, and going to Russia... that came from a decoded SIGINT intercept (IIRC). You do mention two other names: Draper and Weyl. Where they also at State, accompanied FDR, etc? They also fitted the description of the agent mentioned in the cable?

Thanks.

Removed section of this post which I felt was could have been seen as abusive towards another Forum member.

Evan wrote

The timing of the signals - which were not coded and could be received by anyone with the proper gear - also lead to the authenticity of them.

Received by anyone? Quad videotape machines that recorded the video feeds of that era ran about $200,000 each [uSD]. I doubt all but the very wealthy could afford the machine. Even then I doubt they'd would not know WHERE to buy one (and none would have access to the signals). Only NASA and or NASA associated groups had direct access to those *quad* video feeds!

I was actually referring to the voice signals but didn't make that clear. Sorry!

You raise a good point - the Apollo 11 video signals were actually from a slow-scan TV camera. Have a look at the Honeysuckle Creek website for some technical details which will be up on your level.

There is only one slow-scan machine left, IIRC. It was due to be decommissioned but NASA are keeping it just in case the missing tapes are found.

Is there a possibility the Russians did not want to name Hiss?

If the person mentioned in the cable was NOT Hiss, who were the other candidates?

This site might answer some of your questions:

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html

Oh - just to add some other points.

Some will say an unmanned lander could have collected lunar samples. After all, the Soviets did. This is correct... but the Soviets brought back ounces of soil, whereas Apollo brought back hundreds of kilograms of soil, rocks, and core samples from the lunar crust.

Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Hi Denis,

The pictures were beamed from the Moon to a number of Earth stations, depending on what part of the Earth was facing the Moon at the time. The main stations were Goldstone on the US west coast, Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek in eastern Australia, and (I think) Madrid in Spain (maybe - a bit unsure).

The fact that the signal came from a stable source in the sky (the Moon) rather than a fast moving source (a satellite in Earth orbit) convinces many people. The timing of the signals - which were not coded and could be received by anyone with the proper gear - also lead to the authenticity of them.

The problem is that people will claim that the signals came from a satellite in lunar orbit, pointing to the TETR satellite which was used in training and simulating missions. This satellite was only used in Earth orbit, but how do you prove that it wasn't placed into lunar orbit? If you have the expertise and examine the thrust provided by the launch vehicles, you can say "No - it could not reach the Moon"... but then will come the claim that a satellite was surreptitiously launched into lunar orbit. The satellite would also be in orbit, so therefore be behind the Moon at some stage and thus out of contact. The reply to this would be that more than one satellite was used.

The next problem with this is the time delay. The delay between people asking questions and getting replies is correct for the distance out. This however could have been simulated with careful scripting and precision delays - however this would have been precarious. Any mistake would have been immediately noticeable, and the world was listening.

So, no - it does not actually prove that people walked on the Moon. IMO the best evidence are the photographs (one of the main topics here) and the lunar samples. Geologists - or more properly senologists - continually explain that the samples display properties that cannot be recreated here on Earth. Meteorites that originated on the Moon show evidence of entering the Earth's atmosphere, and can be identified as being found on Earth. The lunar samples do not, and can only have originated on the Moon.

I'll leave you with two thoughts:

- Geologists have said that if anyone can recreate a lunar sample here on Earth, they deserve a Nobel prize because nobody else can do it.

- People involved in Apollo have said it may have been possible to fake a lunar mission... but it would have been so difficult, it was easier just to go there.

I will be resuming moderator duties with regard to Jack's posts.

To the best of my knowledge, the Americans didn't read specific intentions codes at this time. IIRC, 'Purple' was a diplomatic code and only spoke of the intention to break off diplomatic relations. The reaction to this could be seen, with US military forces throughout Asia being put on heightened alert.

'JN25' was a military code and may have been far more useful in revealing the Imperial Fleet movements... but I think that the US were only making occasional breaks in this cipher until early 1942.

I understand Bletchley Park was having greater success, and it may have been possible that Churchill deliberately withheld any warning in order to draw the US into the conflict.

Out of interest, we are also nearing the anniversary of the Battle of Taranto, where the Fleet Air Arm launched a sneak attack against the Italian Fleet in Taranto Harbour. This action resulted in a crippling blow to the Italian navy, which could have otherwise threatened Allied shipping.

It has been said that the success of Taranto was a major factor in the Japanese deciding to attack Pearl Harbour.

BTW, an excerpt from an e-mail regarding the UV camera:

"One thing to point out on the forum would be that the images would have had to be faked with a very deep knowledge of astrophysics, since the publications based on their analysis passed peer review for technical journals (and most can now be found and read by anyone at the NASA ADS abstract server), as well as being consistent with later robotic-mission results. Another point would be to compare these images with then-contemporary astronomical images of agreed provenance, especially using image tubes or electronographic cameras."

I think we have tried to point out this argument in several areas, but if people who support a conspiracy view do not understand the intricacies of the subject, they simply naysay the experts. If you ask why various experts have not 'exposed the hoax', common replies are "they are in on it" or "they are being pressured to maintain the official record" or similar.

Ouch. Personally, it wouldn't be important to me but I understand that some Americans could take great offense at it.

Still, you never know... perhaps someone else will make a bigger gaff and draw fire from him... or perhaps people won't consider it as important as issue as what I think.

Who knows.

Ooops - apologies, Duane, I misread your reply.

Well, the star positions don't tell us much - at least not enough to say this is from LEO and this is from the lunar surface.

Some of the images show the Earth and star fields; how far away would you need to be in order to "re-create" that shot from LEO? Can they be taken from LEO? What do they show? Can they be taken from within the VABs?

This stellar UV photography image was taken from low earth orbit .... So what proof do you have that the one's you posted were taken from the Moon ?

No, that's not correct. Once again, from the data set posted above:

"This data set consists of 70-mm film containing a second-generation negative copy of the 35-mm film returned from the Descartes landing site, Apollo 16 mission, experiment S201. Included are pre-flight calibration exposures (mission frame number 1-18), a black frame (mission frame number 19), and the 190 exposures taken from the lunar surface (mission frame numbers 20 - 209)."

You yourself posted images of the camera on the lunar surface.

Duane, apologies but just lead me through this again.

You want me to find an image taken on the lunar surface which shows the sun with concentric light spokes, or a reflection of the sun in an astronauts visor which also show concentric light spokes.

Correct?

Can you just explain (again, I know, thus my apology) why the concentric light spokes are important? Why they show authenticity whereas anything else indicates a forgery?

Just for those interested - the C-rock:

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/c-rock.htm

Is that changing the topic because you know you are getting beat? The C-rock has also been extensively discussed elsewhere. I'll post the details shortly.

Thanks for all the links and the photos ... Unfortunately they look just as fake as the rest of the Apollo photos, that were allegedly taken on the lunar surface.

So you have become an expert in stellar UV photography? Exactly how are they fake? Precisely please. Like "the 200 angstrom light values are insufficient to have registered with the UV camera settings, because the following formula dictates that only values between 500 to 1500 would have been visible without dimming or blooming...."

Please tell us, oh wise one.

In the mean time, while waiting for your great dissertation, I'll contact the people (astronomers, you know, ordinary folk without technical knowledge) who can tell us.

It also turns out that many of the images are available online:

http://www3.telus.net/summa/faruv/

(Thanks Dexter!)