Evan Burton

In the 9/11 thread, there was an occasion that a member said information that another member had posted was 'disinformation'.

I had believed that the word should not be used with regard to another member, but some people disagree.

Since there are no clear-cut rules on this, I thought it would be worthwhile to start a thread on it.

My thoughts were mentioned in the 9/11 thread, and are that if you give something the label 'disinformation', you imply that the person who said it put out disinformation (i.e. a disinformation 'agent'). I see there being a difference between disinformation and being wrong; the former is knowingly saying false or misleading data (i.e. akin to lying). That's why I suggest simply saying someone is wrong or words to that effect.

I think that calling another member's post 'disinformation', or calling another member a 'disinformation agent' (or similar) should not be allowed.

I foresee that there might be times when a member might refer to an external website - that another member quotes from - as containing disinformation. That might be acceptable as long as the person makes clear that they are not calling the poster a 'disinformation agent', merely that they are posting information from what another considers to be a 'disinformation' website. This could lead to problems whereby some consider that website to be truthful and accurate and others consider it to be disinformation, and the website is often quoted from during debates. For that reason I think it would be better to label somethings as simply being inaccurate, misleading, wrong, etc, rather than calling it 'disinformation'.

What are other peoples thoughts on this?

As for saying claiming a statement is 'disinformation' - and thus implying the other person is purveying disinformation - should that really be an offence on the forum? I don't think so.

Apart from anything else, purveying disinformation can be done quite innocently. I now believe I spread disinformation myself, from time to time during most of my adult life, without intending to do so. That's to say, I repeated stories I believed were true - yet I now believe I was wrong and furthermore that these erroneous stories were deliberately fabricated.

I see there being a difference between disinformation and being wrong; the former is knowingly saying false or misleading data (i.e. akin to lying). That's why I suggest simply saying someone is wrong or words to that effect.

Perhaps we should all discuss the matter? I could start a separate thread, and members could put forward their views for John and Andy to consider when making a determination.

Peter's 911 position is somewhat like saying...

"I don't believe the Warren Report, but I do believe Oswald shot JFK."

Jack

I understand where Peter is coming from; it might not be too dissimilar to my own.

Some people ask me if I "...agree 100% with the official report...". No, I don't; I agree perhaps 99% with it.

I believe that hijackers took over aircraft and flew three of them into buildings.

I believe that the buildings collapsed because of damage sustained during those attacks.

I do not believe there was any type of controlled demolition or planting of evidence.

I do not believe that they were knowingly assisted by any government personnel.

I do believe that there was a failure in the intelligence reporting and evaluation system, and key people are not being held responsible for those failures (note use of word failure, not a deliberate act of sabotage).

I do believe that there were failures / incompetency / dereliction involved in systems and people at various government & military levels with regard to the response to the attacks, and that those people / systems have not been made accountable.

WHAT A CROCK OF DISINFORMATION!

Check out the true FAQs at http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html

Also... http://911proof.com/1.html

Jack

I believe Mr. White has just broken the forum rules. Mods?

Jack - please be careful; because you disagree with it does not necessarily make it disinformation. If you give it the label 'disinformation', you imply that the person who said it put out disinformation. Call it rubbish, call it codswallop, but not disinformation, please.

Thanks.

I know if a monkey died after a few days in space, I wouldn't go up in any spacecraft afterwards.

Kathy

Fair enough comment, but think about it some more:

You know people are killed in automobile accidents - does that stop you travelling in them?

Have a think about the specific circumstances in this case:

All three members of the Apollo 11 crew had flown into space before on Gemini missions; none of them was a rookie, so they would have had confidence that space travel was achievable. They had fellow astronauts who had flown the Apollo spacecraft (CSM & LM) on previous missions (Apollo 7 to 10), so they would have had confidence that the hardware was up to the task.

Overall, they had confidence that they could complete the mission safely.

On learning of Bonnie's death, they may well have questioned the circumstances - was it equipment? Environmental? Why did this happen? They would have been told that it was due to dehydration. They may have questioned further about any relevance of those circumstances to the risks they faced, but ultimately they were confident that there were no additional risks.

Incidentally, that's why I question it's relevance to the debate.

Have no fear Kathy ... The members on this forum who defend Apollo, will have you convinced that nasa really did fly nine manned missions , a half a million miles each , into the deadly radiation of deep space , to return them all home alive and well again , using antiquated technology , very little radiation shielding , and a craft that wasn't even properly tested ... The space monkey died and a week later Apollo 11 launched for the moon on live TV ... Right .

Then they will convince you that the millions of people who believe Apollo was a hoax , are just a bunch of "ignornant , crackpot, conspiracly nuts " , who fell for some untrue stuff about nasa in books , written by some crazy guys just trying to make a buck.... In other words .... THINK FOR YOURSELF instead of allowing those who's job it is to think for you .

Duane,

You mention the monkey again; as I said you were right about it dying - but I have said it has no bearing on Apollo.

Am I in error with any part of my Biosat 3 details? If so, where & what?

What relevance does Biosat 3 have to Apollo? Exactly why would the monkey dying mean that Apollo could not have been achieved?

I quite agree. Mr Fetzer is nothing if not sincere in his beliefs.

I'm wondering if there is something a little different about the 9/11 conspiracy; some believers in it seem to eager to turn on each other. I haven't noticed this behaviour regarding other conspiracy theories.

I'm continually amazed by that Loose Change crowd; they turn on one another at the drop of a hat. Apparently they now think that Jim Fetzer is a disinfo agent!

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=6978

Now, I don't see eye-to-eye with Mr Fetzer on most matters, but a disinfo agent?! Oh, puh-leeze!

And you didn't know that the monkey died either

I looked up the details, and you were quite correct. A pigtail monkey named 'Bonnie' was launched on Biosat 3, which was planned for a 30 day mission. It was brought down early because Bonnie's health began to deteriorate, and she died shortly after being recovered.

The sources all say that she died because of dehydration.

Some might claim that she really died because of exposure to the radiation from the Van Allen Belts.

That would be wrong, because Biosat 3 was only at an altitude of between 220km and 240km, too low for the VABs to be a problem. Even the South Atlantic Anomaly, which dips down to about 200km, wouldn't have been a problem because it only affects objects with an orbital inclination between 35 and 60 degrees. Biosat 3 had an inclination of 33 degrees. This is similar to the Apollo 7 (230-300km / 32 degrees) and Apollo 9 (200-230km / 33 degrees) missions.

So, although the information was accurate, it appears to have no bearing on the viability of the Apollo missions.

I think that we are jumping the gun a little here.

1. This is a UK problem, not US.

2. The boarding parties board the ships on their planned tracks; they don't ask the ships to go into Iranian waters before boarding them.

3. The correct response (IMO) would have been to escorted the personnel out of Iranian waters. Neither the vessel's crew nor the boarding party have been shown to have been committing any illegal act.

4. The position where the boarding took place is disputed.

5. Boardings by other countries have almost certainly taken place in / around the same area, and have been witnessed by the Iranians. I am unaware of any protests previously made by the Iranians that the UN forces were conducting boarding operations in Iranian waters.

6. The last thing, IMO, the US wants right now is an armed conflict with Iran. It won't admit it, but it's stretched tight and has little surge capability to fight another protracted ground war. IMO that will make them actually try to prevent any UK military action against Iran.

7. It is the IRGN who has committed this action, not the RN.

Duane,

I accept your explanation that the comments were a joke. Your warning level will be reduced back to 0 shortly.

Please note - even in jest - do NOT intimate that a Board member may be being paid / rewarded by others to post on this Board, is posting 'disinformation, or is acting at the behest of an organisation unless you have rock-solid evidence to back up the statement. Even in that case, it would be wise to clear it with John or Andy prior to posting it.

Thanks but I don't have any need for a bridge ... Three long posts just for Bart ! ... I'm sure he would be honored ... and they're so interesting too ... zzzzzzz .

I don't really have the time or interest in reading your 'rebuttals' to Bart, but when I do have some extra time I will be sure to send a letter of recomendation off to NASA on your behalf ... I think you not only deserve a pay raise but also some extra brownie points or possibly even a new merit badge, for all of your diligent and time consuming hard work in continuing to help suppress the Apollo hoax evidence .

I kind of figured when you became a moderator here that you would start locking my topic articles ... I guess the photo of the car frightened you because it shows how easy was and still is, to fake the Apollo moon photos .... But why did you have to lock the Moon Song ? ... I was hoping we could all get poetic and even make up our own song lyrics on that one .. LOL

You have been warned previously about making accusations about member's motivations. I've raised your warning level by one notch for that infraction.

The other threads were amusing but distracting. As I said, consultation was done fore closing. Get over it.

If wikipedia and a self serving nasa book are the best you guys can do , then you are both losing your touch ... The Apollo LM's were never properly tested .... Give me a couple of days and I will find the info to prove it .

Meanwhile , I will bump forward my article on the Van Allen Engima, so hopefully Don Jeffries can jump off of that fence ... On my side of course !

I look forward to your trying. Perhaps you should bear in mind what Dave posted; ground tests various, two unmanned flight tests in Earth orbit, two manned flight tests...

They did a lot of research & testing, you know:

LEM Critical design Review, 1966

Trip report: LM ascent engine, quarterly review

Characteristics of LM aborts with LNGCS during early powered decent

Design control specification for lunar excursion module propellant system and thrust chamber assemblies reaction control subsystem

Feasibility study and detailed test plans for LEM-1 and LEM-2

Lunar module alightment system

Results and analysis of piloted lunar module LM landing simulation studies

Handling qualities for pilot control of Apollo lunar-landing spacecraft

Dynamic simulation of lunar module docking with Apollo command module in lunar orbit

Application of digital computer techniques to the study of the impact dynamics of lunar- landing vehicles

Characteristics of a lunar landing configuration having various multiple-leg landing-gear arrangements

Dynamic model investigation of touchdown stability of lunar-landing vehicles

Lunar navigation study, sections 1 through 7 Final report, Jun. 1964 - May 1965

Lunar navigation study, sections 8 through 10 and appendices Final report, Jun. 1964 - May 1965

A procedure for computing the motion of a lunar-landing vehicle during the landing impact

Analysis of sextant navigation measurements during lunar module rendezvous

Status report on the space radiation effects on the apollo mission. b- apollo shielding analysis

A study of thermal response of the lunar surface at the landing site during the descent of the Lunar Excursion Module LEM

Verification of performance of the LM guidance and control systems

Landing dynamics of the lunar excursion module

Technical development status of the project apollo lunar excursion module

Evan, do you think the allied naval presence in the Persian Gulf is provocative?

In the broadest definition of the word, yes.

Do you think this is relevant in the context of the capture of these sailors?

No.

Do you think Bush plans to attack Iran, or force Iran into provoking an attack?

Do plans exist for the invasion of / attack on Iran? Almost certainly. Does Bush intend to try and activate those plans? No.

Perhaps the Iranians should have just asked the Brits to leave?

Actually, that is precisely what I think should have happened.

I'm all in favour of peaceful resolution of conflict.

I do wonder, however, how would a boatload of Iranian sailors fare if intercepted off the coast of Christmas Island, Evan?

Would the RAN politely ask them to head north?

If it it was an Iranian naval vessel, then I have no doubt that is what would happen. Followed by a diplomatic protest, no doubt.

This was a regular inspection of a non-Iranian commercial vessel going to a non-Iranian port. The actual location of where the inspection took place is in dispute. The correct action would have been to demand they leave at once.

Sid,

While it is true that Iran & Iraq have not agreed on their maritime territorial limits, something has to apply in the meantime. In absence of an agreed boundary, the UN Convention on Law of the Sea has been applied (to which Iran is a signatory). That's the limit that the MoD is using, and has been generally respected by both sides (despite the dispute).

One for the legal beagles, but IMO Iran did not have the right to arrest / detain the Brits even if they were in Iranian waters. According to Article 30 of the UNCLOS:

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

They should have told the Brits to leave.

An important factor in all this is that the action was carried out by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Navy (IRGN), rather than the regular Iranian naval forces. My understanding from the guys who have been in the MEAO is that while the regular Iranian naval forces tend to conduct themselves very professionally, the IRGN are cowboys who are often unpredictable.

Duane,

I've closed this and the "Moon Song" thread because there is not much point to them. Although they may be amusing, they detract from other (dare I say more important) threads.

I have consulted other moderators in regard to this.

The Auroras.

There is less protection from the sun's atomic particles at the north and south poles because the earth's magnetic field diminishes at those locations. Some of the electrons and protons from the sun slam into the air molecules near the poles. This causes the atoms to glow, just like in a neon lamp. We refer to the glow as the "Auroras".

The glow of the auroras is proof that space is deadly.

The colorful auroras are fascinating, but they are proof that outer space is a very dangerous place. Since the atomic particles cause the atmosphere to glow, what would they do to astronauts? We will never know until we get better governments.

Once again, supposition. Why don't you show proof that the exposure time that the Apollo astronauts experienced would have been deadly?

Airplane trips expose us to radiation.

The earth's atmosphere and magnetic field protect us from a lot of the radiation and particles from outer space. Therefore, when we fly in an airplane we are exposed to a slight increase in radiation. The higher the plane flies, the more radiation we experience.

If we were to fly directly over the north or south poles, we would be exposed to even more radiation. Supposedly, all airlines know about this, so none of them fly over the poles.

Airlines also alter their routes when the sun ejects large amounts of particles towards the earth. The airlines are more concerned about the atomic particles from outer space than the Apollo astronauts.

As a professional aviator, I have to protest a little about what you have said. Yes, aircrew do receive higher radiation dosages and it has been brought up as an OH&S concern - but the amount has yet to be shown as very detrimental to aircrew health. If it were particularly bad, you'd find a higher incidence of cancers, etc, amongst aircrew. To the best of my knowledge, this is not the case.

Also, crews fly polar routes on a regular basis. Indeed, your claim that "... none of them fly over the poles" is incorrect. Prior to the Mt Erebus disaster, Air New Zealand flew regular Antarctic sightseeing trips, and they are now being reintroduced. If you can, could you please point out any warning that they give to passengers about possible radiation hazards? I don't think you'll find any, because it is not an appreciable hazard on an occasional basis.

NASA puts a monkey into space in 1969.

Before sending people to the moon, NASA decided to conduct an experiment to determine the effect of a long space flight. On the 29th of June 1969 NASA put a monkey into orbit around the earth. The plan was to have the monkey circle the earth for 30 days, and then bring it back to earth for an analysis.

NASA is secretive on how close to the Van Allen radiation belts this monkey reached, but they admit that the monkey's health began deteriorating after a few days in orbit. On the ninth day NASA decided to bring the spacecraft down. The monkey died eight hours after the spacecraft was recovered.

Would you get onto a spacecraft that is heading to the moon after watching a monkey die after only nine days in Earth orbit? Well, a week after that monkey died, Apollo 11 took off for the moon.

The monkey may have died simply because of the way NASA confined it to a tiny spacecraft, but even so, I would consider its death to be a sign that NASA was not ready to send people to the moon.

Could you quote an authoritative source for this claim? I've never heard of it before. I'm not saying it isn't true - just that I have never heard of it.

To my knowledge, the only "monkey" flights were made by HAM and ENOS, prior to the Mercury flights.

NASA puts frogs into space in 1971.

In November 1970, 1½ years after claiming to have the technology to put people on the moon, NASA put two frogs into orbit for 7 days. Unlike the monkey, NASA had no intention of bringing the frogs back to earth. They simply wanted to observe the frogs.

I suppose that the death of the monkey caused NASA to wonder if they can keep anything alive in outer space for more than a few days.

No, the purpose of the flight was to investigate the effect of microgravity on the otolith, a sensory organ that responds to changes in an animal's orientation within the Earth's gravitational field. The bullfrogs were chosen because their labyrinth is very similar to that of humans.

Once again, this is simply an indication of further research - not that the Apollo missions were in any way 'faked'.

De we need protection from ultraviolet light?

Without an atmosphere to remove the high frequency ultraviolet light from the sunlight, human skin and eyes would be damaged quickly. However, one of NASA's videos show an astronaut wandering around on the moon in the sunlight without his tinted visor.

You can see this and other videos at the NASA web site.

Eventually somebody at the control center on earth suggests that he lower his tinted visor.

Many visitors to Florida are more concerned about ultraviolet light than the astronauts. The astronauts were behaving as if they were on a theater stage, not in a mysterious and potentially dangerous environment.

This is taken a little out of context. Were the astronauts provided with shielded visors? Yes, they were. Did they have to use them all the time? No, not all the time. The concern was primarily about solar radiation damage to the eyes, and for this reason they mostly operated on the lunar surface with them down. On the odd occasion, however, they raised them. The visor distorted the colour vision of the astronauts slightly, and so when there was a particular discovery ("There is orange soil here!") they raised them to confirm that it was not an illusion caused by the visor. They also did this, on the rare occasion, to have a photo taken of them. None of the occasions were particularly hazardous, but Mission Control reminded them to minimise the additional exposure.

Is weightlessness fun?

NASA creates the impression that weightlessness is lots of fun, as if it is equivalent to floating in a pool of water. However, all the evidence suggests that it is more horrible than being on a small ship in rough water.

Weightlessness causes serious problems with our digestive system and our sense of balance. The end result is that astronauts vomit. Furthermore, remaining weightless for long periods of time is bad for our health.

Does every astronaut vomit in space? How often do the astronauts vomit? Do they have trouble sleeping? Is it difficult for them to swallow food? The truth about these issues will not be known until we get better governments.

Once again, not all the information is provided. Do astronauts suffer from 'space sickness'? Yes - but not everyone. It is analogous to sea sickness or air sickness. Not everyone suffers. From memory, about 35% of astronauts suffer from it, and most adjust after a few hours. In particular, the additional room aboard the Apollo capsule played a part. Frank Borman on Apollo 8 suffered from it. Rusty Sweickhart on Apollo 9 suffered from it. Chronic spacesickness is a problem for some people, but for the most part, people adjust after a day of exposure.

Do moon rocks have sharp edges?

The astronauts fell down several times while on the moon, but they showed no regard to whether the broken rocks on the ground were capable of tearing a hole in a pressurized space suit. They never bothered to look at themselves to see if there were any tears, and the other astronauts did not bother to check one another to see how their suits were holding up.

The astronauts were behaving as if they were in damp sand that was safe to fall down in. The damp sand would also explain why they were leaving footprints.

Quite incorrect. A check was done each time an astronaut had a 'tumble'; it was only common sense. There was concern about an astronaut puncturing their suit, so they were made tough (the suits!) for a lunar environment.

The images from the surveyor spacecraft show the moon to be a dry mixture of crushed rock. If some moon rocks have sharp edges, falling down could tear a hole in the space suit.

We will never know what the moon's surface is like until we get better governments.

And I want cheaper fuel prices, and a car that gets 100 miles per gallon. Keep preaching.

At this stage I have to make a slight apology - I didn't realise that the post was a quote; I thought it was Duane's own work. Where I have referred to / asked for an explanation, this should be taken as referring to Mr Hufschmid, and not Duane as was originally indicated.

..............................................................

Source:

For the rest of the article go to : http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies11.htm

NASA warped our view of space

When I complained to some people that NASA faked the moon landing, a few of them responded something to the effect:

"Even if NASA faked Apollo, nobody was killed, so no harm was done. So why should I care?"

First of all, there are accusations that NASA murdered a few people.

Indeed, this is an accusation upon which no-one has provided supporting evidence. Let us all bear in mind that anyone can make accusations; proving them, on the other hand....

Second, even if nobody was hurt, and even if there was no cost to the taxpayers, the Apollo moon hoax hurt the human race because it has given people a warped view of the universe.

I agree totally. it give a false impression of capabilities, and the science evolved therefrom.

Let's now consider the effect of the Apollo moon hoax.

Can astronauts see stars from the moon?

My Science Challenge has a diagram to explain this. NASA wants us to believe that astronauts cannot see stars from the moon's surface, or when traveling to and from the moon.

This is partially incorrect. The astronauts reported stars during their travels. Additionally, seeing stars from the lunar surface has some problems. I think I covered this before, but if not I'll go over it again.

Because we see images of a black lunar sky, we tend to think that the lunar surface is 'dark'. This is not so. The near side of the Moon gets just as much - if not more - light as we do here on the Earth. Without an appreciable atmosphere to scatter and colour light though, it 'appears' dark. So there is the same light level on the lunar surface, affecting our ability to see (relatively) dim stars. Some of the brighter stars might be visible, but they would be significantly dimmer than we would expect.

If astronauts cannot see stars when they look into outer space, what do they see? Do they see whiteness? Do they seek a blue sky? Do they see clouds?

If astronauts cannot see stars, what do they see when they look into outer space?

Do they see a white sky? Do they see rainbows?

See above.

NASA has fooled milions of people into believing that if they were to visit the moon, they would not be able to see any stars.

See above.

How dangerous is the radiation in space?

Prior to the 1950's nobody knew what outer space was. In the 1950's and 1960's NASA launched probes to investigate space. NASA discovered that the sunshine in outer space is full of X-rays, protons, and other atomic particles. The earth's magnetic field and atmosphere shield us from the X-rays and atomic particles. A lot of ultraviolet light is also blocked by the atmosphere, especially the high frequency ultraviolet light.

NASA also discovered gamma radiation in space. However, not much of it was coming from our sun. Instead, the gamma rays were coming from every direction of the universe.

More surprising, NASA discovered that more gamma rays are coming from the moon than the sun. The reason the moon emits gamma rays is that the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that are coming from outside our solar system, and that bombardment causes the surface of the moon to radiate gamma rays.

You can see this effect in particle accelerators, nuclear reactors, and X-ray machines. In an X-ray machine, a metal target is bombarded by high speed electrons. The atoms of the metal react by emitting X-rays. The faster the electrons are traveling when they hit the target, the more powerful the X-rays.

The surface of the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that come from outer space. However, the particles that hit the moon are traveling at a much higher speed than the electrons in an X-ray machine. The result is that the moon emits powerful gamma rays, not weak X-rays. The moon is a spherical target in a "cosmic gamma ray machine".

If gamma rays appeared purple to our eyes, and if we could travel beyond our atmosphere, we would find that the moon is glowing purple, and that it is much more purple than the sun.

Outer space is a horrible environment, similar to the inside of a nuclear reactor, although the radiation in space is not as concentrated as in nuclear reactor. How did NASA protect the astronauts from all the x-rays, gamma rays, and atomic particles? NASA claims the radiation is insignficant, so not much protection is needed.

This has been covered in yet another previous thread. The danger from radiation for a short duration mission (i.e. Apollo) is an acceptable risk. Long duration missions (such as a Moon base or Mars exploration) require much greater protection.

The truth about radiation in space will never be known until the world gets better governments.

Evidence of this?

Low earth orbits are safer than deep space.

In general, yes.

John Glenn and other early astronauts did not need very much protection from radiation because: They spent only a few hours in space.

Astronauts in a low orbit are protected from most of the protons and electrons that come from the sun because the earth's magnetic field deflects them.

The earth is a shield to objects that are close to it...

Yes, the VAB protects us from a majority of the harmful solar radiation.

If an astronaut were to travel to the moon, he would first have to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts. This is an area of high concentration of protons and electrons.

If an astronaut travels beyond the radiation belts, he will be exposed to gamma rays, x-rays, atomic particles, and meteors from every direction.

What happens to a living creature as it travels through the Van Allen radiation belts? How long can a creature survive inside those belts? And how long can it survive the radiation of deep space?

There are also lots of tiny meteors flying from every direction at extremely high speeds. How long can an spacecraft survive bombardment by tiny meteors? How long can the space suit of an astronaut survive the bombardment? We will never know until we get better governments.

A lot of the information required to answer these questions has already been gathered; for long duration missions, however, more data is needed. For the Apollo missions, enough data was available to decide it was an acceptable risk with respect to radiation. Micrometeorites were also considered in this regard.

I'll post some more when I get back from walking my dog.

Q: Why hasn't someone come forward?

A: Who would listen, and who would believe them? This illusion is so pridefully ingrained in everyone’s mind that it isn’t even questioned. Furthermore, would you want to be the one to ruin the international reputation of America? (Plus the likely blackmail, bribes, and death threats . . . to family members as well.) In addition, one astronaut coming forward to clear his own conscious is an inadvertent condemnation of all of the other astronauts as well. It is one thing to ruin your own life and reputation, yet what about others who are not willing to do so? All of them have built fame and wealth on their celebrity of having supposedly walked on the moon.

Yet again, subjective & emotional speculation rather than proof! Quite to the contrary, the Apollo lunar astronauts have continually asserted how wrong Mr Sibrel's claims are! Fame & wealth upon their "claims"? The only Apollo astronaut who ever achieved any appreciable measure of wealth was Al Shepard, who became quite wealthy through his business investments BEFORE he went to the Moon.

Perhaps Mr Sibrel would like to explain how Neil Armstrong has used his distinction to gain wealth? According to Mr Sibrel, he shies away from 'fame', supposedly from a guilty conscious. Buzz Aldrin uses what fame he has to promote educational foundations and space research. Pete Conrad died and specifically moved away from "fame". Al Bean is an artist, albeit specialising in lunar paintings. Mike Collins went into Government service. How famous is Dick Gordon? Do you even know who he is? The list goes on....

Q: What about laser reflectors on the moon (allegedly left by Apollo) that scientists bounce light beams off of?

A: The Russians have successfully placed such reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The reflectors were dropped there by unmanned probes. It should also be noted that the moon's surface will naturally reflect signals; communications were carried out as early as the 1950s by bouncing signals off of the moon.

Mr Sibrel fails to mention that the Apollo LRRRs are used in preference to the two on the Lunkhod probes because the Apollo reflectors were more accurately placed. In addition, although it is true that radio signals can be bounced off the Moon, laser transmissions that are used for the accurate measuring of lunar distance require reflectors. Could that be classed as 'disinformation'?

Q: How could the scientists of the world be fooled?

A: When scientists fail to require independent duplication of such an outlandish claim after over 30 years have passed, science is degraded to the status of being just another religion. They claim to have gone 240,000 miles in 1969. However, since 1972 no one has gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. This is a case of the scientists of the world not doing their jobs and otherwise being caught asleep at the wheel.

So Mr Sibrel claims that all the scientists who have studied lunar samples, trajectory analysis, radio communications, computer technology, aerospace design, biological sciences, etc, are "... not doing their jobs..."? A rather bold claim from a person who holds no scientific degree or training.

The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal (who were generally in preschool at the time of the first alleged moon landing) do so by the following deduction: "The Apollo astronauts went through the radiation belt on their way to the moon and survived, so it must not be lethal." They are, of course, assuming that the missions were authentic, when, in fact, they were not. The leading scientists are wrong. Has this ever historically happened?

See recent threads about the VAB - Mr Sibrel has NO idea what he is talking about. His "deduction" claim is nothing short of a lie.

Q: If the evidence you have is so compelling, what hasn't CNN picked it up?

A: In reality, news media organizations are in the entertainment business. They figure that confronting such an emotional issue is not likely to boost their ratings. Since only a small percentage of those in the U.S. believe the landings were not authentic, most news media organizations don't want to risk offending their viewers.

Watergate. "Monicagate". WMDs in Iraq. 'Cold' fusion. ENRON. British Royal infidelities. Profumo. Whitlam. Nick Leeson. Jack Abramoff. Thalidimide. Smoking.

No, Mr Sibrel, you are wrong.

Q: What about Apollo 13?

A: The fact is, none of the Apollo missions ever left earth orbit.

Absolutely no evidence to back up this statement.

After interest petered out following Apollo 12 (the second trip), an element of "jeopardy" was introduced to draw attention back to the alleged drama of the missions.

Supposition.

Q: If A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is such Earth-shattering evidence, why are you selling it instead of offering it for free?

A: The film is Earth-shattering evidence, indeed. The fact is that investors put up five hundred thousand dollars to produce the film, and they would like to recoup a little of it. This is simply the concept of exchange; when someone does work to provide you with something of value, you compensate them when you receive benefit from that work.

Hardly worth commenting on.

Thirty bucks for a half a million dollar film is not bad, if you ask me.

I have a bridge for sale if you are interested, Duane....

Q: What about all of the people refuting your accusations point-by-point?

A: Given the pride associated with this alleged accomplishment, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim. However, we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination.

"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him wrong."

- - Harry Segall

I find that one from Mr Sibrel quite amusing, because he is the one whose evidence fails under scrutiny. This also explains why he tends to avoid any scientific evidence that would disprove the Apollo programme; he knows that it would be easily disproved. Instead, he tends to deal with subjects which are subjective rather than objective; that way he knows his claims can only be disputed rather than proven conclusively wrong.

Q: What about the moon rocks?

A: NASA chief scientist James Garvin recently appeared on C-SPAN (4-17-2005.) A viewer called in for the live, audience response, program. He stated that his father worked for the Defense Department and told him that we never went to the moon, that the technology didn't exist back then, and that Apollo was a Hollywood-type production. The caller asked NASA chief scientist Garvin what proof he had that the Apollo moon missions were real. Garvin said the proof is in the statements made by the astronauts, and also in the moon rocks.

While it is possible that the moon rocks were manufactured (NASA has the best ceramics labs on the planet), in reality these rocks are probably just meteorites that were retrieved on Earth. Von Braun, the director of the program, visited Antarctica a few months before the missions to retrieve these meteorites. (By the way, it is a federal crime for a civilian to be in possession of an Apollo moon rock, so how can there truly be independent verification?)

Again, this has been discussed many times in various threads. So far, no-one has been able to produce a sample that can pass for a lunar sample. There have been replicas that can mimic lunar samples in some aspects, but in other areas they are clearly of terrestrial origin.

The lunites that have been found were not identified as such until after the Apollo missions had finished, and the knowledge gained from the missions allowed the lunites to be identified as of lunar origin. Even then, they show signs of atmospheric entry, indicating that they were terrestrial samples and not taken from the Moon directly. Lunar rocks show signs of cosmic ray impacts on their surface ('zap pits'); this is destroyed when a lunite falls to Earth through the atmosphere.

Lastly, I would question whether NASA has the "best ceramic labs on the planet". I would think that they would be quite advanced for research into specific applications (e.g. thermal protection) but not "the best". You have to remember that although NASA conducts research, it normally assigns contracts out to private industry to solve the problems which it gives them.

Q: Can't you see the artifacts left from the alleged moon missions through a powerful telescope?

A: No. This is folklore. No Earth-based telescope is powerful enough to see manmade materials on the lunar surface. The newly released photos of the moon taken by the Hubble telescope cannot discern any objects on the moon's surface that are smaller than a football field in length.

Correct.

Japan, however, sent a probe to the moon several years ago that did have this capability. Unfortunately, as soon as it entered lunar orbit all five of its cameras simultaneously malfunctioned. Further disappointment is in the fact that the most recent European lunar probe cannot see the moon's surface in enough detail to answer this persistent question.

I'm not sure to which Japanese lunar probe that Mr Sibrel refers to here. I get the impression he is talking about the Hiten (Muses-A) lunar probe from 1990, in which case what he says is misleading. The Hiten only carried two CCD cameras but the data transmission system failed shortly before it reached lunar orbit. It was determined that a faulty transistor caused the data flow to stop.

Perhaps someone could point out which Japanese mission was due to take high resolution images of the lunar surface, capable of detecting the Apollo descent stages left behind?

Q: Wouldn't the Russians find out and then tell the world?

A: This is another, very logical, yet superficial question. After thinking about it for some time, I believe that one of the major reasons for faking the moon missions was to fool the Soviets about US strategic and space capability during the height of the Cold War (like a bluff in poker.) In addition, the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled.

Even if the Russians did suspect the landings were not authentic, the act of calling us liars of this magnitude at the height of the Cold War could have instigated a war, and perhaps they thought it better not to chance that.

Once more, purely subjective speculation about motives. I also find it strange that the Soviets would have launched so many lunar exploration missions without the ability to track them! The answer is, of course, that they couldn't track them continuously; there were windows in which they used due to their ground stations being placed in certain geographic locations, and the location of their space tracking ships. Once more, Mr Sibrel uses inaccurate information and subjective / emotive reasoning to determine an outcome he desires.

(more shortly)

Here is part of an article addressing some of the questions and answers concerning Apollo , from conpiracy researcher Bart Sibrel ... ( the guy who ex astronaut Buzz Aldren knocked to the ground ).... When Mr. Sibrel asked questions which Mr. Aldren refused to answer , and then made statements which Mr. Aldren did not aprove of, Aldren's response was to punch him out , insteading of answering his questions , or standing up to his accusations .

Duane, as a fellow Forum member, could I ask you to please spell his name correctly? It's Aldrin, not Aldren. Thanks.

Are you planning to remind people of the circumstances regarding the infamous 'Buzz punch'? I'll do it for you.

Mr Sibrel set up the interview under false pretenses, claiming it was an interview for a Japanese educational TV network. When Buzz was ambushed, he turned around and left; this was the second (third?) time he had had to put up with Mr Sibrel's shenanigans. Mr Sibrel continually blocked Buzz's way out of the hotel. Buzz continually warned Mr Sibrel to stop blocking his path. As they left the hotel, Mr Sibrel called Buzz a coward, a thief, and a xxxx - at which point Buzz decked him. Mr Sibrel's first words were "Did you get that?" to his camera crew.

Mr Sibrel then brought assault charges against Buzz. During the investigation, Mr Sibrel admitted that it was his intention to offer to donate a sum of money (I forget how much; $500?) to a charity of Buzz's choice if he would swear upon the Bible that he had walked on the Moon. After Buzz would have accepted the money, Mr Sibrel was going to charge Buzz with obtain money under false pretenses.

The DA declined to bring charges against Buzz, stating that Buzz was provoked into his actions.

Here are some questions which have been asked of Mr. Sibrel , and his answers ...

Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have tens of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?)

A: This is the same logical question I asked before I did any research. Yet after having done eight years of investigation, I discovered that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have tens of thousands of people working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. One team worked on the spacecraft hatch, another on the astronaut's boot, yet none of them saw an overview of the entire project, only those at the very top of the bureaucratic pyramid.

Actually, there were quite a few people who had an overview of the entire programme. Even so, how does this make a difference? The hatch designers knew their hardware would work. The LM designers knew their hardware would work. The engine designers knew their hardware would work, etc. Put it all together and you have a system that can do the job that it was designed for!

All of those NASA guys at the computer consoles that you saw prior to the launch were receiving the exact same information as their colleagues sitting beside them, which was fed to all of them by a simulation computer program.

This was addressed in a previous thread. The Flight Controllers have said they could tell the difference between a simulation and the real thing. The simulation technology could not handle a complete mission; each segment had to be loaded, run, then a new segment loaded - with periods of time in-between to reset the various computers.

If you look at the footage ten seconds prior to launch, they are all kicked back watching television, just like the rest of us.

I'd like to confirm this, because my memory of the Saturn V launch is of people intently doing their jobs in the Firing Room.

Apollo astronauts from later or previous missions were the ones at the real consoles.

There was always a "real" astronaut at one of the consoles; they were known as the CAPCOM (Capsule Communicator), and were the only ones who normally spoke directly to the spacecraft. In earlier missions (Mercury) astronauts also assisted various systems people such as propulsion, guidance, etc. It was part of building up the astronauts knowledge of the spacecraft systems. I'm unsure if any were at other consoles during Apollo.

We know from the newly discovered behind-the-scenes footage that each crew was on the rocket during the launch.

Newly discovered? Behind the scenes? This has always been the case.

They went up in front of witnesses, splashed down in front of witnesses, yet the evidence recently uncovered proves that they never left Earth orbit. Apollo 11 was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet there were only three (government employee) witnesses and, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event.

No "independent" coverage? Mr Sibrel has got it entirely wrong. Members of the press from literally hundreds of different organisations and countries covered the mission. What did Mr Sibrel want - a special seat on each mission so a press representative could fly with the astronauts, and film them on the lunar surface? Even if they had done that, we know would the likely response would have been (they were coerced / they were in on it).

In 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" (the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time.) It was later uncovered that the contestant received the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, one hundred twenty contestants and staff initially swore on the Bible during a grand jury investigation that the television show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known they all lied. If all these people were willing to lie for a little money, how much more for alleged national security? The fact is, Time Magazine was wrong. The best way to fool the world was to fool the media.

Did they? I don't know. Even so, a television show cheating has nothing to do with a lunar landing programme where literally thousands of people examine the results in minute detail.

I'll go through the rest of the post tomorrow. Bedtime for me.

Don,

If you are interested in reading about the history of the LM, may I suggest Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. A very good overview of the LM development, from conception to the Apollo 11 landing.

I wasn't quite sure whether to raise this in the Nazi Germany thread or here, but there is a political conspiracy aspect so I chose here.

I'm just finishing "THE NUCLEAR AXIS - Germany, Japan, and the Atom Bomb Race 1939-45" by Philip Henshall.

The author details a lot of technical information about the Nazi V-weapons, launch sites, nuclear research, technical exchanges with Japan, and Allied investigations of Axis research. He backs this up with various ULTRA intercepts, de-classified information, and FOI data.

His main claim is that both Germany and Japan were far more advanced in their nuclear research than has been admitted, that Germany was preparing to launch nuclear or 'dirty' weapons, and that Japan actually exploded a nuclear device in mid-August 1945.

Some of the evidence is circumstantial or tenuous - as may be expected - but overall he makes a very interesting case for his claims.

I did some Googling but found little more than reference to the book; nothing refuting or supporting the claims.

I was wondering if anyone had heard of similar claims or material either supporting / refuting the claims.

To me, without supporting evidence, it seems a little unbelievable but overall he makes a very good case. If his facts are correct, history may have to be re-written.

Correct. As far as I am aware, I do not hold the authority to remove / censor a remark because it is wrong (unless it is a remark to do with another Forum member). I simply asked Jack - my being a participant in the discussion and in a polite manner - if he would correct his remark regarding the bootprints. I gave no suggestion of any adverse consequence if Jack chose not to do so. So far, as a moderator, I have deleted a couple of duplicate posts and moved one thread to a more applicable sub-forum. I have done no editing, censoring, or deleting of unique posts. I have warned people - in text only, no action on the warning level - to be more civil or watch their remarks lest the debate become too heated.

Moderators are allowed to be just as passionate or polarised in their opinions as any other Forum member; they must however ensure that their standard of decorum and fairness is beyond reproach. I have tried to do this since being appointed. I cannot guarantee that I will not stumble or err in carrying out this function, and if I should I would fully expect another moderator to pull me up on it - the same as any other Forum member.

Now, to vent a little anger from my side: this is the second or possibly third time that Jack has publicly stated his dissatisfaction with my choice as a moderator or the way I carry out those functions. IMO, I have done nothing to deserve any such rebuke. My position on the Apollo debate is well known, but at no time have I ever used the position of moderator to 'promote' my opinion as Jack claims in post #4 of this thread.

I would ask people reading this to review the thread in question and, if they feel I have done as Jack has claimed, make a complaint to the other moderators, John S, or Andy. That, IMO, is the correct way to redress any grievances with regard to moderation.