Evan Burton

Gentlemen,

Please be careful when using the word "deception" or similar when it is in regard to another Forum member (Jack, I note you only used this in reply to another post - this does not apply to you). Being wrong does not necessarily indicate that a poster is being deceptive.

Jack,

If you believe that Craig's images are not being taken under the correct conditions, could you detail the exact conditions required to prove your assertion? If you believe that the conditions cannot be adequately recreated (e.g. must be taken on Moon, airless environment, etc), could you please detail why those conditions are necessary to support your assertion?

Thank you.

Two different props .... One could drive , as we all have seen in the faked on Earth Apollo videos .. and then the one's that couldn't run on batteries , and were just dummy props that didn't cost as much to manufacture.

Why wouldn't they use the one that could run on batteries in the "faked" images? Why develop two LRVs, according to your hypothesis? Why not simply use one? The "faked video" LRV could do everything it was supposed to have done; why spend additional money on a "fake" LRV?

Craig,

Please be careful addressing Jack's knowledge about photographic techniques. If you have specific examples about where you believe Jack is wrong, please detail them (as you said you would in the above post).

Let's all remember - play the ball, not the man. Address the statements, not the poster.

I do agree that saying someone is ignorant of a process, procedure or event is quite acceptable where they do have no knowledge of the field. Where someone, however, does have documented experience in a field and you disagree with them about a matter in that field, you should show why they are wrong rather than claim the person lacks knowledge in that field.

Jack,

Did you ever find out who attacked you?

Evan ... The fact that you can even suggest that conspiracy investigator Bart Sibrel altered the audio of his 'Astronauts Gone Wild 'video and that Mitchell's son was not the one who threatened to have Sibrel "waxed" , shows how desperate you really are to defend the myth of Apollo astronots landing on the moon .... Sibrel was clearly threatened and it clearly by Mitchell's son .... "Hey dad , you want me to call the CIA and have him waxed ? "

Did the film actually show him saying that, or was it simply an audio segment? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but given Mr Sibrel's track record I'd like to have it confirmed.

On this same video we also get to see Alan Bean's complete confusion in not even knowing if his Apollo 12 mission flew high enough to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts or even where the belts are located ... When Sibrel told him where they were , he then claimed that they must have gone right through them .... But he said there were no light flashes in his eyes from the radiation in the belts , where as Gene Cernan , in the same video , said that he did see the radiation light flashes in his eyes while going through the belts .

When was the interview recorded? Late 1990s? Over 20 years after the mission? Well, he must have not remembered correctly because he mentions them in the post-flight debrief:

25.8 - Unusual Visual Phenomena

CONRAD: I don't remember any unusual or unexpected visual phenomena or problems experienced that we haven't already mentioned. We all did see these corona discharges; and by paying a little attention to them, you could pin down that it was happening to one eye at a time. The discharges appeared in two manners. They appeared as either a bright round flash or a particle streaking rapidly across your eyeball in a long thin illuminated line. You either got a flash or a streak, and I could determine whether it was my left eye or right eye that did it at the time. Most of the time I did this was during our sleep periods when we would be lying in our bunks. The next day we would either discuss it or right it up in the flight plan.

BEAN: One thing they wanted to know was how often and where. I didn't record where they were because it just seemed like anytime in the dark, if you wanted to, you could stay there a little while and one, two or three of them would come by. If I was thinking about watching for them, I would see one every minute or somewhat less. One of them would be a flash, and about a minute later there would be a line. It didn't appear to make any difference if we were in lunar orbit, translunar, transearth or anything else. If you wanted to look for them, you could see them going by.

(Source: Apollo 12 Technical Crew Debriefing - 1 DEC 69)

Cernan, while sweating profusely , also made the claim that the descent engine of the LM was very loud .... where as Bean made the claim that it was completley silent .... So here we have two complete contradictions coming from two men who allegedly went to the moon .. and I doubt it was from not remembering the details of their suppossed moon trips .... If these men really flew to the moon , they wouldn't be telling such opposing stories about it ...Even their body language showed that they were not being truthful.

That is hardly proof. I think I remember reading something about Cernan - was the interview not conducted in hot conditions without any type of aircon, etc? Is a person not allowed to sweat?

Noise levels are subjective; what is loud to one may be quiet to another. No definitive proof. Additionally, Bean was unable to clear his ears during the descent; do you think that might account for the difference?

Tom Baron's verbal report to the committee hearing was only a part of his 500 page written report .... He never had the chance to submit his full written report , containing the damaging evidence against the Apollo Program , because it disappeared from his car when he and his family were killed .

It's my understanding he submitted that 500-page report the day he was before the Sub-Committee. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to correct myself.

Thanks Dave - I've amended my post.

Hi Don,

I think you have to acknowledge that Baron's death was suspicious, to say the least. Husband and wife suicides are extremely rare, and I've never heard of a case where a child agreed to end his/her life as well in a family suicide.

I can't agree with you that it was suspicious. I haven't actually read the Coroner's report but I do know it was ruled as a suicide. Perhaps a term we would use today is a murder / suicide? I'm unsure, but I have not read anything that suggested that his wife knew that this was going to happen. I'll see what I can find out on the circumstances.

I know that some people claim that he was murdered by or on behalf of NASA or perhaps NAA. In that theory you'd have to ask why. His reports had already been presented to NASA and accepted as an exhibit before the House Sub-Committee, and he had already given testimony. Surely the damage had been done? Killing him would have simply drawn further attention to what he had said.

I'm an agnostic on the issue of whether or not the Apollo flights were a hoax. I certainly think that's it's possible they were. I would ask the debunkers here that question; do you believe it would be possible for moon flights to be faked?

IMO, no, not really. The effort and technical challenge to fake the landings would have been as great - if not greater - than the landings themselves. The documentation, the science, the moon rocks... it all supports the verisimilitude of the Apollo programme.

I can go into further detail on this if you like.

I'd also ask why they think that Gus Grissom's family believes he was murdered.

That has been discussed extensively in this thread.

There is an interesting video out there, called "Astronauts Gone Wild." This filmmaker (can't recall his name off the top of my head) went around and questioned a bunch of the Apollo astronauts, and his gimmick was to try and get them to swear on the bible that they had gone to the moon. The most interesting part, I thought, was the last astronaut he interviewed (sorry, don't remember his name). This guy kicked him (literally) out of his house and, not realizing the filmmaker had left his microphone on, his grown son was heard to say, "think I should call the CIA and have him whacked?" Seriously, that's exactly what the son said, and he talking only to his father, not trying to make the filmmaker paranoid. It was like something out of a bad movie script.

The persons name is Bart Sibrel.

I would certainly question whether the sound bite of the son is real or not; I would not put it past Mr Sibrel to 'create' material to help support his opinion. Mr Sibrel has stalked various astronauts, used false premises to gain interviews, made veiled threats to the astronauts families, claimed publicly available footage as being 'secret, unreleased' film, and IMO is generally not a very nice person. He lacks any credibility (IMO).

His "fifteen minutes of fame" came when he lured Buzz Aldrin to a meeting at a hotel, claiming to be from a well-known Japanese educational network. When Buzz found out who it was, he turned and walked out, accompanied by his grand-daughter (? IIRC). Mr Sibrel, with his film crew, stalked him out of the building demanding that he swear on the Bible. Mr Sibrel then called him "...a coward, a xxxx, and a thief..." whereupon Buzz finally decided enough was enough and hit him. Mr Sibrel's actions would seem to have been directed towards this very response, because he immediately asked "Did you get that?".

The footage of that incident can be seen here.

Mr Sibrel tried to bring assault charges against Buzz, but the LA prosecutor decline to press charges saying that Buzz had been provoked by Mr Sibrel.

(Edit: Removed reference to Mr Sibrel not showing astronauts who had sworn on the Bible)

Jack,

Would I be right in thinking you support the 'Intelligent Design' theory?

Well, let's have a look at Jack's claim:

We have a slight problem in that none of the images are identified by number; with so many posted like this it might be understandable. Even so, if you want to refer to a particular image, please remember to identify that image so others can examine it independently.

We don't know if any of the images have been cropped at all, so we'll assume that they have not been unless we can demonstrate otherwise. BTW, cropping is not indicative of anything wrong in general; it's just that when dealing with these matters you should note if you have done so. In some cases, cropping DOES alter the interpretation of the image; it is particularly important in these cases to annotate that the image has been cropped in order to avoid giving a false impression.

Let's start using the image on the top right-hand side of the analysis. This image is AS12-46-6783. Duane has said that the astronauts were "...standing perfectly erect and facing forward...". If we look at this image (6783), we see that the shadow shows the astronaut taking the image (Pete Conrad) has the right arm showing on the right-hand side of the shadow, the helmet shadow twisted to the right, and the PLSS backpack appearing to the left of the shadow. This is pretty convincing evidence that he was twisting slightly to the right - and thus explains why his shadow is to the left of the image.

The image immediately underneath (far right, second row) is AS12-46-6785, taken shortly after the image above. Once more, we can see the shadow displaying that the photographer (Conrad) had twisted his body slightly to the right (note how the shadow of the legs are parallel and the shadow of the torso shows movement to the right).

The image immediately under that (far right, third row) is AS12-46-6789, taken just after the previously mentioned images. Here we cannot judge the true orientation of the body, but once again we can see the shadows of the right arm and the hoses of the EMU suit. You can also see the shadow around the legs sloping back toward the centre of the image.

I have to get to sleep now, but have a close look at the other images Jack has presented and determine for yourself if they indicate a twisting of the body or not.

I answered that in this reply on another thread (see post #3 on that thread).

There are no bootprints to the right because he walked there from the left then turned around to clear the way for a photo.

There is no wire visible - unless you are referring to the antenna on the backpack.

I know that you and Jay Utah are masters of disinformation when it comes to the Apollo debacle .... You both enjoy nit picking every little detail as a means of distracing from the larger issues ....

But aren't you 'nitpicking' as well? Claiming the astronauts sounded stressed during post-flight interviews, pointing out lack of visible tyre tracks in some images, questioning when a documentary producer uses artistic licence in his work, disputing whether soil should be in LRV tyres?

I am not a photographer so to throw out phrases like "inverse square" is just part of your silly mind games .. It's the old , let's make the conspicy guy look like an idiot and me look like I know what I'm talking about routine .... Yep , you and Jay and everyone who defends nasa , are masters when it comes to many things .... Especially disinformation and distraction tactics .

And after watching you and Jay and some of the others in action , I am even more convinced that something is just not well with Apollo ... and most definately not well with the official Apollo photographic record .

Craig has asked you three times why his illustration of the lighting setup described by Dr Jones is incorrect - can you answer that in more detail, please? I believe you referred to the slave & master lights; why is Craig's re-creation incorrect? What parameter were detailed by Dr Jones which Craig did not follow?

You are correct Duane...we are not discussing DUST, we are discussing lots of tiny little pebbles which would have wedged into the wire mesh as the wheels rolled over

them. Lame responses.

Jack

Jack,

I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't checked this, but what size "pebbles" would have been required to have wedged into the mesh?

Once you have that size, can you give some evidence that such sized "pebbles" existed on the surface of the Moon?

... wow , those astronots sure did kick up a boat load of dust ... and every time they did , they somehow managed to cover up ALL of the tire tracks in the process ! ... How about that !

No, there are some images where the tracks are covered, and there are some (the majority? I'd have to check) where they are visible.

So, if we are to believe your take on events, why did they roll the LRV onto the "set" in some cases but "lower it with a crane" or some such on other occasions?

Evan ... You do know that Baron's verbal testomony given to the nasa committee was not the same as his 500 page detailed report which was completed after he testified .

This damaging report against the Apollo Program was in his briefcase , which was in the car with Baron and his family when they all decided to kill themselves on the railroad tracks in front of an oncoming train .... But after the car was hit , all three bodies were found in the car but somehow the briefcase containing this 500 page report against nasa , somehow managed to just get up and walk away !

Duane,

You do know that the 500 page report was submitted to the House Sub-committee (not NASA) when he gave that testimony before the House Sub-committee?

Thanks for that Dave.

I don't normally use YouTube because of my download speed but I might see if I can watch these at a friends place.

Kathleen,

Google "Alternative 3"; it was a UK "mockumentry" in the 70s. That sounds suspiciously like part of the bogus transcript.

Have a look in this thread.

Also, this thread really belongs in the 'Political Conspiracies' sub-forum rather than the JFK.

Hope you don't mind, but I'll move it there.

Evan

Charles,

As moderators, what can we do to help you?

What sort of outcome would you like to see resulting from the points you have raised?

Evan

Anyhoo .... Evan has proven that this info didn't come from the book I thought it had .... So I guess that's the end of that .... Unless I can manage to find the book it was in .... and after all this time , the odds are not very good at that happening .

Keep looking - I'd be interested in knowing which book it came from. Even books which are written from a 'pro-Apollo' stance can contain errors.

Yep, that is all from ALTERNATIVE 3, a UK 'mockumentry' of the 1970s. Even today, it gets repeated as gospel.

Even without knowing of Alternative 3, there are a couple of things in the transcript that would immediately stand out to those with some knowledge.

*Otto Binder - a name never mentioned as being involved with Apollo except in Alternative 3. Actually, some might know Otto Binder as being a science-fiction author who also wrote some articles on the subject of UFOs!

*Where Houston says "Repeat your last information" and "Repeat! Repeat!". These people were pilots, and in aviation lingo you don't say 'repeat' in that context; the phrase "Say again" is used. Most people wouldn't notice it, but the aviators certainly would.

*Chris Craft (sic) - Chris Kraft at that time was the head of the Flight Operations Directorate, but was not a Flight Director for Apollo 11; four other people were. Also, even as 'Flight', he does not normally speak to the spacecraft. All communications will normally go through the CAPCOM (Capsule Communicator), who is always another astronaut.

*"Control here" - they used the callsign 'Houston', not Control. Additionally, they call "Apollo 11" - with Aldrin & Armstrong on the lunar surface, there were two occupied spacecraft: the LM and the CSM. This meant two callsigns - Columbia (CSM) and Eagle (LM). They only used 'Apollo 11' when the astronauts were all together in the CSM.

*Overheating TV camera - I don't remember that ever happening, but I'd have to check my facts on that.

So on the surface it might appear to be something that was a genuine record, but when you scratch the surface you can see that the facts just don't add up.

I saw the programme, and used to have the book (which was a very good read).

Article on ALTERNATIVE 3.

I have read these posts again and I am sorry you have chosen to take offence at comments which describe the day to day realities of moderating this forum.

Perhaps we can now move on?

I think that's a good idea.

All societies have members which bring great credit upon their society, and those which attract disrepute. I suppose it's in the nature of being fallible humans.

How about we wipe the slate clean, and start afresh?

This is the news article to which I previously mentioned, though I am surprised & disagree with the conclusions drawn.

At the risk of derailing the thread, Australia's unique position has meant that we depend heavily upon our Sea Lines Of Communication. Additionally, apart from our northern borders, any aggressor force must traverse a large expanse of ocean to threaten Australia. This is why, along with the Air Force, the RAN has been the nation's first line of defence.

(The current employment of those defence forces is a matter for separate discussion, and WOULD derail the thread)

The UK, on the other hand, faces all of the traditional threat avenues (as well as the asymmetric).

John, do you think that (in light of a possible association with BAe) Mr Blair is favouring one service at the expense of another? Or might it be that he still holds some notion of an Empire and considers this the best way to support it?

As a member of the ADF, this is pretty interesting. BAe Systems hold a number of contracts within Australia (though none that come to mind that are subject to any type of controversy).

I have to admit, I do not follow British politics (though I will discuss it with a number of workmates, who are ex-UK personnel who have recently done a 'lateral transfer' to the ADF) but I'd like to ask some questions.

In Australia, Labor is widely perceived (within the ADF) as being 'detrimental' to Defence. Rightly or wrongly, they are seen by many to cut the Defence budget too severely. Even so, there are many personnel within the ADF who will not be voting for Mr Howard.

Is the UK Labor party seen in a similar light?

I noticed in the news the comparison between Mr Howard and Mr Blair; Mr Blair was being portrayed as cutting back on the RN, whilst Mr Howard is supporting the expansion of the RAN.

I can only speak for myself, but for the umpteenth time let me repeat:

I have no association - official or otherwise - with NASA or any US government department / organisation.

Jack,

You have voiced your thoughts and concerns, but I see no need for this thread to remain open. It is not contributing to the research.

From the Forum 'Rules of Behaviour':

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Thread locked.

That's the cover of my copy, and it doesn't mention previous editions or printings.

Perhaps a hardcover edition looks different?

I don't think Tom Baron knew what he thought! He seems to say one thing, then immediately contradicts himself:

Mr. TEAGUE: Mr. Baron, if things were really as bad as you pictured them by the things that, you have said to this committee in your report, do you believe we would ever have gotten a shot off to the moon? Do you think we ever would have had one successful shot?

Mr. BARON: Certainly, sir.

Mr. TEAGUE: With the conditions you pictured here, do you think we could be successful in any of our shots?

Mr. BARON: No, sir. No, sir. I don't think so.