Evan Burton

When I said that no ham operators had ever come forward , I meant the ham operators who made the fantastic claims that they picked up alternate Apollo radio transmissions from the boys on the moon to Houston and heard Neil say to Houston ... " These babies are huge !! ... and they are watching us from up on the ridge !! "

Aliens on the moon set anybody ? ... No ? ... Okay then , how about some non-existant ham operators nasa DISINFORMATION ?

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but you do realise that the "...these babies are huge!" bit comes from a mockumentry called ALTERNATIVE 3?

Duane,

Do you think I would be so silly as to intentionally misquote or alter something that can easily be checked?

The front cover:

The page in question:

Now, would you care to retract your statement?

Please quote where I said radio couldn't be bounced off the moon.

Ditto for me; please quote where I said radio couldn't be bounced off the Moon.

I may be the only reader of these postings who checks the TIME recorded for each posting.

I have noticed that BURTON, ULMAN, GREER, LAMSON, and COLBY post Apollo messages at all times

of the day and night, and when anyone else posts something, THEY ALL POUNCE ON IT WITHIN

MINUTES EN MASSE, and try to suffocate the truth. It is like they all are huddled around a

computer screen at Apollo Central, waiting for work to do. Don't they have "real jobs"?

How do they have so much time available day and night to spend on their "crusade"? This takes

into account that they are scattered around the world, yet they all spring into action simultaneously.

Duane must have a job, because he only posts once daily for a short period, yet they all attack

him within minutes of any posting.

I am retired, and only have an hour or so between other things to check in occasionally.

They post the same stuff over and over. They must get paid by the word.

Jack

For my part, I log on after I finish work each day, normally around 0600 GMT (earlier on Fridays). On weekends - because I have to get up early to give my dog medication - I normally log on around 2000 GMT, and remain logged on & off throughout the day.

If Duane doesn't want to get "pounced on", he should check his facts before posting them.

No , I'm not talking about me reading a second edition ... I read the original when it first came out .

It might be possble that we are talking about two different books though .

Where did you find this source to be able to post this book dialogue here ? ... Is a transcript of the book online somewhere ? ... Because if it is , and this is where you got your information from , then it has either been edited , changed by you , or this transcript here is from a different book from the one I read and remembered in detail .

Chapter 29 can not be correct either .... How many chapters are in the book you just quoted from ?

The book I remember reading had around 32 chapters and the dialogue about the nap and the EVA was right in the middle of the book , almost exactly half way .

I can quote from it because I have the book right in front of me, an original edition. It is divided into seven parts, and 35 chapters (not including preamble or post-material).

In this soft-back edition, the quoted sections are about 2/3rds the way through the book.

The quoted sections are verbatim from the book, and not altered in any way by me.

From the book notes:

"too excited to sleep" - Buzz Aldrin, 'Return to Earth', page 232

"outside as soon as we could" - Neil Armstrong to James Hansen (the author), 19 SEP 03

The moon rocks are in question by some of the scientists who have asked for samples to study .

The scientists have only been privy to slivers , sand and rocks the size of sugar cubes ... and ALL of these rocks showed contamination of Earthly properties .

So far , no one has been allowed to study or even see the other alleged massive amounts of clean rocks which are suppossedly stored in nasa's sealed , locked vaults , and guarded by armed soldiers .

So once again , we only have nasa's word that these 840 pounds of pristine moon rocks even exist .

Would you like to provide a link to these scientists who dispute lunar origin? I haven't heard of anyone with the required expertise making that claim.

You are quite wrong about the size of the samples given out; one example is Sample 76055, which was collected during the Apollo 17 mission, and weighed 6412 grams.

This page gives details of what samples were collected, on what mission, what type, and if they are on display or not.

This page, in particular, gives you locations of various samples around the world that are on display.

This page tells you how you can request a sample for scientific research or public display.

I'm not sure what kind of game you are all playing now but that is not what I read in Neil Armstrong's autobiography .... I read it three times to make sure I remembered it correctly because I knew it was in direct contradiction to the Parkes story .

Did Neil write another autobiography ? ... Or could you be quoting from a second CORRECTED and EDITED edition ? ... Or are have you altered the text here ?

Sorry , but I don't trust any of you to tell the truth when it comes to defending Apollo .

I'm was sure the nap information came from his most recent biography ... I remember reading it and thinking .. WTF ??? .. This is NOT the story I remember reading from Parkes because I had this very same discussion on another forum when the book first came out .... I wish now I had bought the damn thing , because not having the book in front of me I can't verify what I read now ...

I should have know that Steve was just setting me up for another game of yours ....

I don't remember that dialogue at all so maybe it was a different book ... Is the the one that only devoted two chapters to the alleged moon landing and the rest is about his career as a test pilot ?

Something is definately wrong here ... I have no doubt about what I read ... When I get some time I will go back to Barnes and Noble and see if I can find the book again or order it ... This dialogue is definately NOT what I remember reading in Neil's autobiography ... THREE TIMES .

Actually, it's a biography, not an autobiography. Neil Armstrong did not write it himself - he authorised it and assisted with it.

All the details for the book are given in my post; it's a original edition (I don't know if there have been any second printings or editions).

The quoted sections are from Chapter 29 ('One Small Step').

Ah! Thank you.

This really has nothing to do with the reality or otherwise of the Apollo missions, but I found it interesting and thought others might find it likewise.

From the collectSpace forum:

From my mother, I recently acquired my late-father's 30+ year old audio recordings of when our family watched the launches of Skylab (the last Saturn V), Skylab 2 (Saturn IB), and Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (the last Saturn IB) from the VAB viewing site. Our Senator, Howard Baker of Tennessee got us the vehicle passes to pull in there in the family truckster, a 1967 Chevy Bel Air station wagon.

Dad recorded the launches using a Toshiba portable (mono) cassette recorder with a hand mike. For the ASTP recording, he switched from the mike to a patch cord into the local AM coverage. (Perhaps some of you Space Coast-ers can identify the local radio announcer during the ASTP recording?)

Linked below are low-fidelity WAV versions of the Skylab (Saturn V) and ASTP (Saturn IB) launch recordings, both from 3.5 miles away. I was eight years old for the Skylab shot and 10 for the ASTP, and can be heard in the background ("Wow!", "Aw man!", "It's burning a hole in the cloud!," etc.)

http://members.aol.com/josephholloway65/skylab1_lo_fi.wav

http://members.aol.com/josephholloway65/astp_lo_fi.wav

Though the recordings are not a patch on the actual audio, it does give you some idea what it must have been like to have been there.

Out of curiosity (remembering I have no knowledge of the JFK theories), the two images labeled 'Oswald' and 'Hidell'... are they of two different people?

The one labeled "Hidell" looks like the 'traditional' photo of LHO, while the one on the left looks different. Perhaps a younger version?

Like others, I'll be treading very lightly. In most cases I would expect to have no need for any 'moderator' function unless asked to intervene.

If there are cases of clearly offensive posts, then I might expect to be required to be pro-active and delete the offensive words. I do not foresee many - if any - occasions to remove an entire post.

I can say that my moderator actions will be taken in consultation with other moderators.

These actions will always be documented so as to explain the reasons for any actions, and - as always - people can bring any concerns regarding any actions to other moderators.

Edited to add:

Oh, and just so people do know where I stand... I have firm views on 9/11 and Apollo. I have no pertinent views on JFK, RFK, MLK, Watergate, etc.

Evan

If you were referring to Jack White in your

"..little White lies" addendum, I feel strongly that you have disqualified yourself as a moderator!

Charlie Black

Charles / Charlie (I'm unsure as to your preferred method of title),

It's a understandable concern, but I believe an unfounded one. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr, I would ask you to "... judge me not by the colour of my skin, but by the content of my character..."

If you feel any actions / posts of mine are not in keeping within the Forum guidelines, I'd urge you to report them to another moderator.

Jack,

I have never hid my bias against your opinions regarding Apollo and 9/11. This bias alone does NOT disqualify me from being a fair moderator within my assigned sub-forums.

I strongly urge you, if you perceive any bias against you (or your fellow travelers) in moderation, please report your concerns to the other moderators - and if you feel it is necessary John / Andy.

I am more than happy to have any actions of mine reviewed by my peers and the Forum management.

I will remove my signature after this post.

Jack, could you point out where I have used unidentifiable photographs? I will correct my errors.

Like others, I'll be treading very lightly. In most cases I would expect to have no need for any 'moderator' function unless asked to intervene.

If there are cases of clearly offensive posts, then I might expect to be required to be pro-active and delete the offensive words. I do not foresee many - if any - occasions to remove an entire post.

I can say that my moderator actions will be taken in consultation with other moderators.

These actions will always be documented so as to explain the reasons for any actions, and - as always - people can bring any concerns regarding any actions to other moderators.

Edited to add:

Oh, and just so people do know where I stand... I have firm views on 9/11 and Apollo. I have no pertinent views on JFK, RFK, MLK, Watergate, etc.

Of course you would need to point the dish at the moon ... But it wouldn't matter what position the moon was in because bouncing a signal OFF of the moon is very different from pinpointing one particular postion ON the moon , to pick up a signal ... Big difference ... One has to be exact and the other can be pointed anywhere on the lunar surface .

You have shot down your own argument with that statement! If the signals were bounced off the Moon, the beam would widen and you could pick up a (weak) signal as long as the receiver antenna was aimed at the Moon. The Apollo signals, however, had to tracked more precisely or the signal was lost - indicating that the signal was originating from the Moon!

It would seem you (or your sources) are wrong again, Duane.

From "First Man" (James R. Hansen, softback edition, Simon & Schuster, 2005, ISBN-10: 0-7432-9107-7, pages 486-487):

According to the flight plan, the take-off simulation was followed by meal time and then, officially, by a four-hour rest period. Aldrin recalls, "It was called a rest period, but it was also a built-in time pad in case we had to make an extra lunar orbit before landing, or if there was any kind of difficulty which might delay the landing. Since we landed on schedule and weren't overly tired, as we thought we might be, we opted to skip the four-hour rest period. We were too excited to sleep anyway."

.

.

.

...Neil relates, "we concluded that the best thing to do, if everything was going well, was to go ahead outside as soon as we could and do the surface work before we took our sleep period."

.

.

.

With everything in order, at 5:00 PM Eastern time, Armstrong radioed a recommendation that they plan to start the EVA earlier than originally scheduled.

To further mention the testing of the Apollo spacecraft, which included the LM: there were a graduated series of missions, each designed to test a vital step in achieving a successful lunar landing.

These were:

A - Unmanned Command/Service Module (CSM) test in Earth orbit

B - Unmanned Lunar Module (LM) test in Earth orbit

C - Manned CSM in low Earth orbit

D - Manned CSM and LM in low Earth orbit

E - Manned CSM and LM in an elliptical Earth orbit with an apogee of 4600 mi (7400 km)

F - Manned CSM and LM in lunar orbit

G - First manned lunar landing

H - Extended lunar stay (two EVAs)

J - Extended lunar stay with LRV (three EVAs)

If there were concerns about a mission or mission objectives were not achieved, then a second mission of the series would be flown (e.g. a B-2 mission).

The A to C missions were flown as basically as planned (Apollo 4 to 7). Because the LM was not going to be ready for the D mission, an alternative plan was put forward - a modified E/F mission (minus LM). This was a bold step, put forward because intelligence had revealed that the Soviets were preparing for a lunar mission of their own. This was Apollo 8.

Once the LM was ready, the D mission was flown (Apollo 9).

Then a modified F mission was flown (because the CSM had flown successfully in lunar orbit). This was Apollo 10.

Then came crunch time - the G mission, Apollo 11. Once achieved, they moved onto the H missions (Apollos 12 and 14, plus the aborted 13).

Because of budgetary restrictions, Apollos 19 & 20 (and eventually 18) were canceled. This forced NASA to move ahead with the J missions (Apollos 15-17), where science was of the main concern.

Evan ... I understand what you are saying about the need to provide empiricle evidence when making the claim that the Apollo missions were faked ... But if you expect me or anyone else to provide the hard proof that the LM couldn't fly , land or relaunch from the moon , then I doubt that could be done .

Why not? Aeronautical engineers do it all the time - especially with the computer modeling techniques available today, they could spot a 'fake' easily. This is made even easier because aerodynamics do not have to be considered; the LMs flew is space where there was no aerodynamic lifting, no airflow patterns to consider. A straight problem which thousands or aeronautical engineering companies could determine.

But evidence can be provided that the LM could never be properly tested because to really test it would mean flying it , landing it , and relaunching it from the moon BEFORE the first manned mission to the moon ... and of course that could not be done ... So in essence, that means that if the Apollo 11 mission was a real event, then it would have to qualify as a test ... and I find it extremely difficult to believe that the American government , via nasa , would have allowed the high possibility of having American astronauts crash and then die on the lunar surface , or burn up in the Van Allen radiation belts with the whole world watching it on TV .

But every aero-craft has to take a 'first flight'. Even so, Apollo was a graduated programme. Test of the CSM in Earth-orbit (both unmanned and manned), test of the LM in Earth-orbit (both unmanned and manned), test of the CSM in lunar orbit (manned), test of the LM in lunar orbit (manned), then first landing. The confidence in the performance of the LM was such that it was decided that if they were going to send one all the way to Moon (apart from Apollo 10 which was the lunar orbit test and did not have the safe capability to land) then you may as well have a crew aboard. The Moon had been surveyed with Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, and Apollo craft (not to mention the Soviet achievements). Soft-landings had been achieved with Surveyor craft (not to mention the Soviet Luna probes).

Basically, there was sufficient knowledge available to be confident of a manned landing. Even so, there WAS a contingency plan in case the landing attempt had failed. When you combine a knowledge of aeronautical engineering and flight test practices along with a "need" to both beat the USSR and achieve JFK's timeline, there is nothing unusual about it.

Remember the phrase " FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION " ? Well, they weren't kidding when they said that , and therefore they would have never sent men into deep space to land on the moon unless they knew for certain it could be accomplished .

And they were very confident. Perhaps you are unaware of all of the GO / NO GO steps in the flight plan? The STAY / NO STAY steps? The assurances given to Armstrong "not to push a bad situation" and that the crew would be given an opportunity for the next flight if they had to abort?

The extraordinary claim of landing manned missions on the moon with 1969 technology has NEVER been proven ...

Your assertion, and you have no expertise in the related fields. Those who DO have the expertise disagree with you.

... and the fact that telemetry tapes and blueprints are missing and destroyed does not help nasa's case at all ...

As shown earlier in various threads, much of the documentation exists, and only some of the Apollo 11 original tapes are missing. The data from those telemetry tapes is available, and the original slow-scan tapes of the first moon-walk would merely give an improved video - not anything new.

The photos , on the other hand , have been proven to be fake ... Even though there are those who still refuse to see this or admit to it .

That is your opinion; photographic experts disagree with you.

Just to expand a little on what Kevin has said...

The Apollo lunar TV cameras were early generation colour TV cameras, and to reduce complexity & save weight, they used a "three colour wheel" setup to broadcast the pictures.

As some people may be aware, colour televisions have three colour guns that "fire" to produce a colour picture. These are (normally) a red, a green, and a blue gun (RGB). The combination of these colours at various intensities give us our "normal" colour pictures (see here). In modern TV cameras, the RGB images are taken at the same instant.

For Apollo, though, such a camera would have been excessively large (and heavy). Instead, a 'colour wheel' was used whereby a coloured filter (red / green / blue, in turn) was rapidly passed behind the lens giving in turn a red image, a green image, and a blue image. These individual images were then recombined to give a 'colour' image.

For 'normal' movement, this worked very well. On the other hand, when something was moving rapidly, there would be a noticeable difference in the position of the rapidly moving object between colour frames. Think of a rapidly moving piece of debris, such as you would find when an "explosion" had taken place. When the first frame was taken (in red) the debris was in a certain position. In the next frame (green) the debris had moved some distance. In the third frame (blue) the debris had moved even further.

When this was combined, instead of a 'normal' colour image you would have a section showing the debris in red and a section showing the debris in green (moving further along and in a slightly different position) and a section showing the same debris in blue (in yet another position, further along).

This explains the colours we see in the videos; they are fast-moving objects.

For more technical information, please refer to here and here.

I have discussed Jack's claims regarding the final resting place of the Apollo 17 LRV in this post.

I also explained why it was parked that distance away.

So what they are saying here is that nasa faked the Apollo photography and gave the world moon set photos because they really did get to the moon and they really did find ancient or even present day alien civilizations there and just had to disguise that fact from the people of planet Earth .... Oh pleassseeeeee !!

Why should their position be any less credible than yours? To we "Apollogists", there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the belief that the Apollo programme happened as recorded.

To look at your position with regard to the people who believe that there were some type of aliens on the Moon, you are saying 'get real!' while they believe that they have evidence that supports their position. You look at the evidence and decide it is invalid for whatever reasons. So aren't you now in the position of possibly being called a "CIA disinfo agent" by the people who hold beliefs contrary to yours?

And the doppler of the radio waves would be affected if they had been bounced off the Moon.

...why did WTC building 7 collapse? Nothing hit it- so the jet fuel argument won't fly...

Don,

The firefighters on-scene reported that the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 damaged WTC 7 - so much so that they reported "...about a 20 story hole ..." in the side of WTC 7.

Wasn't this a factor in its collapse? If not, why not?

Thanks.

Remember, just a few years prior to 9/11, the plane that professional golfer Payne Stewart was flying in didn't respond to radio communication. Within 15 minutes, two fighter planes were riding abreast of Stewart's plane, to ensure it didn't crash in a populated area. If NORAD is designed to respond like that to a single plane that is not responding to radio communication, how can anyone believe they didn't respond at all on 9/11, especially after the second plane hit the WTC?

This is a common error; it took about 80 minutes for the aircraft to be intercepted.

At about 0933 EDT, the aircraft failed to respond to calls from ATC. At about 0954 CDT, the F-16 was alongside the aircraft. The difference between EDT and CDT at the time was 1 hour. That makes the intercept time about 80-odd minutes.