Evan Burton

I think you missed the point .... A researcher went to nasa and asked them to loan him the original telemetry tapes so he could reproduce them for everyone to see the moon landings like they were suppossed to be seen ... and also do a documentary on the Apollo program ... It was only then that nasa had to admit to him that they had no earthly idea where the tapes were .... and of course alarm bells went off for the guy who fell for the Apollo missions being real .... If this hadn't happened , nasa would have never admitted to not knowing where the telemetry tapes were ... and if the manned moon landing were really important , nasa would not have "lost " the evidence proving that they really went to the moon .

That's not quite what happened. The images are NOT 'missing'; the original tapes are missing, and that could give us better images of what we saw, not anything new.

Read about what really happened, and why:

http://honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tape..._SSTV_Tapes.pdf

Maybe not all of the blueprints were destroyed but the important ones were .... If Grumman destroyed the blueprints then it was done under nasa's orders via the FBI .

So Duane - what were the important ones? What did they show?

And now you are changing your story? First it was the FBI who ordered it, but now it's NASA who ordered it but got the FBI to carry it out? Which is it?

See this interesting article of how these three young men created a film that has been seen by an estimated 50 million people. Over 4 million have seen it at Google Video alone.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/st...1998179,00.html

This is an example of how the world of media is undergoing a revolution. When I say revolution I mean revolution. A power shift is taking place in the world of communication. The dominant ideology is under threat.

Like most things, it is a double-edged sword. Although people can get the message out there, people can also get incorrect messages out there; it doesn't encourage people to actually investigate, research, and verify what we are told (I saw it on the internet so it must be true).

Loose Change SE, like the original Loose Change, is full of errors:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

Yet millions of people have watched it, and no doubt a large proportion of them believe it - without checking on the verisimilitude of the claims or material. So is truth a popularity contest?

On the other hand, it has done much good - exposing the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners and other examples.

It really comes down to something I was taught a long time ago: listen to what everyone has to say, but don't necessarily believe them until you research what they have to say.

Evan ... I don't see where anyone has "rebutted" any of my claims about the bogus Apollo missions and the faked Apollo photos ... ...If you want to pretend to debunk some hoax evidence , why not try taking on Nathan and Neville Jones ? It looks like nobody here so far has been able make make "toast" of either one of their articles ...

Therein lies your problem. You maintain a blind spot when people present rebuttals. Try reading the replies, and looking at the links provided.

We can see Duane's typical modus operandi coming to the fore.

He knows full well all the claims he posts are being effectively rebutted. People reading the threads can see that his so-called proof is worthless.

So instead he'll be provocative and offensive in the hopes of being banned. That way he can play the victim once more, slink off somewhere and claim "They banned me because they wanted to prevent the truth being told!".

Then go ahead and refute them instead of pretending that the discussion is about my lack of photographic knowledge ...

In other words .... Put your money where your big , rude mouth is .

Have you forgotten the way things work Duane? You made these claims (using someone elses work), it your job to provide proof that the claims are correct. The discussion IS about the claims you have made, your lack of ability is simply the reason you are trying to pawn this off on someone else.

The question remains despite your attempt to shift the burden of proof....SHOW US YOU PROOFS!

Craig,

Normally I'd say: just go ahead and prove it's wrong. Duane, however, has a track record of making bold claims and them failing to back them up with empirical evidence.

That makes me say: make him prove his claims for once.

Despite that, it does leave me undecided. IMO Duane will post and support whatever happens to co-incide with his own beliefs, regardless of the accuracy of the material. He won't back up such claims with empirical evidence because he is unable to produce any such evidence. Basically, he'll stick to his beliefs regardless of any evidence to the contrary*.

As I have said, my reason for devoting energies here is NOT to try and enlighten such people as Duane (IMO he is a 'lost cause'). Instead, it is to show people who might believe those claims actually how wrong they are, showing why the claims are incorrect, and encouraging those people to examine and test the claims. To take a claim to an expert in the field (if they are not) and ask: "Is this correct? If so, why? If not, why not?".

So I'll go back to my original position - show Duane why Dr Jones' claims are incorrect. That way 'lurkers' can take both Duane's postings from Dr Jones, and your evidence to the contrary, to experts in the field and ask those important questions: "Is this correct / incorrect? Why?".

* Readers may remember in another thread where I offered to have independent verification of Apollo's technical capabilities. My only conditions were that I had to agree that they were capable of assessing the technical viability of the system (e.g. Fred down the pub is not a suitable authority, even if he is a pretty smart fella), and Duane must nominate the independent authority first so that he cannot later claim that the authority was biased in some way. Duane has failed to take up this offer.

Reference: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8768&st=45

If you can't see the shadow of the fan shaped object it's because you don't want to see it .... It's very obvious where it is ... Just look below the object and to the left a bit , in the third photo you posted ..

If you look at the FULL image, you'll see what it is.

What kind of original work did you have in mind ? ... And what is wrong with posting articles of other peoples opinions and evidence , as long as it gets the point across ?.. Other members here do it all the time .

Well, you gave the impression (to me if no-one else) some time ago that you had original work. I wanted to see it.

Nothing wrong with posting others work (with attribution). Just repeating others claims, however, and being unable to support them, makes your own case look pretty weak.

Hi Wallace (is that your preferred name?),

Welcome to the Forum.

I don't have the knowledge about the events surrounding JFK / RFK to be able to form a credible opinion on it, and to tell the truth - I don't have the enthusiasm to learn about them.

I have a passing interest in 9/11, and to this day have not seen any worthwhile evidence to suggest that the events of that day did not happen essentially as portrayed by the official reports. I would agree that errors occurred and that people responsible have not been held accountable, but I have yet to be convinced that there was anything other than four hijacked airliners flown into various buildings or crashed that day. I do not subscribe to any "no plane", "pod", or "controlled demolition" theories.

I suspect that I am one of the Australian people that Jack mentioned in his post.

My interest is in refuting claims of an Apollo "hoax".

Cheers and again, welcome!

Evan

Until I see evidence one way or the other, I am prepared to accept Dr Jones as a physicist - but what discipline? Some that come to mind are:

Optical physics

Nuclear physics

Astrophysics

Solid State physics

Geophysics

High energy physics

Just to name a few. To speak as an expert in one field may not qualify you as an expert in another field.

Additionally, just because he may be a physicist it doesn't automatically make what he says correct; it simply adds credence to his statements unless they are disputed or disproved by similarly qualified persons.

For example, let's say I have a Doctorate in Aerodynamics. You check the records, and confirm to your satisfaction that I do hold such a qualification.

I then make a public assertion that mainstream science is either flawed or downright lies, that it is totally impossible for any type of so-called 'aircraft' to fly under any circumstances whatsoever.

Despite my qualification, how much credence would you put in my assertion?

I'm afraid Dr Jones assertions have been effectively repudiated by the overwhelming majority of "physicists".

Still, if you want to accept scientific advice from a person who believes that the Earth is the centre of the solar system (or even the universe? I'm not sure), then go right ahead. Just one piece of advice:

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

Duane,

You have a strange interpretation of the images I provided. The scratch (it could be a smudge but to me it looks like a scratch so that is how I will refer to it) remains in the same position on the LEVA even though the angle with respect to the astronaut and camera is different - radically so in the last one.

Additionally, I can't see any shadow cast by it. I know what you think is a shadow cast by it in one of the images, but a closer look would explain why you are wrong.

Off topic here, but are you ever going to provide some of that original work? You know, not just parroting claims of others or doing cut & paste jobs, but original work?

The Apollo 12 photo is merely a smudge or scratch on the visor of Pete Conrad. It appears in a couple of images.

Now, this is the one we are talking about:

It also appears later on the same roll. All images are of Pete Conrad during the same EVA:

1. Though she was a regular stewardess on AA77, she did not fly that day.

2. At some point after the event, Pentagon officials invited her to the Pentagon

to view a PHOTOGRAPH OF A SEVERED ARM. The arm had on its wrist a bracelet.

3. The officials asked her if she could identify the bracelet.

4. She identified the bracelet as belonging to a fellow stewardess on AA77.

5. Why was she chosen to view this bizarre photograph? Why not next of kin?

Perhaps no NOK was available, and therefore workmates could help identify the remains.

6. What are the circumstances of this photo being taken? It is the only known

incident of this sort.

7. How did the arm and bracelet survive the crash in recognizable condition

and no other parts of the body? Skulls nearly always survive accidents like this

and are easily identified by dental records...why an arm and bracelet?

Again, incorrect - the skull does not always survive intact. It depends on the circumstances of the crash. Besides, the dental records might be able to indentify whose head this was - it does not identify whose arm that was.

8. Who were the Pentagon officials who arranged this bizarre show and tell?

Did they call in other people to view such photos?

9. If the photo of the arm and bracelet exist, are they part of the investigative

record? If so, the photo should be made available to researchers.

These are the remains of a person; images of them generally is not and should not be made available. There are very few such images publically available; those that are have been made so because of some importance they hold & probably because the remains cannot be indentified by the public to a specific individual.

.... It's people like you and Lamson and Burton and Greer and Waspie_ Dwarf and MID and Phil Plaitt and Jay windley , who prove to me that there is much to hide when it comes to nasa and their bogus Apollo Program .

I feel quite chuffed to counted in such prestigeous company!

Tool carrier harness:

Harness left on Moon, crop from Apollo 17 image (I can't find the image number right now; I'll find out which one it was)

As far as Burton goes, google him and you find he is connected to Australian military...

More than 'connected' Jack; as you have been told on more than one occasion, I am an Officer in the Royal Australian Navy.

Why don't you ask your friend Dr Costella - who is also suspiciously connected to the ADF - to look me up on the Defence Address Book?

And, of course, the Soviets snapped up the remaining Germans who were involved in not only rocket technology but other fields where they could be of use.

The strap looks like it was probably part of the tool carrier harness, though I am not certain if they had that on the Apollo 12 suit.

After they have spent production costs, I'd be surprised if they didn't air it.

So it's not listed in the programme guide for January? (I presume they put out a listing for a month at a time)

I can understand why they might have decided to wait a little. This 27 JAN is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire; they may have thought the matter would be too controversial for that month.

Do you mean Discovery Channel or the History Channel? They are different over here.

What were the top ten?

I seem to recall Rumsfeld appeared on that amusing 'expose'.

Sid,

You're confusing it with the French 'mockumentry' called "Dark Side of the Moon"; Rummy was in that one. That one was very funny - especially the 'outtakes' at the end.

It's quite a game plan the nasa defenders have going all over the internet .... First gang up on and then push all the right buttons to piss off the hoax believers ... and if your do you job right , they will finally give up and go away .... Well, congrats ! ... You have all accomplished that .

“Live by the swoard…” actually you’re and not paranoid they DO connive to drive people who aren’t blind to the truth like you of the Net, they get bonus checks every time an HB quits a forum

As I said in another thread, I don't do this for Duane. I'm fairly sure that no matter what evidence is placed before him, he will not alter his opinion.

I do it so the lurkers get a different side of the story that Duane et al present, and - most importantly - are encouraged not to blindly accept anyones word about "facts" in these matters but instead go out and research events for themselves. They can contact various experts and gather opinions about matters which they are not qualified to judge (could the LM fly in space, would radiation have killed the astronauts, etc). There are photographic experiments they can reproduce to see if something is impossible or not.

So that people go out with both eyes open, and make up their minds for themselves.

I think it's vital that people do this, especially contacting the people that had first-hand knowledge of events. Go meet some of the astronauts. Talk to the people who were at Mission Control or helped build the spacecraft. The astronauts tend to like their privacy but still go out to plenty of public appearances. Other lesser-known people who were involved, such as the controllers, the technicians, the workmen, etc, are normally only too happy to relate their memories of that time to people who ask.

These people are getting into their 60s now, and in the not too distant future we won't have anyone around who was actually there.

Duane,

Please don't take this as an ad hom attack because it is not, but I want to examine your attitude towards the book.

Originally, you were touting the Hawkins book as fact. On further examination of it, you revised your opinion based on new evidence and came to the conclusion it was bogus. But why did you make a leap to it being "NASA disimformation"? I see there being 3 possibilities for the book:

1. A person who truely believes what they say, publishing a book about it;

2. A person deciding to make some money by publishing a book about the "Moon Hoax"; or

3. A person (or NASA) deliberately publishing a book with easily deniable theories in order to discredit the hoax-theory believers.

What makes your favoured option of 3 any more credible than the other two?

Ever since the forum went over to the new IPB software, I seem to have lost the ability to add attachments to a post.

Instead, I simply get a frame saying "Initilizing Attachments..." and an 'in progress' symbol.

The same happens on other forums where this IPB software is in use.

I am the only one this is happening to, to my knowledge.

Any ideas as to what might be the cause?

Running Netscape 7.02 but have the same problem with IE 5.5; Java is enabled, popup-blockers switched off.

I'm stumped.

Another creepy thing I never understood about that site was how did the moderators post a reply , including copying some of my post back to me , immediately after I hit submit , when there wasn't even enough time to do so ?

I don't care what any of you choose to believe but I happen to know for a fact that my posts were rarely allowed to go unanswered for more than a few minutes at any given time and some were even answered seconds after I posted them ....

I realize that some moderators have no life outside of the web site forums they moderate , but that still does not explain the lightening speed with which they copied parts of my posts and replied so quickly ... Not unless they were working right along with me ..

I found this claim interesting, so went back over some of the threads at UM.

The shortest time I could find between one of Duane's posts and a reply was 2 minutes; that was from a Mod warning that if the thread did not stay on track, it would be closed.

The next shortest time I could find was 3 minutes, and the post that followed Duane's was from a supporter of his.

Times then went from 8-10 minutes up to days.

Duane, can you show me where your posts were replied to "immediately" or "seconds" after you posted?

Certain blueprints may still be available but not the one's for the LM and lunar buggy ....

How would any space craft technician today be able to evaluate the Apollo crafts , when there are none around to examine ? ... I doubt that nasa would pull the LM from their museum , or dig up an old CSM and allow someone to test fly them to the moon ... and aside from that , I don't know how it could be proven that any Apollo lunar module would be able to fly , land and then launch again from the lunar surface .

It's actually a lot easier than that. There are examples of Apollo hardware available; items that have been flown, items that were meant for flight but never used, and test articles. Here is an extensive list:

A Field Guide to American Spacecraft

Apart from that, engineers of various disciplines can tell you a lot simply by the materials and methods used in construction of the spacecraft, especially in these days of computer modelling. For instance, the design and construction of the engines. Engineers can tell you whether they'd work or not. The metals used in the construction are not secret (although they are probably patented). Metallurgists can tell you if they could have withstood the forces and temperatures involved in an engine. In fact, most engines used for the Saturn V are still around in one form or another.

They can see how the CM / SM / LM was contructed, and what materials were used. They can access the properties and indeed samples of those materials. Exotic metals, construction techniques, material processing, etc, all flowed on to aerospace and many other industries. Very little effort would be required to tell if the construction or materials were not able to meet the claimed standards.

Design, weights, construction, etc, of the spacecraft are known. Location, design, capacities, and performance of fuel systems are well documented. Specific impulses from the various RCS assemblies are documented. I daresay anyone in the final year of an aerospace engineering degree could tell you if the LM would be able to successfully fly and land on the lunar surface. There are even flight simulators available, which are based on the engineering data itself.

There are experts who have studied biological effects of radiation (based on Hiroshima survivor data, amongst others), tested the protection offered by various materials. They are easily able to tell if the Apollo spacraft could offer the required radiation minimisation (see previous radiation threads on this board).

This wealth of data is studied not only by American scientists and engineers, but by various countries around the world.

That is why I ask you to select an appropriate authority, and I'll ask them to determine if the various pieces of Apollo hardware could do the job - I'm very confident of the result. You simply cannot hide data like this - people would have discovered by now if things did not work.

Remember the cold fusion breakthrough? A method for cold fusion (i.e. at room temperature) was claimed. What was the first thing scientists around the world did? They asked for the data so they could reproduce the experiment and validate the data. What was the result? They couldn't obtain the same results - the 'breakthough' was shown to be flawed.

The same thing applies to the various data relating to Apollo - scientists don't just accept the word of NASA; they set out to trial and reproduce the data, checking it, looking for flaws, seeing if they can improve on it.

That's why we know it is correct, and we are not being subjected to a "hoax".

Evan .... My apologies for using the word allegedy in referring to your military profession ... I believe you ... and I wouldn't appreciate anyone accusing me of not being a song writer , cuz I write some mighty fine songs !

Duane - accepted. Thank you.