Evan Burton

(deleted - dupe post)

.. It only means that what you allegedy do for a living has so little importance to me that I didn't bother to remember which branch of the military / industrial complex you have to answer to .

That's the second time in this thread you have used the word 'allegedly' with regard to my profession.

I tell you what - contact Jack White, and have Jack contact the physics guy he knows who works for the Australian Defence Organisation (Costella?). He'll have access to the Defence Restricted Network. On the DRN is an electronic address book with everyone in the ADF / ADO.

Have him look up my name. Get him to send me an e-mail or give me a call on the telephone at work (after the 15th; I'm on leave right now). He can then relay the results back to Jack who can pass them back to you.

Then you can drop the 'allegedly', sport.

What do you accept as a competent technical authority of the various technical achievements needed for the success of the Apollo lunar landings?

Sorry , I missed your question before .... Proof of the alleged technical accomplishments of the Apollo space craft would have to come from outside sources ( those other than nasa or the companies who designed the Apollo hardware ) which are not only qualified to recognize the alleged space flight capabilities of the Apollo equipment , but would also have access to study the actual LM's , CSM's and Saturn V rockets themselves , or at least the blueprints to these crafts , which would prove their flight capabilities .... and in the case of the LM's , their landing and launch capabilities also ... But of course no one has ever done this to my knowledge .. and unfortuantely the blueprints to all of these Apollo crafts , including the lunar buggy , have convienantly been destroyed by nasa under orders of the FBI.

Once again, the large majority of "blueprints" are available.

Ref my question: so why don't you have a look through some of the websites of people with the required technical expertise, and pick some that meet your standards. Let me know who they are, and I'll ask them to examine the Apollo hardware for a technical opinion. How about some of the companies that are trying for the latest X-Prize? They'd have to understand a lot of the space-related activity.

You will have to pick the experts so I can be sure they will meet your standard of proof. It would be unfortunate if I got a technical opinion and then you decided they didn't meet your requirements. I'd have to repeat the whole process over again with someone new; best get it right the first time.

Just because I complained about the "spit in your face" stupidity that takes place on the UM site was no reason for you to go off topic by bringing it here ...

I didn't think about posting that long article in one thread but that makes sense ... I tried to post it all in one shot but it wouldn't take all the photos ... That's the only reason I split it up the way I did ... I didn't do it to intentionally spam the board .

I didn't even bother to look at the UM threads you posted here but what I mean about the "spit in your face" kind of attitude of the members and moderators there , is my being called stupid, childish , ignorant , uninformed etc . following almost every post I ever wrote there .... Many members have left that web site because of the BS that takes place there on almost every thread ... It is despicable how some of the members are treated on those forums .... especially if their "worldview" is that of a "conspiracy theorist " .... I posted there against my better judgement because I wanted the truth about Apollo to be known by as many people as possible ... but of course the nasa geeks and misinformation agents working overtime on the internet , make sure that the truth about Apollo will never come out .

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 ? .... Then last week one of the members on the UM posted a thread called " Watchers... are we being watched ?" ... He said that a friend of his was banned BEFORE his "bad post" was even completed and submitted ! .... That's when I realized how my posts were always attacked so quickly by the mods ... They were being read AS I wrote them ! .... Talk about some scary stuff ... After reading that , I decided there was more reason to leave that forum than just the verbally abusive moderators and members there .

That's right Duane - we're all after you. Better keep looking over your shoulder; one of our operatives is probably monitoring you this very second.

Evan ... I realize that's it's probably one of your many jobs as a devoted nasa defender and alleged fellow fly boy to 'debunk' the conspiracy information , but does the American military / industrial complex's arm really extend as far out as the Australian Air Force ? .... You military boys really do stick together when it comes to defending nasa's lies about landing manned missions on the moon , don't you ? .... I do hope you get some monetary compensation for all of your time consuming hard work in posting so much nasa misinformation .

I'm Australian NAVY, not RAAF. Just another one of your many mistakes.

Scenario Two:

There were no manned missions to the Moon. It was technically and / or environmentally impossible to do it, so the astronauts sat in Earth orbit and waited in one module while the other traveled to the Moon under remote control. This allowed staged events like the mid-course "urine dump" (viewed by ground telescopes) and the relay of radio and TV signals from the vicinity of the Moon for verisimilitude. Additional unheralded (and unmanned) launches sent the flags, mirrors and microwave reflectors that were supposedly left on the Moon by the astronauts. Footage of the lunar surface excursions was shot in advance at the Langley test facility and other studios, to be relayed at appropriate times. Rock samples were contrived from irradiated terrestrial minerals and a collection of meteorites.

That scenario does offer an explanation for the fake images. It also covers the controversies about radiation, etc.- by taking them for granted. It is less successful in supporting theory-internal questions, like where exactly the astronauts were lurking for the duration of the faked missions. The same ground observations that viewed the infamous urine dump might have noticed that the CSM was in fact only the much smaller LEM section, if the astronauts were remaining in the Command module in Earth orbit. Perhaps a separate craft was parked in orbit ahead of time for them to use, but it would have had to have been an exact duplicate of the mission one, unless one is willing to complicate the logistics to the point of sending the whole unmanned CSM to the Moon and back, ditching the LEM along the way, so the astronauts could reenter the Command module for the splashdown. It is easier in many ways to propose that the crew somehow slipped out of the craft just before the launch, never leaving Earth at all. Then they could have been dropped from a plane, perhaps, in their capsule, to be "recovered" at the end of the "mission". Of course, if through some horrible accident the Saturn V had exploded during the televised launch, they would then have needed to be killed. Since any chicanery would have required the cooperation of the astronauts to some degree, it is unlikely they could have been coerced into accepting that level of potentially terminal jeopardy. The rebuttal to that problem with Scenario Two would have to involve mind control... It would need to be proposed that the astronauts were implanted with fabricated "screen memories" of their trip to the Moon, like the victims of the team on the old Mission Impossible TV show. In such a delusional state, they would never have been aware of the true situation anyway.

A number of problems with this scenario:

- A spacecraft in Earth orbit would have been noticed. The Soviets or even various international astronomers would have seen the CSM as it tracked across the sky.

- Lunar samples CAN NOT be reproduced on Earth. Lunar meteorites were not identified as such until after the Apollo missions. See here for more information on lunar samples and lunar meteorites.

- It's impossible for the astronauts to have been "slipped in" to the CM after splashdown; the earlier missions had the splashdown sequence from parachute deployment onwards broadcast live. The astronauts were seen getting out of the CM.

- Robotic deployment of the various sensors on the lunar surface is so unlikely as to be impossible for all practical purposes. Compare the laser reflectors left by the Soviet robotic missions to the ones left by Apollo; the Soviet ones were far less usuable because they were not accurately aligned - unlike the Apollo LRRRs which were aligned by hand. A number of the experiments left on the lunar surface had to be aligned by hand, have supports fixed into the surface, etc.

- Mind control? Oh, pul-eeze!

- Scientific analysis concludes that the Apollo footage matches the behaviour expected in an airless, 1/6G environment. You need to be able to recreate that airless / low-G environment on a stage for that part of the scenario to be possible. Considering the range that was visible on the film footage, that stage would need to be enormous. The vacuum chamber used for Apollo testing (the largest in the world, I think - but am not sure) was only 45 feet in diameter and about 50 feet tall - insufficient to "fake" the lunar surface scenes that were witnessed.

Scenario One:

Everything presented to the public about the Apollo missions was accurate and fundamentally complete. There may have been some additional concerns and experiments that were held secret for a variety of reasons, including national security (it was the Cold War era, after all) and public relations, but basically what you saw was what really happened.

If one starts with that position, it becomes extremely difficult to then explain why there would be so many problems with the photo evidence. Why did it take years for any significant number of pictures to be released? It would seem more effective to have released enormous amounts of them, to maximize the PR value of the program. The Soviet Union was exploring the Moon with robot probes at the same time, including "scoop and return" missions that shot samples back for analysis, so we weren't hiding anything from them.

Oh dear... back to the misinformation. Enormous amounts of the images were released; ALL the images were available to anyone who wanted to order them. Naturally the best of them - those most appealing or visually stunning - were given the most exposure. After all, which has the best "PR" value:

This?

Or this?

That?

Or this?

During the Apollo era you could inexpensively order your very own custom Apollo photo from lavishly printed catalogs displaying thumbnail versions, too. Comparison of some of those privately ordered prints, said by NASA to have been made from early-generation working negatives ( the originals were positive transparencies, like slides) showed that occasionally people who ordered the same catalog number received a slightly different picture . That would seem to indicate that there were additional pictures taken that were not logged in the public records, or that all the public images were cropped from larger originals, or both.

Again, a mixture of truth & fiction. Yes, you could order prints from NASA (and still can). BTW, this also puts paid to claims that images are not released to the public; ALL Apollo images are publically available and have been since the missions were flown.

The problem here is a claim that people received slightly different pictures. I know it's annoying for me to do this, but is there any actual evidence of this? Thousands of people ordered those prints, and many of them still have those prints. Space buffs would order the prints for their collections, and even on occassion get them signed by the astronauts. They would compare prints with other collectors. Some of these original prints - relatively valuable now - even go up for auction. Yet under the scrutiny of collectors who examine such artifacts (for such reasons as quality, authenticity, etc), no-one has encountered this "different picture" problem.

You cannot find anyone familiar with photography who can offer any credible explanation for the weird anomalies and inferior quality of the photos and videos.

A pretty unsupportable claim seeing as how photographic experts continually say exactly the opposite. Read some of the Apollo threads on this board for more information.

Please also note how there is a claim of "...inferior quality..." with respect to the images; this will become important later.

Evan ... I see that you are having a difficult time in attempting to refute the evidence in this article about nasa's phony Apollo photos and other lies .... but at least you are giving it the old college try !

I don't know - I think I am doing a fair job of it. Besides, I don't write it for you; I write it so lurkers and those unfamiliar with Apollo can see through some of these bullxxxx claims, and get them to investigate the claims themselves.

By the way , posting those threads from the UM site was a very unnecessary thing to do ... It's the same ridiculous tactics that were used by Steve Ulman when he posted my threads from the WOS and accused me of being a tag team with Jack .... I really expected more from you than those type of silly tactics .... Doing that only shows how desperate you are to hold on to your illusion about Apollo by trying to discredit me .

See my reply about this on the thread where it occurred.

Evan ... I see that you are having a difficult time in attempting to refute the evidence in this article about nasa's phony Apollo photos and other lies .... but at least you are giving it the old college try !

I don't know - I think I am doing a fair job of it. Besides, I don't write it for you; I write it so lurkers and those unfamiliar with Apollo can see through some of these bullxxxx claims, and get them to investigate the claims themselves.

By the way , posting those threads from the UM site was a very unnecessary thing to do ... It's the same ridiculous tactics that were used by Steve Ulman when he posted my threads from the WOS and accused me of being a tag team with Jack .... I really expected more from you than those type of silly tactics .... Doing that only shows how desperate you are to hold on to your illusion about Apollo by trying to discredit me .

See my reply about this on the thread where it occurred.

*bump for Duane*

My question still stands:

What do you accept as a competent technical authority of the various technical achievements needed for the success of the Apollo lunar landings?

*bump* AGAIN for Duane.

It seems like your only line of defence against me is going completely off topic again , as usual ... Is trying to make me look deceptive in some way , by posting this article , your only way of 'debunking' this authors work ? .... And then linking my posts on other web sites too ? ... How typically disingenuous ( oh no, there's that word again ) of all of you ...

No, you complained that you were mistreated on another board (insults, not being given a chance to properly reply). I responded to that claim with examples of that alleged mistreatment, giving people the chance to draw their own conclusions.

And I am responding to the article, point-by-point, starting at the begining (i.e. Part 1).

BTW, why did you have to start five threads on the same topic? If the number of images was the limitation, why didn't you make a post with the maximum number of images allowed in a single post then make another post in the same thread with further images, etc?

IMO, it just clutters the board.

Pressed for assurances that everything was A-OK, the scientists admitted that the best odds they could predict for total equipment reliability, given that several factors had to be speculations, were less-than-even. The odds of mission success were much higher, if one took the reasonable stance that most things would not go wrong, so overall it looked good to go. The politicians wanted worst-case figures of even money or better, and they weren't getting them. The PR value lay in portraying the trip as a harrowing adventure, a battle for the Future won by brilliance and dedication...and by the USA, of course. But no one wanted there to be any chance of losing any astronauts. This particular mission (the first landing), arguably the most flat-out dangerous thing in Space attempted to that date, had to be made safer than any previous manned mission had been. That was not certifiable.

Let's look at this in a little more detail, because it blends truth with fiction so that the result appears to be something it is not.

There was risk. There were things that could go wrong. The chance of success, however, was certainly better than 50/50; if that had been the case they would NOT have launched (NASA mandated a 99.99% reliability on equipment). Nevertheless, things could go wrong, and on the first lunar landing mission their might be situations never before encountered (and there were - more later). Because of this, the flight plan had GO / NO GO steps built into it. At critical stages of the landing, certain criteria had to be met; if they were not met, then it was an automatic NO GO / abort. Safety was the PRIME concern.

Firstly there were COMMS problems, most importantly the flow of spacecraft telemetry data to Mission Control. No data, no land. Spacecraft re-orientation and a change of antenna gave an acceptable solution.

Then came the well-known 1201 and 1202 computer alarms. This meant that the LM computer was being over-whelmed with requirements to process data, and it could not cope. This appeared to be a NO-GO situation, but the expert on hand, a (then) young man named Steve Bales had come across this during the simulations. During the simulation, he had recommended an ABORT because of this. In the simulation debrief, it was explained that it was not an ABORT unless the alarms were continuous. He told the Flight Director that they were GO unless the alarms were continuous (another example of the various expert Flight Controllers that provided advice to the Flight Director). The problem turned out to be a procedural error in the checklist; the computer was trying to analyse landing data while at the same time compute rendezvous data with the CSM.

The last one was the landing position. This had been chosen in advance, based on surveys of the lunar surface conducted by orbital probes and Apollo 8 and 10. After LM pitchover, when the astronauts could begin to see where they were going to land, Armstrong noted that the programmed waypoints were appearing slightly earlier than had been planned. This meant that the LM would 'land long', i.e. land PAST its programmed landing point. When Armstrong saw the terrain in which the LM computer was planning to take them, he took over manual control and looked for a clear landing site. He flew past the original landing area, and with Buzz Aldrin giving him updates on height / velocity / fuel remaining before a mandatory abort, he found a clear area on which to land the LM safely.

This was NOT part of a show; it was NOT a 'near disaster' - it was a validation of the selection of test pilots, a validation of the training, confirmation that people could adapt to situations that were not necessarily foreseen.

(I could also bring up the AFTER-landing checklist. Within seconds of confirming that Apollo 11 was on the surface, Mission Control began to run the STAY / NO STAY checklist. If things were doubtful, they could almost immediately launch from the surface and rendezvous safely with the CSM. Kennedy's challenge would have still been met.)

(deleted - dupe post)

I should return to one technical question that I am sure has occurred to many reading this: the functional capabilities of the LEM. I will not cite a bunch of interpretive numbers about thrust and escape velocities here, nor quibble about burn times. Assuming that enough fuel could have been taken along, the stated thrust of the engine on the descent stage (44,500 newtons, or 10,000 lbs., throttle-controlled for maneuvering as necessary to 1/10th of that) should have been able to land the craft safely. An engine of about 1/3rd that thrust on the ascent stage might have been enough to fling the capsule back up to lunar orbit to rejoin the Command Module. Just for the sake of the argument, let's stipulate that both pieces of hardware were adequate. But there was virtually no leeway, and no redundancy at all, in those engines. They worked completely, or you died

This part is actually correct. There was no redundancy. It was a simple mechanical valve, and the designers felt very confident it would work (it had never failed in testing). The fuels were what is known as hypergolic fuels - they reacted on contact. This was not a situation where you needed an ignition source, or correct mixing, etc. When they came in contact, they reacted and thrust was produced.

Actually it was the website author, not Duane, who has the problem - but I can see why there is confusion; because of the reference being given on the last part of the series of threads.

*bump for Duane*

My question still stands:

What do you accept as a competent technical authority of the various technical achievements needed for the success of the Apollo lunar landings?

I mentioned in an earlier chapter that there was concern about psychological shock to the astronauts, not from a balky rocket engine, but from confronting the truly awesome ruins of the Old Culture. They would face the reality of an ancient civilization that was almost unimaginably more advanced than ours, yet so different in paradigm that linear comparison seemed impossible. A civilization built by our own ancestors- or our creators ? The connection was obvious, inescapable, between us and the Old Ones, the Builders, the Martians. They were not physically different from us, but their mindset, science, and priorities were as alien as alien could be. These things NASA already knew, and they absolutely did not want to reveal them to the general population.

So now we have ancient civilizations on the Moon?

Errrrr... yeah, right. Sure. Whatever you say.

(Slowly backs away...)

The astronauts, advised of the dangers therein (and reminded of their security clearances), agreed to a little "assistance" from the psychologists. If you roam through the stories in the popular press from the Apollo years, you will find numerous references to the "conditioning" (unspecified) they underwent as part of their training. Nice little human-interest points, but why did test pilots ("No problem- we lost the main engine, but I had beans for lunch, so I'll grab my lighter and bring the plane in...") need time with shrinks? The later missions had crews with backgrounds in technical science, not just hot dog pilots, and they received the same training. No one at NASA was worried about exhilarated fly-boys doing any unauthorized barnstorming- it was purely a security issue.

Psychology was an important part of spaceflight. For Mercury, people were unsure of the pyschological effects of spaceflight. Some thought there would be the 'breakoff' phenomena, where the subject is overwhelmed by the experience.

So psychological screening was introduced as part of the astronaut selection process.

Another part of the psychology was to 'desensitise' the astronauts to the experience; this is the "conditioning" refered to. Astronauts would be put through simulated launches, complete with the noise and shaking of a real launch. They would undergo runs in centrifuges to accustom them to high G-forces. They would undergo long periods of reduced sensory input. Far from being "unspecified", it is all detailed here, both factors in selection and during training.

Finally, psychological health checks were regularly conducted on the astronauts. Although these were outstanding individuals who were used to dealing with stressful situations, they faced work pressures constantly, and so they were monitored to ensure that the astronauts were coping with them.

I seem to remember that one of the Forum members has experience in psychology; perhaps they would like to have some input to this?

I have stressed the political ramifications intentionally. The vast majority of people working on Apollo were not lawyers and / or politicians, nor were they intending to fabricate a dog-and-pony show. If deception was to be introduced as an "option", all the dedicated engineers and scientists needed to be reassured, mollified somehow. They (the project leaders, anyway) were told that "as soon as" the problems were solved, the "next" launch would be totally legitimate, and any bogus data would be replaced.

Once again, evidence of this?

This would also seem to contradict Duane's stance; he has said that only a small number of people would need to be "in on it" for a successful deception.

The USSR had at this point basically backed away from a manned Moon mission after encountering the same stumbling block, but they might be re-invigorated if we decided to start over.

Wrong again. There was an active Soviet lunar landing programme in 1964 all the way until 1974 - after the Apollo programme had finished. The main hurdle to the Soviet programme was the N-1 rocket, which would lift the required hardware into orbit. Unlike the US, the USSR did not have powerful engines like the Saturn V's F-1s. To get the required thrust to lift the payload to orbit, the N-1 had 30 engines in its first stage alone (compare that to the five engines in the Saturn V). This was a complex system, and the first test flights all failed. With time the problems would have been ironed out, but the Soviets gave up on it by 1974.

Details on the Soviet lunar landing programme can be found here.

A compromise of sorts was reached. The first "landing event" would happen on schedule, no matter what. To redesign the LEM could mean scrapping almost everything else and starting over, and there was no way that could be done. Apart from the added costs of building new equipment, the stated time limit for getting there would be exceeded, which would be in itself a political failure.

Where is the evidence that says the first landing would be faked?

Redesigning the LM? Yes, that happened - it was a process of evolution and it happens not only in spacecraft but aircraft as well (not to mention a multitude of other hardware in various fields, from prototype to production). The sentance, however, gives the impression that there were LMs built & they would have to be scrapped; this is not so.

The LM started as a design concept to meet the NASA requirements. As those requirements altered, the design changed. Experience with mockups led to further design changes, albeit relatively minor. Even as the landings were taking place, experience gained from those landings was being incorporated into the design: redundant systems removed, defects rectified, improvements made, etc.

This is the normal evolution for aerospace craft. I can provide a variety of examples - apart from NASA designs - if anyone is interested.

Have a read about the whole history of the LM design:

Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft

So the artilce posted on the UM site is full of it ... I never had a chance to even properly reply to any of that crap posted there because the hateful moderators and the nasa stooges, like MID , were too busy personally insulting me ... and I have had enough of their insults...... Then they lock all the Apollo threads on that "spit in your face" web site .... It looks like the moderators there don't want Apollo discussed on their forums because nobody knows how to behave and discuss this subject like rational adults ...

For those who are interested, some examples of the "hateful moderators" who are "...busy personally insulting..." Duane (AKA Straydog):

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=84915

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=84783

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=85109

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=84491

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=83397

Have a read for yourself, and make up your own mind.

Duane -

I sure it was just an oversight.

This is the web page from this site that Duane copied the information from.

He put a link on the last part of the series, though didn't make it clear that it was a cut & paste job.

Just an oversight, I agree.