Evan Burton

His answer was simple: there was no problem. I countered with the Van Allen Belt. He admitted the radiation levels there were dangerous, but said shielding easily handled that. I cited the weight issue, and that caused him to grab a napkin and his ballpoint pen. He explained that lightweight laminar shielding, a series of thin layers of suitable different materials separated by appropriate voids (spaces), could diffract the incoming ionizing radiation and cause it to decay into relatively harmless byproducts easily blocked by the last layer. Figure a way to circulate water in there, and you were really safe. He was pretty convincing, so much so that I was driven to ask why this diffraction shielding technique was not more widely known, and especially why it was not used for, say, power plants, where the thick shielding becomes contaminated over time and has to be replaced. His answer to that one was chilling:

"Why waste a secret? They don't need it."

I refer you to this thread where the radiation problem is discussed, and a number of documents are quoted... including (gasp!) sheilding for radiation protection.

Rather than make a long post, I'll deal with points raised in the Duane's reference one by one.

Firstly, the ability to see Apollo artifacts or indeed a 'man on the moon' by Earth-based telescopes.

To begin, I have sent an e-mail to Mr Illanes at the VLT in Chile, asking him to confirm that he made the quoted statement. I'd find it very unusual if he did, because it is widely known by astronomers that it is impossible using currently available Earth-based telescopes. The resolution just isn't high enough.

According to this website, Can we see Apollo hardware on the Moon, the VLT resolution is 0.07 arc-seconds. The required resolution to see any Apollo artifacts (the LM descent stage being the biggest) is 0.003 arc seconds.

That link also shows the shadow cast by the LM during the Apollo 15 mission, and images of it taken from the CSM during lunar orbit.

This website gives a good rundown of the Clementine mission, the cameras and equipment it had aboard, and what it could see.

Although you put a link at the end, you really should make people aware that this entire series is simply a cut & paste from the Rongtolas website (http://www.rongtolas.com/page2.html).

You wouldn't want people thinking it is your original work.

Now, this website was discussed on the Bad Astronomy website over 18 months ago.

http://64.207.216.12/showthread.php?t=16662

You can read the discussion there, and I am happy to discuss any points raised, either from the website or the BABB discussion of it.

I'll go through the rest of the earlier posts, and point out the major errors.

Like I said previously - I have already taken those photographs show Jack is wrong.

Let me state quite clearly: these images have not been cropped or altered (except for any resizing done by the forum software, not by me).

If Jack would like to accuse me of faking these images in any way, he should confront me publicly.

If not, he should withdraw his claim.

As always, I am not holding my breath.

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager

than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

A second thought occurs: Does the Pedlow/Welzenbach tome omit all reference to Scoville's resignation? Surely not?!

It mentions that he resigned because he was "...frustrated with the lack of support from the DCI and the other directorates..."

Okay then, back on track:

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

I already answered your question ... I use nasa sites to show that the Apollo Program was a 30 billion dollar scam and swindle .....When I use conspiracy sites to prove this sad fact , everyone complains that it is just ignorant , incorrect information which can be easily debunked .... If ONE thing is shown to be incorrect on any conspiracy site , then the nasa defenders claim that the entire site is wrong and that ALL of the evidence on it can not be trusted or used as a source for proving that Apollo was a hoax ...

So I decided if you really want to uncover a lie ( the Apollo manned moon missions ) you need to go to the source of that lie ( nasa ) .... and that is where you can discover how they not only faked the Apollo photography but also the entire Apollo Program .

On the other hand, you and the other nasa defenders use nasa sites to try to prove that the manned moon landings were real events .... and there in lies the problem.... nasa has made some very extraordinary claims when it comes to their alleged technical abilities of landing six manned missions on the moon from 1969 to 1972 .... and has been stated before , extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof .... but sadly, nasa doesn't have any technical proof of ever landing men on the moon , except for the self serving , uncorrorborated information on their own web sites ..... Unless there is outside verification of these alleged technical accomplishments , then unsubstantiated nasa sources can not be used as proof of their claims of landing manned missions on the moon .

You're a good little Jack White clone, Duane. Ignore the evidence when it doesn't support your view, state things as fact (over and over and over) when they are actually proven wrong, make technical determinations in fields where you have no experience, interpret data as saying exactly the opposite to what it says, etc.

You sure you're not Jack's secret love child?

The CIA had its own (small) fleet of U-2s, and the USAF had their own fleet (albeit not as advanced in ECM or performance as the CIA fleet).

Formal responsibility for U-2 overflights of Cuba was turned over to the USAF on 12 OCT 62. This was because it was thought that the cover story for the CIA pilots (Lockheed employees ferrying aircraft) was too weak, and it would be better to use USAF pilots and claim it was a mission which had strayed off course. This was agreed, but it was pointed out the CIA aircraft were more capable and the USAF pilots were not familiar with them. It was decided to use USAF pilots after they had done a familiarisation with the CIA aircraft.

(Memorandum for DCI McCone from McGeorge Bundy, "Reconnaissance of Cuba", 12 OCT 62)

The person who objected to the transfer of responsibility was the Acting DCI, GEN Marshall S. Carter, US Army. He felt that the CIA already had demonstrated command & control of such flights, whereas the USAF lacked experience in controlling overflights. carter thought that changing C&C at such a crucial time was a mistake.

(The CIA and the U-2 Program 1954-1974, Gregory W. Pedlow & Donald E. Welzenbach, 1998)

I still don't see anything linking the crash to the events of JFK. U2s crashed before and after the events, and under similar circumstances.

What's the deal?

Evan ... My post was not directed to you ... It was written to the king of insults himself , the despicable Craig Lamson ... That is unless you are the same person using different names .

I don't insult people until they have stepped all over me with thier condescending insults first ... It's rather difficult to have a discussion about any of this with these types of tactics being used all the time ... The purpose is to frustrate the conspiracy researchers to the point where they are so disgusted by this crap that they all just give up and go away .... Calling us ignornant , uninformed , dishonest etc. etc. is done with the sole purpose of trying to make us all look stupid and also used to get us to insult you back ...

This is such a waste of time ... The old program of ridicule , ad homs and vilifying the opposition is utterly ridiculous , but unfortunately continues to be used repeatedly on every forum where the Apollo discussions take place . ... I was hoping on this forum at least , that this type of behavior wouldn't take place and that things would be different ... But obviously not .

Then post verifiable facts. Point to peer-reviewed documents that support your position. Show scientific research which directly contradicts what NASA has published. Demonstrate, through reproducable experiments, inconsistancies in claims made by the Apollo programme. Give examples of engineering data which disproves that the equipment could perform the functions as claimed.

Don't start whinging & crying, acting like everyone else is the schoolyard bully, just because they can effectively counter the claims you make.

Opinion is one thing, claiming opinion as fact is another.

Duane,

You go ahead and insult me in whatever manner you choose. Insults are not important; facts are. Facts are stubborn things. To paraphrase an old saying:

"Insults don't break my bones, but the lack of facts hurts my credibility"

We have shown the experiments that measured the radiation levels on the Moon, the levels that were recorded by the missions, the levels of other space missions for reference, the scientific papers that were written based on the levels recorded, the reasons for needing to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, the opinions of experts that the levels were survivable, etc, etc.

We have shown examinations of lunar samples by qualified personnel stating that they could not have been 'reproduced' on the Earth, the methods that the astronauts used to collect lunar samples (including core samples), the amounts of samples gathered, the comparison to samples collected by the Soviet LUNA robotic missions, etc.

You have shown....? Any peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that the missions were deadly? An opinion from a suitably-qualified person that could be examined by other qualified people? Any evidence that the various pieces of hardware were unable to perform their stated function? Any opinions from suitably-qualified personnel that the lunar samples were faked?

Any real evidence to give any substance to your claims?

Stop sprouting off and show some facts. I won't hold my breath waiting for any.

I, too, would like to find a NASA quote that says that only a few rocks were picked up by the astronauts, and the rest were picked up automatically. I can't find anything like that so far.

LOL! Excellent, Sid!

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year from what some people naively believe is Australia.

I managed to find a bio of Charles. T. Hawkins from a website of a radio show on which he appeared:

Charles Hawkins was recently asked to conduct an in depth evaluation of the NASA Apollo Moon landings and make a scientific evaluation of their legitimacy. Has over 20 years of experience in the applied sciences, industrial electronics and robotics as well as a degree in computer science.

After two years of extensive research, he concluded that the Apollo astronauts Moon Landing could not and did not occur, and that the whole thing was a hoax. He has just completed a new over 300-page book revealing his findings called “How America Faked the Moon Landings”. It contains a great deal of new, controversial, never before seen evidence in which he claims proves conclusively that NASA staged the moon landings here on earth.

http://www.777radio.com/ssi/charles_hawkins_bio.shtml

Now, I have some questions about this. How does experience in applied science, industrial electronic & robotics make "Charles Hawkins, one of the greatest scientific minds of our time..."? I don't see any mention of papers he has submitted for peer review, research upon which has been taken up by others, nominations for a Nobel prize, etc, listed anywhere that I can find. Granted, he may be a very intelligent & accomplished man (though I still can't find any details of this) but I think calling him "... one of the greatest scientific minds of our time..." is gilding the lily.

Some of the questions on the website also are.... curious.

6. I see that you also claim to know how NASA’s Moon Rocks are fake, Please explain.

Yes, I'd also be interested. Has Mr Hawkin's applied science included geology / lunar science? After all, his seems to disputing people who have specialised in this field, indeed some of the world's experts.

7. You have claimed that the radiation the astronauts would have encountered traveling to and from the moon was far greater than a human being could tolerate? Please explain.

Same again for the biological & radiological sciences.

Oh, and the link to the website on the bottom of that page links to a real estate saleman. Obviously not the same person; I suspect that the domain name has been sold since the bio was put up.

I now have Charlie's book ... He obviously is not the same guy who wrote that disertation but he is a very real person with some pretty impressive credentials , and not someone else pretending to be him ...

Could you post his credentials? I have been unable to find anything about him at all.

He wrote his book after spending two years of investigating the Apollo Program , mostly online with a team of what he calls his "whiz kids " .... The book is a hoot ! ... It's mostly written for this team of kids for all the hard work they put into investigating the Apollo hoax ... The story goes like this ... He came home from work one day to find his son and some of his friends online discussing some of the moon hoax info and exclaiming that the Apollo astronauts never really went to he moon ! ... Charlie told them that they had to be kidding ? ... Of course the Apollo astronausts went to the moon ! ... Why would they think they hadn't ? .... Then the kids preceeded to show him some of the evidence they had found online showing that Apollo was a hoax .... Well, Charlie wasn't buying any of it , but he asked the kids if they would be interested in doing a project about it ... He told them if they really believed this wild claim to investigate it in depth and see what evidence they could come up with which would prove the Apollo photographs were not really taken on the moon or that the astronauts never really went there ...

That's an excellent method.

So they started to look through hundreds of Apollo photos to see what anomalies they could find ... and boy did they find them ! ... But here is where Charlie's book gets pretty wild and silly , because the photos the kids came up with showed various different animals on the 'lunar' surface in the form of what are obvioulsy rocks and probably other misidentified objects ... The "bunnies in the clouds " thing ..... But here's where it gets better .... Charlie was so fascinated by what the kids were finding that he started to conduct his own investigation ... He studied thousands of Apollo photos , and didn't find animals but rather other anomalies such as torn spacesuits, astronaut dummies straped to lunar ladders and buggies , evidence of fly system harnesses ( like the one's they used in the practice sims ) propped up against the LM , fly system harness plugs and partial straps attached to the PLSS backpacks , which were not air brushed out of the photos , cryptic messages written in the 'lunar' soil, astronauts with open helmets ( Jack's "Mystery Image" is one of them ) and much more ....

I'd be very interested in seeing them. I've look through a fair few in my time, and have never seen anything like that. I presume he gives image numbers? And sources for the images?

The frustrating part is that the pictures in his book are very small and difficult at times to see these anomalies very clearly ... and even though he gives most of the photo numbers , they are numbers I don't recognize from the Apollo Image Gallery and some of them he warns would most likely be pulled from the nasa sites after the publication of his book .... I have looked at enough Apollo photos to know that they are all official nasa's Apollo photos though and apparently some do contain anomalous objects .... But what some of these objects are , is hard to tell .

If he has the image numbers, and they have been "pulled", we'll be able to tell. There are lists of all Apollo image numbers which were published well before Mr Hawkins ever started investigating the images.

There was one photo which he misidentified in his book though ... He claims that nasa claims it was taken on the moon , when in fact it was a photo taken during a training session .... The appparent confusion was that this photo was produced in color showing the studio background and then at some point was produced and posted on a nasa site in black and white with a black curtain dropped in the background to cover the back wall of the studio .... and then was somehow misidentified as having been taken on the moon ... He thought that nasa was trying to pass off a studio photo as a moon photo .... and from looking at his other evidence, I doubt this was any slight of hand done by him intentionally.

Yes, that would be unforetunate. Once you alter the evidence to fit your theory, then your examination of a subject becomes invalidated.

He also goes into much more than the amomalies in the Apollo photos and discusses different aspects of the Apollo hoax evidence that other conspiracy researchers have never gone into before .... He explains and even shows nasa training pictures of how 1/6 gravity was faked for the film footage by using fly systems rigged on walls ( not overhead )...

I'm wondering if this is the training system they developed at Langly to simulated 1/6 gravity?

...and then the 'moon' was superimposed using blue screen imaging , how the LM really 'flew' , how early grid blue screen imaging was used to shoot some of the astronaut's still photos on the 'moon' ( and has pictures to prove this ) ... and that's as far as I've gotten so far ....

I know that was used in Star Trek, but am not sure how the technology transfers to still photography.

But then as Charlies wrote in the beginning of his book .... "I doubt you will able to find some of these photos on the nasa sites after my book is published " .... I bet he's right about that !

If he has quoted the NASA image numbers, then there will be no doubt. Various countries around the world have samples of the images from just after the moonwalks.

"These are also backed up by the pictures and videos of them being collected as well as the ALSJ. "

Sorry , but nasa web sites , photos and vidoes are not proof of anything .... There would need to be outside corroboration of nasa's allleged accomplishments , including how the moon rocks were gatherd , during the Apollo missions ... and unfortunately for nasa , no one else was on the 'moon' to back up their claims of going where no man has gone before ! ... or since , for obvious reasons .

So you set yourself up beautifully; because NASA is not good enough, you can claim there is nothing to dismiss your theories. If anything does, then you dismiss it as NASA disinformation... or maybe NWO propaganda. Open-minded... yeah, sure.

I can't figure out if you are being deliberately ignorant about this or not; in any case, I'm not going to go too far out of my way to try and educate you anymore.

You have been told about the experiments that were left on the surface, and the personal dosimeters. You have been given links to where you can research the subject. If you do some research instead of simply parroting conspiracy websites, here is what you'll find:

THE COSMIC-RAY AND SOLAR FLARE BOMBARDMENT OF THE MOON

J. Damico, J. Defelice, E.L. Fireman

NASA

1 JAN 1970

NUCLEAR EMULSION RECORDINGS OF THE ASTRONAUTS RADIATION EXPOSURE ON THE FIRST LUNAR LANDING APOLLO 11

H.J. Schaefer, J.J. Sullivan

NASA

29 JUN 1970

MEASUREMENT OF RADIATION EXPOSURE OF ASTRONAUTS BY RADIOCHEMICAL TECHNIQUES

R.L. Brodzinski

NASA

15 JAN 1971

15 APR 1972

(Quarterly publication)

HEAVY COSMIC RAY EXPOSURE OF APOLLO ASTRONAUTS

E.V. Benton, R.P. Henke, J.V. Bailey

Johnson Space Centre

24 JAN 1975

These are just some of the publications freely available to anyone who wants to research the subject.

I have seen the clip in question and as I remember it, the dialog is exactly as posted by Evan although I think the source he used may have the names wrong as Armstrong looked over to Collins for him to answer (because Collins was the one that was principle on the solar corona experiment) and Collins answered that he didn't remember seeing any. Again, the question was specifically about stars in the solar corona. Since it makes sense that they couldn't see stars on the surface of the daylit side of the moon or in the corona, what is this really supposed to prove? One can not definitively say that their body language shows that they are lying. At most it shows that they are tired after having spent a long time in space and then time in quarantine and debriefing with NASA. Maybe they just really wanted to go home?

Matthew,

That's the name it gives in the NASA transcript. If there is a video recording of it, we can check and get NASA to correct the published transcript.

Duane,

He answered the question:

"ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics..."

His further answer covered the case that the reporter was actually refering to the inflight photography:

"...I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see."

Aldrin (or perhaps Collins?) confirms he didn't see any whilst photographing the solar corona.

They do mention briefly seeing things from the CM inflight:

14.4 Passive Thermal Control

Collins

Passive thermal control three modes – we didn't have three modes, we just had the one mode. We always rolled G&N control at 0.3 deg/sec; that procedure we've already talked about. There were no differences in transearth, although the geometry of the vehicles was a lot different and I thought that the command module by itself would go unstable more quickly. Neil thought it would not, and he was right. It was very stable on the way back, just as it was on the way out.

Aldrin

The LMP would have preferred pointing north. However, there was an added advantage in that we got to look at the Magellanic clouds by PTC-ing at 270.

Armstrong

To look at the earth, to look north, you had to get upside down.

Collins

Yes, we went out in 090 pitch angle and came back 270 pitch angle. It's "macht nichts" to me; I don't care one way or the other.

Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing, Section 14

Not exactly the stars, but close enough.

Matthew is correct. The optics refered to are those in the LM. It's also Armstrong & Aldrin who answer.

REPORTER I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. The footprint would penetrate a half an inch or sometimes only a quarter of an inch and gave a very firm response. In other regions near the edges of these craters we could find that the foot would sink down maybe 2, 3, possibly 4 inches and in the slope, of course, the varlous edges of the footprint might go up to 6 or 7 inches. In compacting this material it would tend to produce a slight sideways motion as it was compacted on the material underneath it. So we feel that you cannot always tell by looking at the surface what the exact resistance will be as your foot sinks into a point of firm contact. So one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough surface.

ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

ALDRIN I don't remember seeing any.

(The First Lunar Landing As Told By The Astronauts: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins in a Post-flight Press Conference, NASA EP-73, 1989 pt. VI)

http://www.solarviews.com/history/EP-73/ch-7.html

He's refering to the solar corona photography, which was during the translunar coast.

Measuring the levels of radiation on the lunar surface is not the same thing as those personal skin dosage meters that the Apollo astronauts allegedy carried with them to make sure they weren't receiving lethal doses of radiation while strolling on the 'moon' one day ...

There were radiation experiments in addition to the personal dosimeters.

Today's scientists are the first one's to admit that they don't know very much about the moon at all ... and also that they have no knowledge of the amounts of radiation on the lunar surface .... So no , it was not measured during the Apollo missions .

No, they have limited knowledge about lunar radiation. With today's increased knowledge of the biological effects of radiation, and the requirement for long duration exposure, better understanding of the lunar radiation environment is required.

I have read this same information several times now , on both pro and anti nasa sites , that only a few rocks were picked up by the astronauts and the rest were gathered by mechanical means .... I will see if I can find that web site again ... They defended Apollo and ripped apart all of the conspiracy information ... Then they made the claim about how most of the rocks were gathered by mechanical means , all the while disscussing how the moon rocks were the real physical proof of nasa landing men on the moon .... Yeah , right !

ALL the Apollo lunar samples were retrieved by "hand". They may have used a hand-operated grabber to pick some up (like a pair of tongs), but none of the Apollo samples were recovered remotely. They took heaps of images of the samples in place so they would have the sample's context. Sometimes they used a geologist's hammer. Sometimes they used the tongs. Sometimes it was a soil sample using the contingency bag. Sometimes it was core samples from drilling into lunar surface.

AS12-47-6932

AS15-86-11544

AS14-68-9454

Even many of the hard-core 9/11 CTists distance themselves from the 'pod people'. I believe that is what got killtown alienated from there for some time.

This all gets very interesting.

Duane mentioned the 5GHz thesis by...... Charles T. Hawkins, for a Master of Science (IIRC). That is real enough. So this Hawkins must be at least be scientifically trained, right?

I'm not sure. Apparently in Mr Hawkins book, he says he was born in 1962. The thesis by Charles T Hawkins was submitted in 1968.

Apparently Jay Windley, Bob Braeunig, and Phil Plait have all had some experience with someone who claimed to be his publisher:

http://www.clavius.org/bibhawkins.html

I'm going to reserve judgement on this person until I can confirm some details.

Hi John,

Yep, they had to be able to see the stars - but as I explained to Jack and you know for yourself, you have to let your eyes adjust to the darkness first.

Some bits about stars and darkness from the Apollo Flight Journal.

Apollo 8:

000:47:18 Lovell (onboard): I hope I can see something out of here soon.

[if Jim doesn't see anything soon, he will not be able to accomplish the P52 realign. Since this is the first since launch, it is important before they head out of Earth orbit so he tries dimming the cabin lights to let his eyes adapt to the dimness of the stars. Delaying the P52 a few minutes rather than having it directly after crossing the terminator (the line between day and night) might have helped.]000:47:20 Borman (onboard): How's the cabin pressure?

000:47:22 Anders (onboard): It has kind of eased down a little bit.

000:47:27 Borman (onboard): What are you doing, Jim?

000:47:29 Lovell (onboard): I'm okay. I'm just getting this all put together here.

000:47:33 Borman (onboard): Do you want me to read off anything to you - from the checklist? From a checklist, maybe?

000:47:38 Lovell (onboard): I've got the P52 realign. You might kind of doublecheck me on it; maybe - I'm here and I'm going to turn down the floodlights and get - get my eye adapted here, because I don't see schmatz out there right now.

000:50:38 Anders (onboard): There's a couple of nice stars out here.

(my note: Anders is looking out the window, Lovell is at the sextant)

000:50:40 Lovell (onboard): ...Enter. Okay. All set, gentlemen?

000:50:44 Borman (onboard): Yes.

000:50:46 Anders (onboard): Hey, there's a bunch of stuff flying off this thing.

(my note: Anders is referring to minor debris that is around the spacecraft, this mostly generated when the covers that protected the optics during launch were jettisoned)

000:50:47 Lovell (onboard): I know; that's what I was afraid of.

000:50:50 Anders (onboard): Real bright - I wonder why they're so bright?

000:50:52 Borman (onboard): The Sun's shining.

000:50:54 Anders (onboard): Are we - We're boiling?

000:50:55 Borman (onboard): Is the sun shining, really?

000:50:56 Borman (onboard): Yes, look here, I got sun in it.

000:50:58 Anders (onboard): Oh Christ [laughter], I thought it was night time over here!

000:51:01 Anders (onboard): I can see a lot of stars over on this side.

000:51:06 Borman (onboard): What are you doing, Jim?

000:51:07 Lovell (onboard): Well, I'm getting the optics adjusted here.

000:51:09 Borman (onboard): Yes, they make you...

000:51:10 Lovell (onboard): Okay, 06; 06 is what? 06 is Acamar. Worst star in the world for me to look at! Oh, I'm getting more stars now.

[Jim is at the stage where he selects the stars he will use for the realignment. The first he has to use is number 6, Acamar or Theta Eridanus. At about magnitude 3, it's not the brightest star he could be given as his first.]

000:51:22 Lovell (onboard): Okay, here we go, gentlemen.

000:51:24 Anders (onboard): You got a real bright star...

000:51:26 Lovell (onboard): Zero off, right?

000:51:27 Borman (onboard): Yes.

000:51:28 Anders (onboard): Real bright star - star like...

000:51:30 Lovell (onboard): Zero off.

000:51:31 Borman (onboard): CMC; Optic mode should be CMC.

000:51:34 Lovell (onboard): CMC? Oh, to C, huh?

000:51:49 Lovell (onboard): Holy cow!

000:51:50 Borman (onboard): Any luck?

000:51:57 Lovell (onboard): Well, it stopped by a star. The star's out, but I don't know what it is, though.

[Having placed the optics under control of the computer [or CMC], Jim can have it drive them to where it thinks the star is.]

000:52:01 Borman (onboard): Can you see it through the telescope?

000:52:03 Lovell (onboard): Yes. It seems to look like - Okay, I'm going to go to Resolve - Low, and Manual.

[Jim then manually steers the sextant until the reticle is precisely aligned with the star. He then presses the Mark button. by setting Resolve to Low, he allows the optics to move at their lowest speed.]

000:52:31 Lovell (onboard): CMC; proceed; Spica's the one I want; proceed; okay; 15, that's Sirius.

[star 15, Sirius or Alpha Canis Major, is his second star.]

000:52:41 Borman (onboard): We there yet?

000:52:43 Lovell (onboard): Yes, proceeding.

Apollo 12:

001:56:49 Gordon (onboard): After you put all that in the DSKY, I'll do my align ...

001:56:51 Conrad (onboard): Wait, wait. Let me finish.

001:56:53 Gordon (onboard): I will. I will.

001:56:55 Conrad (onboard): You're not all the way in darkness yet anyhow.

001:56:57 Gordon (onboard): Yes, but I got stars ...

001:57:01 Conrad (onboard): Got them in the ...

001:57:02 Gordon (onboard): I can't make out ...

001:57:03 Conrad (onboard): ...telescope?

001:57:04 Gordon (onboard): ...I got two, I got two stars in the telescope.

002:09:29 Bean (onboard): I see - you see those RCS flash; there's another one.

002:09:32 Conrad (onboard): That's got to be the S-IVB.

002:09:34 Conrad (onboard): Yes. Everybody said they saw them.

002:09:37 Gordon (onboard): I got a bunch of stars out my window, now. Let me see. Anybody I recognize? Upside down, looking out ...

002:09:45 Conrad (onboard): That's the problem. I don't know what attitude I was in.

Apollo 15:

[Worden, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "Navigation [in lunar orbit]was about as it was on translunar coast. The guidance system was very tight. I never had any problem getting a star pair. Whether I was doing a slow orb-rate maneuver or whether I was inertial [i.e. in an attitude held with respect to the stars]. P52s worked very well.]

["I still had the problem with the sextant. Even on the back side of the double umbra [where neither the Earth or Sun light the Moon], the sextant was very difficult to use - to identify constellations and to identify the stars. The attenuation in the sextant was really much more than I had anticipated. I could look out a window and see the star field very clearly. In fact, it was much brighter than I expected it to be. There were so many stars in the field of view out the window that, in a way, it was a little difficult to find a constellation and to find the navigation stars. But through the sextant, only the very brightest stars came through. I was able to identify the stars after a while, after I was used to the star pattern, and I did the alignments just about the same place every time."]

etc, etc, etc.

I think this site explains it quite well:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

Duane,

I get accused of 'nitpicking' when i point out inaccuracies, so I'll try to limit myself in this case.

1. How would you react if someone set up an interview with you under false pretenses, called you a coward or a xxxx, demanded you swear on the bible, stalked your family, broke into your home? Mr Sibrel has been guilty of all of these with various astronauts.

"Why didn't they just laugh at him , if he is such a nut ? "

How have YOU reacted on this very forum when there has been the slightest hint of a slur against your character? And you are not someone who gave up years in training, had his marriage tested, risked their life for their country in space activity, and then have had people say it was a lie.

2. Reclusive? Armstrong became a univerity lecturer / professor (as well as a board member for various activities); hundreds of students aw him on a daily basis. Al Bean became an artist and does exhibitions. Gene Cerenan went on golf tours, became a management speaker for businesses, CEO of his own aerospace corporation. Mike Collins took a position with the NASM. Pete Conrad worked with various aerospace corporations, raced motorbikes and even did an AMEX ad (Do you remember me? I walked on the Moon!). Charlie Duke went to a ministry and does car ads in Australia. Jim Lovell runs a resturaunt. Ed Mitchell became a management consultant, and started up his own facility to investigate psychic research and the paranormal. Jack Schmitt went into politics briefly. Al Shepherd was a MAJOR businessman. John Young stayed with NASA, flying the first shuttle mission, retiring in 2004. All (including Armstrong) have made public appearences, given interviews, etc. Just because you don't see them down the pub, it does NOT mean they are "reclusive".