Evan Burton

No problems here.

It is certainly interesting. Well, we know that someone did it. You can't rule out suicide, either.

The method, however, is quite strange. It's slow, and detectabe. Why not a simple 'street crime' incident? Or an undetectable, rapid-acting poison? If they wanted him to suffer, why not a kidnapping-torture-murder?

The whole thing just doesn't make sense.

Still, John has raised other strange cases so it may be that this is a 'signature' killing - letting others who may speak out know that they will be vunerable.

I'm still very much on the fence - it could have been by a party / parties unknown related to the Russian government or one of its agencies, it could have been from someone unrelated to the Russian government (or any other government), or it could have been a bizzare form of suicide - designed to lay the blame on others.

I don't think we'll ever really know.

Edited to add: Although probably unlikely, we also have to consider that it was unintential; that he was accidently poisoned somehow.

I don't normally inhabit the JFK forum, so I can't judge who this may or may not be.

The fact that this person believes (or perhaps doesn't?) what they may have said about you just goes to demonstrate that some people can have utter faith in things that are totally wrong.

Albeit that you might be a CIA agent (because I have no way of knowing), however I think the chances of that are extremely slim. So slim as to be next to zero.

If anything, I would think you were a KGB sleeper agent!

What a lot of rot.

I disagree with a lot of what you say, but you have continuously demonstrated yourself to be fair and balanced in all matters. You seem to be a person who might "disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it".

Do you know who has made this slur against you?

It's crap.

Are we advertising on this forum now? I have several sites that I'd like to recommend.

Members have every right to publish links to videos or web pages. It is up to members to make up their own mind about the quality of these resources.

Thank you Doug for bringing this to our attention.

Sorry - fair enough. It's the first time I have seen Doug advertise a weblink.

I apologise and withdraw my comments (except that I still think it's a crap video).

It's crap.

Are we advertising on this forum now? I have several sites that I'd like to recommend.

*sigh*

Let's go over this again.

1) As I said in a previous post, it might have been that the Flight Director could not tell a simulation from a real flight. I know they have said it was virtually the same, but not indistinguishable from an actual flight. The Flight Controllers have already said that they could tell the difference (data bit rates, etc). It might help to explain a little more about the difference between a Flight Director and a Flight Controller.

The Flight Director (FLIGHT) has overall operational responsibility for missions and for all decisions regarding safe, expedient flight. He monitors the other Flight Controllers, who are in constant verbal communication with him through intercom channels called "loops". He is in charge. To give you an idea of his responsibility, it might be pertinant to quote from mission rules:

The Flight Director may, after analysis of the flight, choose to take any necessary action required for the successful completion of the mission

He was the man on the spot who made the decisions. How could he analyse the flight? Could he know ever single minutiae of the spacecraft? Did he have thousands of screens giving him all this detail? No. No-one could absorb all this information. He had a single display in front of him, and relied on various details passed to him by the Flight Controllers.

The Flight Controllers were specialists in a specific area of the flight: electrical systems, guidance, propulsion, environment, etc. They had reams of data on their screens - voltages, temperatures, flow rates, etc - and would tell FLIGHT if there was a problem within their areas of responsibility.

So the Flight Controllers could see subtle changes in aspects of the mission - and tell the difference between a simulation and an actual flight, whereas the Flight Director might not.

2) As also stated in a previous post, the simulations were not - and could not be - run continuously for a full mission. That is what would have been required to 'fool' the Flight Controllers and Mission Control. They were presented in segments, and had to be reset / reprogrammed to simulate another phase of the mission. They could not simulate a continuous flight from launch to splashdown, and that is what would have been required.

If you can prove to the contrary, please do so.

Duane, just wondering WHICH of your TWO statements about the quality of the Krantz doco is correct....this one:

So please do quote him correctly because I would hate to have to buy that utterly boring documentary just to have to prove you wrong .

or this one:

In Mr. Krantz's apparent innocence he let it slip out at the very end of this excellent insignificant documentary about nasa's alleged accomplishments during the Apollo missions .....snip...

Excellent or utterly boring...?

Did I say excellent ? ... I meant to say insignificant ... So utterly boring would be the correct answer .

Oh and speaking of hacking web site forums .. The WOS was hit again today and I seem to be the one who was targeted again ( Yes I know .. I'm always playing the victim, aren't I ? .. LOL ) ... but fortunately some of the mess was cleared up rather quickly this time ... but someone seems to have left his calling card behind (so to speak ) as to who did the hacking this time ! ... Pretty stupid thing to do under the circumstances , don't you think ? ... Especially since it leads right back to this forum , just as I suspected .

I registered at the WOS today, and posted one message in a non-Apollo related thread which you hadn't posted in... lo and behold, I can't find that message either.

Duane - does the webmaster have proof that he has been specifically hacked, or is it some kind of bug/virus/worm/corrupted database?

If you have a specific accusation against one of the members of this group then I would politely advise that you ensure there is very good evidence before accusing someone directly - as it stands you are effectively accusing everyone who has posted or read this forum, who believes in Apollo, of hacking the WOS site (whether that was your intention or not).

He has proof that it was hacked .... and after you joined the site , he realized who hacked the site .... Maybe that's why your only post was deleted and your membership was canceled ? ... I didn't accuse everyone on this site of hacking the WOS ... I did say it was possible that it was done by someone reading this forum though, and not necessarily a member ... but of course I know better now and so does the administrator at the WOS .

More discrepancies?

First an "excellent documentry" then a "utterly boring documentry".

That was followed by:

"...I seem to be the one who was targeted again..." then "... maybe that's why your only post was deleted..."

And of course:

"...Especially since it leads right back to this forum , just as I suspected..." then "...I did say it was possible that it was done by someone reading this forum though, and not necessarily a member..."

You just can't get your story straight, can you? Never mind - let's see some of your 'evidence' of Apollo 'fakery'.

In Mr. Krantz's apparent innocence he let it slip out at the very end of this excellent documentray about nasa's alleged accomplishments during the Apollo missions , that NO ONE at Houston's mission control had any way of telling a real launch and landing from one done in the sims .... Quite an unknowing blunder on his part I must say , and I'm sure a statement which he now must regret as ever having admitted to .

He also went on to say that Armstrong had crashed the LM in the sims repeatedly many times before the Apollo 11 launch date , therefore it was not only a great surprise but a huge relief to him and all the other members of mission control when Armstrong miraculously managed to land the LM safely in the unknown and untested conditions of lunar orbit , shortly after repeatedly crashing the LM many times over in the practice simulation sessions .

Has anyone got a copy of this doco, and can check the accuracy of Duane's quote from Gene Kranz? Based on Duanes past record of quote accuracy, I just want to be absolutely sure of what Gene Kranz said.

It's reasonable for Duane to take the stance he has, since I haven't actually shown anything except the text from the e-mail, and Duane would appear to doubt anything I say.

Therefore it would be best to confirm that:

1. I did contact that person and the reply I posted was what they sent back to me;

2. I have no relationship (personal or professional) with that person (except to ask them that question); and

3. What I said was accurate.

Ask them for yourself: the person is Sy Liebergot, and his website is here:

http://www.apolloeecom.com/

Go down to the bottom of the page and you'll see a link marked "Contact Sy". Ask him yourself and see if there has been any deception, inaccuracy, or evasion on my part.

"make your point". Detail what YOU believe is evidence of fakery."

I plan to do just that when I have a bit more time ... and hopefully we will be able to have discussions which won't continue with the typical insults which have already been directed to me .

I haven't seen any undeserved insults, but anyway - thank you. I look forward to seeing your claims.

David G,

I'm not quite sure about the point you are making. Do I have doubts? No. You must, however, examine the other side of the coin to ensure - as you say - that you are not just staying within the comfort zone. When that examination proves claims to be in error - time after time - while the claims by NASA et al DO withstand scrutiny, you can be confident of historical fact.

Duane,

As Craig says - "make your point". Detail what YOU believe is evidence of fakery. I can make claims but without at least some evidence to support those claims, they are nothing more than uninformed opinion. Demonstrate your "...several years of studying both sides of the issue..." by showing WHY your view is valid.

Dave - I agree.

I tend to get testy when people say I "blindly accept" what is told to me. The truth is far different; I question things, and make up my own mind.

I've spoken to aeronautical and aerospace engineers about Apollo. I've seen the developments from the technology. I've seen experts examine it in detail. I've looked up the facts and figures, looked up the formula to calculate various aspects (thrust, speed, fuel usage, etc), and calculated the figures myself. I've read technical reports. I've asked medical people about biomedical reports. I've investigated numerous aspects about it, and it always points to one conclusion - the landings were as recorded.

As you are aware, I've examined the photographic claims of fakery and always found them wanting. I've contacted photographic experts about the claims. I've conducted experiments to verify photographic claims. I'm even shortly going to do an imagery analysis course (military).

And yet people claim an open mind when they say they won't be taught anything, refuse to examine material, dismiss anyone who disagrees with them.... I can only hope such people don't vote and don't breed.

On the thermal blanket, I made a clip that shows the LM under construction and shows the thermal material.

It's large - about 13.9Mb. I'm not very experienced with making manageable size clips as yet. I'll try to get a smaller one done (the original is 60Mb!).

http://www.zippyvideos.com/1932765026291586/lm_clip_small/

And as per usual, Jack's silence says it all. He knows he wrong, he knows he can't support his claims, so he ignores the answers. He doesn't withdraw the claims, he just waits a while then makes them all over again.

I wouldn't expect it; I already covered that one:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5911&st=30#

Took photos showing the absurdity of Jack's claims, urged people to try it for themselves... but in Jack's world, apparently physics and optics are not the same as the world everyone else lives in.

He still hasn't withdrawn the claim; just another example of his intellectual dishonesty.

More input from the flight controllers:

You're right, the simulations were good but far from being perfect and they always (had) some kluges that Pete Klapach or others (were required) to fix each time we ran a simulation. The data flow paths were different and sequencing of data from the tracking sites, pre-processed into 2.4 kbps or I believe later 4.8 kbps bit streams. We did elaborate checkouts of these paths from the bird to a spot on our displays or event lights. The tracking sites knew where their antennas were pointed and when they had data, etc., etc., etc.

These questioners must think that we are stupid (hundreds of us that is); the data was recorded, archived and analyzed by dozens of engineers.

So there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth.

Perhaps the Flight Director would not have noticed the difference between a sim and the real thing, but the various Flight Controllers in the 'Trench' certainly would have.

Excellent work, Dave!

Wish I could claim it for my own, but it's all Pericynthion's off UM.

No, I mean excellent work in finding it!

(dupe post)

I just got an e-mail back from one of the Apollo flight controllers about this subject.

His first advice was to ignore those making the claim - good advice, but I explained why I choose to disregard it.

His most relevant point was that the sims were scheduled in small 'segments' of the flight, recycling to start another segment. In other words, a sim was never run continuously from launch through to splashdown.

In that era, simulation technology was in its infancy; it was an achievement to keep the sim computers from 'crashing'.

To have a sim running continuously for 10-14 days, without error, with audio and visual interaction with the crew, and to do this repeatedly for all the lunar missions is simply outside the realms of possibility.

Pericynthion posted the following on the Unexplained Mysteries website which should clear this up once and for all. He doesn't have posting rights here, so has asked me to post it for him.

His original post can be found here - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...0669&st=161

All the words beloe are his own, not mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a crop of the image in question, AS17-134-20380.

There has been much discussion as to whether the bright streaks and spots on the Gene's visor are scratches or some sort of stage lighting. I side with the group that contends they are just scratches. It occurred to me a few days ago that we have more potential evidence to examine than just the Apollo 17 lunar surface photos. Gene Cernan's suit and LEVA (visor) assembly were returned to Earth and are currently on public display at the National Air and Space Museum (link).

If the features in the above image are indeed scratches on the visor, they should still exist and may be visible on the displayed suit. After a bit of digging on the web, I found this image of Gene's suit at the museum:

The above photo is taken from flickr.com and credited to photographer dalesmidt. It is listed as a public photo, so I consider my reprint of a portion of the photo here to be fair use under flickr's Creative Commons policy. The full photo can be found here).

I've circled a set of three scratches on the visor which appear to be a perfect match in size, location, and orientation to the features seen in AS17-134-20380. While it is certainly possible that additional scratches have appeared on the visor during its years of storage and display, it would seem extremely unlikely that they would match so closely to the pattern seen in the original photo. I believe this is pretty strong evidence that the features seen in the Apollo photo are truly just scratches on the visor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nuff said?

Excellent work, Dave!

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-TVDocs.html

A couple of mistakes there; the biggest that 'Dark Moon' is a thoroughly researched book. Many examples of its errors in another post.

I'm not sure if I have the video in my library, but I do have Gene Kranz's book 'Failure is not an option'. In it, he says that the simulation was virtually indistinguishable from the real thing, and that is the whole point of a sim - to simulate the real thing. I'll go into this aspect a little more in a later post.

The problems encountered during the sims were generally NOT of a crew-related function; they were incorrect decisions made by the Flight Controllers; too-late calls for aborts, or making abort calls when they were not necessary. It was a learning function, which is why they had sims.

"Our fourth run ended in a crash.... Jay Greene got behind on his calls, allowing the LM landing speed to build up. Our final instruction to abort was too late..."

"Our next session... (was) a virtual repeat of our previous crash."

"We were learning the hard way about the deadmans box, the seconds critical releationship of velocity, time, and altitude where the spacecraft will always impact the surface before before the MCC can react and call an abort."

"The next two runs were a washout. I felt like a novice flight director..."

"All this had taken place in just one day. I had just had my worst day of simulation ever as a flight director. But when the LM headed for the lunar surface, I would be working in precious seconds. We had to work the bugs out now."

"The intense training period prior to flight had found our Achilles' heel, something that could have distracted the MCC team and crew at the wrong time. Something that could have been a mission-buster."

Nice one - except for that little niggling fact that the Apollo images have been available since the begining of the 1970s, and Photoshop did not exist then. There was no such thing as CGI, etc.

Still, never let the facts stand in the way of a good yarn, eh?

And again - the 'light leakage' image has been discussed:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5911&st=60#