Evan Burton

I would have to agree, and I don't think it's limited to just politicians.

It's not often you will hear someone say:

"I strongly disagree with his policies and the way he conducted his Presidency, but I think he's probably a nice person"

Perhaps it's in our nature to assign all the worst qualities to someone if we strongly disagree with them.

Sure, there are people you can disagree with and respect (it happens all the time on this forum), but when we disagree strongly we seem to find additional reasons to enhance that dislike. Not just "they are wrong because of these logical reasons" but "they are wrong for all these logical reasons, and I bet they stole from their grandmother, too!".

Your example of military action is very good for this point. Sometimes (not always) when military personnel engage in military action we disagree with, we demonise them in different ways.

"They are killers"

"They are just mindless automatons"

"They enjoy this; they are war-mongers"

Similarly, if we AGREE with the action, we tend to assign the best qualities to them:

"Protecting our freedom"

"Serving the country with honour"

There is also 'guilt by association'. G.W. Bush launched military action in Iraq. Tony Blair supported the action, as did our own John Howard.

If you strongly object to the action, GW is a ruthless war-monger. Blair and Howard are just his evil toadys; but how much does the average American know about their performance as Prime Ministers? Similarly, how much does the average Australian really know about how GW has performed as President on domestic or other foreign issues?

Since we disagree on at least one major point, most tend to automatically oppose ANY position taken by them - and we try to find bad things about them to help reinforce OUR belief that WE are right.

I think this is demonstrated in opposing political parties as well - at least in Australia. If the government has a policy, then the opposition (as the name implies) will take an opposite viewpoint, saying it is badly flawed, designed to serve the rich / unions (pick one depending on which side of politics). It is very rare to see an opposition say "That's a very good idea. It will help people, serve out interests, and we support it".

Evan.

I shant post a timeline,as this stuff is all over the net. Most I admit pro-C T,

but some good neutral sites as well, even one or two hostile to us paranoid

types   timeline bush florida 9-11, will get you more than you can "shake a stick

at"  Steve..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL!

I'll start searching with my stick a'shaking, Stephen! As I said, I haven't really read anything about this so far, except for the Pentagon issues.

Thanks for your time.

The problem I still have however is once the threat was known,why not simply

remove the guy from danger?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is why I find this particular issue debatable. You are quite correct is saying that he should have been moved to a "secure" area. Bush, however, may have decided that based on the available information he would finish his visit without incident. In that case, the security detail would take steps to ensure that the area was secure as possible. They may have spoken to the local air traffic control centre, and ensured there was no air traffic in the area and that none was to enter the area. They may have had further safeguards which were not apparent and have not been made public.

I just can't find these particular actions as 'suspicious'. They are arguable either way (stay / leave).

If you have any new information, or even just a summary of known events / data, I'd enjoy being able to look over it.

Evan, how much use would those SAM's have been against a 747 travelling at

500 MPH, with only seconds to react? I only ask as I have no idea, i'm not a

military type like yourself. (ok I know your Navy,but thats close enough.)

Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It depends on a few factors. Assuming the protective detail had modern, up-to-date SAMs, they would be very useful. Essentially, all they had to do was to be able to see the target. A 747 or any large airliner-type aircraft would not be carrying any ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) equipment, would present a large target (in both Radar Cross Section - RCS - and heat signature), and not be capable of 'jinking' or any other 'break-lock' manoeurves.

A smaller, fighter-style aircraft would have a better chance of success.

That being said, the SAM would most likely only disable the aircraft. It would probably hit the engine nacelles. A lucky shot might take out the cockpit. With high speed and an aircraft not designed for combat survivability, you might get catastrophic structural failure - hopefully the wing - which would spoil the "aim" of the aircraft. If it was hit during the terminal phase of an attack at close range, there would be significant danger from the debris of the aircraft breaking up.

Stephen,

The latest example is, of course, a post-9/11 world. Look what happen with Mattius Rust; I think the situation would have been very different after THAT Border Guards Day.

Personally, I don't see Bush's actions on that day as pointing one way or another. It can be argued it was right or it was wrong.

Perhaps someone can give me some more information about his school visit, and any risk associated with him remaining for the allotted length of time.

Was the school near any military bases, specifically an air base? A Combat Air Patrol (CAP) may have been activated to secure the airspace around the school. This might even be standard procedure.

I believe that the security forces around him are also equipped with shoulder-fired SAMs. Placed on an alert, this would have given additional security.

Is there a site that mentions the precautions that were enacted after they had word about the attacks?

Perhaps some of the things to be considered are both the method of attack and the man himself.

Probably one of the most feared attacks that a US President would have is that of nuclear weapons.

Bush was told about planes hitting the WTC.

Perhaps he surmised that this would be either a single point of attack, or localised to major centres of significance.

Perhaps the Secret Service wanted him to leave immediately, and he decided that it would be better to remain calm in front of the children.

Perhaps he really is a dolt and just failed to grasp the significance of the attack.

Who knows?

It's easy to play, as you Americans say, "monday morning quarterback". Those people were there with a developing situation. They made decisions. As always expected, people question those decisions - right or wrong - with the benefit of hindsight.

Can I bid for some of this stuff on eBay?

Also, it brought respected member Jack White out of hiding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And why was he hiding I wonder?

Yep, it was called Project JENNIFER and the ship was called the GLOMAR EXPLORER.

In 1968, a GOLF-II diesel-electric ballastic missile sub sank with all hands in the Pacific northwest of Hawaii. The US detected the location & fate of the sub through the SOSUS network, but the USSR did NOT know where it sank. They searched but never found the location.

The GLOMAR EXPLORER was built to raise the sub. The cover story was that it was a undersea exploration & mining vessel built to mine manganese nodules from the ocean floor.

It went to the site in 1974 and commenced operations. It was designed that when the sub was raised, it would be brought directly (through an opening in the hull) into in a large pool built into the ship and hidden there.

The sub broke intwo during the recovery, and only the bow section was recovered. The US still recovered a number of SS-N-5 nuclear missiles from the bow.

Recovery of the missiles did a lot to aid the US in determining the capability of Soviet ICBMs, both in their accuracy and yield.

The fact that bodies were also recovered is not surprising. Whatever emergency happened to sink the sub (missile explosion?), one of the first reaction would have been to close all watertight doors and hatches, sealing the various compartments. There would have been crewmembers in many of those compartments.

I believe they also recovered some of the crypto equipment / codes.

The GLOMAR EXPLORER transferred to the US Navy in 1976. They tried to lease it out for mining exploration but it was generally unsuccessful. Most of the time it remained in the "mothball fleet". It was used by the NSF as a research vessel, and even by the EPA.

It was used as a dock / mother ship for the trials of the SEA SHADOW, the USN "stealth ship".

The last I heard it was back in mothballs with SEA SHADOW inside of it.

Thanks Steve.

The problem is that if we do not address every single point raised by Jack and his ilk in regard to the Apollo programme, the hoax believers go "Haha! You couldn't answer THAT, could you? See? It really WAS a hoax!"

No matter how ridiculous (like wrecking trucks on the moon), you have to show that they are wrong.

Hoax believers like Jack operate by a principle:

"I don't have to prove I'm right; you have to prove I'm WRONG."

There are currently 14 seperate threads about this subject.....

I have enjoyed the debate, but enough is enough.

Gentlemen, I think your point is made,after all a debate

requires at least two people with conflicting points of view

Of course the real joke is i've just made it 15 threads........!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen,

I would be more than glad to oblige but if I do, Jack will claim I haven't addressed the "important issues".

To ensure that Jack's claims are proven wrong, in toto, I have to address each of them.

I realise you are talking about individual threads, but people here have their own voices.

They want people to realise jack is making serious errors, and that his Apollo theories have no credibility at all.

Sorry.

If it helps the forum, no problems.

I noticed in one of the Google ads:

"Apollo 11 hoax? This film starts off trying to prove it and ends up discovering Nazis in NASA!" (or something like that)

Should I start the same bleating as Jack did?

Nah, just kidding folks - though the ad did actually appear. I figure that balances up things nicely.

Some things to consider when calculating the images and how long it took:

1. The cameras had electric winders, so taking a series (e.g. 10 shots in 15 seconds) is not impossible.

2. Many of the shots, including the camera settings, were pre-planned and written into the surface activity timeline.

3. Each astronaut had a camera (though on Apollo 11, almost all images were taken by Armstrong I believe).

4. Were images taken by the Data Acquistion Camera included in the count?

5. It's quite easy to take a photo while doing something else (e.g. setting up an experiment). The astronauts often took images of surface samples they were picking up.

Just for the record I personally belive we went to the moon as per the official record. But just to play devils advocate, is it possible that for some reason the visual record has been altered-tampered with. This is by no means my chosen field,but those images look razor sharpe. What clinches the moon landings for me is the Soviet responce, i know all the Apollo flights were tracked by Moscow. If the Soviets had suspected any hoaxing they would have shouted the house down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen,

There are many images that can LOOK wrong if you don't research the particulars, understand the sometimes counterintuitive nature of the lunar surface, or actually see that images do strange things.

Please continue to look impartially on the material here. Sometimes NASA may have 'cleaned up' images a little for public release (i.e correcting a horizon when it was taken at an angle), but you have to read through ALL the material to ensure you are getting the best data you can, and then make up your own mind about what happened.

Please do not hesitate to question anything that you feel is incorrect or does not make sense to you.

It's a bugger of a name to spell!

Tsk-Tsk...

So much time and energy wasted by, quote "photo researchers" un-quote, disproving what some consider valid photo research. Jack must be making someone out there very nervous to be attracting this kind of attention.

Considering the sources of "preservation of history" adherents located on the this site, of course  no one really believes that lie anymore...

Pound away, lad's, I for one enjoy seeing your quick retorts -- hang in the Jack, the dolts will disappear back to wenst they came...

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guys,

While I don't entirely agree with David G's comments, he has a very valid point.

Ridicule - no matter how much deserved - is NOT an acceptable or desirable form of rebuttle.

If we believe there are flaws in Jack's comments about images, then let's confine ourselves to the facts. Point out the lack of research. Give evidence that claims are wrong. Highlight incorrect or flawed interpretation. Especially offer demonstrations such as the shadow photos, where people can prove for themselves that Jack's claims are baseless.

Let's NOT attack the man, regardless of our personal opinions. Play the ball, not the man.

Simply offer the evidence necessary to show that Jack is wrong. If we attack him personally, it strengthens claims that we have something to hide.

Put Jack's claims in the cold, hard light of critical analysis and let fact rule above all.

Now, that being said:

Jack, you should revise the comments at the bottom of THIS page.

Dr. Costella is NOT currently a physicist at the University of Melbourne. I rang their Human Resources department today, and they told me he is an ex-employee. He left in 1996. I understand he is currently a teacher at a Melbourne (Australia) high school.

You should also consider disclosing any business or research relationship with him, if you wish to offer his comments as impartial.

Mr. White is to be applauded for his courage and prophetic insight into the photographic record.

I salute him and support his efforts, if not all of his specific findings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet,

Someone can be applauded for their efforts if they go against mainstream thought in trying to prove that accepted belief is, in fact, false. I've said in other threads that I agree with critical analysis.

What, however, if they are wrong? What if their efforts were in vain because accepted belief was, in truth, actual fact? The critical analysis is noble but refusing to accept fact is not.

What evidence, for arguements sake, would you accept in proving that the moon landings happened as history records?

BTW - I see nothing prophetic or insightful about Jack's analysis.

Shanet,

I posted details of why I believe you were wrong in the points put forward in your posts.

Could you address where you disagree with my replies? Many thanks.

I'm not well read on this subject, but in Peter Wright's SPYCATCHER, he mentions that before the debriefings of Anthony Blunt, he had to approach the Queen in order to inform her that one of her appointees was known to be a spy. Part of the reply was that "... you may find Blunt referring to an assignment he undertook on behalf of the Palace - a visit to Germany at the end of the war. Please do not pursue this matter. Strictly speaking, it is not relevant to considerations of national security".

Does that have anything to do with this?

If you think that there is anything you disagree with about the points raised, Shanet, please let me know and we can see what develops.

I notice that even though you support Jack's side, you are at least willing to discuss and debate the issues raised. I thank you for that.

BTW, what was the stuff about the brass ring? I think I heard someone mention something about it once, but I have no details on the issue in question.

Well said John. I agree.

I think that some credit must go to Regan for creating the climate that allowed Gorbachev to take the radical actions that he did.

Take an overheated Nuclear Arms race and universal Cold War, to start.

Consider the entire APOLLO project as what it really was, a propaganda effort and large scale psychological operation (this is true whether they went to the MOON or not). Consider the reluctance of US agencies to release any photo with military or strategic interest, broadly defined. Look at all the releasesd images as a closely managed public relations and international propaganda effort.

It's hard to try and argue about the reasons for the Apollo missions, because although I disagree it is was a psychological operation, it was most certainly propaganda. The US wanted to prove their technical superiority over the USSR. Conducting a successful lunar programme under media scrutiny also sent a message about the different political systems.

There was initial reluctance to release space-based views of the earth because this was at a time when the US was putting their first photo-reconsats into orbit. As the technology improved (better resolution, improved image transfer methods, radar imaging, etc), NASA could release the overhead imagry because it no longer had any effect on national technical means. Additionally, other sats were going up into orbit (e.g. LANDSAT) so NASA and the military were no longer a sole source of overhead imagry.

Return with a series of perfectly exposed and perfectly focused pictures of a bowl shaped Moon surface. Some of these photos are taken from about two feet above the surface, some more like ten feet above the surface.

This is another common misconception. People see only a few of the best shots, so they ask how the images were so great. I explained this in the Apollo 11 thread (IIRC). Firstly, there were plenty of dud images. Naturally they don't get plastered in magazines or in books; they are still, however, available online.

AS11-40-5904

AS16-107-17482

Secondly, a lot of work went into pre-planning the camera setting and what images were to be taken. In the other thread I showed how their checklists told the astronauts what settings to use and what to take images of (in general).

Lastly - practice, practice, practice. They practiced until they got it right.

The images were mostly taken at chest height, although a few were taken from the LM 'porch' or from inside the LM itself. Also bear in mind that the lunar terrain is NOT flat, and so some images were taken from higher ground.

No one ever jumps into the air on film, despite being free of earth's gravity.

Actually, that's incorrect. There are both still and movie images of the astronauts jumping. The most famous is of John Young jumping three-odd feet off the surface and saluting ("Come on, gimme a big ole Navy salute...")

AS16-113-18339

Here is a movie (2.39Mb) of that famous jump.

There is no sign of a blast or pressure directly under the retro rockets.

That's another misconception. People think there should have been a big blast crater. Couple of points to note:

Firstly, during the final stages of the LM landing, the descent 'rocket' was operating at vey low thrust - NOT at it's full power. Even so, on each landing, you can here the astronauts talk about the dust being blown away from under the LM just before touchdown.

Secondly, the moon has a thin layer of "dirt" or "dust" under which is a hard surface. Most of the dust is blown away, and you see some scorching occasionally from the LM descent engine, but no crater is created.

You can see some of the effects in this image:

AS11-40-5921

Also see Clavius.org for a more technical discussion about dust and the descent engine.

There is a brass ring visible where the flag was screwed into its base.

I'm not familiar with that one. Can you give me some details?

If the astronauts actually went to the Moon, the film would have been strategically priceless and never publicly released.

I don't see how it would have been "strategically priceless". Perhaps you are thinking of the Soviet moon programme? The one that the Soviet government claimed didn't exist although the N-1 moon rocket, modified Soyuz spacecraft and lunar lander tell a different story.

Micro meteorites and Van Allen radiation round out the argument....

I'm afraid they don't. There was certainly risk to the spacecraft and astronauts from micrometeorites, but the risk was minimised as much as possible. For instance, the Gemini astronauts who did the EVAs had a different environment suit to their companions. They had increased protection from micrometeorites. Same with the lunar EVA suits.

Here is an excellent site that explains the various garments they wore, their history, etc.

As for the Van Allen belt, well, there was a radiation exposure plan to minimise the exposure. The spacecraft went through the thinnest of the belt in order to reduce the risk. Additionally, the spacecraft itself provided some protection from the radiation. Have a look here for more detail.

It's worth noting that Professor Van Allen, after whom the belt is named, disagrees with the hoax proponents and says that it would have been possible to travel through the belt.

Finally, it was imperative that they have a good picture of the little placque they placed on the MOON, so I find the differences between these two exposures absolutely uncanny, taken as they were by individuals with giant fishbowls, mittens and a camera strapped to their chest>>>

I'm not sure what your point is. Different exposure setting? Use of the camera? Could you expand on this? BTW, giving the ID number of the image (if you know what it is) is very handy in order to tell exactly which image you are referring to.

And of course many of the Shadows and POV's make no sense whatsoever:

Again, I don't know what your point is about this image.

Were they really on their knees for this one, great focusing, too....

Then you have the shadows, pesky shadows....

Okay. That image is AS11-40-5961. It's an Apollo 11 image taken by Neil Armstrong of the LM and 'Tranquility Base' landing site. That particular image, as well as others, is discussed here.

From that site, here is an image that roughly reproduces the same effect:

(Photo from www.clavius.org)

So if you are concerned that we are impugning the work of the (old Nazi) space scientists or the handsome young NASA guinea pigs, fear not, I am not impugning these characters. NASA may have gone to the Moon AND faked a photographic file........

Critical rational approaches to COLD WAR aeronautics, secret rocketry projects, and highly classified projects with a vast propagnada impact, critical approaches to this unusual series of events are proper and healthy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I agree. However, it becomes irrational when all evidence points to something being true and yet people claim it as false.

For instance, in your opinion, would it be rational to claim that the Earth was flat?

Shanet also asked about astronauts not leaping very high. Clavius also answers that one:

Why don't the astronauts jump any higher than they would be able to on earth?

Who says they couldn't? Just because they generally didn't doesn't mean they weren't able to.

Neil Armstrong reported that he was able to jump to the third step of the lunar module ladder, which he estimated to be five or six feet from the lunar surface (Reports 11b, 89). "I did some fairly high jumps," said Armstrong, "and found that there was a tendency to tip over backward on a high jump. One time I came close to falling and decided that was enough of that" (Ibid, 76). Falling over backward would risk damaging the PLSS.

The PLSS is the Portable Life Support System, the large backpack they had on.