Evan Burton

This site explains it all: http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm

Okay, thanks anyway. As a hypothetical, what advantage if any could be gained by sending a double? I'm not very familiar with FDR but have general knowledge of the period. I haven't gone over my books for the period, but do you think Stalin and Churchill would have considered a "raw" President like Truman easier to manipulate than FDR? Actually, I kind of like these scenarios. It's very interesting to imagine what "might have been" if events through history had not been the same as we know them. A good example of this is a sci-fi novel (yes, okay, I'm a geek) by James P Hogan called THE PROTEUS OPERATION. A good read, and some interesting alternative timelines. Cheers!

Interesting points! I know that it was standard to have the gold visor down. I'll look up some sources for the detailed explanation of why that was. The visor did, however, affect the colour of what they were seeing. I remember when they found the 'orange soil' on Apollo 17, they needed to bring the visor up to ensure they were not getting some type of illusion. That would probably explain why Armstrong had his visor up. He wanted an unadulterated view to describe what he was seeing. Other images with them up? I'll search around and see what I can find, but I think you are right in saying there are very few. I'll get back to you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It seems the gold visor was used to protect against sun glare, UV rays, and to help reduce heat buildup. It was normally raised when the astronauts were working in a 'shadow' area, but otherwise worn down. Here are some references about its construction: http://www.myspacemuseum.com/leva.htm http://www.apollosaturn.com/Lmnr/cpe.htm I still haven't got around to look for images, as yet. Net problems have meant a slow day.

Interesting points! I know that it was standard to have the gold visor down. I'll look up some sources for the detailed explanation of why that was. The visor did, however, affect the colour of what they were seeing. I remember when they found the 'orange soil' on Apollo 17, they needed to bring the visor up to ensure they were not getting some type of illusion. That would probably explain why Armstrong had his visor up. He wanted an unadulterated view to describe what he was seeing. Other images with them up? I'll search around and see what I can find, but I think you are right in saying there are very few. I'll get back to you.

We seemed to have wandered off topic a little. Differing political systems led to countries taking a "side", but the question was "Why in the 70's and 80's were those who opposed nuclear weapons portrayed as naive rather than those who believed having lots of them would make the world safer?" I think the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) can be said to have worked. Each side knew that a nuclear attack would (in policy anyway) result in a similar response or in some cases, a full retalitory strike. The consequences of any nuclear strike would have been unthinkable. If, however, one 'side' adopted unilateral nuclear disarmament, there would exist an opportunity for the other 'side' to make an all-out strike and almost completely eliminate the military capability of the other 'side'. Both sides would have to give that option serious consideration, and a tempting one it would have been. THAT'S why the idea was naive. The "nuclear genie" was out of the bottle, and it could not be put back. More weapons did NOT "make the world safer" but a parity in deliverable megatonnage, delivery systems and capability did. A gradual, bilateral reduction in nuclear capability was the answer. As weapon efficiency improved, so delivery systems became more accurate and invunerable to interception. Each side could be confident that the other did not have a significant advantage. Each side still had its "boomers" (SSBNs) to ensure that any first strike would be responded to, even by a 'dead hand'. The ideals of those opposed to nuclear weapons were just & moral - and shared, I believe, by those who controlled the weapons. It was simply that total disarmament could not be rapidly or practically achieved without INCREASING the risk of a nuclear engagement.

What was it all about?

It would have been nice if she had left memoires telling us what was on the tape. Sure, we can probably guess, but it would have been interesting to actually confirm what had been erased.

Captain Jack continues to sail the good ship MISDIRECTION on its erratic course. You should look closer at the images you post, and where possible get a hi-res image. Using low-res images can lead to errors. If you ever want any help in locating and / or interpreting images, Jack, I am more than happy to assist you. Firstly, the image shown is a low-res B&W copy of AS11-40-5874. The next frame, AS11-40-5875, is very similar and was taken immediately after the first shot (MET 110 hrs 10 mins 33 sec). The hi-res colour version is available at http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5875HR.jpg Now, I've cut a section of that hi-res photo out to paste here. If you look where I have indicated with the red arrows, you'll see other footprints made at right angles to the main prints. Again, no mystery, no anomolies, and as always - CHECK FOR YOURSELF!

You won't respond to Craig Lamson for the same reasons I posted in the thread where you said you won't respond to me. As John Simkin said, you do no credit to your theories when you post them but will not defend them.

To me, that seems like a reasonable explaination. After all, if there were a second light source, why wasn't ALL of the areas indicated lit? If you look at the photo, the "additional" lighting is more likely being reflected by Armstrong's suit, etc. I'd have to take a closer look at it, but I did notice the "additional" lighting comes from about where Armstrong was standing. The other areas on the side are not lit.

I'm afraid I'm a little late in this topic, but if anyone else wishes some input I'm more than happy to oblige. My brother did three tours of Vietnam with the Australian Army, so I have him as one reference source. I was about 10 when Australia withdrew it's troops from Vietnam, so I can't really add much from a personal perspective. I can, however, give some details of the events that took place in Australia which were related to Vietnam. If the original question still stands, I'd like to clarify if you would like to know what effect the televising of the conflict had on culture, politics, etc, or simply the reactions and events that took place because of the conflict (with no specific reference to the television impact).

This is getting tiresome, Jack. You seem to be deliberatly misintrepreting photos to support your own opinion. Let's look at this series. The black stripe on the right forearm is the watch & strap. The strap and / or watch are visible in all the photos where his right arm is visible. Photo 1 - Look just above his right hip. You'll see a tube running from the PLSS backpack around to the fron of the suit. Move horizontally across to the right to Aldrin's forearm. You can see the watch strap. Photo 2 - Look about 1/3 up the forearm. You can see a small dark object which is the watch face. Photo 3 - Strap clearly visible. Photo 4 - Right arm not visible. Photos 5 & 6 - Strap and / or watch face visible. The antenna? Visible in most, where it is not it's because of lighting. The boots are always the same; in some lighting conditions they appear to be white. Lighting - nothing sinister, nothing strange, just the effect of light, the lunar surface, white suits, apature and shutter settings of the camera. To familiarise yourself with what the Apollo astronauts wore on the lunar surface, have a look at: http://www.myspacemuseum.com/agallery.htm It has a range of excellent photos, diagrammes, and technical details about how the suits were developed, how they were worn, and what they did.

Using the detailed plaster models, they were even able to depict the lunar capsule above the "moon terrain". Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For the scientific types on the Education Forum: Here the fakesters made a major astronomy mistake in showing the "earth" over the plaster models... they made it the wrong scale, and also show TWO different LIGHTING PHASES...an impossibility for Apollo 11. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To start, could someone explain what "... the photo at top allegedly took the photo above" means? Next, trying to use tiny 'bumps' on the horizon as you have is no system for reference points. Any of those dips & rises look like all the other dips & rises. Finally, are these photos meant to be consecutive photos on the same mission? If so, could you please post the NASA photo catalogue numbers?

Jack, Have you actually looked at the design specifications for the LM, the environment it was meant to work in, the forces it was required to withstand? Did you read about the need to reduce the LM weight? The fact it was never designed to operated in anything more than a 1/6g, airless environment? Jack, please! A lot of your concerns are easily answered with a bit of research into the design, construction, and operatiing methods of these craft. I know people who can point to a Boeing 747 and say "nothing that heavy with wings that small can fly!" - but would you deny that they can fly, and do every day?

Jack, Thank you, I will be the judge and ask other to follow your advice to also look at the photos and judge for themselves. I don't see any problems between the two photos. In one, the panel refered to is lit. In the next, it is not (because it is in shadow). What is the problem? In addition, the photo talks about many anomolies... I cannot find them. Could you please point them out? Finally, I challenge your remark about NASA refusing to talk about the small LM hatch door. It is mentioned in hundreds of documents. The original concept was for a round hatch (because it was also meant to be a docking hatch for the CSM). As weight considerations became more important, the hatch was changed to be square (because of complaints by the astronauts the hatch was too small) and because of LM structural considerations. All these facts are very well documented. I invite anyone who is interested to search the internet for these documents (use Google or your choice of search engines) and determine for themselves the design history of the LM (and other spacecraft components). Don't rely on just one site; look for several. Ensure you are reading a wide range of opinion about the subject. Look for the difference between opinion / speculation and actual technical detail. Use all these resources, then make up your own mind. Remember that things can be different on the moon; what happens here may NOT happen on the moon. Ask experts. Get a variety of opinions. Don't accept just one persons word on it. Not mine, not Jack's, not anyones. Research for yourself and make up your own mind.

John, Excuse me if this has already been answered. I'm going through this (large) thread piece-by-piece. Aldrin & Armstrong were NOT rookies. Aldrin flew on Gemin 12, and Armstrong flew on Gemini 8. The man responsible for flight assignments was Deke Slayton (himself a member of the original Mercury 7). Flight assignments went by a rotation. Backup crew, miss two missions, then prime crew. These assignments were sometimes changed by necessity (as Mike Collins got reassigned to Apollo 11 because of a back injury). When you say "more qualified', exactly what do you mean? The most qualified were the original Mercury 7. Shepherd had Meneires Disease, and was grounded. Ditto for Slayton. Glenn had left NASA for a political career. Carpenter left NASA for underseas study. Cooper flew on Gemini 5 before leaving NASA. Schirra flew on Gemini 6 before commanding Apollo 7, and then retired. Grissom died in the Apollo 1 fire. The most qualified people were the "next nine" from the Gemini days, and they were put into a rotation. Finally, could I ask what you mean by "are there any photos of the shuttle landing?"? There are many images and videos available of the Shuttle landing, both from test flights and from orbital missions. If you refer to a lunar mission, then you are badly mistaken. The Shuttle was never designed to leave Earth orbit, and never did so.

Jack, I can see no disparity between the photographs. Handles are often recessed, so I don't see any problem that a handle is not in view. Could you please educate me further on where the actual disparity is? BTW, I am starting from the begining of posts. If this has already been addressed, I apologise.

My name is Evan Burton and I live in Nowra, New South Wales, Australia. I'm a Defence contractor and previously an Officer in the Royal Australian Navy, having been involved in aviation for about 25 years. I'm a space buff, and have been interested in the various programmes since I was a child. I noticed some posts regarding the Apollo mission photographs in which I saw a lot of basic errors being made or misunderstanding of the systems involved, and wanted to be able to correct those. There are a number of other sub-forums which make interesting reading, and I may be able to give some small input to these.