Evan Burton

I see you only posted the clavius link .. What about apollohoax.net and BAUT, where Windley, you and the other disingenuous apollogists character assassinate Jarrah White constantly? .. And then you wonder why he replied in kind.. Priceless!

You actually WANT them brought up? Well, okay. But remember: we are talking about Jarrah and his obsession with Jay, and how Jay treats Jarrah. I have no problem admitting I have zero respect for Jarrah, but we are talking about Jay.

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1109

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/nest/133905495?c=1

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/103611-Jarrah-White-fan

Here's where we prove Jarrah lies and misrepresents:

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2564

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2321

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2757

This is a good example of Jay's vicious attacks on Jarrah:

I've seen in this thread that Jay issued a challenge for Jarrah to debate him on any moderated forum.

I should clarify: those are the terms under which I agree to debate Jarrah directly, should he wish it. It isn't so much a challenge, since I really don't pay much attention to Jarrah's videos.

Here's the background.

About a year ago Jarrah contacted me by e-mail and presented a list of questions he wanted to debate -- in e-mail. One of those was the now-infamous question regarding Brian O'Leary, but there were others. I told Jarrah that I do not debate in private. That is not a limitation reserved for him; it has been my policy for quite a number of years for both ideological and practical reasons. Practical in the sense that I do not wish to repeat myself in endless private debates. Ideological in the sense that I don't wish the debate to be represented elsewhere in "he said, she said" fashion. Let the debate be in public where any and all can see exactly what was said. And Jarrah's handling of email subsequently has borne out my wisdom. He has tried hard to spin up the hypothesis that I lied about my correspondence with O'Leary. However, the fact remains that a well-known associate of O'Leary, Wade Frazier, witnessed our correspondence and stands ready to confirm it. To date, Jarrah refuses to contact him or even to acknowledge the evidence. Hence I don't trust him -- or anyone -- to fairly represent a private conversation in public.

Now I appreciate that the DI forum is obviously a woo woo forum but I assure you that the moderators there are generally sensible and fair-minded.

We seem to differ on what constitutes fair and sensible moderation.

What I require from moderation is preventing the debate, and Jarrah's contribution in particular, from devolving into the mudslinging and irrelevancy for which he is so justly infamous. Although he says he has reformed since 2004, his most recent attempt (2009) still required moderator intervention to deal with his abusive temper. Jarrah still hasn't substantiated that he is capable of adult debate without supervision, hence I require that supervision as a condition of my participation.

In a long-running debate at IMDB (in which, ironically, our fanboy Wwu777 subsequently participated), Jarrah suddenly arrived and asked if IMDB constituted a suitable forum. Naturally it did, since I have posted there for many years. He presented the same questions there that he had in private e-mail, and we began to debate them individually. Jarrah has since abandoned that debate, but the point I wanted to make was that IMDB enforces basic rules against personal attacks, abuse, and so forth.

What I further desire from moderation is the enforcement of a meaningful debate. What I mean by that is some means to keep Jarrah (and everyone, for that matter -- even myself) from sidestepping, evading, changing the subject, and generally employing other debate tricks that distract from testing the ideas at hand. IMDB doesn't enforce that, but BAUT certainly does. So does ApolloHoax, to a lesser extent. And in the IMDB debate Jarrah indeed tried desperately to change the subject when it became apparent he was not able to display sufficient understanding of solar physics. While no moderator held him accountable for his claims still on the table, the other readers made it pretty clear they wanted him to stay on topic. I believe that's why he fled.

Yes, it does seem especially pedantic. But in years of watching hoax theorists and other pseudoscientists debate, I've seen how distraction and evasion plays a big part. Those proponents create a semblance of credibility through artfully dodging and weaving. That's not what the truth is about. Seeking the truth means presenting ideas that endure the worst and most withering assault your critics can manage, not one that dodges every test. There are many of us here who undergo examination in the form of peer review, design review, or other formal tests of strength. We are used to such rigor. The hoax theorists are not, nor do they want to be.

So I'm wondering if anyone here is willing to take up the gauntlet if Jarrah does show up?

That would depend on the the nature of the forum. As I implied, I don't consider David Icke's forum to be especially moderated.

The other issue that arises is the personal nature of debate with Jarrah. Put bluntly, he has an unhealthy personal fixation on me, Phil Plait, and perhaps upon others. This comes to the fore in his materials, and in those of his colleagues, as deeply abusive personal attacks and arguments that have nothing to do with the Apollo hoax theory but are instead simply aimed at making me and others seem generally dishonest and foolish.

Toward that end, as much of his handwaving seems directed at the notion "Jay Windley is a proven xxxx!!!" as toward any particular hoax theory. In other words, even if Jarrah's accusations were true on some point, and I were wrong, it would not affect any Apollo hoax claim; it's simply ad hominem. So it seems wise to approach such a debate cautiously, until the proponent decides what he's actually trying to prove.

Many conspiracy proponents, likely including Wwu777, envision some sort of gladatorial combat where two champions enter the arena and only one will triumph. That's not how the intellectual process works. Jarrah debated at IMDB largely ignoring the questions and comments of others and fixating only on my contribution. That is sad, because others brought up important points and deserved to have their questions addressed. And the same would likely occur in a subsequent debate involving Jarrah. The debate over hoax theories is a test of ideas, not of personal skill. This is what many hoax claimants don't understand. It's not a matter of vindicating the "genius Aussie" as some sort of superior litigant, besting all comers. It's a matter of whether his ideas stand up to scrutiny by all interested parties. Yes, many of these proponents chafe under what seems to be an outnumbering of critics. And that's how academic and professional reviews occur in the real world, so my advice to them is to suck it up and quit complaining.

It's just that one guy is presenting one side of the argument and claiming that the skeptics are afraid of this Jarrah.

I dismiss it as saber-rattling, which is why Wwu777 seems to be posting only to sympathetic audiences. Jarrah tried to debate outside the protection of YouTube, failed, and ran. And any who read that debate will see where Jarrah was offered specific invitations to present his findings to qualified professionals for endorsement, and he ignored the invitations entirely. As far as I'm concerned, Jarrah can resume that debate where it left off any time he wishes. I should also add that Wwu777 himself opened a number of threads in the IMDB forum, was roundly refuted, and never made any followup posts. It's clear to me who's hiding.

You also cut off the text in the second link you posted.. Did Jarrah write something you didn't want anyone here to see?

The second link was an image - is that what you meant? I've tracked the post to a quote of Jarrah's, but I can't find the original. Please note that this is Jarrah posting, quoting himself, so this is not made up.

In September 2005, I had joined the Apollo Hoax Yahoo Group under false pretenses, thinking it was a forum where one could civilly debate the moon hoax theories. But after seeing Jay Windley was already there, it quickly became apparent that I had actually signed up to a group dominated by the vultures who get some kind of perverted pleasure out of character attacking intellectuals and misrepresenting their arguments. Jay Windley is the worst offender. He had gained notoriety through both his Clavius website and his deceptive Hasselblad experiments on the pro-NASA documentary The Truth Behind The Moon Landings (Windley appears in MoonFaker A, for those who don't know him). I had been outraged for years, and seeing as I had already joined I gave him a piece of my mind. Windley responded and tried to have a go at me, twisting my words and taking them out of context even though my original message was there and in context! I replied, and at the end I rightfully called him 'a xxxx and a coward and a propagandist.' He replied again, getting nastier than before, I spent the next month writing a rebuttal to it. But when I posted the message in October the same year, surprisingly it wasn't uploaded, instead I awoke the next day to find my membership on Yahoo wiped and all my James Bond Junior fan clubs deleted.

I had to start my groups from scratch, and rejoined all the groups I was a member of. But when I repeatedly tried to upload my message, the mods never uploaded them but the messages attacking myself were given the go ahead. The mods even contacted me directly, saying that the context of my message was bullxxxx and that's why it wasn't uploaded. When I ask them to validate such a statement, I was promptly given a virus and I had to go offline for the next three days whilst my computer was being repaired.

When I got the computer up and running, I continued my line of questioning, which immediately resulted in myself getting banned from the Yahoo Group.

I always suspected Windley was behind this, as he had everything to gain from my silence.

Almost a year later I was at the Loose Change forum, and I posted a link to this animation I made about the moon hoax.

<video link removed>

A user directed me to Jay Windley's website, to which I responded thoroughly, focusing in particular on his misrepresentation of Bill Kaysing's character. This is when Windley began changing arguments and started attacking me over BAUT and ApolloHoax.net, in his saving face, he even attributed a argument of mine to Bart Sibrel to make it look as though Sibrel was self-contradicting himself. He even had the gall to invite me to join BAUT and debate with him in a civilized manner. What is this? He wants me to debate with him civilly at a place where all the active users make cheapshots and insults?

Here are some examples they said about the users who post at the Loose Change Forum.

http://forums.joerogan.net/showthread.php?page=5&t=56457

also: http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=138828&postcount=107

Notice this line in particular:

"A user directed me to Jay Windley's website, to which I responded thoroughly, focusing in particular on his misrepresentation of Bill Kaysing's character. "

Notice that the Clavius website does not have a forum per se, but directs you to the ApolloHoax forum. But did Jarrah ever post on the ApolloHoax forum? Have a search for it. Go back through the Wayback machibe in case it was deleted without trace.

DON'T TRUST ME - SEARCH FOR IT YOURSELF.

Okay, enough about the apollogist's sick obsession with Jarrah .. Let's discuss why Gene Cernan told a bold face lie about Armstrong allegedly landing the Apollo 11 LM exactly the way he did on Apollo 17.

Cernan claims to have shut off the LM engine BEFORE landing, to let it freefall to the surface, while Armstrong shut off the engine AFTER the LM allegedly soft landed on the surface .. It appears that Cernan is covering for the fact that none of the Apollo photos show any evidence of dust on the LM pads, much less any type of blast craters beneath the descent engine.. What ever happened to NASA being afraid the blast craters might be so deep that the LMs might fall into them?

Now let's examine this one again, but firstly: you have said "Gene Cernan told a bold face lie". So if I find that you, for instance, have said one thing about an area in which you are passionate about, and then a couple of years later (never mind nearly 40 years) said something completely different about it, then would that mean that you told a bold face lie? I am not accusing you of this, mind you - I just want to ascertain the conditions upon which you would say that someone (including yourself) would have to meet in order to have told a bold face lie. So, if you did this, would you apply the label to yourself?

Next, did you read any of the replies, look at any of the images? The ones where you see evidence of a "rocket blast"? The explanations about dust on the footpads? I know you have regarding the last, but for whatever reasons you have chosen to ignore them.

Lastly, could you please show any NASA documents which talk about "...being afraid the blast craters might be so deep that the LMs might fall into them..."? Note the use of the words "blast craters"; craters have always been of concern, but not "blast craters". Since you are talking about the landing and engines and dust, you must be talking about a "blast crater" being caused by the DPS.

Cernan also claimed to be able to see stars while on the lunar surface, by standing in the LM's shadow, while Armstrong claimed that he couldn't see any stars from the surface without looking through the optics, while astronomer Phil Plait claims that stars can easily be seen from the Moon, just by looking up at them .. No "LM shadow" or "optics" are necessary.

What he actually said was: "If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day."

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

And his statement is absolutely correct. Your eyes, like the iris of a camera, would need to adapt to the conditions:

"To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day. So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!"

Many of the Apollo astronaut's "moon" trip stories contradict each other .. None of the Apollo astronauts will sit down with any of the conspiracy researchers for face to face interviews, which is the reason Bart Sibrel felt the need to use the tactics he did, to try to get an interview with Aldrin.

So if a camera crew and interviewer asked you for an interview to discuss claims that you are a paedophile, or a drug dealer, or perhaps that you had been totally untruthful in saying that you had been involved in the antiques trade or having been a part time musician, despite there being recording of you playing or having records of you attending antique actions, buying and selling antiques, etc, you would gladly accept an interview? Would you accept an interview where you were a public figure and people were going to call you a xxxx to your face?

If the Apollo astronauts have nothing to hide and are being truthful about landing on the Moon, then why pull the plug on interviews that ask hoax questions? .. I would think they would want to debunk the "conspiracy nuts" and the hoax evidence, for all the world to see.. But instead, they run away from them and their questions.

But your own posts contradict that! You yourself posted a video where a conspiracy theorist asked them about moon hoax claims. There are a multitude of interviews where the astronauts talk about moon hoax claims. Ask me for a list of them - please!

There would be no reason for the Apollo astronauts to run away like a pack of cowards and refuse to answer certain questions, if Apollo happened as advertised.

You read too much into things, Duane. I suspect it is because you are trying to look for evidence to support your opinion and so therefore have to lower the bar a fair way. IMO, Gene is referring to the fact the same technique was used (I would like to see exactly to what question he was answering, and how it was phrased). The concerns about a rock flying up and contacting the the engine bell was quite correct.

Apollo 11

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light.

102:45:43 Armstrong (on-board): Shutdown

102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Engine Stop.

[Neil had planned to shut the engine down when the contact light came on, but didn't manage to do it.] [Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I heard Buzz say something about contact, and I was spring-loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don't know...whether the engine-off signal was before (footpad) contact. In any event, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface."]

[Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."]

[Aldrin - "You wouldn't describe it as 'rock' (as in, 'dropping like a rock'). It was a sensation of settling."]

[some of the other crews shut down 'in the air' (meaning 'prior to touchdown') and had a noticeable bump when they hit.]

[Aldrin - (Joking) "Well, they didn't want to jump so far to the ladder."]

[Readers should note that, although the Moon has no atmosphere, many of the astronauts used expression like 'in the air' to mean 'off the ground' and, after some thought, I have decided to follow their usage.]

http://history.nasa....11.landing.html

Apollo 17

113:01:58 Schmitt: Contact. (Pause)

113:02:03 Schmitt: (Reading a checklist) Stop, push. Engine stop; Engine Arm; Proceed; Command Override, Off; Mode Control, Att(itude) Hold; PGNS, Auto.

113:02:11 Cernan: Okay, Houston. The Challenger has landed!

113:02:15 Fullerton: Roger, Challenger. That's super.

113:02:17 Schmitt: Okay, Parker valves...

113:02:23 Cernan: (Responding to Fullerton) Boy, you bet it is, Gordo. (To Jack) Boy, when you said shut down, I shut down and we dropped, didn't we?

113:02:28 Schmitt: Yes, sir! But we is here.

113:02:30 Cernan: Man, is we here.

http://history.nasa....17.landing.html

You might also like to read a thread I started about the LM landing heights:

http://www.collectsp...TML/001189.html

The problem with the "who started it" claims is that we simply cannot be sure. The DPRK is a totalitarian state run by a dictator, and whose propaganda is legendary.

On the other hand, the ROK could use those same facts to hide their own guilt. The DPRK puts out so much fantasy and disinformation, it would be near impossible to tell when they would be telling the truth.

That part can be disputed. It's not hard to figure out whether the chicken or the egg came first here. It's an illogical inferential jump.

John, I'm sorry but I don't understand.

Are you saying that the DPRK is not a totalitarian state? Apologies if I misunderstand you.

The problem with the "who started it" claims is that we simply cannot be sure. The DPRK is a totalitarian state run by a dictator, and whose propaganda is legendary.

On the other hand, the ROK could use those same facts to hide their own guilt. The DPRK puts out so much fantasy and disinformation, it would be near impossible to tell when they would be telling the truth.

http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/apollo-hoax/message/224

http://ralphrenewaswrongmate.com/web_images/jarrah_virus_upload.png

http://ralphrenewaswrongmate.com/index.php?p=1_16_Jarrah-White

Jarrah is just a poor soul with mental issues, seeking recognition. He's not worth even responding to.

Maybe it's his way of getting back at Windley, whose obsession with, character assassinations of, and lies about Jarrah White, are not normal.

Help us along and point out all the instances where this has been done. After all, Jarrah only rates the barest of quotes by Windley on his website, Clavius.org:

What you're doing to Bill Kaysing is nothing more than character assassination. [Jarrah White]

No. If this debate were about Bill Kaysing, Chronicler of the Southwest, then we would have praise for him, or at least be agnostic to his efforts. If this were about Bill Kaysing, Champion of the Veteran, then we would definitely praise and eulogize him. If this were about Bill Kaysing, Cat Lover, then we would sympathize with his efforts undertaken in retirement at his own expense.

Unfortunately this is about the Bill Kaysing who alleges that the moon landings were hoaxed, and who claims to have scientifically and factually defensible arguments to support that allegation. And unfortunately it is upon those grounds, not his value as a human being, that we propose to contest his claims. Where he exercises indefensible reason, scholarly rigor requires that we identify it as such. Where he inflates his credentials, a devotion to the truth requires us to investigate further. Where he asserts unverifiable fact, intellectual honesty requires us to question it.

Here our devotion is to the truth. If the reader desires to praise Kaysing for whatever reason, we offer this site.

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

I see that the DPF has promptly banned Peter Dawson for not following the party line. Sure, okay for blowhard Drago to accuse him of all sorts of rubbish but if someone dares to disagree, they'll get given the bum's rush quick smart.

Seriously, I'm at a loss as to why Jarrah is making such an issue over this.

Simply because of Jarrah's obsession with Jay.

I think that both Russia and China both prefer a divided Korea, but a peaceful one.

Why doesn't Jarrah present evidence by getting the company that did the interview to speak up? They should be able to confirm Jarrah's take on events. On the other hand, if you read the pages Duane has indicated (282-284 in the softback copy) you'll find it supports the scenarios Dave mentions, particularly scenario 2.

Of course, this is not the first time Jarrah has lied about Jay Windley, of whom Jarrah has a very twisted and unhealthy obsession. For instance, there were the claims about what Brian O'Leary said the Jay in e-mails. Even when Brian's associates confirmed the conversation, Jarrah still claimed Jay lied and tried yet again to manipulate the truth.

Lastly - the quotes.

Dr Brian O'Leary - Dr O'Leary has said that in accordance with his statement, he cannot confirm the moon landings because he did not have direct evidence of them; he has said that because he cannot directly confirm the landings does not mean he believes that they are faked - just simply he, himself, cannot confirm them because he was not there. He resigned in 1968, being convinced he would never be a serious candidate for a lunar mission (thus the name of his group, the XS-11) (None of his group flew with Apollo, though some served as backup crews and many flew on the Shuttle missions; the most notable of the group is Story Musgrave).

Next, the Clinton comment: Has anyone actually asked him what he meant? Let's say he wanted to say "It was a fake!". Why hasn't he been assassinated? Many people more important, more notable, less protected have been claimed to have been "killed" for less... then why hasn't Clinton? If we believe some people, Princess Diana was killed for less.

Buzz Aldrin - Buzz is expressing his disgust that we have not returned to the Moon and beyond. Buzz clocked hoaxer Bart Sibrel for accusing him of lying about the Moon landings. Surely this asserting by the wiki people is contradictory!

Next - the Saturn V.

BTW, if people are wondering to what I am referring to, it is the claims in a dubious Metapedia entry that Jim Fetzer has quoted here.

Once again, the author of the wiki entry demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding space-flight. A chemically powered launch vehicle has a limited capability. The lower the orbit, the more it can carry. The greater the orbit (or extra-orbital travel), the less it can carry. I invite anyone with knowledge of orbital mechanics and physics to dispute this.

The Saturn V, when launching a lunar mission, could carry a payload of about 100,000 pounds (there were variables which affected this). If the same vehicle were to launch a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) mission, then it could carry over 250,000 pounds.

Now let's examine some things. Hundreds of thousands of people saw the Saturn V take off on numerous occasions, so there can be no doubt whatsoever that the launch vehicle worked. How much weight could it carry, though?

Let's argue that every Apollo mission was faked, and that only a nominal payload was placed aboard. This now says that EVERY flight to the Moon was faked.

What else can we see?

Well, after the Apollo lunar missions came the Skylab project. The Skylab space station was about 170,000 pounds. If the Saturn V could launch Skylab to LEO, then it could launch a lunar mission. There were three manned missions to Skylab, and it fell to Earth in July 1979 (and I saw it re-enter). If people claim the Saturn V could not lift that weight, then they must also be claiming that the Skylab missions were faked.

Now lets look at the ISS claim. Currently the ISS masses (to use the correct term) close to 830,000 pounds... over triple what the Saturn V could carry.

But wait! I hear the cry that the ISS was built in modules, not all at once! Is that correct? Yes it is, absolutely. So what were the weights of the various modules? Well they ranged from over 42,000 pounds and smaller.

This is about 20% of what the Saturn V could carry to orbit!

So was it viable to keep the Saturn V production line going? IMO - no. Yes, it was a marvellous machine but it was expensive to produce. There were many exotic materials and techniques needed. If you wanted to continue to launch lunar (or further) missions, then further use and development of the Saturn V was a great idea. Indeed, there were plans. Sadly, the US lost interest in space and so funds rapidly dried up, forcing the cancellation of Apollo 20 (Jan 1970) and then Apollo's 19 and 18 (Sep1970). Mars missions and other long range plans were to be shelved. With the budget cuts, NASA could only hope to continue with Earth orbital missions. Based on this reality, NASA was concentrating on the Space Transportation System (STS), otherwise known as the Shuttle. This was a reusable spacecraft that would significantly reduce the cost per mission as compared to the Saturn V. A very big selling point for the OMB and Congress, and one which NASA lied to get funded.

Could the Saturn V be built today? Well, yes - but it would be like recreating a B-17 bomber: outdated techniques or construction and materials. The computer systems used to control the launch vehicle were based on 1950/60s technology. To reproduce that technology is extremely expensive, and to replace it with modern day equivalents is very expensive. Overall it is just as cost efficient to built a newer, more capable launch vehicle.

Think about it: why isn't there a new Concorde, a product of the 1960s?

I think that assessments that it is Kim Jong-un who is provoking the situation is likely to be correct. The problem is that with this series of low level attacks, someone in the South may respond with beyond a measured return, sparking an all out war between the two. With the US, Russia and China intervening it would calm down in a few days but the damage will have been done.

I doubt Fetzer simply forgot to include the date, 1953? I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Wright brothers said flying in a heavier than air craft was impossible 16 years before they did so.

"The atomic bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert on explosives."

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt, March 1945.

Von Braun thought that the Nova launcher, for a direct ascent, might be a little beyond their reach (though both he and his team relished a challenge and wanted to take it on). The Saturn I, on the other hand, was quite probable. The first stage was essentially a cluster of Redstone boosters tied together but using H-1 engines.

That plan would have used EOR to boost all the necessary components into earth orbit, assemble the spacecraft and fuel, then launch for the lunar mission. That's why the orbiting space station played such a part in his long range plans. He saw it as a base for workers who would assemble the components (rendezvous not being a proven concept at that time), a "waystation".

A number of Apollo veterans felt that although LOR and the Saturn V achieved the goal, Von Braun's space station would have led to a more permanent US presence in space and probably given a better framework for longer term lunar and Mars missions. I can't say they are wrong.

Now there is a way i could make a few quick bucks!

Dave already gave you the answers, Jack.

The "fuel can" is the TGE.

169:21:30 Schmitt: Yeah; we'll have to...

169:21:34 Cernan: (Between the MESA and the ladder footpad) Why don't you leave that there for a minute? Okay. What did you say about the TGE, Bob?

169:21:40 Parker: Okay. We'd like to take TGE, of course, as we planned. Take it off, and we'll try and get both a grav and a bias reading. You might initiate one of them now. We'll initiate another one later on. We've got plenty of time while it's sitting on the ground there to do our thing with it.

169:21:57 Cernan: Stay where you are, Jack, (garbled)...

169:22:00 Parker: I see where you've got a feedwater tone coming up pretty soon, Gene.

169:22:03 Cernan: (Removing Jack's PLSS SCB) Bob, I already got it and I'm in Auto (means "Aux"). Just about 30 seconds ago.

169:22:06 Parker: Okay.

169:22:11 Cernan: (Looking into Jack's SCB) Okay. How are we fixed for samples? Here's (SCB) 5, and it's about 1/2 to 3/4 full.

169:22:18 Schmitt: Well, let's dump...

169:22:20 Cernan: We've got to carry the SESC up.

169:22:22 Schmitt: ...let's dump these...

**************

169:50:45 Cernan: (To Jack) Okay, babe. Let's go to the AL(SEP)...Okay, Bob. I owe you a bias reading.

169:50:51 Parker: Okay. Or you can get it later. There's no hurry on that. And we're off to the ALSEP...

169:50:57 Cernan: (Waving into the TV) I'm going to give it to you right now.

169:50:58 Parker: Okay. Ready to copy. I presume you've a UHT out at the ALSEP, Jack.

169:51:04 Schmitt: (On his way) That's affirm.

169:51:05 Cernan: 337, 417, 101; 337, 417, 101.

169:51:16 Parker: Okay. Copy that.

169:51:20 Cernan: Are you through with this (gravimeter)?

169:51:25 Parker: Roger.

169:51:27 Cernan: (Repeating his question) Bob?

169:51:29 Parker: (Laughing) Roger. We're through with it.

169:51:30 Schmitt: (To Gene) Be kind. Be kind.

169:51:32 Cernan: Well, I love it, and I'm sure it did a good job...

169:51:35 Parker: Well, we're not through with you, Gene, so don't throw yourself too far!

169:51:40 Cernan: No, sir. I just don't want to hit old Challenger there. (Pause)

169:51:52 Schmitt: That was unkind.

169:51:56 Cernan: You did the javelin!

169:51:59 Schmitt: That was unkind.

169:52:01 Parker: Roger, Gene. And we...

169:52:02 Cernan: I didn't throw it as far as I could have. I just...

169:52:03 Parker: ...we timed the parabola for that, and we have one excellent measurement of "g" on the Moon now.

169:52:12 Cernan: Yeah, I didn't get you a pendulum, but I don't know where I would, Bob. Okay. I'm going to have to take you out to the VIP site!

169:52:22 Parker: Okay. We're ready for that, and we'll...

169:52:24 Cernan: If you concur?

169:52:26 Parker: Okay. (Pause)

Not unexpected Dave. This is not uncommon when dealing with hoax proponents. Instead of addressing the actual issues (like proving sources which don't say what are claimed to, incorrect facts, complete fabrications, etc) it's better to bluster and throw out accusations, to cut & paste more inaccurate claims from a disreputable website, etc. Anything to cloud the issue and avoid dealing with the facts. The internet is littered with examples of this.

John,

I don't really know if a vote is necessary!

BTW, I see on another forum that as soon someone disagrees with his opinions about Apollo, that bilious blow hard Drago decides rules don't apply to him and starts insinuating that Peter Dawson is me / Len Colby / a disinformation agents / etc. How pathetic... but quite in character for him.

Next: Stars.

Really, do we have to do the "no stars" claim? Even the most fervent adherents of hoax claims know this is garbage... though not, it seems, Jim Fetzer. Once again we see: "If it supports my views, it must be right!"

http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Photographs_and_films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Absence_of_stars

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/18476-The-no-stars-argument-and-the-quot-quote-quot-of-an-astron

http://www.physicsinsights.org/apollo-stars-1.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAMdTzbN6gQ

Next: Quarantine.

Many people felt that the quarantine would be totally unnecessary. Still, it was decided in 1963 by a special committee from the National Academy of Sciences that a chance could not be taken and the astronauts should be subjected to a quarantine period. It was NASA who lobbied in 1970 that there was no reason for the quarantine period to remain, and the committee approved the recommendation. Only Apollos 11, 12 and 14 went through the quarantine.

Next: Splashdown.

Whoever wrote the wiki entry demonstrates their ignorance in this case. Firstly, Apollo 11 began re-entry just before dawn, so the sky would have not been very light. Even if were not the case, re-entering spacecraft have seen during daylight hours.

It is far more likely that Nixon saw something, but not Apollo 11.

Next, why was the recovery ship so far away? Because the splashdown point was moved some 200nm downrange because of thunderstorms in the original planned splashdown area (Apollo 11 Mission Report MSC-00171 November 1969, page 4.20, para 4.19). Aircraft can move quickly to a new location but ships take longer.

Why were the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft so much better at landing accuracy? Because the craft were designed to give a small lift co-efficient, enabling them to be "steered" and course corrections made. On the other hand, the Soyuz spacecraft made a purely ballistic re-entry and could not be steered.

JUST HOW MANY OF THESE SPECIOUS CLAIMS DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE PEOPLE REALISE THAT APOLLO WAS REAL?

Stop demanding Jim prove his claims! It just confuses him. Anything that supports his claim is "evidence". Whether it is true or not doesn't figure in his equations.

Next: Apollo samples.

The first thing I have to stress here is check your sources! Just because you are told that a scientific study concluded this, don't just accept it; check the study and ensure that is what it actually says. For instance, if you were to check the study by Professor Minoru Ozima you would find he did NOT say the lunar samples must have been made on Earth. What he did say was:

The high terrestrial ion fluxes from the ancient non-magnetic Earth with low atmospheric O2 (or CO2) pressure can be the source of non-solar components of N and light noble gases implanted in lunar soils.

Likewise, check the other references; the wiki entry fails to tell you about the "...and is explained by..." portions.

And the simulants? Firstly, they were in use in the 1970s and the wiki fails to tell you that the simulants replicate certain properties but not all properties. Some will replicate mechanical properties but not chemical properties; another will have the correct chemical properties but not look anything like lunar soil. Some replicated soil found in a particular location only. They don't fool geologists.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_bases/1985lbsa.conf..497A.pdf

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/jsc_lunar_simulant.pdf

http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/Documents/PDF%20Files/NASA_TM_2010_216438.pdf

http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov/simulantdev.html