Dave Greer

Jack I'd be intersted to know which ten of your studies were chosen by The History Channel as being the most credible? (Don't think we need another JW de-bunking thread, just interested!) Cheers

Compliments are always welcome! Here's the link you wanted. Sleep/Wake Activity Patterns of a Pig-Tailed Monkey During Nine Days of Weightlessness (P-1001D) Duane - I can find nothing to back up your claims except for "information" that spreads virally from one conspiracy site to another. I've seen this time and time again - someone on one conspiracy site makes a wild unsubstantiated claim, it gets repeated on several others, then it is claimed to be the absolute truth. Do you have any geniune sources or links I can check out? Cheers

I'd heard it mentioned on various forums, but haven't found an official source for it. I'll do some more digging. What say you about the SR-71 plans and machine parts being ordered to be destroyed by the then President? (I need to find the source for this). Does it make you view Apollo blueprints being destroyed in a different light? EDIT Here's what the Clavius website has to say on the matter - no mention of the FBI. I can't find anything on Apollohoax.net either. Source Incidentally, "Who Mourns For Apollo" isn't a pro-Apollo site, as shown by this quote below:-

Or maybe Steven doesn't post as regularly because he has no sensible answer to any counter-arguments put to him? Or maybe he's on holiday? Or maybe his computer is broken? I hope he does start opsting on Apollo again, because as you rightly claim, the playing field isn't level - by that I mean there are always more people on these forums who believe Apollo happened than didn't. (I'm not claiming that makes us right, but I can empathise with you feeling the way you do). On the subject of an obnoxious and condescending attitude, whenever I come over as being condescending, it's when we are discussing something I see as blindingly obvious, and no matter how concisely I put over my own point of view, it's just laughed off as being NASA dis-information parrotted from Clavius. And I know for a fact you've behaved in a similar fashion yourself when you've been convinced that you are right about something, even going as far as accusing others who didn't agree with you as being liars. For example, the "smudge" on the visor discussion over at UM. Also the heated and overly-long discussion we had about the "alien bootprint" photo. Not trying to re-open old wounds, just reminding you that the knife cuts both ways buddy! I know I sound condescending at times, heck I've edited enough posts before submitting to know that without being told. There is a reason of course - I know I'm right

I've never been particularly comfortable with this "CIA ordered the blueprints destroyed" idea. Where (i.e. which credible source) did this come from? If they did destroy some blueprints (presumably for security reasons), I can see why someone trying to prove a hoax would leap on the idea and say it was because the LM was unable to work as intended (so, we need to add all the engineers and technicians and designers who worked on the LM to the ever expanding list of people "in on the hoax"). That's not something I subscribe to, and I offer as evidence a simple counter-example. SR-71 Blackbird. Another technological marvel - and far more secret than the quite open Apollo programme. Why mention this? Simple. The blue-prints and machine tools used in manufacture were ordered destroyed by the president at the time (this even meant that spare parts could not be built - repairs were done by cannibalising parts from other SR-71s). Following the Apollo HB logic, this must mean that the Blackbird was faked and couldn't fly either. Or, it could mean that during the height of the cold war, the US did not want to risk these plans falling into the hands of the enemy i.e. Russian agents.

Duane Without actually seeing the photos, it's impossible to be 100% certain, but surely you can admit that the most likely explanation is that someone photoshopped the papercups, animals etc IN to copies of the originals, rather than NASA photoshopping them out? Occam's razor? As stated, ALL the Apollo photos have been available to the public since well before the internet took off. For Hawkins to be correct, the following must apply:- 1. Not a single scientist, photographer, astronomer, or anyone else who ordered these photos prior to the internet has seen or mentioned these anomalies. 2. Whistle-blowers somehow managed to leave these clues on set, while the "men in black" overseeing operations casually glanced the other way. 3. The darkroom technicians who developed the photos didn't notice the anomalies. 4. The corrupt NASA officials who must surely have pored over all the fake photos somehow managed to miss these anomalies that only Mr Hawkins has spotted. 5. Corrupt NASA officials have since heard about Hawkins findings, and have ordered them to be deleted, or have the anomalies photoshopped out - even though they know there must be many copies of the "fake originals" already in the public domain. Conversely, for Hawkins to be incorrect, either of the following two must apply. Either, 1. Hawkins photoshopped copies of the originals (or knew that they had been photoshopped by someone else) or, 2. Someone gave the photoshopped versions to Hawkins (or he found them on a HB disinfo site), and he used them unaware of their provenance. Objectively - which is most likely to be the truth? As to motive - here's a hint. You bought his book didn't you? He isn't bothered about his credibilty, he knows that as long as people want to believe in a conspiracy, people will buy it. (EDIT - this is of course only my opinion based on what I saw on his website, and what you've told me about his book. He may well have other motives). (Which gives me a business idea... I may "jump ship" and write my own book about how I was convinced Apollo was real, but came to realise the awful "reality" about Apollo, and decided for the sake of truth and freedom to blow the lid off NASA. OK I'd have zero credibilty, but I'd make a quick shilling or three. Of course, I'd have to balance the profits against the loss of income I get from being a paid NASA dis-info agent... Fancy teaming up? With your dedication and conviction and my canny knack for finding photos, we'd write a conspiracy book to corner the market!)

Jack I'm aware your study refers to uncropped images. On reflection, I have no way of proving whether the images I posted were cropped or not, I just found them on Google image search. Can I ask what sources of evidence you would consider credible? I have taken photos myself to show this quite simple concept, though it would be redundant posting them if you're just going to accuse me of cropping them to prove a point. How about if anyone wishing to contribute to this thread, from either side of the conspiracy theory, posts a photo. Would you consider that as enbough evidence? Do you have your own digital camera? You could use it to debunk your own theory! To further the debate, I may as well post some of my own images. If I can't find them on my PC (don't think I saved them), then I'll wait for a nice sunny day and take some more.

Steven Missed your reply the first time round, but I'll respond to your post now - Jack may be willing to clarify, defend or withdraw his his claims. Jack is stating that the shadow cast by the photographer should fall to the "bottom centre" of the frame - I have posted counter-evidence to support my suggestion that he is wrong about this claim. Jack doesn't mention anything to do with shadows being long due to a low lighting angle. Can you clarify exactly what you mean here? The moon does indeed rotate, approximately once every 29 days (hence the same side of the moon points toward the earth). And the sun does rise and set on the moon... how else do you explain the difference between a full moon, waxing moon, waning, new moon? The terminator is moving across the moon's surface: hence an observer on the moon sees the sun rising and setting. (I think you may be confusing the position of the Sun in the lunar sky with the position of the Earth). Steven, you can't have it both ways! Firstly you admit you don't know the position of the moon relative to the sun when the pictures were taken, then you claim the shadows should be much shorter. Your claim makes no sense. Incorrect. It means they landed during the lunar morning, with the Sun low in the lunar sky - which they did. (From memory, lunar mornings were chosen so that the heating effect of the Sun would be reduced, and shadows cast by surface features such as craters would be a visual aid to landing the LM. Since the Apollo missions all landed during the lunar morning, it follows that they would have landed close to the terminator. (I don't have the actual distances, but I would guess at the order of a few tens of kilometers away). Since they did, this can't be seen as evidence for a faked moon landing. I can see the point he is trying to make very well - not only is his point wrong, but your argument has no relevance to Jack's claims.

Mr. Greer admits his wrong assessment on Iraq. He CAN admit when he is wrong. When will he see the light on Apollo? Jack Jack, I'm as fallible as the next man! And I do admit when I'm wrong. Now, if you want to discuss the error you made about those Apollo shadows, best take it to another thread instead of threadjacking this one... I'd suggest this one I started last year. I'll respond to Steven Phillips post to get the ball rolling. Happy New Year by the way

It's definitely getting more and more depressing. Heard on a local radio news bulletin a couple of days ago, that plans are afoot to send up to 40,000 (?- unsure of figure as I was driving at the time, reception not good!) more US troops to Iraq, not to train the locally recruited security forces, but to actively seek out and disarm the militiamen who are helping destabilise the country. Which ominously ties in with the prediction of more troops being sent to the region as a pre-cursor to an Iranian invasion...

I couldn't believe that the US and UK Governments would be stupid enough to invade Iraq - sadly I was proved wrong. I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.

BURDEN OF PROOF! You're trying to shift it again! Apollo is a proven and accepted historical and scientific fact. So the extra-ordinary claim is being made by people such as yourself - hence the burden of proof lies heavily on YOUR shoulders to provide conclusive evidence to support your claim. Something you have not been able to do, because the evidence is not there - just supposition, unsupported claims, and unscientific arguments. (Incidentally, I see you are now claiming that the ENTIRE Apollo programme was faked... are you sure this is now your claim, or are you over-stating things slightly here?) Happy New Year by the way!

Do you really think NASA are quaking in their boots at the release of this book? My guess is "they" are not even aware of it! I suspect it's a typo in Hawkins book. Look forward to it. Just plugged the number straight into Google. I've also checked it using the Wayback machine. Check out my post, right click the picture, select properties - it will show you the URL of the image, which includes the reference number you gave. EDIT - check this bad boy out. Won't help with non-Apollo images, but every single Apollo Hasselblad image is cross-referenced with its associated TARGA reference number. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/byID.html

This looks like the incorrect number. Do a quick Google - comes up with this image:- The Wayback machine simply links to URLs - so whatever the URL is for the image, that's how it will be stored. Just be aware of copyright - NASA photos are public domain of course. Absolutely. Well, it currently has an archive of 85,000,000,000 objects, so there's a very good chance! Be careful what you mean by "anomalies" though. Look at the famous photo of Aldrin from Apollo 11. Several different "versions" stored on Wayback. Evidence of faked images? Nope. Evidence of different processing and differently cropped images? Yup. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hq...s11-40-5903.jpg Happy hunting! More info on Wayback

This explains the images he posted on his website a couple of years ago - you can find it using the Wayback machine - his old url was www.charliehawkins.com (not to be confused with the current owner...) At least we know now that it wasn't he who saw these animals, but his son and friends. I know from past experience that trying to study Apollo photos using small images is akin to flogging a dead horse. You really do need to study the largest images you can find. 8"x10" glossies would be even better, but not wholly practical for our purposes.I'm remaining very skeptical though - Jack's "mystery image" was clearly just the sunvisor pulled halfway down - but I shouldn't really dismiss everything he has to say on the strength of part of his evidence. If you can dig up some references numbers, cool. Incidentally, there appears to be two forms of numbering convention for Apollo photos - the standard seems to be the one we are familiar with (Mission, Roll, Frame e.g. AS11-40-5903). The other numbering convention was just a lond number - you can still find some photos referenced that way. May be worth Googling the numbers to see what you come up with. Have to admit, as discussed on UM I initially thought he was being a little naughty i.e. downright deceptive here, but that's not the case. He has found two copies of a training photo, one in colour and one in black and white. I'm concerned to his motives as to why he claims that NASA say the B&W one was taken on the moon when clearly it wasn't. I'll probably give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Though it says a lot about his level of research - both you and I spotted that this was clearly an EVA rehearsal photo - if he spent two years investigating this, you would think he'd be more thorough. Anyway, having had chance to mull this one over, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If you've got the image numbers, no problem tracking them down. There's also the Wayback machine to check versions that have been scanned/cropped/processed differently. So, track those numbers down, sniffer dog! Do you have a scanner? I may recognise which mission they're from which would speed things up.

Of course not, just an excuse for us all to eat drink, and be merry. And to celebrate the Big Guy's birthday, if you're so inclined. Happy Christmas everyone, hope you all have a good one! We may not all agree on certain things, and tempers flare occasionally, but this is the season of good will to all men (I think we should include women too!), so I'd like to raise a traditional glass of Guinness, and wish each and every one of you the very best. Happy Christmas!!!

Double post...

I would state they are wrong in that assertion. (I suspect they have mis-represented what is actually said). Without a link to the article being referred to one can only speculate. Do they mean that only a few pounds of rocks were picked up by hand (i.e. gloved hand), and the rest using scoops and sample tongs? I don't really know. What we do know is that the Astronauts brought back 380kg on the six Apollo missions. Just done some very quick research on the website itself - apparently it's a snapshot of a Wikipedia article taken at a certian point in time. The claim you mentioned has been corrected in the current version here. 3. The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica. Chemical analysis of the rocks confirms a different oxygen isotopic composition and a surprising lack of volatile elements. There are only a few 'identical' rocks, and those few fell as meteorites after being ejected from the Moon during impact cratering events. The total quantity of these 'lunar meteorites' is small compared to the more than 840 lb (380 kg) of lunar samples returned by Apollo. Also the Apollo lunar soil samples chemically matched the Russian Luna space probe’s lunar soil samples. There is a disclaimer about the validity of the information on the AllExperts site here.

Duane - you actively participated in a thread on radiation just a few short weeks ago - I'll link it here in case you missed the posts that answered your questions. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8688&st=45 Quick reminder - each astronaut carried 4 devices for measuring their own personal dosage. You were supplied with plenty of supporting data for this. The article makes no such claim - at least I couldn't find a reference in your excerpt. Neither could I find a reference to that in the article itself. I did find this direct quote:- OK, so NASA want to know more about the radiation environment. Seems very sensible to me, especially with plans for a long term lunar base. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08...oactivemoon.htm The article you link to is written by Eric Hufschmid. Why do you give the impression that he is a scientist, presumably qualified to talk about lunar radiation? Do you know what science qualifications he has? Here is a short Bio I found on him here:- So much for him being a "scientist" then. Although his "Science Challenges" are good for a laugh.

I'm sure I've had this discussion before with someone, but where you see people who are miserable (I've heard them previously described as obviously guilty or lying), I see someone (Armstrong) who is of a quiet, reserved nature, who isn't a born speaker, having to contend with the world's press, having just spent 2 weeks in isolation upon returning from mankind's greatest adventure. I'm willing to cut them a little slack for not excelling in presentation skills. I'll never experience how they truly felt, but I can really empathise with their situation.

Duane - YOU were the one that supplied links to Hawkins video, and also to the relevant part of "For All Mankind"! The audio used in "For All Mankind" is clearly identical to the first section of the Hawkins video - so unless someone other than Reinert just so happened to edit the audio in exactly the same way, it's clearly taken from his film. If you don't think he's responsible, did you try to contact Reinert and ask him directly? I hope the irony of this last statment isn't lost on anyone! I'm not accusing anyone of editing NASA film footage as if it is something they could be found guilty of - it is a fact that he readily admits to! Oh, and I did provide proof of exectly where it came from - I searched for, found and highlighted for you, the relevant bits of text, and exactly where in the Apollo 16 mission they were taken from. The crux of the matter is, the first part of Hawkin's video EXACTLY matches the same section in For All Mankind, a collage style documentary in which the director (Reinert) acknowledges that he spliced footage and audio from different missions out of sequence (artistic licence). The second part of the Hawkins video EXACTLY matches the official footage which can be found on the ALSJ. I've also gone to the trouble of showing you where the edited audio from "For All Mankind" is taken from. So, I think I've shown I've done more than enough research on this point. If you have any other questions about the editing on For All Mankind, you'll really need to contact the director himself.

Duane - it was rebutted in the second post of this thread! It's part of a collage-style documentary by Reinert. He even discusses this in the bonus features of the DVD version of "For All Mankind". If you want more specific reasons as to why he editted the audio of the football rock sequence the way he did, then you'll need to contact him directly. Read my first post - you can see exactly where he took the audio from. This wasn't an audio segment recorded separately for this particular piece of footage - he deliberately edited other audio footage from more than one EVA to fit the video sequence. I can speculate why, but it would be pure supposition on my part - so if you want a definitive answer, contact Reinert. I suggest you read this definition before you do - Artistic licence

EDIT - dbl post.

This was filmed in Sept 2002. Bart Sibrel is a known conman, he has admitting to lying to gain the confidence of astronauts and be able to interview them in their own homes. How do we know this piece of film wasn't faked? We only have BSs word that the film wasn't faked - and he has already admitted to being a xxxx, so we can't trust anything he says, nor can we use any of his video as evidence. The fact that there was no prosecution of Aldrin proves that the Police knew this film was faked. Apparently BS was cautioned for wasting Police time". There, I've just started my own little conspiracy theory. All nicely contained, with no loose ends. If you disagree, then you need to supply proof that the BS video is real. However, you can't use any evidence from BS, including the video itself, to prove it is real, because it has been demonstrated that BS is a xxxx and totally untrustworthy. Sound familiar???

Strange how a different viewpoint can arrive at wholly different interpretations of such non-quantitative evidence. After seeing this video, it simply cemented my belief that the moon landings were not faked. It also leads me to believe that Bart Sibrel is complete scum for the way he has harrassed and harangued these guys. Respect to Buzz Aldrin for chinning him when he was called a thief, a xxxx and a coward. Sibrel's instinctive response? "Did you get that on tape?" IMHO he was deliberately trying to get a reaction. I've heard the claim before that the astronauts refused to swear on the Bible, which would be their right - who the hell is BS to effectively put them on trial? Anyway, three of them took that opportunity. My question is, what does this prove? The video was very revealing - but it was very revealing about BS and the underhand tactics he employed. (For example, if I had sweaty armpits and there was a film crew in my house asking me questions about my lifetime achievement, I'd get a bit self-conscious if they very obviously started filming my armpits!)