Gavin Stone

<remark removed>

No Jack, they purposely made those big X's to draw attention to themselves and perpetuate the conspiracy.

Well I didn't see this coming!

Given Jarrah's recent video that spent five minutes talking about how the Feather and Hammer hit the ground faster than John Young, and how this is an example of a hoax, it just goes to show how much of a "the sky is falling" person. That said, even he couldn't worm around the blatant ignorance of gravitational acceleration and he removed his entire video. I wonder what he has to say about it... PS: Everything Evan says about you is true Duane.

It's a fair comment though. You are spouting on about how radiation will kill anyone who stands in it, without any knowledge of what radiation even is.

You owe me a new keyboard after I spat tea all over this one after reading this comment. Jeez Duane you are funny

Who you kidding Craig? I can't remember the last time Duane presented any evidence. All his posts seem to consist of nowadays are insults and character assassinations; exactly what he accuses other people of! He doesn't spend any time presenting theories any more, he just runs all over youtube insulting people. He's currently posting on there about a grammar error I made while capitalising 'Physicist'. Yes, you heard that right. Duane is insulting me for a grammar error! He seems to think that a grammar error constitutes me not studying for a physical science degree.

AKA "I don't want to debate the evidence" and "because I'm scared of hearing something I can't debunk".

So Duane, you agree they launched in the Saturn V, so how is no video evidence of them during launch proof of a hoax? They undoubtedly made the trip into a parking orbit initially!!!

Well it appears Jarrah has come back with his new production, sticks and stones (Stones lol), we all get a mention so I hope you're all thrilled . Part 1 Part 2 Part 3Obviously I will respond in due course, but it takes a while to analyse arguments, research claims etc. What I do note is he's taken a lot of material from here, infact I get the impression he spends a lot of time lurking in the shadows, so why doesn't he come forward and start posting? Hiding on youtube where you don't have to directly answer questions is bordering on cowardice.

Duane, simple question and it requires a simple answer: Did they launch in the Saturn V, yes or no? They either did, and you admit that the camera is irrelevant to them launching or they didn't, in which case your Apollo in LEO orbit is shot down. Which one is it Duane? You can't have the best of both worlds.

I think you have hit on something here Dave, I've been researching this and found a number of surprisingly similar features to that of the moon. A simple coincidence, or a whistle blower blowing the whistle on the AstroNOTS? Titan is tidally locked in a synchronous orbit around Saturn, just like our moon - coincidence? Titan's rocky centre is roughly 3,400 km thick. The moons diameter is 3,474 km - coincidence? Titan's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. The lunar module descent and ascent stages were fueled with Dinitrogen tetroxide - coincidence? If you add the word "Neil" to "Titan" and rearrange the letters, you can form "Alien tint". - coincidence? Titan is never visible to the unaided eye, just like the Apollo "moon sets". - coincidence? The first probe to visit was Pioneer 11. Apollo 11 with Pioneer Neil Armstrong. - coincidence? 30 Questions that need to be answered about 'Titan' 1) Why are there no stars in the sky for the Huygens probe picture? Titan is much further away from the Sun than Earth, so stars should have been dazzling in the sky. 2) The nitrogen atmosphere and the surface temperature of -179.45°C (Nearly that of Liquid Nitrogen). I dropped a camera of mine in liquid nitrogen. I did not work afterwards, so how did the probe take pictures of the titan surface? 3) The probe used a parachute to fall to the surface, yet if this is true the parachute would have landed ON TOP of the probe and it wouldn't have been able to take pictures! 4) Landing on a sandy surface displaces sand. There was no evidence of the Titan surface being disturbed on the pictures? 5) How did they know when to open the parachutes on the Probe with an unknown surface and unknown environment? 6) The pictures were lousy. Surely given the exploration of a place we've never seen before they would have put a DECENT camera on the probe! 7) In most Huygens photos, there is a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background. 8) There are obviously non parallel shadows in the picture, this can't be the case unless there are multiple LIGHT SOURCES 9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it as shown by Dave "Freedom and Truth Fighter" Greer? 10) How did the probes S band antenna survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry? 11) The probe was seperated from Cassini for THREE WEEKS in the blazing sunlight. Temperatures should have reached 5000 degrees in the probe and the electronics should have been char boiled 12) Why would they risk landing the Huygens Probe on Titan when it'd never been tested before in a space environment! 13) Titan is small, thus lower gravity. The probe would have bounced off the surface, and broken on re impact 13) Apparently over 200 pictures were taken on Titan, yet there is only seemingly one on the internet! 14) The probe would have required a 20 foot width so as to not bounce when it hit the Titan Surface 15) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Why weren't the electronics fried with this DEADLY SPACE RADIATION 16) The probe had a hole in it (I will show the picture later) and thus the atmosphere should have leaked in and destroyed the probe before it could transmit data? 17) How did the probe transmit data all the way back to Earth with a measley S Band antenna? 18) How did they fit the camera in the small probe, and make it shatter proof for impact? 19) You expect us to believe THIS landed on titan? It looks like two big dustbin lids clued together with a takeaway curry tray on top!!!! 20) The water sourceair conditioner for the probe should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did. 21) They sent a probe all that way, and didn't bother to plant a flag? PLEASE! 22) With a massive time delay between transmission and receiving of data, the Earth would have moved further along in its orbit around the Sun by time the data travelled there - they'd have missed the picture! 23) Why did Cassinis administrator resign days before Launch? 24) How did the probe fly through the deadly radiation of the Van Allen belts? It would have required 6 foot lead shielding to not be effected 25) We cannot even get home PC's to run properly, so how did they make the Huygens Probe software run without crashing? Why was it not infected with spyware and viruses? 26) There is a lot of talk about the ACP experiment on the Huygens Probe. Could this stand for Apollo Creation Program? 27) Why is Huygens not visible through a telescope? 28) In the year 2008 NASA does not have the technology to land on Titan. 29) Why are all the blueprints for Huygens destroyed by NASA? 30) Why are there squares in the only picture that we have of the Titan Surface. Photoshopped? Added in by a whistle blower? Who knows!

This one quite clearly wins. EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT, MOON HOAX UNCOVERED DUE TO ASTRONAUTS SPELLING MOON WITH A LOWER CASE M

If that's suppossed to be funny, you missed completely. It looks as though you could really use some brushing up on your mockery techniques of the CT's and the hoax evidence . I think the brushing up needs to come from you Duane in your selection of what's evidence, and what's not.

Duane, it's an entirely different program with entirely different goals. You can't really compare the two in the way you are doing!

"Out here in the sun" Clearly they were orchestrating the conspiracy in the CENTRE OF THE SUN. Maybe they took refuge under a sunspot or a filament!

Jarrah's video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nebxYU2PE6o Mine: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fC2yozHHdEo Let's see how he crawls out of this one...

Evan / Any moderator As this is my thread, could you move Duanes irrelevant post to a new thread please? I'd quite like to keep this one limited to discussion on Proton 4

Ah yes, the age old whistle blower argument. Shame none of these whistle blowers have ever come forward Duane, not even anonymously

When you take a step back and look at this argument in it's entirety, you can see how stupid it is. Whether the pictures were taken on the moon or in a studio, they were still taken. If there were two men parading around in a studio and taking pictures, they would have had to personally manipulate the photo to make him look smaller AFTER taking it (if you are right Duane(you're not)). This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'm disputing that is was Proton 4 entering the atmosphere because it clearly wasn't reported to have broken up in a shower of sparks . You say that Apollo 11 splashed down 6000 miles away, 5 hours later . That's more than enough time for Apollo 11 to have done another couple of spins round the Earth in orbit before splashing down in the pacific. Duane, yet again you show a complete lack of knowledge of Orbital Mechanics. A LEO object which was at Australia at that time would be over the South Atlantic five hours later, but don't let this get in your way. After all, this is NASA; they can break the laws of Physics! Where in the article does it state it was Apollo 11, what? No where? Didn't think so. Because it had not yet been confirmed, an article in the same paper a month later CONFIRMS the original hypothesis. As I don't have access to NORAD tracking data, and it's not likely available on the internet; this is not really possible, is it? Apart from the newspaper in question, calculated orbital elements, the laws of Physics, but don't let that get in your way. No Duane, it's one or the other. They either launched on the Saturn V or they didn't. Which is it? So I suppose the men who crawled out of the Apollo 11 capsule were robotic? Did they launch on the Saturn V or not Duane, yes or no. This is the best quote of all. You honestly think that the only thing capable of generating a tail is something with a heat shield? You're wrong; end of story. How can I make this simple for you. IF THE APOLLO 11 CSM WAS IN LEO AT 19:05pm IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INVISIBLE FROM PERTH DUE TO IT BEING IN THE EARTHS SHADOW. The fact that Proton 4 was seen means that it must have been re-entering the Earth's atmosphere. So you carry on arguing that Apollo 11 was in LEO and was seen to traverse the entire sky at 19:05pm Perth time July 24th 1969. Don't let the fact that this BREAKS THE LAWS OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD get in your way. Ahhh typical Duane, always coming down to the insult. While you were flapping around thinking of ways to insult us "pro Apollo propagandists", I actually did some some research and emailed Perth observatory to ask them about Proton 4 and the month response. "In 1969, you're talking about the height of the cold war. The Russians wouldn't be publishing orbital elements for their satellites, and while the US would have been monitoring them using radar, communications wasn't instant. Now, anyone can grab elements of any (non-classified) spacecraft off a web site, but in 1969, I'm surprised it was as short a time as a month for the information to trickle as far as Perth, via posted letters or telegrams (international calls were expensive, and rare). Just knowing the launch details wouldn't have been enough (assuming they were available), as the orbit would be decaying day by day. Also, in Perth, the government astronomer at the time (Mike Candy) would have had to work out positions from the elements by hand, using a slide rule or possibly a mechanical calculator, not a computer... I doubt we would have any records of the event, apart from archived press clippings which you apparently already have. Andrew Williams"

By the way, I slap myself on the hand for forgetting this. A satellite in LEO would not have been visible for a full traversal across the sky two and a half hours after sunset, as it would have been in the Earths shadow and thus not lit.

On one side of the coin, I want to tell you not to Hijack this thread. However, in this instance I will let you: I will tell you why. You are now attempting to argue that the Apollo Astronauts didn't actually launch on the Saturn V. This of course means that they couldn't have been in Earth's orbit, which means you are following the idea that they were released from some sort of a plane in the CM. Yet a page ago you are arguing for them being seen in Earths orbit? How transparent can you get? You didn't even argue this point on a seperate thread!!!! I can't wait to see how you crawl out of this one Duane.

Eye witness accounts stated that it was a UFO .... Newspaper stories said it was a UFO .... NORAD apparently didn't know what it was , because it took them ONE MONTH to come up with a COVER STORY . Sorry , but it re-entered Earth's atmosphere from LEO on the same day Apollo 11 did the same .... Coincidence ? ... Maybe , but I doubt it . Check your source AGAIN Duane. Newspaper Headline: Object may have been Satellite Newspaper Text: "The carnarvon tracking station director Mr R. Jacomb offered a tentative explanation for the sightings. The object could have been a satellite entering the Earth's atmosphere" "A general worldwide alert was sent worldwide that a satellite would be re-entering the Earth's atmosphere" The paper is quite clearly indicating that the object is thought to be a satellite. Did it? You are basing this on what exactly? Just because the West Australian reported on this a month later, it doesn't mean that NORAD took that long to have the data. Yet more speculation. We don't deal with "Maybe's" in this game Duane, you either have the proof or you don't. In this case you don't.

Only eye witness accounts, newspaper stories, NORAD tracking information and the Keplerian elements and orbital parameters for Proton 4. But don't let this "Disinformation" get in your way; it never does!