Evan Burton Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Do you know if this would be the image? I have no idea if that's the image because I never read his book... But if that's the whip antennia , then my guess would be that's what he was referring to . It also comes as no surprise that the antennia is missing in the photos it should have been in, taken in LEO , and shows up in a photo it shouldn't have been in, the spashdown ... NASA has obviously made many mistakes with their phony photos , even on the Gemini missions . If your implication is that the antennia only shows up in the one photo because Rene'put it there , then you guys are more desperate to defend NASA than I realized ... Rene' only worked with NASA photos as they were presented to the public ... Like the faked photo of the Collins spacewalk ... So it's not his fault if the pictures with and without the antennia don't jive ... It's NASA's fault for never being able to get their stories or their photos straight . No - it's because as Gavin has already pointed out, it was the HF whip antenna which was deployed after splashdown. "During the reentry, voice communication will be lost on two occasions. Under worst conditions. the first extends from approximately 1310 seconds after retrofire to 1775 seconds after retrofire, nearly 8 minutes under nominal conditions, this time will be approximately 6 minutes. This loss of communication is caused by ion sheath formation around the spacecraft. The second period lasts about 30 seconds, starting at main parachute deployment, and is due to a delay between loss of the nose stub transmitting antenna and the erection of the descent antenna" http://www.mannedspaceflight.com/gemini/geminiNR/sec2.htm "The recovery hf whip antenna is extended by placing the HF ANT switch to the PST LDG position for spacecraft 5, or on later spacecraft by holding the HF ANT switch in the EXT position for approximately one minute. Voice communication via the hf transmitter/receiver is then possible by placing the HF select switch to the RRTY position and either MODE switch to HF. The hf transmitter/receiver can also be used to transmit a direction finding signal by placing either MODE switch to HF/DF." "HF WHIP ANTENNAS Purpose: The hf whip antennas provide transmission and reception for the hf voice transmitter/receiver during the orbital and postlanding phases of the mission. The recovery hf whip antenna is mounted on the small pressure bulkhead, outside the pressurized area of the spacecraft re-entry module. The other hf whip antenna is located on the adapter retrograde section. The antenna mechanism housing, approximately 6.25 inches wide and 22.5 inches high, completely encloses all parts of the antenna, including storage space for the antenna elements. The recovery hf whip antenna contains six elements which, when fully extended, comprises a single antenna mast approximately 13 feet 3 inches long. The adapter hf whip antenna contains three elements which, when fully extended comprise a single antenna mast approximately 16 feet long on spacecraft 5 and 6, and approximately 13 feet long on later spacecraft. The mast is one inch in diameter on all spacecraft. Two connectors, supported by the antenna body, provide a means of applying power and connecting the antenna to the rf connector on the hf voice transmitter/receiver. The recovery hf whip antenna weighs approximately 9.0 pounds. The 16-foot version of the adapter hf whip antenna weighs approximately 7.5 pounds and the 13-foot version 6.0 pounds. The main supporting structure of the antenna mechanism housing is the antenna body consisting of a thin fiberglass shell. The outer shell is made in two sections which mate together and form a completely sealed envelope around all moving parts. The antenna mast elements are heat treated stainless steel strips and are stored in adc motor driven cassette. Mechanical Characteristics : The strip material comprising the antenna elements is heat treated into a material circular section in such a manner that the edges of the material overlap approximately 180 degrees. When the antenna is retracted, the tubular elements are continuously transformed by guide rollers into a flattened condition, and stored in a strained manner in a cassette. Extension and retraction of the antenna is accomplished by a motor which, by means of a chain, drives the storage cassette core. Because of the natural physical shape of the antenna elements, the antenna has a tendency to self-extend; thus giving an extension time of approximately 25 seconds. Retraction time is approximately 40 seconds. The antenna is stopped within its desired limits by two microswitches, one for extension and one for retraction, which automatically cut the power applied to the motor at the time of extreme limits of the antenna are reached. The rf connection to the antenna is obtained by a wiper arm sliding on the cassette core drive shaft. On spacecraft 5 the hf whip antennas are operated as follows : Spacecraft control bus voltage is supplied through the WHIP ANTENNAS -HF circuit breaker to the HF ANT switch. The adapter hf whip antenna is extended during orbit by positioning the HF ANT switch to EXT. The adapter hf whip antenna is not retracted during orbit, but is Jettisoned in the extended position with the retrograde section. After landing, the recovery hf whip antenna is extended by positioning the HF ANT switch to PST LDG, and is retracted by positioning the HF ANT switch to EXT. On spacecraft 6 through 12, extension of the hf whip antennas is controlled through the HF ANT switch and LANDING switch. The hf antennas are operated as follows: Spacecraft control bus voltage is supplied through the WHIP ANTENNAS - HF circuit breaker to the HF ART switch, which has momentary type contacts. During orbit, the LANDING switch is in the SAFE position and adapter hf whip antenna can be extended or retracted by holding the HF ANT switch in the EXT or RET position respectively. During re-entry, the LANDING switch is placed in the ARM position. After landing, the recovery hf whip antenna can be extended or retracted by holding the HF ANT switch in the EXT or RET position respectively. The HF ANT switch should be held in the EXT position for approximately one minute for full extension of the antennas, and in the SET position for approximately 1.5 minutes for full retraction." http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/NASA_Project...HROUGH_RECOVERY After recovery, the antennas were retracted to prevent damage, snagging, etc. So, once more, Rene is wrong in what he has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Why have you been unable to show at least one copy of the book where it says it is an official NASA image? Would that be because there is no such admission because NASA has never said it? What silly, transparent games you Apollo apologists play on these forums . NASA obviously had already switched the ID number of the faked Collins photo to a different picture a very long time ago , which is quite typical of what they do when being busted out with an obvious fake photo . Rene' has mentioned several times how they would switch photo numbers that he had referenced to try to make it look as if he was being somehow deceptive and to hide their obvious mistakes ... So it comes as no surprise that they did this with a picture they probably wish they had never tried to pass off as the real deal in the Collins book . Once again - you have been unable to show anywhere - except in Rene's claim - that NASA said this was an official NASA image, that it was taken in space, etc. You can't because it never happened. You seem to be just blindly following what Rene and others say; you admit yourself that you have not checked the veracity of the claims. If you did, you would see that they were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 Once again - you have been unable to show anywhere - except in Rene's claim - that NASA said this was an official NASA image, that it was taken in space, etc. You can't because it never happened. You seem to be just blindly following what Rene and others say; you admit yourself that you have not checked the veracity of the claims. If you did, you would see that they were wrong. It was an official NASA image until they removed it from the book and threw it in the trash where it belonged in the first place ... They might not have labeled it as such , but it was placed immediately next to another official NASA image in that book WITH NO DISCLAIMER AS TO IT NOT BEING A REAL SPACEWALK PHOTOGRAPH . I believe that would be considered to be complete misrepresentation , otherwise known as LYING BY OMMISION ! So, once more, Rene is wrong in what he has said. Oh well , I guess you can't win em all . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 The cover photo on the book shows two lunar astronauts (or astro-nots as René calls them), one reflected in the other’s visor. The reflected astronaut is not holding a camera, so who took the picture with only two on the Moon? Also, in the same photo a piece of what appears to be scaffolding with a spotlight on it appears on the left edge of the photo. I’ve seen this same photo in several other places, but it is always cropped so the scaffolding is missing. Anyone know what image this is meant to be? I can't find a copy of the book cover online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It was an official NASA image until they removed it from the book and threw it in the trash where it belonged in the first place Well, you are wrong on two counts: 1. NASA has NEVER said it was an official image; and 2. The image is still in the book; it has not been "removed". The point everyone keeps trying to get you to understand is #1; NASA never said or even hinted that it was an image taken inflight. The book never said that. Rene assumed that and he was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) Nice excuse ...I wonder if NASA dreamt that one up after Rene' wrote his book ? Can't win if they do, can't win if they don't. According to you they either a) Faked the entire thing and forgot about the whip antenna or Faked it and then faked the documentation. You never consider option c) The HF Whip Antenna, was designed like that, from conception; that document was written around 40 years ago!!! Edited January 10, 2008 by Gavin Stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 That was answered in this post on this Forum. BUZZ SALUTE ENDS UP ON THE CUTTING ROOM FLOOR Or did it? Jack asks "Where are the missing photos?". Simple answer - there aren't any. WHAT? Why was Buzz saluting if not to pose for the camera? Buzz Aldrin is a very patriotic man, and a proud military man - and he was saluting (he did so twice here) when he and Armstrong were talking to President Nixon. From The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: 110:16:25 McCandless: All right. Go ahead, Mr. President. This is Houston. Out. 110:16:30 Nixon: Hello, Neil and Buzz. I'm talking to you by telephone from the Oval Room at the White House, and this certainly has to be the most historic telephone call ever made. I just can't tell you how proud we all are of what you (garbled). For every American, this has to be the proudest day of our lives. And for people all over the world, I am sure they, too, join with Americans in recognizing what an immense feat this is. Because of what you have done, the heavens have become a part of man's world. And as you talk to us from the Sea of Tranquility, it inspires us to redouble our efforts to bring peace and tranquility to Earth. For one priceless moment in the whole history of man, all the people on this Earth are truly one; one in their pride in what you have done, and one in our prayers that you will return safely to Earth. (Pause) [A frame from the 16-mm film shows Buzz on the left saluting at about 110:17:54, with Neil partially hidden by a LM thruster.] 110:17:44 Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. President. It's a great honor and privilege for us to be here representing not only the United States but men of peace of all nations, and with interests and the curiosity and with the vision for the future. It's an honor for us to be able to participate here today. 110:18:12 Nixon: And thank you very much and I look forward...All of us look forward to seeing you on the Hornet on Thursday. 110:18:21 Aldrin: I look forward to that very much, sir. (Pause) [buzz salutes a second time, as does Neil a few seconds later. The Apollo 11 recovery ship is the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Hornet. An article adapted from the National Archives and Records Administration includes the relevant section of the President's Daily Diary and the split-screen TV image seen by most of the watching world.] The clip from the television camera is also available. A New Zealand correspondent also pointed out the following - Buzz salutes five times, at 49:36, 51:11, 51:29, 57:34, and 57:46 in the first film of the EVA on the Spacecraft Films' DVD. Jack White, being such a good researcher, should know this. ;D The first salute occurs between Mike Collins saying, "...just beautiful," and Neil Armstrong saying, "See if you can pull that end," so roughly between GET 110:09:50 and 109:10:16. The flag is nearly up and Buzz steps backwards to the right of the screen, almost up against the RCS thruster from that angle. As Buzz salutes, Neil is holding the flagpole in his right hand. The next salute at 51:11 is probably when Neil takes his photo, AS11-40-5874. Buzz's right fingertips can be seen up at his visor and he holds them there for quite a long time. Interestingly, White says that the next picture, AS11-40-5875, is of Buzz saluting, but it's not. In that one Buzz has dropped his right hand, swiveled his body a little to the left and is looking directly at Neil -- his face can be seen in hi-res versions of the photo. Buzz salutes a third time soon after this at 52:29 and Neil is working with the camera but apparently not taking a photo. For his fourth and fifth salutes, Buzz is facing the TV camera and saluting President Nixon, not the flag as White says. He does this at 57:34 just before the end of Nixon's call at about the time Neil stops speaking, and after saying "I look forward to that very much, sir" salutes briefly again at 57:46. Until now, during the President's phone call, Neil has had both hands in front of his hips (nowhere near the camera) as he listens to and speaks to Nixon, and as Buzz's right hand comes down, Neil's comes up to salute too. White says, "Clearly the movie shows Buzz following posing instructions and then saluting twice at each location." He missed the first salute, but why does he mention "posing instructions"? None are obvious at all, except for Bruce McCandless saying, "We'd like to get both of you in the field of view of the camera for a minute..." And why does White claim that Neil is taking photos of Buzz's fourth and fifth salutes? We can't see what he's doing in the 16mm film because he is partly hidden, and the TV images clearly show that he doesn't take photos. It would have been disrespectful for him to do so while the President was speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Nice excuse ...I wonder if NASA dreamt that one up after Rene' wrote his book ? Can't win if they do, can't win if they don't. According to you they either a) Faked the entire thing and forgot about the whip antenna or Faked it and then faked the documentation. You never consider option c) The HF Whip Antenna, was designed like that, from conception; that document was written around 40 years ago!!! This also raises the question: WHY? WHY fake an image? What was the purpose of having the antenna in the image if it could not survive re-entry? Why would it be placed there afterwards? (BTW, Rene was also wrong when he said HF was not used in space; it was). WHY fake an image of an EVA when Collins himself says that there were no images of it; and there were plenty of other EVA images to use instead? Is Rene claiming that the Gemini programme was faked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 It was an official NASA image until they removed it from the book and threw it in the trash where it belonged in the first place Well, you are wrong on two counts: 1. NASA has NEVER said it was an official image; and 2. The image is still in the book; it has not been "removed". The point everyone keeps trying to get you to understand is #1; NASA never said or even hinted that it was an image taken inflight. The book never said that. Rene assumed that and he was wrong. Here's an excerpt from Rene's book that Jarrah White sent me which should clear up any misunderstandings about some of NASA's phony photos . NASA changed the ID numbers of some of their ridiculous photographs after Rene's book came out exposing their many scams .. NASA also refused to send him the photos he requested ... and yes , they did remove the faked Collins photo from the later additions of his book when they knew that Ralph Rene had exposed it for what it was . "THE NASA PHOTO ADDENDUM In 1992 I originally predicted that NASA would find a way to "lose" the three color photos used in this book. You saw this mentioned in the "Author's Notes" at the bottom of page J. I also predicted that the photos would be obtainable. They are and are not. Read on! The ink was barely dry on my first edition when I tried to get extra copies of the three colored photos. For $13 apiece they had the gaul to send me three 8 by 10 glossy full color optical quality photos of *their* choice. When I sent them back to get either my money back or the right photos they sent me the money and informed me that I would have to give them the new NASA numbers. When I asked for the list of the new numbers I was told, "We lost the cross-over index."! Gee! I wonder why a mission numbering system in place for 23 years was suddenly changed? Sometime during '99 I tried again. This time I was told that the photo sales had been privatized and that Bara-King Studios in Maryland now supplied the photos. In February 2000, since I still couldn't get the "lost" index I sent Bara-King Studios black & white copies along with $15 apiece for the three, 8 by 10 optical glossy full color photos you see in this book. They sent me the right photos. However, the photos were not 8 by 10 optical quality glossy full color photos. Instead, they were computer derived showing grainy, blurred colors. In addition, the "C" on the rock had been brushed out, and the size reduced to 6.75 by 7 inches. I screamed and yelped for my money back which they immediately returned. I kept the photos and sent them a copy of this book so that they could see for themselves what NASA did. So ends the saga of the "lost" numbering system." Ralph Rene, p185 NASA Mooned America! I will address NASA's conflicting evidence and silly claims about the whip antennia in a later post . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 Nice excuse ...I wonder if NASA dreamt that one up after Rene' wrote his book ? Can't win if they do, can't win if they don't. According to you they either a) Faked the entire thing and forgot about the whip antenna or Faked it and then faked the documentation. You never consider option c) The HF Whip Antenna, was designed like that, from conception; that document was written around 40 years ago!!! This also raises the question: WHY? WHY fake an image? What was the purpose of having the antenna in the image if it could not survive re-entry? Why would it be placed there afterwards? (BTW, Rene was also wrong when he said HF was not used in space; it was). WHY fake an image of an EVA when Collins himself says that there were no images of it; and there were plenty of other EVA images to use instead? Is Rene claiming that the Gemini programme was faked? Here's another message from Jarrah that should clear up any confusion about Rene's claims and NASA's and Jay Windley's baloney about the Gemini whip antennia. I know that you don't approve of my using a "go between" but Jarrah has the time to investigate NASA's many contradictions and I really don't ... I waste too much time as it is arguing with those too blind to see how they have been swindled by the NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER gang . "I've not had time to digest all the dribble at the Education Forum, but I see your friends are echoing the claims of Jay Windley. Even though Ralph clearly states that the Gemini had no antenna well, Windley claims that this fiberglass antenna was retracted and never erected until after splashdown. Ralph had told me about this antenna during our interview, and I've been saving this for another MoonFaker, but I'll let you have it. I see your friend Evan Burton is flogging this diagram. http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/radioind/Gemini...ennaSystems.gif However neglects to reveal where he got this diagram. But that's okay, I know where to find this image. In fact, I've already screen-captured its website because it strengthens Ralph's argument. http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/radioind/Gemini...eminiRadio.html Note closely what the caption says: "The HF antenna was 3.9 meters long when extended on orbit." Now, why would the website Burton got his picture from, clearly state that this antenna was indeed erected in space, if it was never extended until after the vehicle splashed down? I think I know the perfect title for such a video: "MoonFaker: Whiplash" Jarrah" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/radioind/Gemini...eminiRadio.htmlNote closely what the caption says: "The HF antenna was 3.9 meters long when extended on orbit." Now, why would the website Burton got his picture from, clearly state that this antenna was indeed erected in space, if it was never extended until after the vehicle splashed down? I think I know the perfect title for such a video: "MoonFaker: Whiplash" Jarrah"[/b] Tell your buddy Jarrah to look closer at that picture. There are two HF antennas, one of them labeled "orbital HF whip antenna", the other "recovery hf whip antenna". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 Tell your buddy Jarrah to look closer at that picture. There are two HF antennas, one of them labeled "orbital HF whip antenna", the other "recovery hf whip antenna". According to NASA's diagram there were several "whip" antennas on the craft ... So it's quite possible that Rene' and Windley are referring to different antennas and that's where the problem lies . I sent your message to Jarrah ... Hopefully he will send it on to Ralph so this question can be resolved . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) Evan is quoting from NASA's self serving Apollo Lunar Surface Fairy Tale again , to try to explain away NASA's many photographic mistakes .... How predictable. From The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: 110:16:25 McCandless: All right. Go ahead, Mr. President. This is Houston. Out. 110:16:30 Nixon: Hello, Neil and Buzz. I'm talking to you by telephone from the Oval Room at the White House, and this certainly has to be the most historic telephone call ever made. I just can't tell you how proud we all are of what you (garbled). For every American, this has to be the proudest day of our lives. And for people all over the world, I am sure they, too, join with Americans in recognizing what an immense feat this is. Because of what you have done, the heavens have become a part of man's world. And as you talk to us from the Sea of Tranquility, it inspires us to redouble our efforts to bring peace and tranquility to Earth. For one priceless moment in the whole history of man, all the people on this Earth are truly one; one in their pride in what you have done, and one in our prayers that you will return safely to Earth. (Pause) Buzz Aldrin is a very patriotic man, and a proud military man - and he was saluting (he did so twice here) when he and Armstrong were talking to President Nixon. So Buzz really did salute the flag TWICE .... and he did it during "Tricky Dick" Nixon's staged phone call no less !! But "It would have been disrespectful for him ( Neil ) to do so ( photograph Buzz's salute ) while the President was speaking." You're kidding right ??? .... Buzz is standing on the Moon next to the American flag .... Neil has been taking several photographs of him standing next to the American flag ... The American president calls them up from the Oval Office to chat with the boys on the Moon ... The American public , along with the rest of the world are watching this drama unfold "live" on TV ....Snapping Buzz's picture saluting the American flag on the Moon while the American president was on the phone with them would have been a monumental photo op !! Yet we are to believe that Neil failed to take this opportunity to quietly snap the REAL SALUTE PHOTOS that nobody would have even known were being taken , so as not to have been disrespectful to the President !?!? It was disrespectful that he didn't take those photos !!... Think about what a photo op that would have been !!! ... Here are the two picture perfect postcard photos of Buzz saluting the American flag while the President made that "historic phone call" from the White House to the Moon !!! But Neil decided not to take those photos out of respect for the President . Do you have any idea how ridiculous that explaination is ? Edited January 10, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It was an official NASA image until they removed it from the book and threw it in the trash where it belonged in the first place Well, you are wrong on two counts: 1. NASA has NEVER said it was an official image; and 2. The image is still in the book; it has not been "removed". The point everyone keeps trying to get you to understand is #1; NASA never said or even hinted that it was an image taken inflight. The book never said that. Rene assumed that and he was wrong. Here's an excerpt from Rene's book that Jarrah White sent me which should clear up any misunderstandings about some of NASA's phony photos . NASA changed the ID numbers of some of their ridiculous photographs after Rene's book came out exposing their many scams .. NASA also refused to send him the photos he requested ... and yes , they did remove the faked Collins photo from the later additions of his book when they knew that Ralph Rene had exposed it for what it was . "THE NASA PHOTO ADDENDUM In 1992 I originally predicted that NASA would find a way to "lose" the three color photos used in this book. You saw this mentioned in the "Author's Notes" at the bottom of page J. I also predicted that the photos would be obtainable. They are and are not. Read on! The ink was barely dry on my first edition when I tried to get extra copies of the three colored photos. For $13 apiece they had the gaul to send me three 8 by 10 glossy full color optical quality photos of *their* choice. When I sent them back to get either my money back or the right photos they sent me the money and informed me that I would have to give them the new NASA numbers. When I asked for the list of the new numbers I was told, "We lost the cross-over index."! Gee! I wonder why a mission numbering system in place for 23 years was suddenly changed? Sometime during '99 I tried again. This time I was told that the photo sales had been privatized and that Bara-King Studios in Maryland now supplied the photos. In February 2000, since I still couldn't get the "lost" index I sent Bara-King Studios black & white copies along with $15 apiece for the three, 8 by 10 optical glossy full color photos you see in this book. They sent me the right photos. However, the photos were not 8 by 10 optical quality glossy full color photos. Instead, they were computer derived showing grainy, blurred colors. In addition, the "C" on the rock had been brushed out, and the size reduced to 6.75 by 7 inches. I screamed and yelped for my money back which they immediately returned. I kept the photos and sent them a copy of this book so that they could see for themselves what NASA did. So ends the saga of the "lost" numbering system." Ralph Rene, p185 NASA Mooned America! I will address NASA's conflicting evidence and silly claims about the whip antennia in a later post . I will add a little anecdote about my one dealing with NASA. I found the email address of the Public Affairs Office. I wrote saying I had been enjoying the Apollo photos posted at the Image Gallery, and would like to ask some questions about certain ones. The PAO office responded cordially (this was before they knew who I was) and said to send them the file numbers and my questions. As I recall, I not only sent the file numbers, but enclosed two AIG scans with questions. The images were the one with the color photos on the landing pad, and the image with the black piece of paper tacked to the side of the LEM. My inquiry was never answered. I sent another email asking for a response...but they never replied. They were afraid to respond, for there is no answer. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It was an official NASA image until they removed it from the book and threw it in the trash where it belonged in the first place Well, you are wrong on two counts: 1. NASA has NEVER said it was an official image; and 2. The image is still in the book; it has not been "removed". The point everyone keeps trying to get you to understand is #1; NASA never said or even hinted that it was an image taken inflight. The book never said that. Rene assumed that and he was wrong. Here's an excerpt from Rene's book that Jarrah White sent me which should clear up any misunderstandings about some of NASA's phony photos . NASA changed the ID numbers of some of their ridiculous photographs after Rene's book came out exposing their many scams .. NASA also refused to send him the photos he requested ... and yes , they did remove the faked Collins photo from the later additions of his book when they knew that Ralph Rene had exposed it for what it was . "THE NASA PHOTO ADDENDUM In 1992 I originally predicted that NASA would find a way to "lose" the three color photos used in this book. You saw this mentioned in the "Author's Notes" at the bottom of page J. I also predicted that the photos would be obtainable. They are and are not. Read on! The ink was barely dry on my first edition when I tried to get extra copies of the three colored photos. For $13 apiece they had the gaul to send me three 8 by 10 glossy full color optical quality photos of *their* choice. When I sent them back to get either my money back or the right photos they sent me the money and informed me that I would have to give them the new NASA numbers. When I asked for the list of the new numbers I was told, "We lost the cross-over index."! Gee! I wonder why a mission numbering system in place for 23 years was suddenly changed? Sometime during '99 I tried again. This time I was told that the photo sales had been privatized and that Bara-King Studios in Maryland now supplied the photos. In February 2000, since I still couldn't get the "lost" index I sent Bara-King Studios black & white copies along with $15 apiece for the three, 8 by 10 optical glossy full color photos you see in this book. They sent me the right photos. However, the photos were not 8 by 10 optical quality glossy full color photos. Instead, they were computer derived showing grainy, blurred colors. In addition, the "C" on the rock had been brushed out, and the size reduced to 6.75 by 7 inches. I screamed and yelped for my money back which they immediately returned. I kept the photos and sent them a copy of this book so that they could see for themselves what NASA did. So ends the saga of the "lost" numbering system." Ralph Rene, p185 NASA Mooned America! I will address NASA's conflicting evidence and silly claims about the whip antennia in a later post . I will add a little anecdote about my one dealing with NASA. I found the email address of the Public Affairs Office. I wrote saying I had been enjoying the Apollo photos posted at the Image Gallery, and would like to ask some questions about certain ones. The PAO office responded cordially (this was before they knew who I was) and said to send them the file numbers and my questions. As I recall, I not only sent the file numbers, but enclosed two AIG scans with questions. The images were the one with the color photos on the landing pad, and the image with the black piece of paper tacked to the side of the LEM. My inquiry was never answered. I sent another email asking for a response...but they never replied. They were afraid to respond, for there is no answer. Jack No Jack I think that maybe they decided not to feed the kooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now