Jump to content
The Education Forum

Apollo whistleblower revealed at last!


Dave Greer

Recommended Posts

Like you I haven't read Rene's book. I assumed that since you claim it is the truth, you would have read it yourself. I have however read his website, which is where he makes claims such as 1000 foot high cliffs should collapse, the new moon should leave Earth orbit and drift toward the sun. He also sells "proof" that Pi doesn't equal the value that Mathematicians have calculated it to be for several centuries. I didn't bother shelling out $6 to find out where the error is.

I didn't think you had read Rene's book ... From your post it was pretty obvious that all you've read is the typical character assassination posted on the pro Apollo web sites such as clavius ... I posted what I did to James so hopefully he would read BOTH sides of this issue and not just the list of books that Evan provided ... but you're right .. I probably shouldn't promote a book I haven't read yet , just as you shoudn't dismiss it for the same reason.

I'm not interested in Rene's claims except for those about Apollo.

My personal opinion is that he's a colourful character and the world is a more interesting place with him in it. His grasp of some scientific concepts, however, leaves plenty to be desired. Some of his views make him come across as a crackpot. That doesn't mean that all of his views are invalid of course, which is why I asked for clarification of some of the points you raised, so we can look at the claims themselves

My personal opinion is that Rene' has been ripped to shreds and his claims "debunked" by a load of pro Apollo disinformation, just like the rest of the CT's who have dared to expose NASA's many lies about the alleged Apollo Moon landings .

Could you be more specific about which of Rene's claims you support and which you don't?

I don't agree with him that stars should show up in the photos taken in space ... but I do agree with him that the stars would be seen and also mentioned by anyone who traveled to the Moon ... Unlike the Apollo astronots who avoided the subject of the stars almost completely.

This artcle pretty much sums up what I do agree with.

NASA REALLY MOONED US!

[Without Proper Protection, Radiation Will Kill You!!!]

by byron lebeau © 2005

PREAMBLE

[AS A Citizen of the untied States of America, I am NOT PROUD to have to

present the suggested data in the below VITAL REVIEW, but I perceive it as

NECESSARY ~~ just like I thought it was necessary to expose the income tax

scam & its misdirected cousin, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, (both of which

were reflected many months ago on my websites.) NOW, as President Bush is

announcing a "return" to the Moon, I feel it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL to see why we

DID NOT GO TO THE MOON IN THE FIRST PLACE!

PLEASE! I beg your indulgence in this matter since I spent many hours

researching the below book, as well as ancillary information. THANK YOU!]

There are three things that really stand out in my mind when I think

about the MOON LANDING DECEPTIONS: the humble but devastating insights of

former

ROCKETDYNE employee, Bill Kaysing, and how he single-handedly ripped

the mask off of NASA'S attempt to buffalo the American people (and indeed the

world) about this most outrageous hoax; the inept non-specific blabber of

NASA spokesperson and debunker of Kaysing, one, Brian Welsh, who was set in

juxtaposition to Kaysing on the same broadcast and came across as

nothing less than a buffoon; the complete and overwhelming data provided by

Ralph Rene regarding the flimsy spacesuits vs. the utterly deadly VAN ALLEN

BELTS & SOLAR FLARE activity that went on between 1960 and 1974, as presented

in his self-published book, NASA MOONED AMERICA, but not fully appreciated on

the above program since this data was not presented in any SPECIFIC way.

It is my intention to bring this deadly specific information to the forefront

of the conscious mind of America, indeed the world because of its very

importance!

DO NOT BELIEVE MY WORDS...BUT BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE OF THOSE WHO

INTUITIVELY KNEW WHAT CAME DOWN OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO-AND STILL IS GOING ON

TODAY! If you were not convinced by the FOX presentation a few years ago,

perhaps, when you see the information that Mr. Rene has painstakingly

presented in his book, you may be inclined to rethink your possibly

misdirected attitude and read his book...since it makes the case for the MOON

HOAX ever so clear and

unambiguous. [The data is not "sexy" but the devil is in the

details...and believe me, there is quite a DEVILISH DETAIL here!]

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS...BUT...

Ralph Rene cites a quote by Hitler in the beginning of his book that

is often used by nefarious control-freak types to fool large groups of people,

namely,

"The great masses of the people will fall victim to a big lie than a

small one."

The linchpin, in my opinion, of the whole Moon deception, can be focused on

the overwhelming data Ralph Rene presents in ONLY chapter fifteen of his

excellently researched book, NASA MOONED AMERICA, and the chapter is simply

called 'SUNSTROKE'...but firstly, who is Ralph Rene?

Rene, (according to the 'AUTHOR NOTES') is an ex-member of Mensa with an IQ in

the top one half percent of the population. He is an inventor with two basic

patents (without corporate help.) The author is also a self-taught engineer

who has successfully designed beams, trusses, a mobile crane, boats, homes,

factories, etc.... [cf. below website of Rene for additional biographical

information.]

CHAPTER 15: SUNSTROKE

[i chose this chapter to review because ~ if this information is 100% true,

then all the other lies and misdemeanors of NASA - fall neatly into place.]

Rene's premise is that NASA could not have gone to the Moon - PERIOD! This

chapter (one of 18, plus 8 revealing addendum,) along with the Radiation

Addendum, expose the truth of the NASA LIES, lies that incorporate the

details about the Van Allen Belt & solar flares, and their deadly radiation.

This data reflects the reason why Rene calls any astronaut who ventured into

the Van Allen Belt and beyond ~ an 'astro-not!' [The author, though seemingly

being flippant, is deadly realistic as the following data will soon reveal.]

To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL

OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques to

disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,

unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any

really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,

one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the

likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)

On page 126 of his manuscript, he actually secured 'MONTHLY COUNTS OF GROUPED

SOLAR FLARES' (1967-1991) for reference. He notes that during 1968-1969,

Apollo mission 8,9,10,11 & 12 "allegedly left the protection provided by the

Van Allen Belt (shield) and entered lunar space.(p.126) On the same page, the

author emphasizes that extremely powerful flares can randomly occur at any

portion of the cycle....

FOR INSTANCE, from 1969 to 1972 there were 27,019 flares or 19 storms a day.

Doing some calculations (p.127) ~ Rene concluded that Apollo 15 would have

been bathed in 268 flares (an average of over 22 per day,( from July 26

through August 7 of 1971.

SO WHAT'S IN A FLARE?

The author finally received some information about solar flares, but coming

through a book called, NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ERL-22, by J.A. McKinnon, an

NOAA expert on solar flares. One can refer to Rene's book for details, but

the bottom line:

"the sun can act as a formidable source of radiation." (p.128)

which is just what the Russians told NASA in 1963. [cf. below remarks by

Russian Cosmonaut at the end of this essay/review.]

As this chapter aptly reveals, solar flare activity was as predictable as

ancient weather reports or...[Carry your umbrella at all times!]

MEANWHILE, HOW WERE THE ASTRO-NOTS PROTECTED?

1) Well, for starters, the outer skin of the LEM [Lunar Entry Module,] had

"the thickness of heavy-duty aluminum foil..." as per John Wilford, Super

Weight Improvement Program.(p.129)

2) Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2

meters of solid shielding around all living organisms, as per John H.

Mauldin, who has a Masters in physics and a Ph.D. in science education.

Furthermore, Mauldin states that the solar flares can give doses of hundreds

of thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance from Earth. Such

doses are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. DEATH

IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS IN ANY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

HELLO?

3) Surely the space suits were sufficiently protected? THINK AGAIN! says Rene.

The TMG (thermal-meteoroid garment) was made of a dozen layers of ultra fine

spun glass cloth, doped with silicon rubber, some aluminum threads & a coating

of Teflon. [if this can stop particles up to 2 gigavolt (2 billion EV) than

the

author sarcastically adds how "easy" it would be to protect them in an atomic

reactor where the particle energies are below 18 megavolts (18 million EV.) If

they could [bUT THEY CAN'T!] they would be able to romp around in Three Mile

Island's meltdown, still hot, reactor all day long in such a splendid garment.

[sadly, NASA's little lie is a tip-off for the BIG LIE A. Hitler uttered and

cited at the beginning of this essay/review.]

4) HOW DANGEROUS ARE REMS? Well, Ralph Rene cites an interesting anecdote on

page 130: the SST, (Super Sonic Transport) must lower course if the - get

this - "millirems" (1/1000 of a rem) approaches 10! [it seems the elite who

took this transport do not wish to take ANY CHANCES with even a few rays of

radiation.] Of course, maybe they know something since 500 REM (according to

McKinnon) cause 50% deaths within one month.(p.130) [cf. the various scale of

this is also offered in Rene's manuscript on the same page.]

5) MORE REM DANGER: Rene read that even 170 REMS is dangerous & almost

guarantees a cancerous future, but when he checked the source, he found that

it was 170 milli'rads' which is the equivalent of 170 REMS...[The source is

indicated as footnote #15, which comes from 'POISON POWER,' "Gofman" &

Tamplin, 1971, Rodale, p.126.] Rene muses, "No wonder the SST aborts its

flight plan at 100 millirems." (p.132)

6) WHO GOT ZAPPED?

6a) During the Gemini 10 mission, Mike Collins allegedly received

".78 rads"(78 millirems) over 24 hours while under the Van Allen Belt

umbrella, which is almost EIGHT TIMES what it takes for the SST to "streak for

cover." (p.132) [if one were to peruse the opening part of NASA MOONED

AMERICA, there seems to be a problem with the 'Mike Collins' pictures (faked,

according to Rene,) going back to as early as July, 1966. Why? Maybe Collins

was made of the "right stuff" - so much so - that he was immune to

radiological poisoning?!? Obviously, Rene's astro-nots' RIGHT STUFF is nothing

but balogna sliced really thin...perhaps!]

6b) A big flare during Apollo 16, (April 17,1972) where "Astro-nots Young,

Mattingly & Duke, should have been fried, but, of course, they

weren't."(p.133) They also allegedly spent nearly 20 hours outside the LEM in

the searing sunlight [judged to be about 250 degrees F.-really HOT!!!] and

radiation from residual flares.

6c) Drawing on the frequency of sun flares over a 25 year period [that

encompassed the time frame of the Apollo missions,] there were, on average,

5391 flares per year or 14.76 per day. The Apollo astro-nots were in space for

85 days, subjecting themselves to about 1254 (actually 1485) flares.

According to McKinnon (cited previously) ~ even a 1% probability would mean at

least 12 SUPER DEADLY FLARES OF X RATED CAPACITY or OVER ONE PER

MISSION!(p.135)

TIME OUT! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN???

[iT MEANS THAT NASA CANNOT BE TELLING US THE WHOLE TRUTH - PURE & SIMPLE!]

If solar flares can potentially give doses up to hundreds to thousands of REM

over a few hours at the distance of Earth - and as mentioned previously -

DEATH IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS in any short time...[then you do not have to be

a Sherlock Holmes to perceive the BIG LIE!]

According to Rene, all 27 of the astro-nots who went to the Moon should be

dead from radiation. [shouldn't they?] If you are, however, the

SUPER-skeptical type, I invite you read The Radiation Addendums. It's another

eye-opener!

#1 (by James Miller,) one can begin to ascertain the truth about atomic chain

reactions and exactly how radioactivity is produced, contradicting other lies

of NASA.

#2 (James A. Van Allen) also proves that the three hours it takes coming &

going through this belt (which, of course, was named after him,) that each of

the solar storms per day [14.77 cited previously] produces a minimum of 369

REMS, and unless one has at least two meters (6 foot) of solid shielding

[unlike what the astro-nots had,] one would be committing suicide. (John

Mauldin, ex-NASA astrophysicist) OF COURSE, NASA's spin doctors claim that men

can live after 500 REMS and that space has very little radiation. (p.170)

WHOM DO YOU BELIEVE?

IN Addendum #3, an expert on the Van Allen Belt, Dr. Frank Greening, proves

(as deduced by Rene,) that even traveling within the Van Allen Belt, one

could expect to receive enough radiation (coming & going) - that - "you would

be dying upon reentry whether outer space contains radiation or is as

radiation free as NASA claims it is. [The CASE SHOULD CLOSE RIGHT HERE...but

Bush wants to go to Mars, so let me add one other tidbit...like...the Apollo

17 mission, at 12 days long was the longest flight made. With at least a

million seconds in 12 days, at .32 rads/sec., the total exposure for each

astro-not would be 320,000 rads. [WOULD YOU SIGN UP FOR BUSH's PLANNED MARS'

TRIP?]

ONCE ONE SEES CLEARLY that flimsy space suits will kill you in deadly space

(as the Russians found out,) then all the other pieces start coming together

~ like in a secret place called Mercury, Nevada,(p.17) as part of the secured

site, the site of the double-cross, the site where the REAL action was taking

place long before AREA 51 became a bone of contention for Ufologists!

BY THE WAY: the Russian Cosmonaut who knew better about the deadly radiation

problem was mentioned by Bill Kaysing on the TV broadcast, and supported the

Rene information of chapter 15 above: His name was Boris Valentinovich

Volinov, and he feared that the radiation could come through the craft. [sMART

GUY, just like Ralph Rene, former Mensa man!]

Incidentally, on a second TV interview of Bill Kaysing (technical writer for

ROCKETDYNE from 1957-1963)~ done by a Ross Marshall (the 1995 production of WE

NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, which is also the name of Kaysing's book,) Bill

discloses an interesting fact: He said that NORTON AIR FORCE BASE contained

all the professional technological equipment necessary to pull off the STUNT

AND DECEPTION OF LAST CENTURY. They are closed now, but back then, they were

located in San Bernadino, Cal., which had the largest movie studio in the

area.

AND lebeau IS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO SKEPTICALLY READ THE BOOK AND CAME

AWAY A BELIEVER IN THE ANALYSIS OF RALPH RENE...Below you will find a review

by WAYNE GREEN, who, in effect, could find no fault with the 30 or so

"gotcha's" that Rene pinned on NASA (Never a Straight Answer,) so I guess I am

challenging every thinking tax-paying American to put aside his/her built-in

prejudice in this matter and CRACK THE BOOK! It is the least you can do to

convince yourself that 'crackpots' like lebeau & Green, Kaysing & especially

Ralph Rene are OFF THEIR ROCKERS-OR- MAYBE THEY'RE NOT!?!

http://www.maar.us/nasa_mooned_us.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't agree with him that stars should show up in the photos taken in space ... but I do agree with him that the stars would be seen and also mentioned by anyone who traveled to the Moon ... Unlike the Apollo astronots who avoided the subject of the stars almost completely.

That is not correct, and I am sure we have discussed the matter before. Perhaps you have forgotten (when we deal with a range of subjects, it is easy to do).

They have discussed seeing stars - with the naked eye or through a telescope - in transit to/from the Moon and in lunar orbit, thought rarely on the lunar surface. They have, however, mentioned that when they were in darkness they eyes could adjust and see the stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted what I did to James so hopefully he would read BOTH sides of this issue and not just the list of books that Evan provided ...

Correct - you should always evaluate both sides of a claim. The emphasis being on EVALUATE, not just 'accept' because it coincides with your beliefs. This is something you have admitted you fail to do in many cases, and it reduces your credibility.

Wherever possible, you should test the claims. Jack's photographic claims regarding Apollo are a case in point; if he says something is impossible, then you should confirm that it is impossible. Many people on this forum have done so and have results that disagree with Jack's assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal opinion is that Rene' has been ripped to shreds and his claims "debunked" by a load of pro Apollo disinformation, just like the rest of the CT's who have dared to expose NASA's many lies about the alleged Apollo Moon landings .

In my own opinion, his claims have been debunked because they are wrong; not because of disinformation, but because the overwhelming weight of evidence dismisses the claims. I am more than happy to devote threads to a single claim by Rene; I am more than happy to arrange scientific testing of those claims in order to determine their validity.

In your case - IMO - you simply will not accept anything that goes against your own beliefs. Your own opinion is that Apollo was faked somehow; anything that supports that belief is valid and anything which negates that belief is "disinformation" or "personal attacks" or similar. For whatever reason, you seem to be unable to objectively evaluate evidence which goes against your personal beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have discussed seeing stars - with the naked eye or through a telescope - in transit to/from the Moon and in lunar orbit, thought rarely on the lunar surface. They have, however, mentioned that when they were in darkness they eyes could adjust and see the stars.

Yes, we have discussed this subject before and the stars are rarely mentioned by any of the Apollo astronauts, and when they are, it's as if it were an unimportant after thought ... Neil Armstrong was an avid amateur astronomer and loved looking at and discussing stars , yet he never mentioned seeing any while on his way to or from the Moon ... and when asked about them at the Apollo 11 post flight press conference, he acted like a kid who was caught in the cookie jar when strugging to answer whether he could see them from the daylight side of the Moon or not ... He also looked as though he wanted to punch out Collins for his silly answer about never seeing any while photographing the solar corona.

Wherever possible, you should test the claims. Jack's photographic claims regarding Apollo are a case in point; if he says something is impossible, then you should confirm that it is impossible. Many people on this forum have done so and have results that disagree with Jack's assessment.

This discussion isn't about Jack's evidence , it's about Ralph Rene's.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, before I address the claims, i want to point out a little tactic which Duane may decide to correct: In the post, how many claims were made? How many posts do i need to make to address a single post by Duane (or should I say the source that Duane posts)?

I'd request you post a single claim, and then let's discuss it. Information overflow is not a respected debate tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion isn't about Jack's evidence , it's about Ralph Rene's.

And have you tested his claims? Or just accepted them?

Edited to add: I will not continue to address the claims in your post until you answer this question. Once you do (either in the negative or affirmative) I'll continue to address the claims made in your post.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd request you post a single claim, and then let's discuss it. Information overflow is not a respected debate tactic.

Pick one of Rene's claims at a time then for your "rebuttals" ... If "information overflow" is posting an article that lists several of Rene's Moon hoax claims by someone who agrees with him , then I guess I'm guilty of disrespectful debate tactics . :rolleyes:

And have you tested his claims? Or just accepted them?

No , I haven't ventured into the Van Allen radiation belts yet in a flimsy Apollo spacesuit and spacecraft ... but I'm sure if I did , I wouldn't be able to report back to you with my findings ... for obvious reasons ! :lol:

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd request you post a single claim, and then let's discuss it. Information overflow is not a respected debate tactic.

Pick one of Rene's claims at a time then for your "rebuttals" ... If "information overflow" is posting an article that lists several of Rene's Moon hoax claims by someone who agrees with him , then I guess I'm guilty of disrespectful debate tactics . :rolleyes:

No, you pick what you believe to be the most resilient evidence, and I'll give a rebuttal to it.

And have you tested his claims? Or just accepted them?

No , I haven't ventured into the Van Allen radiation belts yet in a flimsy Apollo spacesuit and spacecraft ... but I'm sure if I did , I wouldn't be able to report back to you with my findings ... for obvious reasons ! :lol:

You belittle yourself. There are other claims he has made:

- Ability to flex hands in gloves in airless environment;

- No stars visible in background of photographs;

- The infamous 'C' rock;

- There was no-one on the surface to take the TV images of Armstrong stepping on the Moon; and

- Shaded area indicated three-point lighting.

I believe the last claim was disputed by Dave Greer and I'll leave it to him to discuss.

The other claims, however: do you support or reject them? Which ones do you support? Name what you feel is the most convincing and we'll discuss it before moving onto the other claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You belittle yourself.

Now why would I do that when I have you and Dave and Craig and Kevin and Matthew to do that for me ?

How about we stick with the radiation evidence that I posted above and said I agree with, instead of rehashing old tired claims which have already been discussed ad nauseum.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well NO DUANE! Can you show that the report was ACTUALLY submitted? Lots of folklore here, not much in the way of documentation. I'l be happy to admit my error if you can bring solid documentation to bear, and that means more than you being a parrot for someone else.

And that would be Craig speak for ... "I would rather die than admit that I'm wrong about something, or ever admit than Duane is right".

Try engaging your brain before using a keyboard... Note: "I'l be happy to admit my error if you can bring solid documentation to bear"

And where exactly would I be able to find this "documentation" about Tom Barons damaging saftey report ? .. At the Goddard Space FLight Center where NASA "lost" that one ton of telemetry tapes for all of the Apollo missions perhaps ?

Not my problem. You made the claim you provide the documentation. You say you are a researcher (polly wanna cracker?), why not act like one.?

First you wanted proof than the 500 page report existed and now you want proof that it was submitted ? ... Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about this subject and got caught on that fact .

I simply want to verify your confilcting stories. Fist you tellus the report goes missing before it was submitted, then you tell us it goes missing after it was submitted. So which is it? It appears you don't really have a clue. Why don't you just admit you don't have any conclusive facts nor documentation and you got caught posting crap.

Here's the bottom line Craig ... The 500 page report did exist and this was even admitted to by NASA and one of NASA's top watchdogs , Jay Windley ....But regardless of whether Baron had the opportunity to submit it or not, it magically just disappeared after he and his family "committed suicide" by train.

There you go again. Documentation please. I must tell you I'm a bit suprised to see you using NASA and Clavius as evidence to back your claims. You have said many times that they are sources that can't be used, and yet here you are using them. Amazing. So given your use of both sources can we assume that you now accept the evidence presented by NASA and Clavius in respect to the Apollo missions ot be true and factual? If the answer is no, please explain how you fact checked their material as it pertains the the Baron report. You did fact check it...right?

When it comes to the Apollo hoax evidence you really are clueless .... Maybe you should stick with a subject you're not so ignorant about, like photography ! :)

As we have now seen, the clueless one would be you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to burst your bubble again Craig, but you still remain the clueless one ... Baron's 500 page report had not yet been submitted , just as I first stated .... Many sources also beleive that it was in his briefcase with him in the car when it was struck by the train and was never to be seen again .

Here is the evidence that Tom Baron's 500 page report had NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO NASA before he and his family were murdered to shut him up.

"Baron passed on these and other criticisms to his superiors and friends; then he deliberately let his findings leak out to newsmen. North American considered his actions irresponsible and discharged him on 5 January 1967. The company then analyzed and refuted each of Baron's charges and allegations. In the rebuttal, North American denied anything but partial validity to Baron's wide-ranging accusations, although some company officials later testified before Congress that about half of the charges were well-grounded. When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report."

This is NASA's documentation.... Since you believe them about everything else, I guess you need to believe them about this... Even if it does PROVE YOU WRONG !

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/barron.html

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to burst your bubble again Craig, but you still remain the clueless one ... Baron's 500 page report had not yet been submitted , just as I first stated .... Many sources also beleive that it was in his briefcase with him in the car when it was struck by the train and was never to be seen again .

Here is the evidence that Tom Baron's 500 page report had NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO NASA before he and his family were murdered to shut him up.

"Baron passed on these and other criticisms to his superiors and friends; then he deliberately let his findings leak out to newsmen. North American considered his actions irresponsible and discharged him on 5 January 1967. The company then analyzed and refuted each of Baron's charges and allegations. In the rebuttal, North American denied anything but partial validity to Baron's wide-ranging accusations, although some company officials later testified before Congress that about half of the charges were well-grounded. When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report."

This is NASA's documentation.... Since you believe them about everything else, I guess you need to believe them about this... Even if it does PROVE YOU WRONG !

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/barron.html

Well Duane you posted this as part of your evidence:

"Baron originally produced a fifty-five-page report, and finished a 500-page report that he delivered when he testified to Congress in April of 1967"

Can you please make up your mind? You seem quite confused.

And I'll ask again, how have you vetted ANY of the evidence you have submitted? (polly wanna cracker?)

BTW, exactly what is it I am wrong about here? I've just asked you a few questions. You are the one posting conflicting claims.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It hurts to lose the argument , doesn't it Craig? ... Sorry but I'm not the one who is confused about this ... The article made a claim that apparently wasn't true by stating that Baron's 500 page report had been submitted, when it was only his 55 page report which NASA had their grubby hands on .

So now you're two for two with your dishonest attack on the A12 photo evidence... Wanna try again to embarrass yourself by never admitting when you're wrong ? .. Or do you prefer to look like the dishonest fool you so obviously are ? :)

First you claimed that I hadn't shown any proof that the 500 page report existed and then you claimed that I had no proof of whether the report had been submitted or not ... I have shown that it existed and that it wasn't sumitted , just as I first stated.

NASA had heard Baron's testimony and had read his 55 page report ... And obviously they had no interest in waiting to read his 500 page damaging report againt them and their pathetic Apollo debacle , so they made sure it never got submitted .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you I haven't read Rene's book. I assumed that since you claim it is the truth, you would have read it yourself. I have however read his website, which is where he makes claims such as 1000 foot high cliffs should collapse, the new moon should leave Earth orbit and drift toward the sun. He also sells "proof" that Pi doesn't equal the value that Mathematicians have calculated it to be for several centuries. I didn't bother shelling out $6 to find out where the error is.

I didn't think you had read Rene's book ... From your post it was pretty obvious that all you've read is the typical character assassination posted on the pro Apollo web sites such as clavius ... I posted what I did to James so hopefully he would read BOTH sides of this issue and not just the list of books that Evan provided ... but you're right .. I probably shouldn't promote a book I haven't read yet , just as you shoudn't dismiss it for the same reason.

I'm not interested in Rene's claims except for those about Apollo.

My personal opinion is that he's a colourful character and the world is a more interesting place with him in it. His grasp of some scientific concepts, however, leaves plenty to be desired. Some of his views make him come across as a crackpot. That doesn't mean that all of his views are invalid of course, which is why I asked for clarification of some of the points you raised, so we can look at the claims themselves

My personal opinion is that Rene' has been ripped to shreds and his claims "debunked" by a load of pro Apollo disinformation, just like the rest of the CT's who have dared to expose NASA's many lies about the alleged Apollo Moon landings .

Could you be more specific about which of Rene's claims you support and which you don't?

I don't agree with him that stars should show up in the photos taken in space ... but I do agree with him that the stars would be seen and also mentioned by anyone who traveled to the Moon ... Unlike the Apollo astronots who avoided the subject of the stars almost completely.

This artcle pretty much sums up what I do agree with.

NASA REALLY MOONED US!

[Without Proper Protection, Radiation Will Kill You!!!]

by byron lebeau © 2005

PREAMBLE

[AS A Citizen of the untied States of America, I am NOT PROUD to have to

present the suggested data in the below VITAL REVIEW, but I perceive it as

NECESSARY ~~ just like I thought it was necessary to expose the income tax

scam & its misdirected cousin, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, (both of which

were reflected many months ago on my websites.) NOW, as President Bush is

announcing a "return" to the Moon, I feel it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL to see why we

DID NOT GO TO THE MOON IN THE FIRST PLACE!

PLEASE! I beg your indulgence in this matter since I spent many hours

researching the below book, as well as ancillary information. THANK YOU!]

There are three things that really stand out in my mind when I think

about the MOON LANDING DECEPTIONS: the humble but devastating insights of

former

ROCKETDYNE employee, Bill Kaysing, and how he single-handedly ripped

the mask off of NASA'S attempt to buffalo the American people (and indeed the

world) about this most outrageous hoax; the inept non-specific blabber of

NASA spokesperson and debunker of Kaysing, one, Brian Welsh, who was set in

juxtaposition to Kaysing on the same broadcast and came across as

nothing less than a buffoon; the complete and overwhelming data provided by

Ralph Rene regarding the flimsy spacesuits vs. the utterly deadly VAN ALLEN

BELTS & SOLAR FLARE activity that went on between 1960 and 1974, as presented

in his self-published book, NASA MOONED AMERICA, but not fully appreciated on

the above program since this data was not presented in any SPECIFIC way.

It is my intention to bring this deadly specific information to the forefront

of the conscious mind of America, indeed the world because of its very

importance!

DO NOT BELIEVE MY WORDS...BUT BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE OF THOSE WHO

INTUITIVELY KNEW WHAT CAME DOWN OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO-AND STILL IS GOING ON

TODAY! If you were not convinced by the FOX presentation a few years ago,

perhaps, when you see the information that Mr. Rene has painstakingly

presented in his book, you may be inclined to rethink your possibly

misdirected attitude and read his book...since it makes the case for the MOON

HOAX ever so clear and

unambiguous. [The data is not "sexy" but the devil is in the

details...and believe me, there is quite a DEVILISH DETAIL here!]

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS...BUT...

Ralph Rene cites a quote by Hitler in the beginning of his book that

is often used by nefarious control-freak types to fool large groups of people,

namely,

"The great masses of the people will fall victim to a big lie than a

small one."

The linchpin, in my opinion, of the whole Moon deception, can be focused on

the overwhelming data Ralph Rene presents in ONLY chapter fifteen of his

excellently researched book, NASA MOONED AMERICA, and the chapter is simply

called 'SUNSTROKE'...but firstly, who is Ralph Rene?

Rene, (according to the 'AUTHOR NOTES') is an ex-member of Mensa with an IQ in

the top one half percent of the population. He is an inventor with two basic

patents (without corporate help.) The author is also a self-taught engineer

who has successfully designed beams, trusses, a mobile crane, boats, homes,

factories, etc.... [cf. below website of Rene for additional biographical

information.]

CHAPTER 15: SUNSTROKE

[i chose this chapter to review because ~ if this information is 100% true,

then all the other lies and misdemeanors of NASA - fall neatly into place.]

Rene's premise is that NASA could not have gone to the Moon - PERIOD! This

chapter (one of 18, plus 8 revealing addendum,) along with the Radiation

Addendum, expose the truth of the NASA LIES, lies that incorporate the

details about the Van Allen Belt & solar flares, and their deadly radiation.

This data reflects the reason why Rene calls any astronaut who ventured into

the Van Allen Belt and beyond ~ an 'astro-not!' [The author, though seemingly

being flippant, is deadly realistic as the following data will soon reveal.]

To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL

OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques to

disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,

unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any

really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,

one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the

likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)

On page 126 of his manuscript, he actually secured 'MONTHLY COUNTS OF GROUPED

SOLAR FLARES' (1967-1991) for reference. He notes that during 1968-1969,

Apollo mission 8,9,10,11 & 12 "allegedly left the protection provided by the

Van Allen Belt (shield) and entered lunar space.(p.126) On the same page, the

author emphasizes that extremely powerful flares can randomly occur at any

portion of the cycle....

FOR INSTANCE, from 1969 to 1972 there were 27,019 flares or 19 storms a day.

Doing some calculations (p.127) ~ Rene concluded that Apollo 15 would have

been bathed in 268 flares (an average of over 22 per day,( from July 26

through August 7 of 1971.

SO WHAT'S IN A FLARE?

The author finally received some information about solar flares, but coming

through a book called, NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ERL-22, by J.A. McKinnon, an

NOAA expert on solar flares. One can refer to Rene's book for details, but

the bottom line:

"the sun can act as a formidable source of radiation." (p.128)

which is just what the Russians told NASA in 1963. [cf. below remarks by

Russian Cosmonaut at the end of this essay/review.]

As this chapter aptly reveals, solar flare activity was as predictable as

ancient weather reports or...[Carry your umbrella at all times!]

MEANWHILE, HOW WERE THE ASTRO-NOTS PROTECTED?

1) Well, for starters, the outer skin of the LEM [Lunar Entry Module,] had

"the thickness of heavy-duty aluminum foil..." as per John Wilford, Super

Weight Improvement Program.(p.129)

2) Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2

meters of solid shielding around all living organisms, as per John H.

Mauldin, who has a Masters in physics and a Ph.D. in science education.

Furthermore, Mauldin states that the solar flares can give doses of hundreds

of thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance from Earth. Such

doses are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. DEATH

IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS IN ANY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

HELLO?

3) Surely the space suits were sufficiently protected? THINK AGAIN! says Rene.

The TMG (thermal-meteoroid garment) was made of a dozen layers of ultra fine

spun glass cloth, doped with silicon rubber, some aluminum threads & a coating

of Teflon. [if this can stop particles up to 2 gigavolt (2 billion EV) than

the

author sarcastically adds how "easy" it would be to protect them in an atomic

reactor where the particle energies are below 18 megavolts (18 million EV.) If

they could [bUT THEY CAN'T!] they would be able to romp around in Three Mile

Island's meltdown, still hot, reactor all day long in such a splendid garment.

[sadly, NASA's little lie is a tip-off for the BIG LIE A. Hitler uttered and

cited at the beginning of this essay/review.]

4) HOW DANGEROUS ARE REMS? Well, Ralph Rene cites an interesting anecdote on

page 130: the SST, (Super Sonic Transport) must lower course if the - get

this - "millirems" (1/1000 of a rem) approaches 10! [it seems the elite who

took this transport do not wish to take ANY CHANCES with even a few rays of

radiation.] Of course, maybe they know something since 500 REM (according to

McKinnon) cause 50% deaths within one month.(p.130) [cf. the various scale of

this is also offered in Rene's manuscript on the same page.]

5) MORE REM DANGER: Rene read that even 170 REMS is dangerous & almost

guarantees a cancerous future, but when he checked the source, he found that

it was 170 milli'rads' which is the equivalent of 170 REMS...[The source is

indicated as footnote #15, which comes from 'POISON POWER,' "Gofman" &

Tamplin, 1971, Rodale, p.126.] Rene muses, "No wonder the SST aborts its

flight plan at 100 millirems." (p.132)

6) WHO GOT ZAPPED?

6a) During the Gemini 10 mission, Mike Collins allegedly received

".78 rads"(78 millirems) over 24 hours while under the Van Allen Belt

umbrella, which is almost EIGHT TIMES what it takes for the SST to "streak for

cover." (p.132) [if one were to peruse the opening part of NASA MOONED

AMERICA, there seems to be a problem with the 'Mike Collins' pictures (faked,

according to Rene,) going back to as early as July, 1966. Why? Maybe Collins

was made of the "right stuff" - so much so - that he was immune to

radiological poisoning?!? Obviously, Rene's astro-nots' RIGHT STUFF is nothing

but balogna sliced really thin...perhaps!]

6b) A big flare during Apollo 16, (April 17,1972) where "Astro-nots Young,

Mattingly & Duke, should have been fried, but, of course, they

weren't."(p.133) They also allegedly spent nearly 20 hours outside the LEM in

the searing sunlight [judged to be about 250 degrees F.-really HOT!!!] and

radiation from residual flares.

6c) Drawing on the frequency of sun flares over a 25 year period [that

encompassed the time frame of the Apollo missions,] there were, on average,

5391 flares per year or 14.76 per day. The Apollo astro-nots were in space for

85 days, subjecting themselves to about 1254 (actually 1485) flares.

According to McKinnon (cited previously) ~ even a 1% probability would mean at

least 12 SUPER DEADLY FLARES OF X RATED CAPACITY or OVER ONE PER

MISSION!(p.135)

TIME OUT! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN???

[iT MEANS THAT NASA CANNOT BE TELLING US THE WHOLE TRUTH - PURE & SIMPLE!]

If solar flares can potentially give doses up to hundreds to thousands of REM

over a few hours at the distance of Earth - and as mentioned previously -

DEATH IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS in any short time...[then you do not have to be

a Sherlock Holmes to perceive the BIG LIE!]

According to Rene, all 27 of the astro-nots who went to the Moon should be

dead from radiation. [shouldn't they?] If you are, however, the

SUPER-skeptical type, I invite you read The Radiation Addendums. It's another

eye-opener!

#1 (by James Miller,) one can begin to ascertain the truth about atomic chain

reactions and exactly how radioactivity is produced, contradicting other lies

of NASA.

#2 (James A. Van Allen) also proves that the three hours it takes coming &

going through this belt (which, of course, was named after him,) that each of

the solar storms per day [14.77 cited previously] produces a minimum of 369

REMS, and unless one has at least two meters (6 foot) of solid shielding

[unlike what the astro-nots had,] one would be committing suicide. (John

Mauldin, ex-NASA astrophysicist) OF COURSE, NASA's spin doctors claim that men

can live after 500 REMS and that space has very little radiation. (p.170)

WHOM DO YOU BELIEVE?

IN Addendum #3, an expert on the Van Allen Belt, Dr. Frank Greening, proves

(as deduced by Rene,) that even traveling within the Van Allen Belt, one

could expect to receive enough radiation (coming & going) - that - "you would

be dying upon reentry whether outer space contains radiation or is as

radiation free as NASA claims it is. [The CASE SHOULD CLOSE RIGHT HERE...but

Bush wants to go to Mars, so let me add one other tidbit...like...the Apollo

17 mission, at 12 days long was the longest flight made. With at least a

million seconds in 12 days, at .32 rads/sec., the total exposure for each

astro-not would be 320,000 rads. [WOULD YOU SIGN UP FOR BUSH's PLANNED MARS'

TRIP?]

ONCE ONE SEES CLEARLY that flimsy space suits will kill you in deadly space

(as the Russians found out,) then all the other pieces start coming together

~ like in a secret place called Mercury, Nevada,(p.17) as part of the secured

site, the site of the double-cross, the site where the REAL action was taking

place long before AREA 51 became a bone of contention for Ufologists!

BY THE WAY: the Russian Cosmonaut who knew better about the deadly radiation

problem was mentioned by Bill Kaysing on the TV broadcast, and supported the

Rene information of chapter 15 above: His name was Boris Valentinovich

Volinov, and he feared that the radiation could come through the craft. [sMART

GUY, just like Ralph Rene, former Mensa man!]

Incidentally, on a second TV interview of Bill Kaysing (technical writer for

ROCKETDYNE from 1957-1963)~ done by a Ross Marshall (the 1995 production of WE

NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, which is also the name of Kaysing's book,) Bill

discloses an interesting fact: He said that NORTON AIR FORCE BASE contained

all the professional technological equipment necessary to pull off the STUNT

AND DECEPTION OF LAST CENTURY. They are closed now, but back then, they were

located in San Bernadino, Cal., which had the largest movie studio in the

area.

AND lebeau IS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO SKEPTICALLY READ THE BOOK AND CAME

AWAY A BELIEVER IN THE ANALYSIS OF RALPH RENE...Below you will find a review

by WAYNE GREEN, who, in effect, could find no fault with the 30 or so

"gotcha's" that Rene pinned on NASA (Never a Straight Answer,) so I guess I am

challenging every thinking tax-paying American to put aside his/her built-in

prejudice in this matter and CRACK THE BOOK! It is the least you can do to

convince yourself that 'crackpots' like lebeau & Green, Kaysing & especially

Ralph Rene are OFF THEIR ROCKERS-OR- MAYBE THEY'RE NOT!?!

http://www.maar.us/nasa_mooned_us.html

Duane

I don't know where you get your information but I suggest you read a couple of books on the subject of radiation and cosmic energy.

Without wasting a lot of time on the subject quite a bit of this information is just plain wrong.

For example: “….During the Gemini 10 mission, Mike Collins allegedly received

".78 rads"(78 millirems) over 24 hours while under the Van Allen Belt

umbrella, which is almost EIGHT TIMES what it takes for the SST to "streak for

cover." (p.132)

.78 RADs is not directly equivalent to 78 Millirem, REM means Roentgen Equivalent Man, and is a measure of the biological effects of radiation. An understanding of this subject is needed to compare. 0.78 RADs of Alpha radiation is not anywhere near the biological equivalent of Gamma radiation.

Also 0.78 Roentgens = 780 milliroentgens, which over a 24 hour period is likely not at all dangerous (it is NOT an acute dose).

The following paragraph:

“Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2

meters of solid shielding around all living organisms, as per John H.

Mauldin, who has a Masters in physics and a Ph.D. in science education.

Furthermore, Mauldin states that the solar flares can give doses of hundreds

of thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance from Earth. Such

doses are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. DEATH

IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS IN ANY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.”

First, Cosmic particles and Solar Flares are two separate phenomenon. The statement that Solar Flares can give a dose of hundreds of thousands of REM at a distance from Earth (whatever that means, ‘at a distance from earth’) is ridiculous. If that were the case, the Earth’s surface would be hit with a major portion of that dose, also every satellite in the path of such radiation would be irreparably damaged. If even one tenth of one percent of that radiation level were encountered (you were talking REMs, now, not Roentgens or RADs), any data stream in that field, such as communications, would be utterly corrupted. Particle radiation is mostly alpha particles, which are proton pairs, and which are shielded by a thin sheet of paper, plastic, etc., even skin. When the term REM is used, the form of radiation can not really be Alpha particles, not when talking several hundred thousand REMs. The author of this statement does not seem remotely credible.

In a previous post, you stated that Cosmic Rays originated from the sun. This is also incorrect. The origin of Cosmic Rays is unknown and a mystery to physicists. The energy level of Cosmic Ray Particles is too high to have originated from any known source, the sun, even black holes. The energy levels suggest that Cosmic rays may have originated at the “Big Bang”, which adds to the mystery. If you wish I can link you to sites describing this, but it is freely and easily made available in the public domain.

You have repeatedly stated that the Moon is entirely radioactive. Where does this idea originate? You do know that radiation levels were measured at the surface of the moon (I guess that is assumed to be disinformation)?

In the 1970s and 1980s, there was quite a bit of information evaluated concerning the biological effects of radiation, particularly latent effects (long term effects), and statistical probabilities for late term diseases, such as cancer, increased with lower radiation doses than were previously considered threshold values. A radical change in the understanding of latent radiation effects took place in the 1980s and more care was given to much lower radiation doses. As Evan had said, consideration is given to the dose accumulated over the time the dose is received. What were considered to be safe radiation levels in the 1960s and early 70s were subsequently dramatically reduced. Of course this is all documented.

Today, consideration is given to much lower threshold levels of radiation. Also the OCCASIONAL Cosmic Ray bombardment which can occur (note that these are not frequent but occasional), which can be dangerous, but which don’t necessarily require shielding such as lead, which is used for Gamma rays, or X rays (High energy protons may be effectively shielded by low Z elements) must be considered.

I have already spent more time than intended, but the upshot is this information you provide on radiation in space is

very misleading.

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...