Evan Burton Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 (edited) This will be addressed more to Wade, since it is his text you are quoting. The United States soft-landed the Surveyor 1 on the moon on June 2, 1966. Surveyor 2 crashed into the moon. Surveyor 3 had a strange landing. It bounced 35 feet above the moon when it landed because its rockets kept firing. Surveyor 4 failed, completely “disappearing” 2.5 minutes before touchdown. NASA never figured out what happened. Surveyor 5 nearly failed due to a helium leak, but a jury-rigged landing saved the mission. Surveyor 6 was the first craft to lift off from the moon. It did its takeoff maneuver (getting about 12 feet into the “air”) at the time of the Apollo 4 mission, in November 1967. Until Apollo 11, that was the only test in taking off. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the "takeoff manoeuvre" was practiced before. The Surveyor quotes, however, do show a distinct difference between the two craft: unmanned / automated and manned. Let's say that NASA decided to do an unmanned landing of the LM on the Moon. It is planned to land at the Apollo 11 site (because it is a nice safe area). Let's call this mission Apollo 10B. What would have happened? There would have been the sketchy comms / telemetry. Would this have stopped the landing? Perhaps. There would have been the 1201 / 1202 alarms. Would this have stopped the landing? Probably not. There would have been the boulders at the landing site. Would this have stopped the mission? Yes, in the sense that the LM may well have crashed into them... and Mission Control would have been trying to figure out what went wrong. Instead, there was a crew aboard who could react to the situation and alter their landing point. There is nothing to say that an unmanned landing would have provide better data / made a manned landing safer. Let's review the landings: Apollo 11 - Armstrong has to change the landing point to avoid surface debris. Apollo 12 - Conrad changes the landing point slightly, to make the best possible landing site at the time. Apollo 14 - An in-flight programme alteration is required to account for an errant ABORT switch, and the landing radar needs to be recycled. Apollo 15 - Scott moves landing point to avoid ground debris. Apollo 16 - High gain antenna positioning fails; crew updates some spacecraft data via comms. RCS leaks require transferring of propellant from another system. Apollo 17 - Pretty much nominal. There is a point with a complex system whereby a manned operation INCREASES the chances of success versus an unmanned operation. Think about the upcoming Moon missions - are they going to do an unmanned landing of the Altair LM first? Think about an upcoming Mars mission - are they going to do an unmanned landing in the Mars LM first? Apollo 4 was unmanned, as all the Apollo launches would be through Apollo 6, because of the Apollo 1 disaster. Apollo 4 was also the first time that the Saturn V rocket was launched, which powered the manned Apollo missions. Apollo 5 used the Saturn 1B rocket, and that mission supposedly tested the LM in earth orbit, and the mission was completely run by remote control. See? Wade himself says the LM was tested in Earth orbit. Could they have sent unmanned Apollo missions to the moon? Apollo 6 was a demonstration of that possibility. It was the second launch of the Saturn V rocket, and the goal was to simulate the events needed to send the craft to the moon, and “man rate” the Apollo V rocket. The mission had twenty major failures, and it did not even attain the proper orbit, and the third stage burn that was supposed to send the astronauts to the moon failed to ignite. Not exactly a great record of success to build on to go the moon by 1970. The Apollo 6 mission was launched in April 1968, less than two years before Kennedy’s announced deadline. The official story is that von Braun and all of NASA pulled together and performed technical wizardry that is still hard to believe today, even by those who participated in it.[/i] Yes, it sure is hard to believe ... Especially by those who don't believe it was technically possible to even land men on the radioactive lunar surface, keep them alive under the most horrendous of conditions on every level, and then launch them again to return home, 240,000 miles back in the deadly cosmic radiation of deep space . That sounds like complete science fiction . Yes indeed that flight worried them. The Saturn V suffered from severe pogo. It was discovered that the natural resonance frequency of the F-1 engines was too close to the structural resonance frequency of the Saturn V. The engine failures occurred for another resonance-related reason. During ground testing, frost formed on the fuel lines. This added weight and changed the resonance frequency. In space - with no air or moisture - there was no frost on the fuel lines. They vibrated when in resonance and broke. This occurred on both the S-II and the S-IVB stages. The third engine malfunction was because of a misconnected line: the computer shut down a healthy No3 J-2 engine instead of the sick No2 engine. People learn from these experiences. Systems are changed as experience is gained. Do you run Windows XP on your computer? Have you installed SP1? SP2? Finally, you (Duane) keep on going on about the "deadly" radiation in outer space. Even my limited understanding allows me to appreciate that there are different types of radiation, and that the level and length of exposure determines the extent of harm (if any) done to the body. I give you a challenge: find anyone qualified in radiation in space / exposure effects to the human body that claims the Apollo astronauts could not have passed through them safely considering the shielding the CM gave and the minimal exposure times. Here is a clue: Richard Setlow: setlow@bnl.gov "Dick Setlow is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has received prestigious awards from the Comité International de Photobiologie, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Mutagen Society. After 12 years as Associate Director and 2 years as Acting Associate Director for Life Sciences as well as 7 years as Chairman of the Biology Department, Dick returned to more active research in 1998." John Dicello (Ph.D., Professor, Radiation Oncology): diceljo@jhmi.edu Ask them if what you say has the support of any scientific body. Edited February 3, 2008 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 Do you think that since 1969 not one engineer has studied the LM in detail? Acording to recent articles, today's NASA engineers can't find any of the Apollo LM's to study ... They are having to go to the NASA museums to look at the couple which are still hanging around to see if they can figure out how those bad boys ever flew to or landed on the Moon ... but apparently so far are not having much luck. That people haven't recreated the computer programmes used? What computers ? ... All the astronots used to allegedly land on the Moon was one puny computer onboard the LM which had the computing power of a cheap watch ... Mission control had some grainy black and white TV monitors, and some slide rulers . It has to do with the claim of "no testing" you have repeated in your posts. The LM was tested - both ground and flight testing. Both unmanned and manned. It was thoroughly tested... and the next logical step was a manned landing. The LM was NEVER TEST LANDED.. No animals were sent into deep space to orbit the Moon or try to land and launch on the Apollo LM and the only animal who was launched into LEO died as soon as it got back to Earth .... So the next logical step to make would have been to send an animal to see if it could survive deep space, NOT TO SEND MANNED LANDINGS ON "LIVE" WORLD WIDE TELEVISION !! But of course NASA had a deadline to meet and God forbid the "evil" Russians should beat them to the Moon during the height of the cold war and the space race ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) Think about the upcoming Moon missions - are they going to do an unmanned landing of the Altair LM first?Think about an upcoming Mars mission - are they going to do an unmanned landing in the Mars LM first? I just read several NASA articles where they admit that they might not be able to send manned missions to Mars until the beginning of the NEXT CENTURY ! There are also recent articles where NASA has stated that they will not be able to send humans to the Moon by 2020 because of the dangers of DEEP SPACE RADIATION and the high intensity of cosmic ray and gamma ray radiation on the lunar surface. I give you a challenge: find anyone qualified in radiation in space / exposure effects to the human body that claims the Apollo astronauts could not have passed through them safely considering the shielding the CM gave and the minimal exposure times. NASA's own scientists have admitted that manned landings on the Moon are not technically possible ... and the main showstopper is lack of shielding against the dangers of RADIATION . Edited February 4, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Let's see. They want to send people back to the Moon and stay for LONGER times. Is it really so hard to believe that radiation might be a bigger problem when the length of stay is measured in months instead of days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I give you a challenge: find anyone qualified in radiation in space / exposure effects to the human body that claims the Apollo astronauts could not have passed through them safely considering the shielding the CM gave and the minimal exposure times. NASA's own scientists have admitted that manned landings on the Moon are not technically possible ... and the main showstopper is lack of shielding against the dangers of RADIATION . Really? Please quote a source where NASA scientists say that manned lunar landings are not technically possible. That is blatently incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) Really? Please quote a source where NASA scientists say that manned lunar landings are not technically possible. That is blatently incorrect. Really ? ....Here is only one of dozens of articles where NASA admits that a manned lunar landing can not be acomplished until 2020, if by then .... This is 2008 ... The planned Moon missions are scheduled 12 from now, which means that NASA can not technically land a manned mission on the Moon. I will post the articles about the radiation problem later. "NASA head tells an audience that he believes China will land on the Moon's surface before the United States returns. Whether it is China, Japan, or India the race is on to send humans to the Moon. In fact, Japan just orbited an unmanned lunar probe. NASA administrator Michael Griffin told a Washington D.C. audience on September 17, 2007, as part of a series of lectures honoring the fifth anniversary of the establishment of NASA (July 29, 1958), that I personally believe that China will be back on the moon before we are. He continued by saying, "I think when that happens, Americans will not like it. But they will just have to not like it." [Aviation Week article: China To Explore Moon Sooner: Griffin] Japan and Selene According to officials from the Japan Research Exploration Agency (JAXA), the Selene (“Kaguya”) probe successfully attained lunar orbit on Thursday, October 4, 2007, fifty years to the day when the Soviets put the first artificial probe in orbit about the Earth: Sputnik 1. The Kaguya mission is widely considered the largest lunar project since the U.S. Apollo program of the late 1960s and yearly 1970s. It was launched from the Tanegashima Space Center on September 14, 2007 (JST) with the use of a H-IIA launch vehicle. Specifically, a rocket was fired at 6:20 a.m. JST (Japan Standard Time) to insert the spacecraft into a 63 mile by 7,296 mile (101 by 11,741 kilometer) orbit about the Moon's poles. It will be placed into a more circular orbit over the next few weeks. According to a JAXA press release, “As a result of the orbit calculation after the maneuver, we have confirmed that the KAGUYA was injected into the following lunar orbit. The satellite is confirmed to be in good health. As the United States beat the Soviet Union in 1969, it is likely that China will beat the United States to the Moon in the twenty-first century, unless the United States begins to take China along with Japan and India seriously in their quests for space supremacy. In The Future The European Space Agency sent its SMART-1 (Missions for Advanced Research in Technology 1) probe to the Moon in 2003. The next ones come from China, India, and the United States. The Aviation Week article quoted in this article is titled “China To Explore Moon Sooner: Griffin.” We should heed NASA administrator Michael Griffin’s advice before it's too late. The article could easily change titles to read 'How the Mighty have Fallen. Whether it is a race to the Moon or not a concerted effort to the Moon and beyond will help to advance any country technologically and scientifically in many different fields. Griffin went on to say, "I think we will see, as we have seen with China's introductory manned space flights so far, we will see again that nations look up to nations that appear to be at the top of the technical pyramid and they want to do deals with those nations. He continues, "That's one of the things that made us the world's greatest economic power. So I think we'll be reinstructed in that lesson in the coming years." Words to the wise. The Unannounced Race NASA is expecting to land a human on the Moon no later than 2020. China is planning to send an unmanned orbiter (Chang’e 1) to the Moon later in October 2007, and then send a rover to land on the Moon in 2012, collect sample, and return to earth in 2017. China hopes to land humans on the Moon earlier than 2020. Japan is also expecting to send a manned lunar landing mission to the Moon around 2020. India, a third country with lunar hopes, is expecting to launch Chandrayaan, an unmanned lunar orbiter, by 2008. They expect to launch their first astronaut into space by 2014, with a manned lunar landing mission by 2020. Russia and Germany have announced unmanned lunar orbiter missions, both around 2012. No manned missions have been announced, however. The United Kingdom has indicated that it may send an unmanned probe around the Moon before the end of the 2000s decade. Whether we call it a race or not, it sure looks like a race to the Moon. " http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14754/1066/ It looks like no nation will be able to land manned missions of the Moon until 2020 . Edited February 5, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Really? Please quote a source where NASA scientists say that manned lunar landings are not technically possible. That is blatently incorrect. Really ? ....Here is only one of dozens of articles where NASA admits that a manned lunar landing can not be acomplished until 2020, if by then .... This is 2008 ... The planned Moon missions are scheduled 12 from now, which means that NASA can not technically land a manned mission on the Moon. <snip> It looks like no nation will be able to land manned missions of the Moon until 2020 . So it's not true to say that it's "not technically possible" to go to the moon, unless you're being pedantic beyond belief with your use of the English Language. (It's not "technically possible" to fly a commercial jet from London to New York in less than four hours, but only because Concorde has been decommissioned. That doesn't mean that it's an impossible feat to achieve from a technological point of view). The last sentence in your post makes it sound as if you believe it will be possible in 2020 to go to the moon - can you clarify? The article you linked stated that not only the USA, but China, Japan and India also have plans for manned missions to the moon. What is your opinion of these planned manned moon missions by other countries other than the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 6, 2008 Author Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) So it's not true to say that it's "not technically possible" to go to the moon, unless you're being pedantic beyond belief with your use of the English Language What I probably should have said was that it isn't technically possible today to send manned missions to the Moon . The last sentence in your post makes it sound as if you believe it will be possible in 2020 to go to the moon - can you clarify? NASA and the other countries all seem to believe they will be able to send manned missions to the Moon by 2020 ... I personally have no idea if this will be possible or not . That would most likely depend on if the proper craft to land on the Moon can be developed by that date and also if scientists are able to determine exactly how dangerous deep space radiation is and be able to "invent from scratch" the proper shielding to protect the Moon bound astronauts. Edited February 6, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 So it's not true to say that it's "not technically possible" to go to the moon, unless you're being pedantic beyond belief with your use of the English Language. (It's not "technically possible" to fly a commercial jet from London to New York in less than four hours, but only because Concorde has been decommissioned. That doesn't mean that it's an impossible feat to achieve from a technological point of view). Dave - precisely. It is not possible to fly a commercial supersonic jet between London and New York... but it was a service that operated but a handful of years ago. The aircraft that still survive are no longer airworthy (or would take a large amount of money to make them airworthy again - if they could gain an Airworthiness Certificate). How soon could they build another aircraft? Why aren't they doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 What I probably should have said was that it isn't technically possible today to send manned missions to the Moon . No, that is still incorrect. It is technically possible to go to the Moon. How soon you can go depends on how much money you want to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Frazier Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Hi. I have not posted here for years, and I have been aware of these Apollo posts for a week or two, and just now dug up my user I.D. and password for this forum. I joined a couple of years ago when I saw my JFK work being discussed in an intelligent and serious manner: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...planet&st=0 I am happy to add my two bits to this Apollo discussion. I am surprised that my work gets used from time to time to try making the case that the moon landings were faked. I point out anomalies and mainly show how there is little to the anomalies that show that any faking may have taken place. For the record, my writings are being misinterpreted a little by various parties. For instance, my landing angle of Apollo 12 writings do not argue that it landed at a 6 degree angle, but that it landed a few feet from what probably WOULD have been at least 6 degree angle. They may have landed a few feet away from not being able to take off. I heard from an initiate that the LM was designed to still be able to take off up to six degrees from plumb. If one of those LM legs had landed in the crater a few feet away, I bet that it would have been sitting at greater than 6 degrees from plumb. So, that was taking one hell of a risk to get a porch-eye’s view of Surveyor 3. My Apollo essay should be taken as a layman’s investigation of the Apollo landings. What I found out, after looking into the matter for about ten years, on and off, was that the “we never landed on the moon” arguments never really held any water, as far as I could see. What I did was look into all the areas where faking was claimed, and nothing really held up, once I dug into it. Amateurs can stumble forward, and with Jay Windley’s help, I discovered long-forgotten footage of Neil Armstrong’s leap on the moon: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt My writings in that area are not going to have the rigor of a scientist doing hard research into those areas. What I hope my work did, and I think this may be one reason why people still use my work to make the case that the moon landings were faked, was that there IS plenty about the moon landings that can make people wonder if we really went there or not. When even a Robert Seamans can say that sometimes he looks up at the moon and has a hard time believing humanity actually went there: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#seamens It is legitimate for laypeople to wonder the same thing. What Jay is doing with his site is a great public service: http://www.clavius.org/ I get approached from time to time on the moon landings, by people with some way out theories, and I also run into moon hoax stuff, and when I do, I kick it into Jay’s forum, and they handle it, as I did recently on Ted Twietmeyer’s stuff: http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1198812229 Flying to the moon with rocket technology, in the 1960s, is the technical feat of all time, at least for publicly-available technology. There is one hell of a lot of technology that exists today that can transform the world in ways that are difficult to imagine: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#underground That quote about Brian O’Leary now being a landing believer came from my efforts. I got Brian in touch with Jay, which led to that quote. Seeing Armstrong’s Leap also was key in removing Brian’s remaining residual doubt. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#governor Brian has survived deadly harassment from the space establishment, but it was due to the UFO issue, not the moon landings. The UFO cover-up is the biggest one of all time, and it is joined at the hip with free energy, anti-gravity, etc. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greer That situation is vastly more important than whether the moon landings were faked or not. At this time, I believe that if anything was covered up about the moon landings, it had to do with the UFO/ET issue, not that we never went, which is the conclusion of that part of my site. The radiation and other arguments that I see continually advanced do not hold water, as far as making the arguments that the moon landings were faked. I have some time to discuss these matters, if people want to. Best, Wade Frazier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Douglas Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Hi. I have not posted here for years, and I have been aware of these Apollo posts for a week or two, and just now dug up my user I.D. and password for this forum. I joined a couple of years ago when I saw my JFK work being discussed in an intelligent and serious manner:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...planet&st=0 I am happy to add my two bits to this Apollo discussion. I am surprised that my work gets used from time to time to try making the case that the moon landings were faked. I point out anomalies and mainly show how there is little to the anomalies that show that any faking may have taken place. For the record, my writings are being misinterpreted a little by various parties. For instance, my landing angle of Apollo 12 writings do not argue that it landed at a 6 degree angle, but that it landed a few feet from what probably WOULD have been at least 6 degree angle. They may have landed a few feet away from not being able to take off. I heard from an initiate that the LM was designed to still be able to take off up to six degrees from plumb. If one of those LM legs had landed in the crater a few feet away, I bet that it would have been sitting at greater than 6 degrees from plumb. So, that was taking one hell of a risk to get a porch-eye’s view of Surveyor 3. My Apollo essay should be taken as a layman’s investigation of the Apollo landings. What I found out, after looking into the matter for about ten years, on and off, was that the “we never landed on the moon” arguments never really held any water, as far as I could see. What I did was look into all the areas where faking was claimed, and nothing really held up, once I dug into it. Amateurs can stumble forward, and with Jay Windley’s help, I discovered long-forgotten footage of Neil Armstrong’s leap on the moon: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt My writings in that area are not going to have the rigor of a scientist doing hard research into those areas. What I hope my work did, and I think this may be one reason why people still use my work to make the case that the moon landings were faked, was that there IS plenty about the moon landings that can make people wonder if we really went there or not. When even a Robert Seamans can say that sometimes he looks up at the moon and has a hard time believing humanity actually went there: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#seamens It is legitimate for laypeople to wonder the same thing. What Jay is doing with his site is a great public service: http://www.clavius.org/ I get approached from time to time on the moon landings, by people with some way out theories, and I also run into moon hoax stuff, and when I do, I kick it into Jay’s forum, and they handle it, as I did recently on Ted Twietmeyer’s stuff: http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1198812229 Flying to the moon with rocket technology, in the 1960s, is the technical feat of all time, at least for publicly-available technology. There is one hell of a lot of technology that exists today that can transform the world in ways that are difficult to imagine: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#underground That quote about Brian O’Leary now being a landing believer came from my efforts. I got Brian in touch with Jay, which led to that quote. Seeing Armstrong’s Leap also was key in removing Brian’s remaining residual doubt. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#governor Brian has survived deadly harassment from the space establishment, but it was due to the UFO issue, not the moon landings. The UFO cover-up is the biggest one of all time, and it is joined at the hip with free energy, anti-gravity, etc. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greer That situation is vastly more important than whether the moon landings were faked or not. At this time, I believe that if anything was covered up about the moon landings, it had to do with the UFO/ET issue, not that we never went, which is the conclusion of that part of my site. The radiation and other arguments that I see continually advanced do not hold water, as far as making the arguments that the moon landings were faked. I have some time to discuss these matters, if people want to. Best, Wade Frazier Hello Wade, RE: Brian O'Leary I found this on the net and recently posted it on another thread here. 'Dear Mr. Conrad, I didn't see the show (I never know about these things until after they happen), but I believe Apollo did happen in its entirety (I was there), but have a small residual doubt about the landings themselves, because I didn't go, so who am I to know for sure, besides the official word and comments from my friends and colleagues who did go? Answers to my questions about activity on the lunar surface were answered strangely at times--hence a bit of doubt. These things are tricky to phrase right, and of course shows such as these do quote out of context. In this sense I guess you could call me a skeptic. Brian O'Leary, Ph.D.' Did Dr O'Leary explain the circumstances that made him doubt the landings? Was it Ed Mitchell and Buzz Aldrin that gave him strange answers to HIS questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) At this time, I believe that if anything was covered up about the moon landings, it had to do with the UFO/ET issue, not that we never went, which is the conclusion of that part of my site. The radiation and other arguments that I see continually advanced do not hold water, as far as making the arguments that the moon landings were faked. Hi Wade ... Glad to meet you ... I enjoyed your article very much and think that you brought up some very valid reasons as to why millions of people have many doubts about the truthfulness of the official Apollo record . You admitted that many things about the Apollo program were suspicious, yet you took that one leap made by Armstrong back up the LM ladder as the definative proof that the Apollo video footage was real ... I find it rather strange that you consider that one thing, that you called "hitting pay dirt", as being proof of anything, because ANYTHING can be faked on video tape, including the appearance of 1/6 gravity leaps . Do you know anything about The Apollo Simulation Project, which took place before The Apollo Project that allegedly landed manned missions on the Moon ? If not, I think you might find it interesting to discover just how much of the "Moon landings" were simulated during this Apollo project, and to what lengths and expense NASA went to develope simulations of every single aspect of their Apollo program . I look forward to your reply and to discussing this with you in the future ... and thank you for a very well researched and well written article about the many discrepancies in the Apollo record .... You might not have intened your article to be used by CT's as verification of the hoax evidence but I think you can very well understand why it is used ... and from what I read, you even understand why so many people have doubts about the authenticity of the official Apollo record . I am very interested as to why you believe there was an Apollo cover up, and why you believe that cover up is because of a possible alien presense on the Moon . Edited February 8, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Frazier Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 (edited) Hi James: Brian presented the reasons for his skepticism here: http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html That quote was made several months before I showed Brian Armstrong’s Leap. In early 2001, Brian was “ambushed” by the people who made that FOX “moon hoax” documentary, and took ten seconds of a two-hour interview and put it in their documentary, the ten seconds that they wanted to publish, which was taken a bit out of context. By August 2001, Brian’s residual doubt was removed, and he is not happy with how people keep recycling that early 2001 quote, to use it to keep making him appear to be in the moon hoax believer (or moon landing “skeptic”) camp. I have had truly bizarre interactions with the public on that issue. I used to post to Above Top Secret, but the forum is dominated by trolls, and serious researchers are not welcome there (as another fellow researcher recently said, it is dominated by the “blind and the stupid,” although I also connected with some very hip people there – they were in the minority, however). I was actually banned at ATS, while the trolls had a field day on my threads. It makes the COINTELPRO suspicions about ATS a little more believable, but I think it is just the egos that are in charge there, not a “conspiracy.“ I once made a few posts to some Apollo Hoax threads at ATS, particularly where one poster kept making a lot out of that “skeptical” quote by Brian and the moon landings. I posted and said that I personally helped remove Brian’s residual skepticism, and the poster dismissed everything I had to say on the issue, and said that Brian’s early 2001 quote trumped his August 2001 quote. My mind was boggled, and I stopped contributing to that thread. : - ) Hi Duane: Finding Armstrong’s Leap was not the only thing that put me over the hump on the moon landings being genuine. I was already on this side of the hump when I found his leap. I had looked into the moon landings for a decade by the time I found, with Jay’s help, Armstrong’s Leap. At the time I found Armstrong’s Leap, there was no piece of evidence that the moon hoax crowd put up that held up to scrutiny, as far as the moon landings being hoaxed, that I ever saw, and Jay helped me largely lay aside the lingering questions that I had about the evidence that was put forth to support the hoax angle. As I also write about in my essay, you have to understand a little about the history of the long-running debates about the moon landings and the effects of one-sixth gravity. Until I found the footage of Armstrong’s Leap, there were no recorded feats that conclusively precluded them from happening in earth’s gravity (in analyses by NASA, the moon hoax debunkers AND proponents). All the analyses focused on Young’s Jump-Salute next to the American flag, Rover footage or other astronaut antics. Armstrong’s Leap was the only feat ever filmed on the moon that impressively supported the argument that it was not happening on earth. It helps to understand the history of that debate. The argument that it was done with wires or other tricks has never held up to scrutiny, as far as I have seen. When moon hoax proponents have presented me footage of evidence of wires being used, that evidence never held up to the slightest scrutiny. I am aware of the work to simulate the lunar environment for the moon landings. Yes, some could argue that they were used to stage the fake landings, but that argument is a weak one, IMO, when there is not really any good evidence to support the theory. Staging a lunar environment before the landings is also good evidence that they did their homework before landing, which is partly why the moon landings were so successful. I have seen many, many attempts to show how the images from the moon landings were faked. There is not one piece of evidence that I ever saw that held up. What has been particularly disheartening is to watch hoax believer after hoax believer keep recycling the same tired old “evidence” that does not amount to anything. Ted Twietmeyer’s recent posts at Rense are a classic example, and when I see that stuff, I send it to Jay’s forum, where it is critiqued in a scientific and thorough way. What Ted did is a classic instance of sloppy research parading as insightful critique and uncovering the “smoking gun.” http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1198812229 I’ll be the first to admit that there are too many in the moon hoax debunker camp that have too much of Randi’s smug style. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#randi That is part of what gives fuel to the fire of the moon hoax camp and others who are flayed by the “skeptics,” and I understand and sympathize. I have long dealt with the “skeptics,” http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#friends and have been their victim more than once. About the only honest members of CSICOP I have ever seen may be Feynman and Blackmore, but I was far from impressed with Blackmore’s work: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/spirit.htm#blackmore If a love of the truth motivates people looking into the moon landings, and they have a rudimentary scientific background and some critical thinking ability, they will eventually lose interest in the moon hoax arguments, because they never hold up to rational, scientific scrutiny. I admit that looking into the moon landings for ten years, and sifting through all the evidence, was an important educational process for me. From early 2002 to 2006, I had very little interaction with the public, but persistent people would find a way to reach me, and I would get approached a couple times a year or so by people making the case that the moon landings were faked. They would then present me their evidence or writings, and I could quickly show them where their evidence or logic was faulty, and I would usually direct them to Jay’s forum, where they could test their evidence and theories with highly knowledgeable people, many of whom would give their evidence a fair and rigorous test. Every time, their evidence and theories would not withstand even minimal rigor from Jay and friends, and even more tellingly, most who approached me would refuse to submit their work to Jay and friends, making up lame excuses for not submitting their evidence and theories. Jay knows his stuff and sticks to the facts. Reading his site is highly recommended. http://www.clavius.org/ In this forum, from what I have seen, Evan knows his stuff, and I would take his arguments on the moon landings very seriously, if I were you. On the UFO/ET angle, I am not saying that ALL of the astronauts are “conspirators” in the UFO/ET cover-up, but I would listen to what Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper have had to say on the subject. While Mitchell subsequently disassociated himself from Greer, Mitchell is not denying the ET cover-up, and Greer’s odyssey is highly instructive: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greer I KNOW that the technologies that Greer stumbled into during his ET work are real: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#underground Brian O knows what I am talking about, and he KNOWS that the space establishment is deeply involved with the ET issue, even though they publicly debunk the UFO/ET angle. They are lying through their teeth, and that is where fruitful investigation into NASA and the space establishment lies (although it can be perilous and is not recommended for the idly curious – snooping around in that milieu can drastically shorten your life expectancy), not that the moon landings were faked, although immersing yourself in the evidence, and really doing your homework, can be very educational. If you really think you have some good evidence of faking the moon landings, submit it to Jay’s forum and see how it fares. I have yet to see anything stand up to scrutiny, but who knows? Maybe you will be the first, but I advise you to be very careful and do your homework first. If your evidence is of the kind that Ted has publicly presented, or is the kind that Jay’s site and forum has dealt with at length, your evidence won’t last long, as far as being taken seriously. Best wishes, Wade Edited February 9, 2008 by Wade Frazier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Douglas Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 (edited) Hi James:Brian presented the reasons for his skepticism here: http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html That quote was made several months before I showed Brian Armstrong’s Leap. In early 2001, Brian was “ambushed” by the people who made that FOX “moon hoax” documentary, and took ten seconds of a two-hour interview and put it in their documentary, the ten seconds that they wanted to publish, which was taken a bit out of context. By August 2001, Brian’s residual doubt was removed, and he is not happy with how people keep recycling that early 2001 quote, to use it to keep making him appear to be in the moon hoax believer (or moon landing “skeptic”) camp. I have had truly bizarre interactions with the public on that issue. I used to post to Above Top Secret, but the forum is dominated by trolls, and serious researchers are not welcome there (as another fellow researcher recently said, it is dominated by the “blind and the stupid,” although I also connected with some very hip people there – they were in the minority, however). I was actually banned at ATS, while the trolls had a field day on my threads. It makes the COINTELPRO suspicions about ATS a little more believable, but I think it is just the egos that are in charge there, not a “conspiracy.“ I once made a few posts to some Apollo Hoax threads at ATS, particularly where one poster kept making a lot out of that “skeptical” quote by Brian and the moon landings. I posted and said that I personally helped remove Brian’s residual skepticism, and the poster dismissed everything I had to say on the issue, and said that Brian’s early 2001 quote trumped his August 2001 quote. My mind was boggled, and I stopped contributing to that thread. : - ) Wade according to one of your articles Brian O'Leary helped Buzz Aldrin get a job and worked beside him. Do you know what year this happened? 'Brian once helped get Buzz Aldrin a job and shared an office with him during his gradual turn toward the unorthodox, and Brian’s last job for the establishment ended when he refused to work on Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars program.' I'm amazed O'Leary made that comment 30 years after the Moon landings even more so if he had the opportunity to speak to Aldrin about his doubts in a working capacity. Edited February 9, 2008 by James Douglas 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