Jump to content
The Education Forum

For Those of You Who Enjoy Science Fiction


Duane Daman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Brian worked with Buzz in the 1980s. Brian helped get Buzz the job, and they shared the same office for awhile. I am not sure, but I think it was for the same aerospace company that was Brian’s last job for the space establishment. That company went whole hog on Reagan’s Star Wars stuff, and Brian refused to get involved, which cost him his job and career.

I do not see Brian’s former moon landing skepticism in any kind of “amazing” light. He made that early-2001 statement long after he had been radicalized and had come face-to-face with the dark underbelly of the space establishment, and it is dark indeed. A relatively benign example of Brian’s exposure to that underbelly was Carl Sagan’s fraudulent “skepticism.”

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#sagan

Sagan recruited Brian straight out of NASA, and Brian worked with Sagan at Cornell, where they were the world’s two leading experts on Mars (but the level of information on Mars in those days was extremely sparse compared to today). While Brian eventually woke up from the dead-end of materialistic, mechanistic science and left the Citadel, Sagan became the Citadel’s Chief High Inquisitor, becoming the world’s leading “skeptic.” Studying the parallels and their eventually divergent paths can lead to important understandings, and their stories can become a poignant parable on pursuing the truth and the pitfalls that beckon along the way. Sagan became the world’s leading “skeptic,” while Brian followed his conscience and began finding out how the world really worked. Brian was on the way to becoming a radical long before the 1980s. He led a protest of Ivy League academics right to the Oval Office door not long before Nixon resigned, and he was stopped at the door by one of Nixon’s henchmen, Haldeman if I recall correctly. Brian became McGovern’s energy advisor during his run to the presidency, and that was a long time before Brian became truly radicalized.

That is a relatively benign example of what Brian ran into on his journey, and another relatively benign aspect is what I have encountered myself regarding astronauts that have been to the moon. How many times do you think they have been asked about their lunar experiences? I’ll bet the questions got real old for Buzz by 1970, so the terse answers that Brian got are not so hard to understand. I have been in milieus like that one, and it can be easy to read “conspiratorial” motivation into people’s reactions, when it is really something far more innocent. That is one of the hazards of investigating “conspiracies.” There are many ways to get sidetracked into dead ends and get mired in minutia that ultimately does not mean much. There is usually a ton of chaff amongst the kernels of wheat. I am not saying that Buzz is not keeping quiet about many things that he knows, with the “national security” sword hanging over his head, but the terse answers that he and his moon-walking brethren often give regarding their lunar exploits I believe have a far more innocent genesis than they are covering up for the faked landings.

The darker stuff that Brian has encountered in the space establishment he will not publicly talk about much, and I will not discuss it publicly until Brian decides to, but let’s just say that it was life-threatening at times. It related to the UFO/ET angle, a subject on which Brian has been one of the most outspoken astronauts, along with Mitchell and Cooper.

Brian has publicly stated that Mallove’s murder was when he decided to leave the country, and I was there for those events:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#mallove

and I have little doubt that Mallove’s murder was not random. I understand and sympathize with Brian’s position. I have been invited to leave the U.S. for safer pastures several times since 9/11, but I am not ready to give up on America yet, and it is my home.

The Big Boys can play very roughly with people who begin snooping into the free energy milieu, as I know all too well:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#hitting

Brian wrote the forward to Greer’s latest book:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greer

and the space establishment’s relationship to free energy, anti-gravity and related technologies is the tree worth barking up, not the “moon landings were faked” angle, IMO. Hey, I looked into the moon landings for many years, and part of me would have welcomed information that the moon landings were faked, even though I lived in Houston when my father worked in Mission Control:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#apollo

I have not talked with my father about his NASA days for many years, but he was also open to the idea that not all was how it may have seemed regarding the moon landings. Again, it is not crazy to suspect that we did not land on the moon, but it takes a lot of time to sift through the claims made by those who argue that the moon landings were faked and take a good, long critical look at the evidence. If you do not have a scientific background, however, the going can be hard. It can be good work to do, but I am 99.9% certain that if you really took the deep dive (it takes a lot of time and effort), you would end up where Brian and I are today on the subject. Jay has admitted that it can take a lot of homework to effectively analyze the evidence supporting the arguments that the moon landings were faked. For instance, he had to do some serious digging to counter the “no visible exhaust” angle that the moon hoax theorists use.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#exhaust

Jay eventually helped convinced me of it, and that exhaust issue is not just used to argue that the moon landings were faked. William Brian and others used the fact of no (or little) visible exhaust as evidence of anti-gravity being used, not that the footage was faked using a crane or something similar.

Again, you are free to do the deep dive on the evidence, and if you come up with something that is truly impressive, I would submit it to Jay and friends (or Evan) before you tout it too much. I understand much of why people think the moon landings may have been faked, but they are barking up the wrong tree, IMO, however well-intended their efforts may be.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Wade ... Thanks for your reply .... It looks as though you have come full circle then, from having huge doubts about the validity of Apollo to believing that Apollo was everything NASA claimed it was ... Thanks to Jay Windley of course.

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 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 the moon. 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 will agree with you that not much of the Apollo footage appears to have been taken in 1/6 gravity but what I still don't undertand is why you put so much importance in that one leap of Armstrong's which was filmed very far away from the ladder and is dark and grainy and difficult to even see .... This is why I stated that many tricks can be used to fake 1/6g on video tape.

If you don't believe that wires were a possibility, then I assume that you have dismissed all of David Percy's evidence proving otherwise ? ... The forward dangling position of the astronauts and their 18 inch bounces matched the training wire footage exactly .

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 don't believe that the Apollo Simulation Project is a weak argument at all and hopefully I will be able to supply some evidence to support that claim ... Have you ever seen the ALSJ footage where one of the astronauts even mentions how realisitic the simulations were, while he was allegedy on the Moon communicating with mission control ? ... If not , I will post that video here for you to see .

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.”

Does this opinion apply to all of the still photos which show very strange anomalies reflected in the astronaut's visors ? ... Have you seen the strange artifacts reflected in the Apollo 17 visors which are explained away as being "smudges on the visor" , but clearly are not ?

I agree that Twietmeyer jumped the gun with his A11 ladder evidence ... At first glance it did look as though he had found a major discrepency in the appearance of the ladder but it was properly explained as to why the ladder looked different in the video ... and of course , he was then immediately character assassinated on clavius and BAUT because of his mistake.

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

Apparently my mind works very differently than most people's then, because I have been studying this subject since 2001 and I still find it interesting ... and I also believe that much of the hoax evidence has held up to monumental amounts of deliberate disinformation and is still valid , in spite of the constant attempts of all Apollo defenders to prove otherwise.

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.

Here's where you lost me ... I don't believe that Jay's web site is gospel ... In fact , it appears to be rather misleading and deceptive in some respects, not to mention his "friends" on the Apollo Hoax forum, who seem to be more interested in ridiculing the CT's than proving the reality of Apollo .

But obviously he has had a tremendous influence on you and your initial beliefs about Apollo, to where you accept the pro Apollo evidence as being the truth in spite of all the evidence which points to a hoax .

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

Well , at least you admit that NASA is lying through their teeth about the UFO and alien presense , if not the Moon landings ...It sounds like too dangerous a field of study though if you want to stay alive.

As for me presenting any hoax evidence to Jay and his friends , I don't think so .... That would be like tossing a goldfish into a pool of sharks ... So I think I will pass .... If you read the comments posted on his forum about me , you will understand why I have no intention of joining in the "debates " there .... Even if I found the Holy Grail of all hoax evidence, or perhaps that " smoking gun " proof that Apollo was a hoax , it would never hold up the against the type of "scrutiny" of the Apollo hoax and BAUT gang .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Duane:

Please do not misrepresent my relationship with Jay. I originally finished my Apollo essay (in the spring of 2001) before I ever heard of Jay. At that time, I stated that never found anything that the moon hoax crowd put forward that convinced me of fake moon landings, most did not survive my scrutiny, and that I leaned toward believing that the landings were genuine, but would have liked to have seen any evidence that strongly suggested otherwise.

It was only after I published my cover-up essay, and it was originally being discussed for its JFK content, not its Apollo content, that one of Jay’s pals looked me up and invited me into a forum that is now defunct. It became instantly obvious that Jay knew what he was talking about, and it was his command of the evidence that impressed me, and the only way that anybody is going to make the case that the moon landings were faked is to adduce some EVIDENCE that helps make their case. Jay help further convince me with facts, evidence, and science. That is what impressed me. He helped correct some of my errors, and added to my understanding of some important technical issues. Finding Armstrong’s Leap was just icing on the cake, and it helped removed Brian’s residual skepticism too. If you know Brian’s relationship to the controversy, he never argued that the moon landings did not happen. If you ever help change an astronaut’s mind about the moon landings, that will be a memorable day in your life. Brian said that some of the evidence MAY have been manufactured, and not to bolster a fake landing scenario, but to make up for lost evidence.

I spent months looking into the claims that Percy made and the evidence that he put forth, and I sprinkle those findings throughout my Apollo essay. Almost nothing that Percy held up as evidence of faking the landings survived my scrutiny. Some of it was appallingly bad. I’ll take Jay’s work over Percy’s any day.

Again, Duane, it comes down to the evidence. The evidence can speak for itself. Hey, don’t post it to Jay’s forum, put it on the Internet. Sites are cheap and easy to maintain. Way too many people try to get me to pursue their pet Apollo evidence, and it invariably goes down the same tired old path that I went down many years ago. Heck, even Percy does not maintain that the moon landings never happened, but that some of the documentary evidence has been manufactured. If Brian never advocated fake landings, and Percy still does not, who really does? Where is their evidence? Evidence that effectively invalidates hundreds of hours of lunar footage, taken both from the moon and from the orbiting command module, moon rocks, ham radio operators who could hear the conversations from the moon, telescopic evidence of the craft in flight to the moon (Hoagland saw it live back during those days, as did others)?

Saying that Ted jumped the gun is a very generous thing to say. I have watched many like Ted make similar “case closed” arguments over the years, and they only end up with egg on their faces. Ted has absolutely nothing of substance to add to the issue, and only makes himself look stupid with those kinds of posts, and then he says stuff like “case closed” after he makes one of those worthless posts? He has zero credibility with me and with anybody who has the slightest understanding of those issues.

Again, the conclusions of my Apollo essay are very clear:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#possibilities

I find it amazing that people think that I am making the case that the moon landings were faked.

Best,

Wade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not misrepresent my relationship with Jay. I originally finished my Apollo essay (in the spring of 2001) before I ever heard of Jay. At that time, I stated that never found anything that the moon hoax crowd put forward that convinced me of fake moon landings, most did not survive my scrutiny, and that I leaned toward believing that the landings were genuine, but would have liked to have seen any evidence that strongly suggested otherwise.

My apologies if I misrepresented anything you wrote in your post ... It just sounded to me like you had a lot of doubts about Apollo until Jay Windley answered certain questions for you.

Brian said that some of the evidence MAY have been manufactured, and not to bolster a fake landing scenario, but to make up for lost evidence.

Do you agree with Brian that some of the Apollo photography could have been faked on moonsets , while believing that the missions really happened ?

I spent months looking into the claims that Percy made and the evidence that he put forth, and I sprinkle those findings throughout my Apollo essay. Almost nothing that Percy held up as evidence of faking the landings survived my scrutiny. Some of it was appallingly bad. I’ll take Jay’s work over Percy’s any day.

Does this mean that you disagree with all of David Percy's hoax evidence on his Aulis site, in his documentary 'What Happened on the Moon' ?, and also in his book 'Dark Moon' ? ... That's an awful lot of credible hoax evidence to disagree with .

Heck, even Percy does not maintain that the moon landings never happened, but that some of the documentary evidence has been manufactured. If Brian never advocated fake landings, and Percy still does not, who really does? Where is their evidence? Evidence that effectively invalidates hundreds of hours of lunar footage, taken both from the moon and from the orbiting command module, moon rocks, ham radio operators who could hear the conversations from the moon, telescopic evidence of the craft in flight to the moon (Hoagland saw it live back during those days, as did others)?

Percy maintains that the official Apollo record is not the truth and that the Apollo photography was faked on moonsets ... I agree with him .... As for the landings themselves , he believes that the Apollo craft could not have gotten to the Moon and if man ever landed there it was using another type of advanced stealth technology that was being conducted in a secret space program behind the scenes, while Apollo was paraded in front of the world as a dummy project ... I agree with him about that also .

Saying that Ted jumped the gun is a very generous thing to say. I have watched many like Ted make similar “case closed” arguments over the years, and they only end up with egg on their faces. Ted has absolutely nothing of substance to add to the issue, and only makes himself look stupid with those kinds of posts, and then he says stuff like “case closed” after he makes one of those worthless posts? He has zero credibility with me and with anybody who has the slightest understanding of those issues.

Ted should have admitted that he was wrong and saved himself a lot of trouble .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jack:

I have never seen any convincing evidence that the photographic evidence that NASA has published from the moon landings was forged or manipulated to give the impression that what the world saw was not what happened (on a stage, etc.). I saw dozens of your examples of alleged Apollo fakery that you published back in 2001, and not one of your examples I considered convincing evidence of fakery. While I respect much of the work that you did on the backyard Oswald photos, I believe that you were out of your element on the moon landings. That is just my opinion, from long years of looking at image analysis produced by a huge array of amateur analysts. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I have never seen the evidence that stood up to rigorous scrutiny.

Hi Duane:

Back in the winter/spring of 2001, I spent a few months digging pretty deeply into the Apollo evidence, after ten years of looking at the evidence on and off and hunting down evidence on William Brian’s neutral point discrepancy, for instance:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#neutral

Again, I never heard of Jay before the summer of 2001 (I got him in touch with Brian in August of 2001, which was not long after I discovered Armstrong’s Leap with Jay). I spent months with Dark Moon in hand, and researching the material in it. In the end, it was a very disappointing experience to chase down the facts and analysis in Dark Moon. Very, very little of it stood up to any rigor, especially anything that supported arguments for forged/altered evidence. Percy’s shadow direction analysis (pp. 22-27), visor anomalies 26-27 (the sun-reflection difference is between video footage and still camera footage – the video overexposed and made the reflections of the sun appear larger than they really were), the astronauts lit in the shadows (p. 31-37), the C-Rock (p. 42) are just a few examples of many that failed to stand up under scrutiny. There was an entire chapter on radiation (which did nothing to convince anybody knowledgeable about the radiation risks being insurmountable), and then we get to the “no rocket exhaust” analysis on p. 153, an analysis of Apollo 12 footage of Surveyor 3 that is obviously not genuine on p. 160, the Apollo 11 reflector angle, p. 327, Rover “clumping moon dust” evidence (citing Collier, of all people), the neutral point discrepancy (p.396), and on and on. None of it held up, as far as supporting the “faked moon landing” hypothesis, or the idea that what the world saw was fabricated on some elaborate stage. The “they did it with wires” evidence is also in Dark Moon, and is as credible as the rest of it.

After spending months sifting through the evidence, I realized that Percy’s work is not very credible, if at all, and digging through more of his mine tailings for stray nuggets is not high on my list of things to do. If somebody provides a mountain of “evidence,” and as you sift through it, it all turns out to be dross, with not a single gold nugget to be found in it, you begin losing enthusiasm for digging through any more of it. Jay is a better man than I am for continuing to deal with it.

I do not subscribe to much of what is imputed to the motivation of the “conspiracy theorists” by the hoax debunker crowd (moon landings or otherwise), but I tend to agree with Jay’s assessment that Percy is just into selling as much schlock as he can to the uninitiated and gullible, and when his stuff is completely dismantled by people who know their stuff (Jay and company were so good at doing so that Percy closed the forum on his site, back when I followed it), I won’t be buying any more of it. So, I did not look at Percy’s “evidence” that he put into his later offerings, not when Dark Moon turned out to be such schlock.

Again, if anybody can make a coherent and rigorous presentation of evidence of Apollo fakery, I am all for it. I have never seen that presentation or heard of it. All I see, especially when people approach me with the “proof,” is just the recycled, tired old stuff that people like Percy peddle. Jay had little to do with my assessment of Percy’s work.

As an interesting aside, not long after I found Armstrong’s Leap, Richard Hoagland invited me to be a part of his image analysis team. I declined the invitation for a few reasons, not the least of which is that I know I do not have the training to really do the work (I believe that Hoagland gets too creative in his analysis fairly regularly – I was at his 1994 lunar presentation at Ohio State (I lived in Columbus at the time), so have followed his work for a long time). The Internet is full of amateur image analysts, be it for the moon landings, JFK, 9/11 and so on, and most efforts are examples of people knowing just enough to be dangerous. In my professional life, I am a specialist in the production and analysis of financial data, and the axiom is that most data users (particularly the execs) only know enough to be dangerous, and are not really fit to make competent determinations of what the data says. On JFK, Apollo, 9/11 and so on, that axiom is richly supported as you surf the Internet on those subjects or get ahold of works like Dark Moon. I am not saying that the official story on JFK or 9/11 is correct, but the amateur investigators sure muddy the waters.

It is late, going to bed now. Evan, I am more into the FE/ET stuff than I am having this thread turn into a three-ring circus on Apollo. Start that FE thread soon :- )

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wade ... Thanks for answering some of my questions ... I now know how you feel about Percy's evidence .... You didn't answer this question however .

Do you agree with Brian that some of the Apollo photography could have been faked on moonsets , while believing that the missions really happened ?

Concerning Richard Hoagland, have you read his new book 'Dark Mission' ? ... and if so , what do you think about the part of the book where he claimed to be at an Apollo 11 press conference and one of NASA's big wigs ( his name escapes me right now ) was walking around with a rather strange looking character who was busy passing out documents to the members of the press which stated that Apollo 11 was a hoax .... Are you aware of this claim of Hoagland's ?

It is late, going to bed now. Evan, I am more into the FE/ET stuff than I am having this thread turn into a three-ring circus on Apollo. Start that FE thread soon :- )

I think that Evan started that thread for you ... and don't worry , I promise not to turn this thread into a "three ring circus" .. I was just interested in discussing some of this with you, but I understand why you aren't interested in posting information that you have already covered before on other forums.

I am also very interested in the possiblilty of a NASA UFO cover-up and I'm looking forward to reading your evidence about that subject .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Duane:

I am not sure if you followed the situation, but what Ted did was far more egregious than not admitting he was wrong. I began that thread at Jay’s forum when Ted published his first “analysis” of some Apollo images. In about two seconds, it became clear that Ted had zero idea of what he was talking about. Comparing images from two different Apollo missions, to make a specific claim about the LMs, was a brainless thing to do, and to finish his analysis with a “case closed” comment showed him to be, as one of Jay’s pals said, “a moron.” Jay immediately began communicating privately with Ted, to give a Ted chance to defend what he did or admit his error, and Ted did what so many in that milieu do (which gives “conspiracy theorists” a bad name, BTW). Ted, as you have mentioned, refused to admit he was wrong (and gloriously so), but instead began playing misdirection and obfuscation games with Jay. I would advise Apollo hoax theorists to never play that game with Jay. But Ted was one of those fools who rushed in and paid for it with highly reduced credibility.

Now, if Ted had slunk off and never pretended to be an image analyzer again, on Apollo or any other space matter, he may have been forgiven for being a tad too bold. He could go clean the egg off his face in private and never show it again on these matters, even though we did not demand that he make a public apology/retraction for his errors.

But no, Ted has served up at least two more instances of similar image analysis on Apollo, to make the case of faked images. They were of the same level of validity as his first foray. Now, at this stage, the question is if Ted really is a moron or is being dishonest, playing the Rense crowd as chumps, making a name for himself as an Apollo image analyzer when ANYBODY with some familiarity and competence with the situation and evidence KNOWS that Ted does not have a clue. The first time, he could have been forgiven for being one of those fools who rushes in, but the second and third times? He has zero credibility with me on any subject now. Rense has always been a mixed bag. It never really serves up original work (except arguably stuff like Ted’s “exclusive” posts there), but posts stuff from around the net, and I and a fair number of very hip pals go to Rense almost daily to get the news (not the only place we go, but a regular place). I avoid and the Israeli/Jewish stuff on Rense. Much is tripe that can easily be labeled anti-Semitic. I studied that subject long ago:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/war.htm#anti

and a lot of what Rense publishes on the Holocaust and Jews is libelous, stuff that has long been shown to be on the level of Ted’s Apollo analysis, but it is also used to attack an entire people. Rense published writings from Fisk, Chomsky, Asia Times and other good sources on current events, so my buddies and I winnow through the chaff on Rense to get to articles that we are interested in reading. Ted’s work is something I was never impressed with before (right wing diatribes, mostly), and his Apollo “analysis,” and him continuing to post such tripe, put him way over the edge, and at this time I think he is a disinformation specialist, not just somebody who is in over his head and is too stupid to realize it (but maybe I am wrong and he really is that stupid – or his ego is way out of control).

Gotta to go work, and I will have an insanely busy week, so this board may not hear much from me this week.

Best,

Wade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wade ... I must say that was a very fine character assassination tirade of Ted ... Like I said before , the guy should have just admitted his mistake and saved himself a boat load of trouble from the pro Apollo camp, who seems to gleefully rejoice in the ridicule of any CT who makes mistakes with the hoax evidence .

So I will ask you this quetion a third time and hopefully you will not avoid it this time .

Do you agree with Brian that some of the Apollo photography could have been faked on moonsets , while believing that the missions really happened ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that not only did Brian O'Leary upset 'friends and colleagues' like Buzz Aldrin and Ed Mitchell with his incredible comments but also NASA.

Click on his name

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/astrobio_former.html

His profile has been removed.

Well I guess NASA forgot to remove him on page 64 of this document.....

http://history.nasa.gov/nautfb.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wade ... Could you please answer this question also, if you don't mind .

Concerning Richard Hoagland, have you read his new book 'Dark Mission' ? ... and if so , what do you think about the part of the book where he claimed to be at an Apollo 11 press conference and one of NASA's big wigs ( his name escapes me right now ) was walking around with a rather strange looking character who was busy passing out documents to the members of the press which stated that Apollo 11 was a hoax .... Are you aware of this claim of Hoagland's ?

As for your opinion about David Percy's evidence, there are many people who do agree with him and can see that the official Apollo photographic record is not an accurate portrayal of the alleged Moon landings ... These people include journalists, such as Marcus Allen of Nexus magazine, professional photographers, film producers , and physicists , such as Dr. David Groves and Dr. Neville Jones .... Not to mention a few NASA insiders who have left positive feedback on his Aulis web site about the hoax evidence presented in his well researched book 'Dark Moon' and his excellent documentary 'What Happened on the Moon'.

Have you ever seen Marcus Allen's documentary called 'Secret Space' ? ... Allen shows where, how and why NASA had the opportunity to fake the Moon landing footage ....If you haven't seen this documentary exposing NASA and the hoax evidence , I will be happy to post it here.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian worked with Buzz in the 1980s. Brian helped get Buzz the job, and they shared the same office for awhile. I am not sure, but I think it was for the same aerospace company that was Brian’s last job for the space establishment. That company went whole hog on Reagan’s Star Wars stuff, and Brian refused to get involved, which cost him his job and career.

I do not see Brian’s former moon landing skepticism in any kind of “amazing” light. He made that early-2001 statement long after he had been radicalized and had come face-to-face with the dark underbelly of the space establishment, and it is dark indeed. A relatively benign example of Brian’s exposure to that underbelly was Carl Sagan’s fraudulent “skepticism.”

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#sagan

Sagan recruited Brian straight out of NASA, and Brian worked with Sagan at Cornell, where they were the world’s two leading experts on Mars (but the level of information on Mars in those days was extremely sparse compared to today). While Brian eventually woke up from the dead-end of materialistic, mechanistic science and left the Citadel, Sagan became the Citadel’s Chief High Inquisitor, becoming the world’s leading “skeptic.” Studying the parallels and their eventually divergent paths can lead to important understandings, and their stories can become a poignant parable on pursuing the truth and the pitfalls that beckon along the way. Sagan became the world’s leading “skeptic,” while Brian followed his conscience and began finding out how the world really worked. Brian was on the way to becoming a radical long before the 1980s. He led a protest of Ivy League academics right to the Oval Office door not long before Nixon resigned, and he was stopped at the door by one of Nixon’s henchmen, Haldeman if I recall correctly. Brian became McGovern’s energy advisor during his run to the presidency, and that was a long time before Brian became truly radicalized.

That is a relatively benign example of what Brian ran into on his journey, and another relatively benign aspect is what I have encountered myself regarding astronauts that have been to the moon. How many times do you think they have been asked about their lunar experiences? I’ll bet the questions got real old for Buzz by 1970, so the terse answers that Brian got are not so hard to understand. I have been in milieus like that one, and it can be easy to read “conspiratorial” motivation into people’s reactions, when it is really something far more innocent. That is one of the hazards of investigating “conspiracies.” There are many ways to get sidetracked into dead ends and get mired in minutia that ultimately does not mean much. There is usually a ton of chaff amongst the kernels of wheat. I am not saying that Buzz is not keeping quiet about many things that he knows, with the “national security” sword hanging over his head, but the terse answers that he and his moon-walking brethren often give regarding their lunar exploits I believe have a far more innocent genesis than they are covering up for the faked landings.

The darker stuff that Brian has encountered in the space establishment he will not publicly talk about much, and I will not discuss it publicly until Brian decides to, but let’s just say that it was life-threatening at times. It related to the UFO/ET angle, a subject on which Brian has been one of the most outspoken astronauts, along with Mitchell and Cooper.

Brian has publicly stated that Mallove’s murder was when he decided to leave the country, and I was there for those events:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#mallove

and I have little doubt that Mallove’s murder was not random. I understand and sympathize with Brian’s position. I have been invited to leave the U.S. for safer pastures several times since 9/11, but I am not ready to give up on America yet, and it is my home.

The Big Boys can play very roughly with people who begin snooping into the free energy milieu, as I know all too well:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#hitting

Brian wrote the forward to Greer’s latest book:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greer

and the space establishment’s relationship to free energy, anti-gravity and related technologies is the tree worth barking up, not the “moon landings were faked” angle, IMO. Hey, I looked into the moon landings for many years, and part of me would have welcomed information that the moon landings were faked, even though I lived in Houston when my father worked in Mission Control:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#apollo

I have not talked with my father about his NASA days for many years, but he was also open to the idea that not all was how it may have seemed regarding the moon landings. Again, it is not crazy to suspect that we did not land on the moon, but it takes a lot of time to sift through the claims made by those who argue that the moon landings were faked and take a good, long critical look at the evidence. If you do not have a scientific background, however, the going can be hard. It can be good work to do, but I am 99.9% certain that if you really took the deep dive (it takes a lot of time and effort), you would end up where Brian and I are today on the subject. Jay has admitted that it can take a lot of homework to effectively analyze the evidence supporting the arguments that the moon landings were faked. For instance, he had to do some serious digging to counter the “no visible exhaust” angle that the moon hoax theorists use.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#exhaust

Jay eventually helped convinced me of it, and that exhaust issue is not just used to argue that the moon landings were faked. William Brian and others used the fact of no (or little) visible exhaust as evidence of anti-gravity being used, not that the footage was faked using a crane or something similar.

Again, you are free to do the deep dive on the evidence, and if you come up with something that is truly impressive, I would submit it to Jay and friends (or Evan) before you tout it too much. I understand much of why people think the moon landings may have been faked, but they are barking up the wrong tree, IMO, however well-intended their efforts may be.

Best,

Wade

Wade just a couple of things I need to ask you again because I think you might have missed the point of my previous post.

When you were discussing with Brian O'Leary his 'scepticism' were you only referring to him being misquoted in the Moon Hoax tv special or were you aware he had made this statement in early 2001?

'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.'

If you were aware he had made this statement did you make any attempt to discuss with him the circumstances that led to him having a small residual doubt about the landings and WHO out of the Moonwalkers had given him strange answers to his questions about activities on the lunar surface?

Did you ascertain if it was in the period immediately after the Moonwalkers had returned he was given strange answers or perhaps when he shared an office with Buzz Aldrin when it could be understood that Mr Aldrin might be fed up discussing his lunar trip?

Thanks.

Edited by James Douglas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wade ,

Maybe if I number the questions that James and I have asked you several times now, it will make it easier for you to answer them .

1. Concerning Richard Hoagland, have you read his new book 'Dark Mission' ? ... and if so , what do you think about the part of the book where he claimed to be at an Apollo 11 press conference and one of NASA's big wigs ( his name escapes me right now ) was walking around with a rather strange looking character who was busy passing out documents to the members of the press which stated that Apollo 11 was a hoax .... Are you aware of this claim of Hoagland's ?

2. Do you agree with Brian that some of the Apollo photography could have been faked on moonsets , while believing that the missions really happened ?

3. Have you ever seen Marcus Allen's documentary called 'Secret Space' ? ... Allen shows where, how and why NASA had the opportunity to fake the Moon landing footage ....If you haven't seen this documentary exposing NASA and the hoax evidence , I will be happy to post it here.

4. When you were discussing with Brian O'Leary his 'scepticism' were you only referring to him being misquoted in the Moon Hoax tv special or were you aware he had made this statement in early 2001?

'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.'

5. If you were aware he had made this statement did you make any attempt to discuss with him the circumstances that led to him having a small residual doubt about the landings and WHO out of the Moonwalkers had given him strange answers to his questions about activities on the lunar surface?

6. Did you ascertain if it was in the period immediately after the Moonwalkers had returned he was given strange answers or perhaps when he shared an office with Buzz Aldrin when it could be understood that Mr Aldrin might be fed up discussing his lunar trip?

:zzz

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...