Jump to content
The Education Forum

For Those of You Who Enjoy Science Fiction


Duane Daman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody:

I have been buried in my day job for the past week, and have a little time this morning. My host has been giving me big headaches for months now, and they took my site down for most of last week, sigh, but it looks like all is well for now.

Evan indeed began that thread,

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=12213&hl

and I thank him. That thread may end up where I focus my efforts in this forum, but we will see.

Duane:

On Ted, call it what you may. I have seen so many fall on their swords like Ted, and then they act like they are not even bleeding as they keep sallying forth. That kind of behavior really gives “conspiracy theorists” a bad name. Ted is a disinfo specialist at this time, whether witting or not, and that is way too bad.

I thought I made it very clear about Brian and that quote, and am surprised to see you state that I am avoiding the issue. Brian wrote that in early 2001. His position was that he thought it possible that NASA may have faked some footage to replace some that was destroyed. He never argued that we never went, as far as I know, but he believed that some things may be awry. He wrote that not long before that FOX special aired, and Brian was not happy with how his comments were portrayed. So, ONE astronaut thought, for a time, that MAYBE NASA MIGHT have staged some footage on earth and passed it off as taking place on the moon. Brian did not have much evidence to that effect, but with the other things he has seen, he was not dismissing anything as impossible.

Move forward several months, and Brian was really smarting from what that FOX special did, “ambushing” him with that interview and then running those ten seconds that they blew out of proportion. It largely wrecked his remaining relationship with the other astronauts. That NASA has removed his bio is not too surprising. Then I stumbled onto Armstrong’s Leap with Jay’s help, and it was key evidence in removing Brian’s remaining residual doubt. By August 2001, Brian was firmly in the camp that believes that the landings were genuine and made as presented:

http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html

After looking at literally hundreds of images that people like Percy, Jack, Rene and others have claimed were faked, and that not one of them held up to critical scrutiny, I put as low as probability (like 0.001%) as I can that the Apollo footage was faked, although anything is POSSIBLE.

The moon hoax believer crowd keeps giving themselves a bad name by clinging to Brian’s former “skeptical” stance, a stance that he repudiated several years ago, when he dug further into the evidence. The moon hoax believer crowd is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I was just trading email with Brian this morning on important stuff (free energy). The moon hoax debate is an energy waster for the public, with people like Ted keeping it alive with his tripe. I doubt I will give much more attention to this thread, but will concentrate on the FE/ET connection. The political-economic dynamics of alternative energy is really my bag.

On Hoagland, I am very familiar with his Apollo work and that press conference anecdote. Hoagland debated Collier on Art Bell back in 2001. Heck, even Jay is suspicious of NASA. They are covering up plenty but, as far as I know, it relates to ETs, “national security” and related exotic technologies, not faked moon landings.

On the others who believe that Percy has presented compelling evidence, all I will say is that I looked at it for a long time, and none of Percy’s evidence held up, and when I have been approached, fairly regularly, by people who try to convince me that Percy and friends have the goods, it ends up being the same tired old hash served up again. If you really want to present some of the evidence here (like Allen’s documentary), I can take a look, but I generally send people Jay’s way, like with Ted’s recent “find.” If you are going to present evidence, be warned: it had better be good, tight, rigorously-tested evidence, or I will quickly lose interest. I am really tired of seeing more “image analysis” that falls apart after mere seconds of scrutiny, or empty hypothesis that begs the question. I became tired of it several years ago but, amazingly, this “hoaxed moon landings were faked” red herring has a life of its own.

Hi James and Duane:

I am highly aware of that early email by Brian, and referred to it earlier, so I am surprised to see you keep asking about it. I believe that I have made a pretty thorough response on the issue, and I hope this is the last post I need to make on it. So there is no confusion, here is that quote:

“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 go see his full email, I believe he says that he has no doubt that we went to the moon. His small residual doubt was about the landings themselves. Brian basically said that, like the rest of us, he did not walk on the moon himself, so how can he know for sure. In later published exchanges on the issue, Brian has stated his reason for his doubt partly being due to the terse answers that he would sometimes get when he would ask about the landings with those who walked on the moon, and I have little doubt that Buzz was one of those people. There can be many reasons for that kind of reaction from a Buzz, and Brian has admitted that it was not much to go on, but it gave him some doubt (and Brian thinks it may well be because they were tired of the constant questions, which is VERY understandable). That is a reasonable position to take, especially with all that Brian has seen.

Go forward several months, after I showed Brian Armstrong’s Leap and after he interacted with other investigators on the issue after the uproar of the FOX special, and Brian’s residual doubt was gone and remains gone to this day. For that ATS poster to make the case that Brian’s early 2001 email trumped his stance since the summer of 2001 is some very strange logic indeed.

No, I have not discussed in depth with Brian the reasons for his residual doubt, because it is an extremely trivial issue anymore. After Brian resigned from the astronautics program in 1968, he still worked with NASA, so I am sure that he had many opportunities to talk to moon-walking astronauts. We talked about Armstrong’s Leap and some ancillary issues, but there are far bigger fish to fry than digging into that small residual doubt. The world is melting down and we know how to fix it, but almost nobody really cares. That is the stuff worth spending time on, not the “were the moon landings faked?” issue.

Again, Brian KNOWS that all is not how NASA would make things appear, but the moon landings, as far as them happening as advertised, is not one of those issues. This is a long-dead horse, as far as Brian is concerned.

I have not read Hoagland’s book. I may get it one day. I have followed Hoagland’s work for many years. Some may well be legit, but I have seen many instances where they stretch the data a little too far, which ultimately backfires, as far as their credibility goes.

Best,

Wade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi everybody:

I have been buried in my day job for the past week, and have a little time this morning. My host has been giving me big headaches for months now, and they took my site down for most of last week, sigh, but it looks like all is well for now.

Evan indeed began that thread,

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=12213&hl

and I thank him. That thread may end up where I focus my efforts in this forum, but we will see.

Duane:

On Ted, call it what you may. I have seen so many fall on their swords like Ted, and then they act like they are not even bleeding as they keep sallying forth. That kind of behavior really gives “conspiracy theorists” a bad name. Ted is a disinfo specialist at this time, whether witting or not, and that is way too bad.

I thought I made it very clear about Brian and that quote, and am surprised to see you state that I am avoiding the issue. Brian wrote that in early 2001. His position was that he thought it possible that NASA may have faked some footage to replace some that was destroyed. He never argued that we never went, as far as I know, but he believed that some things may be awry. He wrote that not long before that FOX special aired, and Brian was not happy with how his comments were portrayed. So, ONE astronaut thought, for a time, that MAYBE NASA MIGHT have staged some footage on earth and passed it off as taking place on the moon. Brian did not have much evidence to that effect, but with the other things he has seen, he was not dismissing anything as impossible.

Move forward several months, and Brian was really smarting from what that FOX special did, “ambushing” him with that interview and then running those ten seconds that they blew out of proportion. It largely wrecked his remaining relationship with the other astronauts. That NASA has removed his bio is not too surprising. Then I stumbled onto Armstrong’s Leap with Jay’s help, and it was key evidence in removing Brian’s remaining residual doubt. By August 2001, Brian was firmly in the camp that believes that the landings were genuine and made as presented:

http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html

After looking at literally hundreds of images that people like Percy, Jack, Rene and others have claimed were faked, and that not one of them held up to critical scrutiny, I put as low as probability (like 0.001%) as I can that the Apollo footage was faked, although anything is POSSIBLE.

The moon hoax believer crowd keeps giving themselves a bad name by clinging to Brian’s former “skeptical” stance, a stance that he repudiated several years ago, when he dug further into the evidence. The moon hoax believer crowd is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I was just trading email with Brian this morning on important stuff (free energy). The moon hoax debate is an energy waster for the public, with people like Ted keeping it alive with his tripe. I doubt I will give much more attention to this thread, but will concentrate on the FE/ET connection. The political-economic dynamics of alternative energy is really my bag.

On Hoagland, I am very familiar with his Apollo work and that press conference anecdote. Hoagland debated Collier on Art Bell back in 2001. Heck, even Jay is suspicious of NASA. They are covering up plenty but, as far as I know, it relates to ETs, “national security” and related exotic technologies, not faked moon landings.

On the others who believe that Percy has presented compelling evidence, all I will say is that I looked at it for a long time, and none of Percy’s evidence held up, and when I have been approached, fairly regularly, by people who try to convince me that Percy and friends have the goods, it ends up being the same tired old hash served up again. If you really want to present some of the evidence here (like Allen’s documentary), I can take a look, but I generally send people Jay’s way, like with Ted’s recent “find.” If you are going to present evidence, be warned: it had better be good, tight, rigorously-tested evidence, or I will quickly lose interest. I am really tired of seeing more “image analysis” that falls apart after mere seconds of scrutiny, or empty hypothesis that begs the question. I became tired of it several years ago but, amazingly, this “hoaxed moon landings were faked” red herring has a life of its own.

Hi James and Duane:

I am highly aware of that early email by Brian, and referred to it earlier, so I am surprised to see you keep asking about it. I believe that I have made a pretty thorough response on the issue, and I hope this is the last post I need to make on it. So there is no confusion, here is that quote:

“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 go see his full email, I believe he says that he has no doubt that we went to the moon. His small residual doubt was about the landings themselves. Brian basically said that, like the rest of us, he did not walk on the moon himself, so how can he know for sure. In later published exchanges on the issue, Brian has stated his reason for his doubt partly being due to the terse answers that he would sometimes get when he would ask about the landings with those who walked on the moon, and I have little doubt that Buzz was one of those people. There can be many reasons for that kind of reaction from a Buzz, and Brian has admitted that it was not much to go on, but it gave him some doubt (and Brian thinks it may well be because they were tired of the constant questions, which is VERY understandable). That is a reasonable position to take, especially with all that Brian has seen.

Go forward several months, after I showed Brian Armstrong’s Leap and after he interacted with other investigators on the issue after the uproar of the FOX special, and Brian’s residual doubt was gone and remains gone to this day. For that ATS poster to make the case that Brian’s early 2001 email trumped his stance since the summer of 2001 is some very strange logic indeed.

No, I have not discussed in depth with Brian the reasons for his residual doubt, because it is an extremely trivial issue anymore. After Brian resigned from the astronautics program in 1968, he still worked with NASA, so I am sure that he had many opportunities to talk to moon-walking astronauts. We talked about Armstrong’s Leap and some ancillary issues, but there are far bigger fish to fry than digging into that small residual doubt. The world is melting down and we know how to fix it, but almost nobody really cares. That is the stuff worth spending time on, not the “were the moon landings faked?” issue.

Again, Brian KNOWS that all is not how NASA would make things appear, but the moon landings, as far as them happening as advertised, is not one of those issues. This is a long-dead horse, as far as Brian is concerned.

I have not read Hoagland’s book. I may get it one day. I have followed Hoagland’s work for many years. Some may well be legit, but I have seen many instances where they stretch the data a little too far, which ultimately backfires, as far as their credibility goes.

Best,

Wade

Wade no offence, but I fail to understand why somebody who was involved with Apollo and was a friend and colleague of the moonwalkers would ever have made that statement in the first place especially considering he shared an office with one of them and should have been aware if his questions were annoying because they probably had been asked before.

I've also had a look at that Jay characters website and he makes no mention of ets/UFO's that may or may not have been buzzing about spacecraft heading to the moon. He certainly forgot to include it at his Brian O'Leary de-bunking page.

Brian O'Leary allows himself to be 'ambushed' by the tv people to make comments he doesn't want to, and then raises doubts about the landings because of strange answers he received from his friends and colleagues that did go, and you never ask him exactly what he meant but are eager to make sure he catches a clip of Neil Armstrong vaulting up a ladder.

Cheers.

Edited by James Douglas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Hoagland, I am very familiar with his Apollo work and that press conference anecdote. Hoagland debated Collier on Art Bell back in 2001. Heck, even Jay is suspicious of NASA. They are covering up plenty but, as far as I know, it relates to ETs, “national security” and related exotic technologies, not faked moon landings.

That Apollo 11 press conference "anecdote" was a strangely dressed man walking around the conference room with one of NASA's big wigs, handling out documents to the press members which stated that Apollo 11 was a hoax ! .... Don't you think that's just a tad strange and is much more important than to just dismiss it as an " anecdote" ?

Ted is a disinfo specialist at this time, whether witting or not, and that is way too bad.

A lot of people are disinfo specialists at this time, whether wittingly or not .... but most of them are on the pro- Apollo side of this debate .

And then there are the very clever disinfo specialists, who pretend to have once been hoax believers until they saw one piece of evidence that convinced them the landings were real ... or one of Apollo's top watchdogs got a hold of them with the "science" to convince them that all was well with the Apollo Program.

I agree with James about Windley's (dis) information ... I have never read anything on his clavius site where he agrees that NASA has not been truthful about anything , including the subject of aliens and UFO's.

Wade, you addressed all of my questions except for this one ... If you could please answer it, then I will leave you alone about this subject, as you claim to no longer have much interest in it .

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

Thanks for your replies to my other questions ... and I will post the links to the documentary 'Secret Space' here ... You may find Marcus Allen's evidence interesting ... and if I remember correctly, the subject of UFO's are discussed in it as well.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the excellent documentary called 'SECRET SPACE' ... It shows how, where and why the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed by NASA's Nazi's... It also discusses the UFO cover-up by NASA and the US government .

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVbR6BtY8Ts

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYcI5UadyNA

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_3pP44A97Y

Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-grdlREs-Q

Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro_OcrXlmvo

Part 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufFwVEhVjQo

Part 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKMSHOLRIQQ

Part 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5fTS3zb9Dg

Part 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGs3P6GpltI

Part 10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr7ZAJzrCiY

Part 11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtjAu2p7YZ8

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I have been busy with lots of other things, but plan to post in this forum again when I finish my upcoming energy, ecosystems and economics essay, sometime in the next several months. My latest essay relates to free energy:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm

On the Apollo missions, long ago, Brian O’Leary said that part of the moon landing record MIGHT have been fabricated for PR purposes or because they lost some footage, but I doubt that he believes that anymore, and is very weak “evidence” of faked moon landings. Brian also knows that plenty has been covered up and fabricated, but the moon landings do not appear to be one of the issues, at least for those who want to argue that they never happened.

I recently introduced John Lear to Jay’s forum, and Lear did not exactly defend his “we never landed on the moon” position. In fact, his performance was kind of embarrassing to witness:

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...amp;thread=2112

At best, Secret Space was sloppily done, with possibly good stuff alongside shaky stuff. Any effort that is going to be taken seriously needs to winnow the wheat from the chaff, and Secret Space did not do so, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been busy with lots of other things, but plan to post in this forum again when I finish my upcoming energy, ecosystems and economics essay, sometime in the next several months. My latest essay relates to free energy:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm

On the Apollo missions, long ago, Brian O’Leary said that part of the moon landing record MIGHT have been fabricated for PR purposes or because they lost some footage, but I doubt that he believes that anymore, and is very weak “evidence” of faked moon landings. Brian also knows that plenty has been covered up and fabricated, but the moon landings do not appear to be one of the issues, at least for those who want to argue that they never happened.

I recently introduced John Lear to Jay’s forum, and Lear did not exactly defend his “we never landed on the moon” position. In fact, his performance was kind of embarrassing to witness:

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...amp;thread=2112

At best, Secret Space was sloppily done, with possibly good stuff alongside shaky stuff. Any effort that is going to be taken seriously needs to winnow the wheat from the chaff, and Secret Space did not do so, IMO.

Fascinating essay!

Jack

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...