An extraordinary statement?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

In the thread NASA,how many conspiritors, Mr Daman made the following statement.

Duane Daman, "Not even mission control knew about it (the hoax) as they were kept out of the loop completely, they had no way of discerning the difference between a simulation launch and landing, from a real one"

As I have already admitted, when it comes to the Apollo space programme I am little more than a novice compaired to some here, but this statement strikes me as extraordinary, and I feel requires some explanation. Are we to take it that all the highly skilled engineers, technicians, ground crew and support staff could have been so easily fooled, not once, but on multiple occasions, in their area of excellence?

And, of course this does not explain the Soviets supine responce to an event they must have known was fraudulant in the extreme.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Mr Daman, Any chance of you backing up your contention? Thanks in anticipation.

[Jack White]

In the thread NASA,how many conspiritors, Mr Daman made the following statement.

Duane Daman, "Not even mission control knew about it (the hoax) as they were kept out of the loop completely, they had no way of discerning the difference between a simulation launch and landing, from a real one"

As I have already admitted, when it comes to the Apollo space programme I am little more than a novice compaired to some here, but this statement strikes me as extraordinary, and I feel requires some explanation. Are we to take it that all the highly skilled engineers, technicians, ground crew and support staff could have been so easily fooled, not once, but on multiple occasions, in their area of excellence?

And, of course this does not explain the Soviets supine responce to an event they must have known was fraudulant in the extreme.

Steve, may I suggest that you read DARK MOON by Percy and Bennett?

Its 560 pages cannot be summarized in a brief posting. It covers your

questions.

Jack

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Jack, with all due respect, if members are going to make such sweeping statements,as if an already proven fact, without offering any citations to back their assertions, they should be willing to defend them in an open forum. Steve.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Stephen Turner

[Jack White]

Jack, with all due respect, if members are going to make such sweeping statements,as if an already proven fact, without offering any citations to back their assertions, they should be willing to defend them in an open forum. Steve.

Steve, the questions you asked are quite valid...but the answers are very complex...

and of course, SECRET.

So some deduction and speculation is necessary to figuring what happened.

Re the Russians...they assuredly were monitoring the Apollo flights and if Apollo never

left earth orbit, the Russians chose FOR REASONS UNKNOWN not to reveal it. Such

info could be a powerful blackmail chip.

If the missions never left earth orbit, as evidence seems to say, then all of the

NASA mission controllers only knew what data was coming to them on their monitors,

and that could be faked according to a well-planned script.

The vast majority of NASA employees are dedicated honest people. But they

ARE people, and can be fooled. Last year in Las Vegas I saw David Copperfield,

the great ILLUSIONIST. I have no doubt that ONE MAN like Copperfield could

convince you that they flew to the moon in a Piper Cub. I believe the Apollo

missions were a carefully crafted ILLUSION...helped along with billions of dollars

and foreign helpers (I believe the bulk of the legerdemain took place in the

vast Australian outback using foreign contractors for secrecy). Many of the

lost NASA records were recently discovered at an AUSTRALIAN school...

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/818

Jack

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Jack, with all due respect, if members are going to make such sweeping statements,as if an already proven fact, without offering any citations to back their assertions, they should be willing to defend them in an open forum. Steve.

Steve, the questions you asked are quite valid...but the answers are very complex...

and of course, SECRET.

Jack, of course the answers are complex, with the scenario you posit they would have to be, if ,for example, a newbie asks me a question about the SBT I would not recommend he read a book, or say that I know the answer, but it is to complex for discussion. If I did I would suspect that said newbie might believe that I dont have the answers at all.

So some deduction and speculation is necessary to figuring what happened.

Correct, always remembering that speculation is fine under very controlled circumstances, and that a hypothosis is not a fact

Re the Russians...they assuredly were monitoring the Apollo flights and if Apollo never

left earth orbit, the Russians chose FOR REASONS UNKNOWN not to reveal it. Such

info could be a powerful blackmail chip.

If the missions never left earth orbit, as evidence seems to say, then all of the

NASA mission controllers only knew what data was coming to them on their monitors,

and that could be faked according to a well-planned script.

Well if it was, it was a blackmail chip they thoughtfully never cashed in. Under what circumstances would the Soviets NOT have revealed this information.

The vast majority of NASA employees are dedicated honest people. But they

ARE people, and can be fooled. Last year in Las Vegas I saw David Copperfield,

the great ILLUSIONIST. I have no doubt that ONE MAN like Copperfield could

convince you that they flew to the moon in a Piper Cub. I believe the Apollo

missions were a carefully crafted ILLUSION...helped along with billions of dollars

and foreign helpers (I believe the bulk of the legerdemain took place in the

vast Australian outback using foreign contractors for secrecy). Many of the

lost NASA records were recently discovered at an AUSTRALIAN school...

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/818

Jack

Jack, I believe the current debate is too narrow, somebody needs to provide an alternative narative to the official NASA version, rather than just posting a series of disputed photographs. perhaps a new thread is in order..Regards, Steve.

[Jack White]

Jack, with all due respect, if members are going to make such sweeping statements,as if an already proven fact, without offering any citations to back their assertions, they should be willing to defend them in an open forum. Steve.

Steve, the questions you asked are quite valid...but the answers are very complex...

and of course, SECRET.

Jack, of course the answers are complex, with the scenario you posit they would have to be, if ,for example, a newbie asks me a question about the SBT I would not recommend he read a book, or say that I know the answer, but it is to complex for discussion. If I did I would suspect that said newbie might believe that I dont have the answers at all.

So some deduction and speculation is necessary to figuring what happened.

Correct, always remembering that speculation is fine under very controlled circumstances, and that a hypothosis is not a fact

Re the Russians...they assuredly were monitoring the Apollo flights and if Apollo never

left earth orbit, the Russians chose FOR REASONS UNKNOWN not to reveal it. Such

info could be a powerful blackmail chip.

If the missions never left earth orbit, as evidence seems to say, then all of the

NASA mission controllers only knew what data was coming to them on their monitors,

and that could be faked according to a well-planned script.

Well if it was, it was a blackmail chip they thoughtfully never cashed in. Under what circumstances would the Soviets NOT have revealed this information.

The vast majority of NASA employees are dedicated honest people. But they

ARE people, and can be fooled. Last year in Las Vegas I saw David Copperfield,

the great ILLUSIONIST. I have no doubt that ONE MAN like Copperfield could

convince you that they flew to the moon in a Piper Cub. I believe the Apollo

missions were a carefully crafted ILLUSION...helped along with billions of dollars

and foreign helpers (I believe the bulk of the legerdemain took place in the

vast Australian outback using foreign contractors for secrecy). Many of the

lost NASA records were recently discovered at an AUSTRALIAN school...

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/818

Jack

Jack, I believe the current debate is too narrow, somebody needs to provide an alternative narative to the official NASA version, rather than just posting a series of disputed photographs. perhaps a new thread is in order..Regards, Steve.

There are many alternative narratives. I suggest Dark Moon by Percy.

Failing that, I suggest you visit his website aulis.com .

There are few persons with that kind of expertise on this forum. I post

photographic studies because that is my specialty. I do not concoct scenarios.

Jack

Edited November 9, 2006 by Jack White

[Evan Burton]

A couple of mistakes there; the biggest that 'Dark Moon' is a thoroughly researched book. Many examples of its errors in another post.

I'm not sure if I have the video in my library, but I do have Gene Kranz's book 'Failure is not an option'. In it, he says that the simulation was virtually indistinguishable from the real thing, and that is the whole point of a sim - to simulate the real thing. I'll go into this aspect a little more in a later post.

The problems encountered during the sims were generally NOT of a crew-related function; they were incorrect decisions made by the Flight Controllers; too-late calls for aborts, or making abort calls when they were not necessary. It was a learning function, which is why they had sims.

"Our fourth run ended in a crash.... Jay Greene got behind on his calls, allowing the LM landing speed to build up. Our final instruction to abort was too late..."

"Our next session... (was) a virtual repeat of our previous crash."

"We were learning the hard way about the deadmans box, the seconds critical releationship of velocity, time, and altitude where the spacecraft will always impact the surface before before the MCC can react and call an abort."

"The next two runs were a washout. I felt like a novice flight director..."

"All this had taken place in just one day. I had just had my worst day of simulation ever as a flight director. But when the LM headed for the lunar surface, I would be working in precious seconds. We had to work the bugs out now."

"The intense training period prior to flight had found our Achilles' heel, something that could have distracted the MCC team and crew at the wrong time. Something that could have been a mission-buster."

Edited November 10, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Guest Stephen Turner]

In the thread NASA,how many conspiritors, Mr Daman made the following statement.

Duane Daman, "Not even mission control knew about it (the hoax) as they were kept out of the loop completely, they had no way of discerning the difference between a simulation launch and landing, from a real one"

As I have already admitted, when it comes to the Apollo space programme I am little more than a novice compaired to some here, but this statement strikes me as extraordinary, and I feel requires some explanation. Are we to take it that all the highly skilled engineers, technicians, ground crew and support staff could have been so easily fooled, not once, but on multiple occasions, in their area of excellence?

And, of course this does not explain the Soviets supine responce to an event they must have known was fraudulant in the extreme.

Mr. Turner ... There is no great mystery as to where my statement about mission control not knowing a real launch and landing from a simulated one came from .... This information came right from the mouth of Apollo flight directer Gene Krantz in the documentary ' Failure is Not an Option ' ...

In Mr. Krantz's apparent innocence he let it slip out at the very end of this excellent documentray about nasa's alleged accomplishments during the Apollo missions , that NO ONE at Houston's mission control had any way of telling a real launch and landing from one done in the sims .... Quite an unknowing blunder on his part I must say , and I'm sure a statement which he now must regret as ever having admitted to .

He also went on to say that Armstrong had crashed the LM in the sims repeatedly many times before the Apollo 11 launch date , therefore it was not only a great surprise but a huge relief to him and all the other members of mission control when Armstrong miraculously managed to land the LM safely in the unknown and untested conditions of lunar orbit , shortly after repeatedly crashing the LM many times over in the practice simulation sessions .

Jack has also brought up the fact that this information is also in the book 'Dark Moon' , which is a very thoroughly researched and well written book about all of the discrepancies and anomalies of the Apollo missions ... I highly recommend this book to anyone who is seriously interested in learning the truth about Apollo .

I hope this answers your question .

Duane, thank you for your responce, is it fair to say that whilst the simulations were very close to the real thing they were not exactly the same experience. Steve.

[Evan Burton]

I just got an e-mail back from one of the Apollo flight controllers about this subject.

His first advice was to ignore those making the claim - good advice, but I explained why I choose to disregard it.

His most relevant point was that the sims were scheduled in small 'segments' of the flight, recycling to start another segment. In other words, a sim was never run continuously from launch through to splashdown.

In that era, simulation technology was in its infancy; it was an achievement to keep the sim computers from 'crashing'.

To have a sim running continuously for 10-14 days, without error, with audio and visual interaction with the crew, and to do this repeatedly for all the lunar missions is simply outside the realms of possibility.

[Evan Burton]

(dupe post)

Edited November 11, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

More input from the flight controllers:

You're right, the simulations were good but far from being perfect and they always (had) some kluges that Pete Klapach or others (were required) to fix each time we ran a simulation. The data flow paths were different and sequencing of data from the tracking sites, pre-processed into 2.4 kbps or I believe later 4.8 kbps bit streams. We did elaborate checkouts of these paths from the bird to a spot on our displays or event lights. The tracking sites knew where their antennas were pointed and when they had data, etc., etc., etc.

These questioners must think that we are stupid (hundreds of us that is); the data was recorded, archived and analyzed by dozens of engineers.

So there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth.

Perhaps the Flight Director would not have noticed the difference between a sim and the real thing, but the various Flight Controllers in the 'Trench' certainly would have.

Edited November 11, 2006 by Evan Burton

[Guest Stephen Turner]

So there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth.

Perhaps the Flight Director would not have noticed the difference between a sim and the real thing, but the various Flight Controllers in the 'Trench' certainly would have.

Duane, do I take it from your lack of responce to Evans post that you concede this point? And if so, does this not blow a hole in ALL claims of fakery? Just wanted to give you a chance to reply.

[Matthew Lewis]

All I know is what Gene Krantz admitted to in the documentary 'Failure is Not an Option . .... Krantz stated that it was IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish the difference between a real launch and landing from a simulated one ... and that's why he and everyone at mission control were so relieved when Armstrong somehow miraculously landed the LM on the lunar surface after crashing it repeatedly in the sims shortly before the Apollo 11 launch.

Except there is a problem with that statement. There is only one recorded crash by Armstrong of the sim vehicle. That vehicle was the LLRV and the crash was not due to Armstrong's piloting but to an unrelated mechanical failure (the LLRV and the LLTV were actually more complicated than the LM as they used jet engines to support 5/6 of their weight and a rocket engine for the remaining 1/6 as they were designed to operate in an Earthly environment unlike the LM which only operated in space and on the moon.) This single crash is backed up by the fact that we know how many training vehicles there were and what happened to them and where they are now. Incidentally, there were hundreds, yes hundreds, of succesful flights of the LLRVs and the LLTVs.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Matthew Lewis

[John Geraghty]

Evan Burton can come up with any claim he wants to but I have no way of knowing if he really contacted anyone at nasa via e-mail or is just making that up to sound good ....

I'm just passively observing this thread, but I feel that I must interject. One can simpy not just disiss out of hand facts presented by another in a discussion such as this. Evan has displayed a thorough understanding of this field and I for one would not doubt his contact with the people he mentions.

If your point is worth arguing, then do so, if it is not, then concede.

John