Jump to content

An extraordinary statement?


Guest Stephen Turner
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's reasonable for Duane to take the stance he has, since I haven't actually shown anything except the text from the e-mail, and Duane would appear to doubt anything I say.

Therefore it would be best to confirm that:

1. I did contact that person and the reply I posted was what they sent back to me;

2. I have no relationship (personal or professional) with that person (except to ask them that question); and

3. What I said was accurate.

Ask them for yourself: the person is Sy Liebergot, and his website is here:

http://www.apolloeecom.com/

Go down to the bottom of the page and you'll see a link marked "Contact Sy". Ask him yourself and see if there has been any deception, inaccuracy, or evasion on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Mr. Lewis ... I was not talking about the alleged successful test flights of the LLRV's , I was speaking of the LM flights done in SIMULATION ... A big difference .... By the way , where is the proof of these successful test flights , outside of taking nasa's word for it ? .... Were any of these flights filmed , or just the one where Armstrong crashed the LLRV ?

Here's some video of LLRV flights I Googled in a few seconds.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/LLRV/index.html

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/LLR...EM-0019-06.html

http://www.space-video.info/moon/apollo/llrv-tests.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=61...1528&q=llrv

The LLRV and the LLTV were different... the LLRV was a research vehicle designed to test new technologies to assist in the development of a lunar lander - the LLTV (training vehicle) was borne out of this project, and was designed to train astronauts in how to fly in a 1/6g environment.

Info on the LLTV

More info on the LLTV

Also , the question put to me was where did I get the information to make the statement I did about mission control not being able to tell the difference between a real landing and a simulated one , and I answered that question .... If Mr. Burton wants to contact nasa now to get their spin on what Gene Krantz really meant by his statement , that is fine .. Anyone can change their story after the fact ... or maybe I should say , after letting the cat out of the bag ...

I believe this one has alreayd been answered - (paraphrasing) simulations could only be run in modular fashion - it was impossible to simulate an entire mission from pre-launch to re-entry.

Have you watched the documentary ' Failure is not an Option ' ? .... If so , you should surely remember Krantz making this statement near the end of the program .... and if not , I suggest you do so before making up your mind about this one ...

What Krantz claimed was incredibly provocative ... and as a conspiracy researcher , it made me sit bolt upright on the sofa ! ... It's not often that these guys let someting as important and as damaging as that one statement was , slip out .... I believe it's called opening mouth and inserting foot ... and I'm sure Krantz wishes now that he had never said it .... because if it's true , it only adds more proof to Apollo 11 being a hoax ... and if it's not true , then he really did nasa a tremendous dis-service by saying it .

I haven't seen the documentary you're referring to. I think I must be mis-understading you here, it seems as if you're claiming that the statement "Failure is not an option" is further proof that Apollo 11 never happened? I can't believe you actually mean that, so if you could let me know what the statement is? Or are you just referring back to the simulation being the same as the real thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .

Has anyone got a copy of this doco, and can check the accuracy of Duane's quote from Gene Kranz? Based on Duanes past record of quote accuracy, I just want to be absolutely sure of what Gene Kranz said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .

Has anyone got a copy of this doco, and can check the accuracy of Duane's quote from Gene Kranz? Based on Duanes past record of quote accuracy, I just want to be absolutely sure of what Gene Kranz said.

I've got it Evan and I'll check tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct ... I am not very good at quoting people verbatum , so it should be interesting to see exactly what Gene Krantz stated in this documentary ... That is unless you plan on misquoting him for some strange reason ( I wonder what that could possibly be ? ) ... So please do quote him correctly because I would hate to have to buy that utterly boring documentary just to have to prove you wrong .

Your complete dislike of me and everything I stand for is quite obvious Mr. Lamson , so I would put nothing past you and your nasa defender friends here in trying to prove me wrong and thus "win" the argument ... And that includes misquoting , lying , personally insulting me and hacking web site forums where I have posted Apollo hoax information .

Oh and speaking of hacking web site forums .. The WOS was hit again today and I seem to be the one who was targeted again ( Yes I know .. I'm always playing the victim, aren't I ? .. LOL ) ... but fortunately some of the mess was cleared up rather quickly this time ... but someone seems to have left his calling card behind (so to speak ) as to who did the hacking this time ! ... Pretty stupid thing to do under the circumstances , don't you think ? ... Especially since it leads right back to this forum , just as I suspected .

I'll quote the doco correctly. And why not? Since the dvd is available to anyone who wants it, misquoting would be rather silly.

I don't have a "complete dislike" for you and everything you stand for. How could I, I don't know anything about you other than what is available on the web. I do however dislike your ignorance on the subject of the Apollo photographs and your inability to deal with fact and hard evidence...not to mention your arrogance when spewing your ignorace.

So you think you have your hacker eh? Great. And since you now claim it leads back to this forum why not post your evidence for all to see. In any case you "research" going missing is no great loss, it was just more of the same crap that is posted all over the web by others just as ignorant of the subject matter as you.

Cant wait to see who you try and finger for hacking your website.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane, just wondering WHICH of your TWO statements about the quality of the Krantz doco is correct....this one:

So please do quote him correctly because I would hate to have to buy that utterly boring documentary just to have to prove you wrong .

or this one:

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 .....snip...

Excellent or utterly boring...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and speaking of hacking web site forums .. The WOS was hit again today and I seem to be the one who was targeted again ( Yes I know .. I'm always playing the victim, aren't I ? .. LOL ) ... but fortunately some of the mess was cleared up rather quickly this time ... but someone seems to have left his calling card behind (so to speak ) as to who did the hacking this time ! ... Pretty stupid thing to do under the circumstances , don't you think ? ... Especially since it leads right back to this forum , just as I suspected .

I registered at the WOS today, and posted one message in a non-Apollo related thread which you hadn't posted in... lo and behold, I can't find that message either.

Duane - does the webmaster have proof that he has been specifically hacked, or is it some kind of bug/virus/worm/corrupted database?

If you have a specific accusation against one of the members of this group then I would politely advise that you ensure there is very good evidence before accusing someone directly - as it stands you are effectively accusing everyone who has posted or read this forum, who believes in Apollo, of hacking the WOS site (whether that was your intention or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has proof that it was hacked .... and after you joined the site , he realized who hacked the site .... Maybe that's why your only post was deleted and your membership was canceled ? ... I didn't accuse everyone on this site of hacking the WOS ... I did say it was possible that it was done by someone reading this forum though, and not necessarily a member ... but of course I know better now and so does the administrator at the WOS .

I'm distinctly displeased by this.

His site was hacked... I joined the site a few days later and posted in a non_Apollo related thread... Later on I couldn't even find the thread (I assumed it was due to problems the forum was still having)... And now you're suggesting that my post was deleted and my membership cancelled because he realised who hacked the site AFTER I joined?

This is starting to sound very much like a direct accusation at myself. I'd never even LOOKED at the WOS site or forum until a couple of days ago, only registering today as I found a thread I wished to contribute to.

Duane - the tone of your post suggests that both yourself and the admin at WOS know who hacked the site, and unless I'm reading the undertone of your post wrongly, this accusation appears to be directed at me. If this is the case, come out and say so directly, and also provide proof. If it is not the case, then please say so, because the innuendo in your post suggests otherwise, and I do not like being falsely accused.

For the record, I had NO involvement whatsoever in the site being hacked, and NO knowledge of it until you even mentioned it.

I also intend to contact the site admin at WOS to get to the bottom of this. It may only be cyberspace, but as far as I'm concerned your post is publicly calling my character into question - so please clarify exactly what you meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane, just wondering WHICH of your TWO statements about the quality of the Krantz doco is correct....this one:

So please do quote him correctly because I would hate to have to buy that utterly boring documentary just to have to prove you wrong .

or this one:

In Mr. Krantz's apparent innocence he let it slip out at the very end of this excellent insignificant documentary about nasa's alleged accomplishments during the Apollo missions .....snip...

Excellent or utterly boring...?

Did I say excellent ? ... I meant to say insignificant ... So utterly boring would be the correct answer .

Oh and speaking of hacking web site forums .. The WOS was hit again today and I seem to be the one who was targeted again ( Yes I know .. I'm always playing the victim, aren't I ? .. LOL ) ... but fortunately some of the mess was cleared up rather quickly this time ... but someone seems to have left his calling card behind (so to speak ) as to who did the hacking this time ! ... Pretty stupid thing to do under the circumstances , don't you think ? ... Especially since it leads right back to this forum , just as I suspected .

I registered at the WOS today, and posted one message in a non-Apollo related thread which you hadn't posted in... lo and behold, I can't find that message either.

Duane - does the webmaster have proof that he has been specifically hacked, or is it some kind of bug/virus/worm/corrupted database?

If you have a specific accusation against one of the members of this group then I would politely advise that you ensure there is very good evidence before accusing someone directly - as it stands you are effectively accusing everyone who has posted or read this forum, who believes in Apollo, of hacking the WOS site (whether that was your intention or not).

He has proof that it was hacked .... and after you joined the site , he realized who hacked the site .... Maybe that's why your only post was deleted and your membership was canceled ? ... I didn't accuse everyone on this site of hacking the WOS ... I did say it was possible that it was done by someone reading this forum though, and not necessarily a member ... but of course I know better now and so does the administrator at the WOS .

More discrepancies?

First an "excellent documentry" then a "utterly boring documentry".

That was followed by:

"...I seem to be the one who was targeted again..." then "... maybe that's why your only post was deleted..."

And of course:

"...Especially since it leads right back to this forum , just as I suspected..." then "...I did say it was possible that it was done by someone reading this forum though, and not necessarily a member..."

You just can't get your story straight, can you? Never mind - let's see some of your 'evidence' of Apollo 'fakery'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Duane, before it gets lost in all this silly, pointless recrimination.

Quote, Dave Greer. "Simulations could only be run in modular fashion-it was impossible to simulate an entire mission from pre-launch, to re entry."

Calls for rebutal, or retraction on your behalf..Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Duane, before it gets lost in all this silly, pointless recrimination.

Quote, Dave Greer. "Simulations could only be run in modular fashion-it was impossible to simulate an entire mission from pre-launch, to re entry."

Calls for rebutal, or retraction on your behalf..Steve.

Stephen ... Thanks for getting back on topic ... No one said anyting about the pre-launch , launch or re-entry being simulated ... Obviously the launch and re-renrty were real events ... It's what took place in between those two events that is being called into question .

Krantz was speaking of the LANDING only ... So if I confused the issue and said launch , you have my apologies ....

I don't have the verbatum quote because I don't own the documentary 'Failure is Not an Option' ( actually the title does speak volumes doesn't it ? ) .... but what Krantz clearly stated was that is was impossible for mission control , including himself , to tell the difference between a real lunar landing from a simulated one , as the sims were entirely realistic in every respect .... and also that Armstrong had crashed the LM several times during the sims shortly before launch , so he ( Krantz) was very relieved when Armstrong somehow managed to land the LM without any problems at all on the moon , shortly after crashing it so many times in the sims ....

We will wait for the direct quote from Mr. Lamson , and then you can decide for yourself if what I said is correct or not .... You asked me a simple question about why I claimed that mission control couldn't tell the difference between a real landing from a simulated one , and I gave you the reason why I stated that .... I don't believe that Kratnz would have said that if it wasn't true ... but I have no doubt now that he wished he hadn't said it , because it just added more fuel to the belief that Apollo was faked ..... And like I said before .... if mission control, including the flight director , couldn't tell the difference between a real lunar landing from a simulated one , then how could the unsuspecting public be expected to ?

..................................................

quote]

Duane, thanks for your responce. So, lets see if I have it right, your contention is, they took off, cruised around for the rest of the mission, then re-entered Earths atmosphere for the splash down. And that the entire Moon landing, and mission time on the Moon was a simulation, that was undetectable as such to NASA Mission control. You also claim, I believe, that this was accomplished with very few active conspiritors, and that the Soviets, who we know monitored all NASA activity, were somehow bought off/blackmailed into a silence that has lasted nearly fourty years. Would you say this is a fair description of your beliefs.

Regards, Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the documentary 'Failure is Not an Option " , I do seem to have contradicted myself . ... So maybe I should clarify that one for you also .... It was UTTERLY BORING until near the end of it when Krantz let it slip out that he couldn't tell the difference between a real LM landing from a simulated one .... Then it became EXCELLENT ! LOL

OK, on topic...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With one minor but rather important addition - on the real landing they didn't just have telemetry, they also had continuous live TV feed.

I don't know enough about how the simulations and the telemetry etc all fitted together so can't really comment further on this one. If you have any genuine questions about how the simulations worked versus the real thing, didn't someone link to the website of the EECOM guy (just remembered - Sy Liebergot) on Apollo 13?

If you contact him he may be able to help out with any questions you have re the simulations and how they worked.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to the insinuations and false accusations...

Duane - am I being accused of hacking the WOS site? If so on what grounds? If not, please clarify your previous post concerning this matter to state that I am NOT being accused of hacking the WOS forum.

Once you do this simple request, we can stay back on topic.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh*

Let's go over this again.

1) As I said in a previous post, it might have been that the Flight Director could not tell a simulation from a real flight. I know they have said it was virtually the same, but not indistinguishable from an actual flight. The Flight Controllers have already said that they could tell the difference (data bit rates, etc). It might help to explain a little more about the difference between a Flight Director and a Flight Controller.

The Flight Director (FLIGHT) has overall operational responsibility for missions and for all decisions regarding safe, expedient flight. He monitors the other Flight Controllers, who are in constant verbal communication with him through intercom channels called "loops". He is in charge. To give you an idea of his responsibility, it might be pertinant to quote from mission rules:

The Flight Director may, after analysis of the flight, choose to take any necessary action required for the successful completion of the mission

He was the man on the spot who made the decisions. How could he analyse the flight? Could he know ever single minutiae of the spacecraft? Did he have thousands of screens giving him all this detail? No. No-one could absorb all this information. He had a single display in front of him, and relied on various details passed to him by the Flight Controllers.

The Flight Controllers were specialists in a specific area of the flight: electrical systems, guidance, propulsion, environment, etc. They had reams of data on their screens - voltages, temperatures, flow rates, etc - and would tell FLIGHT if there was a problem within their areas of responsibility.

So the Flight Controllers could see subtle changes in aspects of the mission - and tell the difference between a simulation and an actual flight, whereas the Flight Director might not.

2) As also stated in a previous post, the simulations were not - and could not be - run continuously for a full mission. That is what would have been required to 'fool' the Flight Controllers and Mission Control. They were presented in segments, and had to be reset / reprogrammed to simulate another phase of the mission. They could not simulate a continuous flight from launch to splashdown, and that is what would have been required.

If you can prove to the contrary, please do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm posting an email here I received from someone who isn't registered (the forum isn't accepting new registrations at the moment). It's from Mike Difronzo, he's been following this particular thread with interest, and has given me permission to post it here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One thing seems to be the actual quote that Mr. Krantz uttered in the documentary was as follows:

“The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission.”

It should be understood that Gene was admittedly the most emotional Flight Director there was. In the documentary, his emotion regarding Apollo 11 is apparent, and the drama he injects is completely understandable, as well as profoundly human.

Nonetheless, it might be mentioned that all of the controllers knew that sims were in fact sims. What Gene was indicating is that they were so well done that they couldn’t tell the difference between them and the real thing. All of the flight controllers would certainly agree with this assessment, despite the fact that they knew full well that they were sims.

Someone mentioned that the difference between the sims and the actual landing was the fact that they had live TV feeds of the landing. This is incorrect. [EDIT (Dave G) - that was me - I wasn't very clear in my post, I didn't mean the landing itself, but the EVA... my bad!] There was no TV coverage of the landings provided from the spacecraft. The environment in Mission Control was precisely the same during the sim as it was during the actual landing. The 10 x 20 display in the front of the MOCR, as well as the data on the controller’s screens, as well as the comm between the controllers and the crew and the backroom people, were all indistinguishable from the real thing. The only difference was the PAO sitting there speaking to the networks, giving status reports from time to time.

Duane said the following:

“ He (Krantz) 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 .”

Gene never said that, either in his book or in the documentary.

Gene would say that “we crashed”, when speaking of a crashed sim. He wouldn’t, and didn’t blame it on Armstrong. He also never said they had crashed many times.

The fact is that they had crashed several times during sims in June, 1969. These crashes were due to faults uncovered in mission control during the integrated simulations, which were designed to spot problems and weaknesses in the flight control teams. Prior to the beginning of these sims, Armstrong and Aldrin had practiced flying the LM many times, knew the process, and had developed their own operations quite well.

No one, least of all Armstrong, was surprised, nor thought it miraculous, that he had landed the LM on the Moon on July 20, 1969. Relieved, mind- numbed, emotionally overwhelmed to one extent or another? Yes. Surprised? No.

The sims were, after a couple days of nominal runs, purposefully loaded with problems. There was a purpose in this. To abort properly during a sim was not a failure. It was a success. To improperly abort was a failure, which was designed to highlight a problem, and develop a solution.

Other facts that Duane seems to get wrong habitually, despite the fact that we discussed it in some detail on UM, are the following:

He keeps stating that the Apollo 11 lunar crew crashed the LM just days before their launch to the Moon.

This is incorrect.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin actually completed their integrated sims with Mission Control by June 25, 1969. They had spent approximately two weeks in 16 hour long sessions starting in early June. There were actually crashes on June 10, but no more. There were plenty of aborts, successful ones, however.

They were in crew quarters at KSC as of June 26, 1969, and further integrated sims were conducted between the MOCR team and the Apollo 12 prime crew (Conrad and Bean), as well as the Apollo 12 backup crew (Apollo 15 prime crew: Dave Scott and Jim Irwin).

July 5 was the final session of sims at Mission Control, which culminated in an improper abort due to mis-understood computer program alarms. The crew aboard the LM simulator was Scott and Irwin at that time, and a day or so later, they participated in a few more simulations geared toward refining the procedures for these program alarms (which turned out to be the reason that the actual Apollo 11 landing was successful…because these very same program alarms occurred on the actual landing).

Thus, Armstrong and Aldrin were not involved in an integrated sim from late June through the actual landing…almost three weeks prior to launch they had concluded such sims.

I think this statement of Duane’s reflects his contention completely:

“…if mission control, including the flight director, couldn’t tell the difference between a real lunar landing and a simulated one, then how could the unsuspecting public be expected to?”

An interesting twist.

The answer would have to be with a question:

The “unsuspecting public” had absolutely no idea about the training, the simulations, or the actual mechanics involved in spaceflight. The “unsuspecting public” generally had no idea that there was 6 months of intense training in all mission aspects for the crew of Apollo 11 immediately prior to the flight, and no idea that about 175 hours of intense integrated simulations were conducted with Mission Control and the flight crew (s) in a mere 11 days from early June through early July 1969. Thus:

Why would the unsuspecting public have any concern about the difference between a simulated landing and a real one? The only thing they would be witnessing would be the real one.

I think that the fact that the Flight Director couldn’t tell the difference speaks volumes about the quality of the training he and his team were put through. The idea that such a statement, in one person’s mind, points to a hoax, is rather skewed reasoning.

…during the actual landing, while the program alarms were happening and GUIDO Steve Bales and his back room people were handling the situation, a line was briefly left open and the back room was heard to say, “This is just like a simulation.”

(You’ll find reference to this in Gene’s book.)

I think that pretty much sums up that Gene’s assessment was pretty well right on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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...