Guest Mark Valenti Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 No . If nasa wanted to shut anyone up it wouldn't be just one of thousands who are posting about this subject on internet forums ... It would be guys like Sibrel and Percy they would want silenced . Plus , the nasa defenders and hoax deniers are so good at what they do , that nasa's dirty little secrets are well protected . Nice mockery by the way ... I love sarcasm when it is done with such flare ! Well, which is it? A far-reaching conspiracy with murderous intent or just a loose collection of hunches with a conspiratorial flavor? If you really believe that some people have been harmed by a pursuit of their theories, you should be barricading yourself in your home. But you're not, and I suspect the reason is that you truly don't believe a lot of what you offer as gospel. I would give someone like Jack White more leeway in his opinions - after all he was nearly murdered in his own bed. That would have a searing effect on anyone's world view. But you, Duane, treat this subject like a game, with your smiley faces and your lols. You accuse NASA professionals of duplicity, theft, fraud, conspiracy, and you suggest there are forces at work to commit murder. These are extremely serious, grownup charges. You throw them around like someone quoting baseball stats in a sports bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) Trust me Mark , I do not take this subject as lightly as you would think .... Posting smiley faces is just my way to try to keep the discussions as light as possible here ... It is merely a means of posting used by this conspiracy researcher to defend myself against the typical insults from those who oppose my views on forums such as these . If the smileys offend you though , I don't have to use them ... This is not a game , even though many here make it one every chance they get , by twisting the hoax evidence around to suit their own agenda . I didn't know that Jack was almost murdered for exposing nasa's faked photography .... But I can understand why some people would want him permanately silenced .... He is one of the pioneers of the Apollo moon hoax , along with David Percy , Mary Bennet , Bart Sibrel , Ralph Rene', Bill Kaysing , James Collier and several other researchers, who have had the courage to go up against nasa's 30 billion dollar swindle known as Apollo . If I didn't believe that Apollo was a monumental hoax , and that the Apollo photography wasn't faked , then I surely wouldn't be wasting my time posting as much . I know what most people think of "conspiracy theorists" and I also know why they think and say what they do ... We are called crackpots, nuts, delusional , ignorant , stupid , illerate , unpatriotic etc. ... It's known as the program of ridicule and ad homium attacks against those who dare to question the authority of nasa , the military industrial complex and the American government . So if you're asking me again if I'm afraid there will be attempts on my life for posting this information on certain web site forums , the answer again is NO ... I am not important enough to silence .... but others are and were ... Such as Tom Baron and the Apollo 1 astronauts , among many others who could and did blow the whistle on nasa's Apollo debacle . Edited February 15, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Trust me Mark , I do not take this subject as lightly as you would think .... Posting smiley faces is just my way to try to keep the discussions as light as possible here ... It is merely a means of posting used by this conspiracy researcher to defend myself against the typical insults from those who oppose my views on forums such as these .If the smileys offend you though , I don't have to use them ... This is not a game , even though many here make it one every chance they get , by twisting the hoax evidence around to suit their own agenda . I didn't know that Jack was almost murdered for exposing nasa's faked photography .... But I can understand why some people would want him permanately silenced .... He is one of the pioneers of the Apollo moon hoax , along with David Percy , Mary Bennet , Bart Sibrel , Ralph Rene', Bill Kaysing , James Collier and several other researchers, who have had the courage to go up against nasa's 30 billion dollar swindle known as Apollo . If I didn't believe that Apollo was a monumental hoax , and that the Apollo photography wasn't faked , then I surely wouldn't be wasting my time posting as much . I know what most people think of "conspiracy theorists" and I also know why they think and say what they do ... We are called crackpots, nuts, delusional , ignorant , stupid , illerate , unpatriotic etc. ... It's known as the program of ridicule and ad homium attacks against those who dare to question the authority of nasa , the military industrial complex and the American government . So if you're asking me again if I'm afraid there will be attempts on my life for posting this information on certain web site forums , the answer again is NO ... I am not important enough to silence .... but others are and were ... Such as Tom Baron and the Apollo 1 astronauts , among many others who could and did blow the whistle on nasa's Apollo debacle . The nude assassin who attacked me did so in 1991, far before I ever thought of studying Apollo, and ten years before 911. At the time I was assisting Oliver Stone on the movie JFK. I survived a fractured skull, a punctured lung from multiple icepick stabs, and 24 days in the hospital. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Evan ... The fact that you can even suggest that conspiracy investigator Bart Sibrel altered the audio of his 'Astronauts Gone Wild 'video and that Mitchell's son was not the one who threatened to have Sibrel "waxed" , shows how desperate you really are to defend the myth of Apollo astronots landing on the moon .... Sibrel was clearly threatened and it clearly by Mitchell's son .... "Hey dad , you want me to call the CIA and have him waxed ? " Did the film actually show him saying that, or was it simply an audio segment? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but given Mr Sibrel's track record I'd like to have it confirmed. On this same video we also get to see Alan Bean's complete confusion in not even knowing if his Apollo 12 mission flew high enough to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts or even where the belts are located ... When Sibrel told him where they were , he then claimed that they must have gone right through them .... But he said there were no light flashes in his eyes from the radiation in the belts , where as Gene Cernan , in the same video , said that he did see the radiation light flashes in his eyes while going through the belts . When was the interview recorded? Late 1990s? Over 20 years after the mission? Well, he must have not remembered correctly because he mentions them in the post-flight debrief: 25.8 - Unusual Visual Phenomena CONRAD: I don't remember any unusual or unexpected visual phenomena or problems experienced that we haven't already mentioned. We all did see these corona discharges; and by paying a little attention to them, you could pin down that it was happening to one eye at a time. The discharges appeared in two manners. They appeared as either a bright round flash or a particle streaking rapidly across your eyeball in a long thin illuminated line. You either got a flash or a streak, and I could determine whether it was my left eye or right eye that did it at the time. Most of the time I did this was during our sleep periods when we would be lying in our bunks. The next day we would either discuss it or right it up in the flight plan. BEAN: One thing they wanted to know was how often and where. I didn't record where they were because it just seemed like anytime in the dark, if you wanted to, you could stay there a little while and one, two or three of them would come by. If I was thinking about watching for them, I would see one every minute or somewhat less. One of them would be a flash, and about a minute later there would be a line. It didn't appear to make any difference if we were in lunar orbit, translunar, transearth or anything else. If you wanted to look for them, you could see them going by. (Source: Apollo 12 Technical Crew Debriefing - 1 DEC 69) Cernan, while sweating profusely , also made the claim that the descent engine of the LM was very loud .... where as Bean made the claim that it was completley silent .... So here we have two complete contradictions coming from two men who allegedly went to the moon .. and I doubt it was from not remembering the details of their suppossed moon trips .... If these men really flew to the moon , they wouldn't be telling such opposing stories about it ...Even their body language showed that they were not being truthful. That is hardly proof. I think I remember reading something about Cernan - was the interview not conducted in hot conditions without any type of aircon, etc? Is a person not allowed to sweat? Noise levels are subjective; what is loud to one may be quiet to another. No definitive proof. Additionally, Bean was unable to clear his ears during the descent; do you think that might account for the difference? Tom Baron's verbal report to the committee hearing was only a part of his 500 page written report .... He never had the chance to submit his full written report , containing the damaging evidence against the Apollo Program , because it disappeared from his car when he and his family were killed . It's my understanding he submitted that 500-page report the day he was before the Sub-Committee. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to correct myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Jack, Did you ever find out who attacked you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 BEAN: One thing they wanted to know was how often and where. I didn't record where they were because it just seemed like anytime in the dark, if you wanted to, you could stay there a little while and one, two or three of them would come by. If I was thinking about watching for them, I would see one every minute or somewhat less. One of them would be a flash, and about a minute later there would be a line. It didn't appear to make any difference if we were in lunar orbit, translunar, transearth or anything else. If you wanted to look for them, you could see them going by. This transcript is a complete contradiction to the claims made in his inteview which is featured in 'Astronauts Gone Wild' .. Forgot the details of his only mission the moon ??? .... Right . But that's not all old Al forgot ... He even forgot where the Van Allen radiation belts were located , or if they even flew high enough to have encountered them ??!!? And we wonder why nasa doesn't want these guys interviewed !?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Jack,Did you ever find out who attacked you? No. Police searched the entire neighborhood and could not even find his missing clothing (he was completely nude at 5 a.m., roaming the neighborhood on foot). Oddities: He took a swim in our pool. He left our dirty towel by the pool. He drank two soft drinks from the refrigerator in the pool house. There were no fingerprints on the empty drink cans. He left by the pool a clothbound Toyota auto TOOL KIT. The icepick he stabbed me with he took from my wife's knitting basket. He never said a word during the attack. He was very small, but extremely strong and muscular. (I'd guess 5'5") His right hand seemed useless; he stabbed and beat me with his left hand. He was nice looking, clean-cut, clean shaven, crew cut hair. He had no alcohol on his breath. His motive was not robbery; he could have stolen much, but he seemed intent only on murder. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Jack,Did you ever find out who attacked you? No. Police searched the entire neighborhood and could not even find his missing clothing (he was completely nude at 5 a.m., roaming the neighborhood on foot). Oddities: He took a swim in our pool. He left our dirty towel by the pool. He drank two soft drinks from the refrigerator in the pool house. There were no fingerprints on the empty drink cans. He left by the pool a clothbound Toyota auto TOOL KIT. The icepick he stabbed me with he took from my wife's knitting basket. He never said a word during the attack. He was very small, but extremely strong and muscular. (I'd guess 5'5") His right hand seemed useless; he stabbed and beat me with his left hand. He was nice looking, clean-cut, clean shaven, crew cut hair. He had no alcohol on his breath. His motive was not robbery; he could have stolen much, but he seemed intent only on murder. Jack Jack That's a shocking situation you had to deal with. I may not agree with many of your studies (and I'm being generous there), but I wouldn't wish your ordeal on my worst enemy (neither do I perceive you as my enemy - just 'wrong'!) Despite not agreeing with many of your views, I'm happy you survived and are able to argue your case on Apollo and other matters as robustly as you do. OK, that's the 'love-in' over and done with. Gloves are off again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 There is an interesting video out there, called "Astronauts Gone Wild." This filmmaker (can't recall his name off the top of my head) went around and questioned a bunch of the Apollo astronauts, and his gimmick was to try and get them to swear on the bible that they had gone to the moon. The most interesting part, I thought, was the last astronaut he interviewed (sorry, don't remember his name). This guy kicked him (literally) out of his house and, not realizing the filmmaker had left his microphone on, his grown son was heard to say, "think I should call the CIA and have him whacked?" Seriously, that's exactly what the son said, and he talking only to his father, not trying to make the filmmaker paranoid. It was like something out of a bad movie script. Don, I managed to watch the relevant sections through Yahoo video (which was much faster then YouTube for my situation). I'm afraid that all I see is the typical Mr Sibrel behaviour. Remember how he says to Neil Armstrong something to the effect of 'just swear on the bible and end all the discussion'? Then have a look at Al Bean - he swears on the bible and then Mr Sibrel says he knows for a fact that he (Al Bean) never walked on the Moon. It's a no-win situation for the astronauts; if they swear on the bible they are accused of a falsehood, and if they refuse to accede to Mr Sibrel's demand they are coined as suspicious. It's almost a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Also, I think you should consider Ed Mitchell's sons comment in the context of the interview. Firstly, they were really p-off being subjected to Mr Sibrel's devious tactics. Secondly, Ed's son says something about "having a little fun" after the interview was stopped but before he makes the "waxed" comment. I think he was being both flippant and upset that his father was subjected to this type of ambush. Notice the common theme from all the astronauts: "No, you're wrong. I walked on (or orbited) the Moon". How come Mr Sibrel isn't being questioned about his tactics, or the fact that he refers to some footage as being "classified" when it isn't? It was marked as "not for general public" or something like that. That's not classified; it's similar to the term "For Official Use Only". A lot of Apollo reports / technical papers WERE classified during those days but are now freely available. They were classified with regular terms like CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET. No, no matter what the astronauts said to Mr Sibrel it was going to be used to try and make them look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) I agree with you that Sibrel's tactics leave a lot to be desired , but he didn't make the Apollo astronots look bad ... they did that all on their own . If Sibrel was so off base and if the astronots had nothing to be guilty or ashamed of , or had nothing to hide , then all they had to do was to go along with his wishes , and then politely ask him to leave ... but that is not what happened . Instead they sweated bullets telling conflicting stories , looked completely uncomfortable while while they struggled to answer questions they didn't have the answers to , and then got so ticked off with Sibrel that they shoved him , kicked him , cussed him out and then one of their sons threatened to have him waxed by the CIA , and he wasn't kidding ... If each of the astronots had not acted so guilty in their own way , then Sibrel would have had no material with which to make this documentary .... but he did have material .. Plenty of it .. and whether you agree with his tactics or not , is besides the point ....because he proved his point . Edited February 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I agree with you that Sibrel's tactics leave a lot to be desired , but he didn't make the Apollo astronots look bad ... they did that all on their own .If Sibrel was so off base and if the astronots had nothing to be guilty or ashamed of , or had nothing to hide , then all they had to do was to go along with his wishes , and then politely ask him to leave ... but that is not what happened . Instead they sweated bullets telling conflicting stories , looked completely uncomfortable while while they struggled to answer questions they didn't have the answers to , and then got so ticked off with Sibrel that they shoved him , kicked him , cussed him out and then one of their sons threatened to have him waxed by the CIA , and he wasn't kidding ... If each of the astronots had not acted so guilty in their own way , then Sibrel would have had no material with which to make this documentary .... but he did have material .. Plenty of it .. and whether you agree with his tactics or not , is besides the point ....because he proved his point . It's your opinion that they acted guilty; it's mine that they were peeved off. Try a hypothetical. Say someone contacted you, asking for an interview. They are putting together a programme to try and expose the "hoax" (such as Mr Sibrel would). They read some of your posts, and would like you to appear. You agree. You meet them, and the interview seems to start fairly normally, then the interviewer accuses you of criminal acts - let's say beating up your girlfriend and using drugs. You strenuously deny this. The interviewer asks you to swear on the Bible that you didn't. You agree, and the interviewer says that it is simply another lie on your part. You would remain calm, collected? Then this footage appears on a documentary. You would still be quite happy with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now