Post by wadefrazier3 on Aug 20, 2008 0:00:19 GMT -4
Hi all:
Well, it is about that time of year again when I am approached on the lunar landings. This time an aerospace pal was interacting with John Lear on the subject. I do not know if you have dealt with his specific combination of claims/evidence, but below is a tidied up thread of what transpired in the next day. I will also let Lear know about this thread, so he can read it, join it, etc.
My pal began the thread with sending me this:
“An important new statement from Henry Deacon
www.projectcamelot.net/livermore_physicist_4.html
“We asked Henry if the Apollo astronauts had actually gone to the moon. This was a question that had not actually previously occurred to us in earlier meetings. There was a long pause before Henry replied saying: Yes, they had. But it was not a simple answer.
“Most of the missions did indeed go to the moon, but some photos and film footage were fabricated for PR purposes, and - remarkably – some advanced technology was borrowed: a lightweight nano tech-skin shielding combined with a charged-field technology were utilized on some of the craft to provide very effective radiation shielding, combined with other technologies used to protect the astronauts from Gamma and other hazardous radiations and energetic particles during the journeys. Additional advanced “alien” technologies were added to land the Lunar Module and assist take-off from the moon.
“Some Apollo astronauts were aware of these technologies (though only a couple were aware of the alternative space program). This accounts for some general reluctance to be interviewed or to speak openly on the subject. Their anger at those who claim they never went at all is understandable, because they did indeed reach the moon. They were very brave men... and they had some help.
“Incredibly, Henry stated that the one moon we have now is known to have been engineered into position eons ago. When we asked if this was done by our ancestors or by our creators, the answer came back "both".”
I did not reply, and have mixed feelings about those kinds of disclosures. I have seen enough weird stuff that much of what Deacon said could be true, but there is not much evidence for the public to pursue there.
Then my pal sent me this from Lear:
Good morning:
I don't believe any Apollo mission orbited or landed on the moon and the following are some of my reasons. At the bottom you will find NASA videos of all 6 lunar landings which appear to have been filmed using the giant fake moon at the Langley Research Center.
If we had had help or used exotic technology it would seem that we could have done a better job of faking it. My vote is still that Apollo never went to the moon. Apollo never even orbited the moon and Apollo certainly never landed on the moon.
Here is the condensed version of my reasons.
Pari Spolter in her 1993 book "Gravitational Source of the Sun" mathematically and scientifically proves that Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation that says that mass/density creates gravity is wrong. Gravity is caused by Kepler’s Third Law which states that gravitational force is caused by the product of acceleration and an area of a circle the radius of which is the mean distance between that planet and the sun. Formulas using Newton’s F=M1M2/r2 are totally wrong. Therefore the correct computation for the moons gravity would be using the Bullialdus/Newton Law of Inverse Square which doesn't require mass/density computations is 64% that of earth's.
That said the lunar lander weight was 33,000 pounds including 22,000 pounds of hypergolic fuel.
For this craft to descend from an orbit of 60 miles, land, then takeoff and climb back to 60 miles would be impossible in 64% of earth's gravity.
The videos of the astronauts on the moon showed them barely able to leap 18 inches. If it had truly been one sixth gravity they should have been able to jump much higher.
The door on the lander was smaller than a moon-suited astronaut could have entered or exited. Also the door is rectangular and opens out which would have been unlikely because of the engineering problems in a pressure seal.
There were no couches, seats or chairs in the lunar lander. Both astronauts stood up for orbital descent and ascent with only a hand rest and waist strap for support. In the ascent state Jim Irwin, in his book "To rule the Night" claims the acceleration on takeoff from the moon was 3000 ft/sec. It would have been impossible for astronauts to have accomplished a take off from the moon under those conditions.
The backgrounds of the moon for all alleged 6 missions were approximately the same and many photos were shown to have more than one lighting source.
Bill Kaysing was contacted by an airline pilot who, along with 8 others witnessed the Apollo 11 Command Module being pushed out of a Lockheed C-5A about the time that Apollo 11 was allegedly coming back from the moon.
The close-up photos of the landing pads of the lunar lander showed no dust which is impossible as dust can be clearly seen blowing in the NASA produced landing video.
The close-up photo of the area directly below the rocket exhaust of the lunar lander shows no depression or indication that a rocket had ever been used for landing.
The alleged rocket exhaust of the ascent phase of the lunar lander looks fake as there is no visible exhaust.
The photo taken by Michael Collins of the lunar lander as it separated from the CSM appears to be missing its fuel tanks. AS11-44-6574.
In the Science Channel Series of the Apollo 11 mission (In The Shadow Of The Moon) when it shows the ascent stage climbing into orbit there are 2 separate views one taken close to the surface and one taken during the climb. If Michael Collins was taking these photos from the Command Service Module who did he maneuver down to take the first video and then climb up for the second video? He was supposed to be in 60 miles orbit. And how was he getting the lunar lander in the frame?
In the NASA video showing Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins descending from the helicopter, down the stairs and walking over to the mobile quarantine unit located on the aircraft carrier Hornet none of the astronauts seems to be feeling the effect of 8 days in weightlessness. They should have somewhat rubbery legs 63 minutes after splashdown.
The video of the press conference after emerging from quarantine shows the astronauts to be cautious, frightened and unsure of their answers. This is not the jubilant, happy crew we would expect to see after mans first mission to the moon.
And consider this. In the almost 40 years since the Apollo program there has not been one Apollo Mission Reunion of all the astronauts who so (allegedly) bravely accomplished the 'impossible'.
No I don't believe that any Apollo mission ever orbited and landed on the moon.
NASA murdered Gus Grissom on January 27, 1967, 2 weeks after Gus publicly stated (referring to the Apollo Spacecraft) "This thing isn't going to the moon in 2 years, this thing isn't going to the moon in 10 years."
Here are the videos of the 6 NASA moon landing videos. Notice that the diameters of the craters never get larger and listen carefully to the 'scripted' nature of the audio.
Apollo 11
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QS3JSRGk3o
Apollo 12
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CEGq2dgqCY&feature=related
Apollo 14
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn5enJlqKak&feature=related
Apollo 15
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSu4ekXXH-8
Apollo 16
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMOB6bR1QWM
Apollo 17
www.youtube.com/watch?v=okgwvmobs_Y&feature=related
And here is the video of the Apollo 11 crew emerging from the helicopter that had picked them up out of the ocean after 8 days in weightlessness:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEcDG6x8JU0
I replied:
I am still game for presenting the evidence that we never landed on the moon. There is plenty of what Lear presented here that does not hold up, such as Armstrong’s Leap, which I found with Jay Utah,
www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt
disproving the “nobody got more than 18 inches off the moon” statement. You can look at the lunar liftoff footage and see that their acceleration was nothing like 3,000 feet per second per second (acceleration I believe is measured as “per second, per second”) when lifting off. In fact, if John allows it, I can submit this to Jay’s forum, and we can see what survives their scrutiny and what does not. Jay always sticks to the evidence, like a good scientist would. Maybe some of what John presented would hold up. If John does not want to put himself in the firing line, I can just submit it as “the argument from a prominent aerospace figure.”
Let me know.
Thx,
Wade
But Lear replied:
"Please feel free to post anything I write on any forum. I am regularly pummeled for my thoughts and ideas."
He further added:
"Regarding Armstrong’s alleged leap, or any fake video thereof, what needs to be addressed first is Pari Spolter ’s (The Gravitation Force of the Sun) mathematical and scientific dismissal of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and the Gravitational Constant as alleged by Cavendish at al.
In fact, Spolter proves that mass/density has no gravitational attraction and that all calculations using F = G/m1m2/r2 is without truth, fact or evidence and that in fact the gravitation force of a planet is the result of Kepler’s Third Law r3/t2 which proves the sun as a gravitational constant and therefore disproves the alleged mass/density calculations based of Newton ’s Law of Universal Gravitation and the Gravitational Constant.
The gravity of the moon has been calculated using fabricated/impossible densities of Earth (5.5gr/cm3 and the Moon (3.34 gr/cm3) and Newton ’s Law to come with the fictional one sixth gravity of Earth. In fact, using the Bullialdus/Law of Inverse Square , correcting for perturbations of the sun, the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit and its phase and a neutral point of 43,495 miles we arrive at the more likely figure of 68.71% of Earth’s gravity. The Inverse Square Law needs no density values and merely determines ‘relative mass’.
Not only would Armstrong’s leap to the third step be impossible but also impossible would be the Lunar Modules de-orbit, landing, take off and re-orbit with 22,000 pounds of hypergolic fuel from and to a 9-by-45 lunar orbit.
Regarding my statement of 3000 fps of the ascent stage of the Lunar Module I refer you to “To Rule The Night” by James B. Irwin © 1973 by James B, Irwin and William A. Emerson, Jr. ISBN 345-24237-8-150, Page 69, “We continued to accelerate until we reached 5,000 feet per second, at which point the engine shut down. We were in orbit around the moon in a 9-by-45 orbit.
Pretty neat trick for 2 guys that were standing up supported only by a strap around their waist.
Hey, throw me in that briar patch!"
I can take my very amateur stab at replying, but I think that Jay and friends can do a vastly better job of it.
Best wishes,
Wade Frazier
Well, it is about that time of year again when I am approached on the lunar landings. This time an aerospace pal was interacting with John Lear on the subject. I do not know if you have dealt with his specific combination of claims/evidence, but below is a tidied up thread of what transpired in the next day. I will also let Lear know about this thread, so he can read it, join it, etc.
My pal began the thread with sending me this:
“An important new statement from Henry Deacon
www.projectcamelot.net/livermore_physicist_4.html
“We asked Henry if the Apollo astronauts had actually gone to the moon. This was a question that had not actually previously occurred to us in earlier meetings. There was a long pause before Henry replied saying: Yes, they had. But it was not a simple answer.
“Most of the missions did indeed go to the moon, but some photos and film footage were fabricated for PR purposes, and - remarkably – some advanced technology was borrowed: a lightweight nano tech-skin shielding combined with a charged-field technology were utilized on some of the craft to provide very effective radiation shielding, combined with other technologies used to protect the astronauts from Gamma and other hazardous radiations and energetic particles during the journeys. Additional advanced “alien” technologies were added to land the Lunar Module and assist take-off from the moon.
“Some Apollo astronauts were aware of these technologies (though only a couple were aware of the alternative space program). This accounts for some general reluctance to be interviewed or to speak openly on the subject. Their anger at those who claim they never went at all is understandable, because they did indeed reach the moon. They were very brave men... and they had some help.
“Incredibly, Henry stated that the one moon we have now is known to have been engineered into position eons ago. When we asked if this was done by our ancestors or by our creators, the answer came back "both".”
I did not reply, and have mixed feelings about those kinds of disclosures. I have seen enough weird stuff that much of what Deacon said could be true, but there is not much evidence for the public to pursue there.
Then my pal sent me this from Lear:
Good morning:
I don't believe any Apollo mission orbited or landed on the moon and the following are some of my reasons. At the bottom you will find NASA videos of all 6 lunar landings which appear to have been filmed using the giant fake moon at the Langley Research Center.
If we had had help or used exotic technology it would seem that we could have done a better job of faking it. My vote is still that Apollo never went to the moon. Apollo never even orbited the moon and Apollo certainly never landed on the moon.
Here is the condensed version of my reasons.
Pari Spolter in her 1993 book "Gravitational Source of the Sun" mathematically and scientifically proves that Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation that says that mass/density creates gravity is wrong. Gravity is caused by Kepler’s Third Law which states that gravitational force is caused by the product of acceleration and an area of a circle the radius of which is the mean distance between that planet and the sun. Formulas using Newton’s F=M1M2/r2 are totally wrong. Therefore the correct computation for the moons gravity would be using the Bullialdus/Newton Law of Inverse Square which doesn't require mass/density computations is 64% that of earth's.
That said the lunar lander weight was 33,000 pounds including 22,000 pounds of hypergolic fuel.
For this craft to descend from an orbit of 60 miles, land, then takeoff and climb back to 60 miles would be impossible in 64% of earth's gravity.
The videos of the astronauts on the moon showed them barely able to leap 18 inches. If it had truly been one sixth gravity they should have been able to jump much higher.
The door on the lander was smaller than a moon-suited astronaut could have entered or exited. Also the door is rectangular and opens out which would have been unlikely because of the engineering problems in a pressure seal.
There were no couches, seats or chairs in the lunar lander. Both astronauts stood up for orbital descent and ascent with only a hand rest and waist strap for support. In the ascent state Jim Irwin, in his book "To rule the Night" claims the acceleration on takeoff from the moon was 3000 ft/sec. It would have been impossible for astronauts to have accomplished a take off from the moon under those conditions.
The backgrounds of the moon for all alleged 6 missions were approximately the same and many photos were shown to have more than one lighting source.
Bill Kaysing was contacted by an airline pilot who, along with 8 others witnessed the Apollo 11 Command Module being pushed out of a Lockheed C-5A about the time that Apollo 11 was allegedly coming back from the moon.
The close-up photos of the landing pads of the lunar lander showed no dust which is impossible as dust can be clearly seen blowing in the NASA produced landing video.
The close-up photo of the area directly below the rocket exhaust of the lunar lander shows no depression or indication that a rocket had ever been used for landing.
The alleged rocket exhaust of the ascent phase of the lunar lander looks fake as there is no visible exhaust.
The photo taken by Michael Collins of the lunar lander as it separated from the CSM appears to be missing its fuel tanks. AS11-44-6574.
In the Science Channel Series of the Apollo 11 mission (In The Shadow Of The Moon) when it shows the ascent stage climbing into orbit there are 2 separate views one taken close to the surface and one taken during the climb. If Michael Collins was taking these photos from the Command Service Module who did he maneuver down to take the first video and then climb up for the second video? He was supposed to be in 60 miles orbit. And how was he getting the lunar lander in the frame?
In the NASA video showing Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins descending from the helicopter, down the stairs and walking over to the mobile quarantine unit located on the aircraft carrier Hornet none of the astronauts seems to be feeling the effect of 8 days in weightlessness. They should have somewhat rubbery legs 63 minutes after splashdown.
The video of the press conference after emerging from quarantine shows the astronauts to be cautious, frightened and unsure of their answers. This is not the jubilant, happy crew we would expect to see after mans first mission to the moon.
And consider this. In the almost 40 years since the Apollo program there has not been one Apollo Mission Reunion of all the astronauts who so (allegedly) bravely accomplished the 'impossible'.
No I don't believe that any Apollo mission ever orbited and landed on the moon.
NASA murdered Gus Grissom on January 27, 1967, 2 weeks after Gus publicly stated (referring to the Apollo Spacecraft) "This thing isn't going to the moon in 2 years, this thing isn't going to the moon in 10 years."
Here are the videos of the 6 NASA moon landing videos. Notice that the diameters of the craters never get larger and listen carefully to the 'scripted' nature of the audio.
Apollo 11
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QS3JSRGk3o
Apollo 12
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CEGq2dgqCY&feature=related
Apollo 14
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn5enJlqKak&feature=related
Apollo 15
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSu4ekXXH-8
Apollo 16
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMOB6bR1QWM
Apollo 17
www.youtube.com/watch?v=okgwvmobs_Y&feature=related
And here is the video of the Apollo 11 crew emerging from the helicopter that had picked them up out of the ocean after 8 days in weightlessness:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEcDG6x8JU0
I replied:
I am still game for presenting the evidence that we never landed on the moon. There is plenty of what Lear presented here that does not hold up, such as Armstrong’s Leap, which I found with Jay Utah,
www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt
disproving the “nobody got more than 18 inches off the moon” statement. You can look at the lunar liftoff footage and see that their acceleration was nothing like 3,000 feet per second per second (acceleration I believe is measured as “per second, per second”) when lifting off. In fact, if John allows it, I can submit this to Jay’s forum, and we can see what survives their scrutiny and what does not. Jay always sticks to the evidence, like a good scientist would. Maybe some of what John presented would hold up. If John does not want to put himself in the firing line, I can just submit it as “the argument from a prominent aerospace figure.”
Let me know.
Thx,
Wade
But Lear replied:
"Please feel free to post anything I write on any forum. I am regularly pummeled for my thoughts and ideas."
He further added:
"Regarding Armstrong’s alleged leap, or any fake video thereof, what needs to be addressed first is Pari Spolter ’s (The Gravitation Force of the Sun) mathematical and scientific dismissal of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and the Gravitational Constant as alleged by Cavendish at al.
In fact, Spolter proves that mass/density has no gravitational attraction and that all calculations using F = G/m1m2/r2 is without truth, fact or evidence and that in fact the gravitation force of a planet is the result of Kepler’s Third Law r3/t2 which proves the sun as a gravitational constant and therefore disproves the alleged mass/density calculations based of Newton ’s Law of Universal Gravitation and the Gravitational Constant.
The gravity of the moon has been calculated using fabricated/impossible densities of Earth (5.5gr/cm3 and the Moon (3.34 gr/cm3) and Newton ’s Law to come with the fictional one sixth gravity of Earth. In fact, using the Bullialdus/Law of Inverse Square , correcting for perturbations of the sun, the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit and its phase and a neutral point of 43,495 miles we arrive at the more likely figure of 68.71% of Earth’s gravity. The Inverse Square Law needs no density values and merely determines ‘relative mass’.
Not only would Armstrong’s leap to the third step be impossible but also impossible would be the Lunar Modules de-orbit, landing, take off and re-orbit with 22,000 pounds of hypergolic fuel from and to a 9-by-45 lunar orbit.
Regarding my statement of 3000 fps of the ascent stage of the Lunar Module I refer you to “To Rule The Night” by James B. Irwin © 1973 by James B, Irwin and William A. Emerson, Jr. ISBN 345-24237-8-150, Page 69, “We continued to accelerate until we reached 5,000 feet per second, at which point the engine shut down. We were in orbit around the moon in a 9-by-45 orbit.
Pretty neat trick for 2 guys that were standing up supported only by a strap around their waist.
Hey, throw me in that briar patch!"
I can take my very amateur stab at replying, but I think that Jay and friends can do a vastly better job of it.
Best wishes,
Wade Frazier
if he's going to blanketly assert that outward-opening pressure hatches are impossible.) I pretty much gave up reading soon after that little nugget. Obviously just more verbose regurgitation of every stock HB claim.
