|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Sept 16, 2009 0:13:53 GMT -4
Hi Obviousman: All is well on my end these days, except that growing older part and not enough time. Hi tkw251070: Yes, Jarrah is moving his goal posts. He accused Jay of lying about having contact with Brian. Now he admits that Jay did have contact, but instead accuses Jay of misrepresenting what Brian stated. Whatever else Jarrah has to say has little credibility in light of that shifting line of argumentation. What Brian has to say about the moon landings today is a different issue than Jarrah’s behavior. Brian has gladly admitted that he is no expert on the moon landing evidence, and his expressed doubts are along the lines of, “They may have done something untoward, but who am I to know?” I clearly recall when Jay relayed his account of his exchange with Brian (and how much Armstrong’s leap influenced him). It jibed quite closely with how Brian came across to me. It looks like Brian may have moved from seeming certitude in August 2001 to something less than certain in the intervening years, but the movement is nothing to “reopen the case” for. Again, Brian and I have had more exposure to the black ops world than we would have liked, but fabricating the moon landings is not an area that we spend much time thinking about. In his latest book, Brian stated that he does not involve himself in the moon landings issue anymore, and I, for one, intend to honor that wish. To Jarrah’s latest riposte, I do not publish private emails without the approval of the author. Putting Brian’s private emails about Apollo on the Web is not on my list of things to do. And since Jarrah has put them out there (and some of MY private information, thank you very much), I’ll say this: that snippet from one of Brian’s emails has almost nothing to do with the moon landings, other than to reiterate what Brian has said many times: that he thinks that we landed, but cannot be certain because he did not go himself. And yes, NASA does not always play it straight. I have little doubt that the powers that be were not above trying to fabricate the evidence if they had to, but that is a very different issue than if they really did. Where is the EVIDENCE? The moon hoax crowd has never presented anything that withstood scrutiny, and they keep rehashing the same old mine tailings, looking for that gold nugget. For me, the most wearying part of the moon hoax controversy is how all the easily discredited evidence keeps getting recycled by those new to the fray. The moon hoax crowd is barking up the wrong tree, and they are making a mountain out of a molehill regarding Brian’s statements on Apollo. As Brian said, there are better things to do. Best, Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Sept 14, 2009 10:14:10 GMT -4
Hi Jay:
I never heard from Jarrah. I hope this puts this issue to bed.
Best wishes,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Sept 12, 2009 11:28:48 GMT -4
Hi: This issue of Jarrah White accusing Jay of lying about his contact with Brian O'Leary is something that I hope to put to rest with this post. As is obvious from a joint interview that Brian and I did earlier this year, projectcamelot.org/wade_frazier.htmlhis most recent book, www.brianoleary.info/Synopsis.htmland an as-of-yet unpublished paper that we jointly wrote and submitted to the DOE, I am one of Brian's close personal colleagues. Our relationship began in 1991. In 2001, I wrapped up a decade of sporadically looking at the Apollo moon landing evidence, capped with my interactions with Jay, which led to our joint discovery of the footage of Armstrong leaping onto the LM: www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirtBrian was on that FOX TV show in early 2001, expressing his doubts about the Apollo landings, and I contacted Brian about that Armstrong footage in July of 2001. In August 2001, Brian and I met in Sacramento, and he expressed to me how impressive that footage of Armstrong leaping was to him. He also talked about how that FOX film crew "ambushed" him and misrepresented his views, taking a ten-second snippet from a two-hour interview, which was not supposed to be about the moon landings in the first place. www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#governorwww.ahealedplanet.net/paths.htm#sacAfter our California adventure, I put Brian in contact with Jay, so Brian could find out more if he wanted, but the more important part of their exchange, for me, was so Brian could make a statement in the best forum I knew of, about his Apollo views. While I was not a party to the exchanges that Brian and Jay had subsequent to my introducing them, I have no doubt that what Jay reported here: www.clavius.org/oleary.htmlis a faithful record of their exchange. Brian has been used as a football by many groups over the years, as they try to score political points for their efforts, and he is more than tired about it. About the moon landings, Brian today still says that he did not go to the moon himself, so he cannot be certain about the moon landings, but his doubt about the moon landings is a small one. He once helped get Buzz Aldrin a job and shared an office with him, and had relationships with a number of the astronauts that were damaged by this moon hoax brouhaha (they were already strained due to his leaving the orthodox fold, but the moon landings issue put the nails in quite a few professional coffins). Brian has good reason to be skeptical of NASA and its space activities (we have had far too much exposure to the "black ops" part of the system, including space activities), but his skepticism about the moon landings is tiny, and he has far more important things to do with his time these days than get re-embroiled in the moon hoax controversy. I have looked at the moon landing evidence a lot more than Brian has, and while I am an obvious amateur, I have never seen any of the moon hoax evidence that stood up to scrutiny. After I satisfied myself that the moon hoax evidence did not hold up, while also finding Armstrong's leap, I largely stopped looking at the moon hoax evidence in 2001. However, even though I largely stopped interacting with the public in 2002, I have been approached with some regularity with moon hoax evidence, or stumble upon somebody else joining the fray, and I have always sent them to this forum, as I did with John Lear not long ago: apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2112None of them have fared too well with their hoax evidence yet. In summary, I have no doubt that Jay contacted Brian about the moon landings, and that he faithfully presented their exchange on his site. I also have no doubt that the insanely busy Brian replied to Jarrah that he never heard of Jay. I would be hard pressed to recall a couple of emails several years ago from somebody I never met, on a subject that had little interest for me. Brian does not want to become embroiled in the moon hoax controversy anymore, and I don't blame him. Jay is the 800-pound gorilla of the moon hoax evidence and controversy. While I do not agree with everything he says, I have not seen a more gracious, informed and straight-shooting player in this milieu. I find it appalling that Jarrah has accused Jay of lying about his exchanges with Brian, when far more innocent scenarios could easily explain why Brian responded to Jarrah as he did. I hope this puts to rest the idea that Jay fabricated or misrepresented his exchanges with Brian. Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Sept 12, 2009 10:19:33 GMT -4
Hi: I have been very busy with moving my household and other chores during the past several months, but finally found the time to write Brian’s bio for NASA. Now, off to NASA. We’ll see if this lack of a bio is just an issue of bureaucracy. If anybody has a contact there to approach first, I’ll take it, but I will probably just go the public’s route. To wrap up this thread, regarding Brian’s erasure, these are the facts, some in the public domain, and some not. Wally Schirra publicly stated that Brian should not be called an astronaut because he did not go fifty miles up, in that article that I cited earlier in the thread. Schirra was responding to an interview that identified Brian as an astronaut. The science writer who interviewed Brian left her position the next year. Brian says that not long after Schirra tried to publicly demote Brian, MUFON told that Brian that he had misrepresented his credentials and was not an astronaut, because NASA said that he was not an astronaut. projectcamelot.org/brian_o_leary_interview_transcript.htmlI followed up with MUFON on this one. Bob Bletchman, the MUFON lawyer who accused Brian of not being an astronaut after NASA denied his astronaut status, died last year, so I contacted MUFON and heard from the head of the international MUFON organization, and they had no record of the exchange that Bletchman, MUFON and NASA had. Regarding Brian’s erasure from Cal Tech around 2000, Brian says that he was erased from Cal Tech’s records when he was asked to become a commencement speaker because of his free energy activities. Today, Cal Tech says that he worked there. Questions that I cannot answer, and maybe nobody here can, are: Did Schirra influence NASA’s alleged denial of Brian’s astronaut status? Did Schirra’s great influence in the San Diego media lead to that reporter leaving her position with the paper the next year? Was Brian’s Cal Tech erasure an incomplete or temporary action? Thanks, Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Mar 3, 2009 23:44:28 GMT -4
I just heard from Brian, and he would not mind a decent bio published by NASA. If anybody can tell me where to go, I can see what I can stir up. I doubt that they would allow something this extensive: www.brianoleary.info/cv.htmbut a blank is not a good thing, and feeds the "conspiracy theories" (although they might be right, in this instance). His erasure at Caltech is another issue...
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Mar 3, 2009 23:34:36 GMT -4
It was an interview. Brian was not making a case in a court of law. Even so, there is plenty that can be easily checked out. While Schirra may not have been on the board of the San Diego Union Tribune, he was the big man in town on space matters. Brian was spot on with Schirra and his “demotion” of Brian below astronaut status, even to the “50 miles above space” part. This is from the archive extracts of The San Diego Union The San Diego Union - San Diego, Calif.Author: Cliff Smith Date: Feb 9, 1987 Start Page: B.8 Section: OPINION Text Word Count: 831 Abstract (Document Summary) So it was that a Jan. 17 headline in The Union reading "Mars may still be in reach; Former astronaut seeks support for U.S.-Soviet trip" gave pause to retired Navy Capt. Walter M. Schirra Jr., a flight veteran of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space programs. Schirra had no quarrel with that but said [Brian T. O'Leary] "was never eligible for a space flight." Schirra argued further that the term astronaut should be reserved for those "who have flown 50 miles above earth." O'Leary was selected as a scientist-astronaut in the Apollo program but never completed flight school required of all sent into space in the Apollo program The article that drew Schirra’s ire was this one: 1,2 Edition] The San Diego Union - San Diego, Calif.Author: Kristine Moe Date: Jan 17, 1987 Start Page: II.2 Section: ZONES Text Word Count: 1108 Abstract (Document Summary) This is the day they land on either Deimos or Phobos, the two moons of Mars. Ten scientists and explorers from two often hostile nations will be embarking on a 60-day experiment to find out everything they can about this planet and its moons. The mission will culminate in a second trip, manned by one astronaut and one cosmonaut, to Mars' surface. The mission itself would cost about $20 billion, at least if it is designed the way [Brian T. O'Leary] proposes. He, along with Fred Singer of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., are the chief proponents of the idea to land not on Mars itself, but instead on either of Mars' two moons. By landing on Phobos or Deimos, with their low gravity fields, the spacecraft would need much less rocket fuel for its return trip home than if it had to break free of Mars' gravity. The mission would be twice as expensive if the spacecraft landed on the planet directly, O'Leary said. The author of the article, Kristine Moe, apparently had her career with the paper end the next year. Many high-profile journalistic careers came to screeching halts in America when the powerful got irked: www.ahealedplanet.net/lies.htm#arnettmuch less some cub reporter for the San Diego newspaper. Does anybody not think that Schirra had some pull there? Bletchman is dead: www.courant.com/features/hc-exlife1207.artdec07,0,5756837.story but others at MUFON can probably confirm what happened. I doubt that Brian is all that interested in getting involved with this stuff. He has bigger fish to fry, but I would think that this forum’s members might want to do a little digging. It took me a whole half hour to confirm what I just did. On Brian and Jay, I introduced them in August 2001, and what Jay posted I am 99.999% certain came from his subsequent interaction with Brian, although I was not privy to what they exchanged. While Brian obviously recalled Schirra’s attack precisely (if a few years off), which almost certainly had something to do with the MUFON situation, not recalling a brief exchange with Jay a few weeks before 9/11 is understandable. Brian and I talked about Armstrong’s Leap, which I could not have found without Jay’s help: www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#governorIn fact, Jay deserves more credit than I do for finding it, although I was the first to see it in the “moon hoax” crowd. It also should be easy enough to prove that Brian worked for Caltech and that he has been erased there. So, on the subject of no bio of Brian on NASA’s site, let’s just say that I doubt it is unrelated to Schirra publicly trying to retroactively demote Brian below astronaut status. In that, Schirra was dead wrong.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Mar 3, 2009 17:14:51 GMT -4
I heard back from Brian. While it appears that the text above from NASA is technically accurate, there was a movement years ago, led by Wally Schirra, to have people like Brian declared non-astronauts, and NASA eventually drank the Kool-Aid and used to tell people that Brian was never an astronaut. The term I saw many years ago was something like “astronaut candidate,” or some such. From Brian’s interview here: projectcamelot.org/brian_o_leary_interview_transcript.html“BO’L: Yes, Kerry. Well, I was appointed to the astronaut program in 1967, and my title then was astronaut. I even have hanging on the wall here… I don’t have the accurate date, but I’d say roughly around 1990 it came to my attention… “Well, I’ll backtrack a little bit. A reporter from the San Diego Union Tribune interviewed me after I gave a talk in San Diego. Part of my credentials said “ex-astronaut. And one of the people on the board of the San Diego Union Tribune was Wally Schirra, one of the original seven Mercury astronauts who, unbeknownst to me, formed what was called The Society for Space Explorers, in which the term astronaut was redefined to “anybody that went 50 miles above the Earth’s surface.” “So in a way I was defrocked when Schirra hit the ceiling, and apparently the reporter lost his position… just like the first reporter that covered the first Wright brothers’ flight was fired from his position by his editor for not believing that heavier-than-air flight was possible. So this is just, once again, a reporter was fired for using the “wrong” credential. Well, I found that out. “And then shortly after that, an organization with which I worked some, MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network in the US, also it came to their attention that maybe in fact I was not an astronaut. [Kerry laughs] So they wrote to NASA, and NASA said: Well in fact he wasn’t.“ "KC: They said you were NOT. "BO’L: I was not. "KC: They actually wrote to NASA? "BO’L: Well, I think so. I’m not absolutely sure of the details, but I can tell you who would know is Bob Bletchman, who was the lawyer for MUFON at the time. "KC: Uh huh. "BO’L: Anyway, Bob Bletchman wrote me, and it was kind of a challenging letter that basically said: Many of us feel that you misrepresented your credentials. So I presented my credentials to Bob Bletchman and he became convinced that, indeed, that was my title at the time, and that indeed it was appropriate to use that in my credentials. "KC: Incredible. "BO’L: Not that I used it all the time because, actually, I wouldn’t, because I was trying to get away from that controversy. And, you know, there’s much more about me besides being an ex-astronaut that’s kind of interesting anyway. [laughter] "So it didn’t matter to me too much one way or the other. But I got vindicated because MUFON challenged me in public and then later vindicated me, that indeed I was an astronaut. So that was cleared up. "Now, on another occasion: For a year I had a visiting faculty appointment at Caltech during the Mariner 10 mission in which I was deputy team leader of the Television Imaging Science Team for Mariner 10 that went by Venus and Mercury during the 1970s. "Professor Bruce Murray, who later became the director of JPL, appointed me deputy team leader during that time. I was at Caltech and worked on the mission with him and some of the other scientists. "So, fast-forward to the year 2000 and a very bright senior honors physics student who knew that I was researching solution energies such as cold fusion and so forth said: Gee, you ought to come to Caltech. Would you like to speak at our Commencement as a speaker for Alternative Future Science such as cold fusion? And I said I would be happy to. "So they scheduled it. They started posting things and advertising the event. Then this one professor that I had worked for, who later became director of JPL, apparently actively tried to suppress the entire gig. "And then it turned out that there was no record that I was even at… Caltech denied that I was deputy team leader, denied that I was even at Caltech. [Kerry laughs] But it was so simple because I’d published papers, well, in Science and other journals, and Caltech was the affiliation that was under my name. "KC: And not only that, you had to have colleagues who remember you, you know, who are still there even, I’m sure. "BO’L: Exactly. Yes, absolutely. "KC: So it’s an amazing thing. "BO’L: Amazing thing. They tried to erase it and I thought: Gee, maybe I could find some paycheck stubs or something like that. Because apparently I was wiped off the Caltech records that I was even there -- even in their Administration -- because I tried to follow that one up. "KC: So if somebody was doing an article on you and wanted to investigate and called Caltech today, they will say that you never worked there. "BO’L: Exactly. "KC: Amazing. "BO’L: Yes. [laughs] "KC: It just shows you how the machine works. And I think that this is very instructive to many people who challenge a lot of whistleblowers on the fact that their credentials have disappeared, you know? "BO’L: Yes. Yes." So, it looks like Brian was defrocked by NASA long ago, and I may stand corrected: the lack of a bio may not be a direct result of being erased, but apparently there is some unseen bureaucracy at work here, too, and I doubt that Brian wants to fight that battle. For one, I would like to see NASA post Brian’s bio. It would help make amends for when they told people that Brian was not an astronaut. I am going to see what I can do.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Mar 3, 2009 14:15:07 GMT -4
Thanks. I'll ask Brian about it. As you can see in the interview, there was a movement to not call him an astronaut. If I can post his response, I will.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Mar 3, 2009 9:56:57 GMT -4
Hi Jay:
I am glad that you were able to provide a forum where Brian could go on the record and not be ambushed by reporters.
After several years of relative seclusion, I will be taking a more public stance later this year, and I will undoubtedly hear from people who will want to know more about the moon hoax theories, and I will send them your way. BTW, did you ever do that writeup on John Lear's "contribution" to the issue?
Thanks for being out there,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Mar 3, 2009 9:45:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Mar 1, 2009 14:13:55 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Aug 24, 2008 10:21:59 GMT -4
Hi Zorgon: I think I recognize your alias from ATS. You are free to present evidence on faked moon landings, but the evidence had better be real good, or you will be handed your head. Lear’s post, which I began this thread with, presented arguments for why the Apollo missions did not land on the moon. I was familiar with all of his claims, and none of them stood up, as far as I knew. That high lunar gravity argument was the first one that I encountered and subsequently researched and found wanting. www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#neutralIt was ironically also the last issue that I dealt with, that gave me overlooked evidence that those Apollo missions really landed on the moon: www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirtThe rest of Lear’s claims were quite flimsy, and while he did not defend any of them on this thread, some of his responses showed him to be quite ignorant of the Apollo program, such as believing that hypergolic fuels powered the “flying bedstead” that the astronauts trained with on earth. Once you understand why they used hypergolics, it makes no sense to use them for something like that flying bedstead. This forum’s members know their stuff, and if you are going to present anything, you should first digest the areas where they have spent plenty of time presenting evidence that debunks the many lines of evidence that the hoax believers (HBs) keep rehashing ad infinitum. www.clavius.org/Jay and crew are providing a valuable public service. Hey, my background is having my life wrecked by the people who run the world because I was pursuing free energy: www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htmI know that plenty is covered up and fabricated on the world stage. Suppressing disruptive technology has been refined to a science, but conspiracism is a mindset that misses the big picture: www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#conspiracismGordon Cooper talked about it, and Ed Mitchell still talks about how the ET presence has been covered up. I have gone to see UFO shows, and have not been disappointed: www.ahealedplanet.net/ufo.htmThere is plenty of “conspiratorial” and weird stuff happening, but fabricating the moon landings was not one of them, IMO. Bringing Lear to this forum I hoped would have the effect of having him see the light on the Apollo moon landings, give it up, and maybe influence some of the “conspiratorial” crowd that pursuing evidence of faked moon landings was barking up the wrong tree. It obviously did not turn out as I hoped it would. I could comment plenty on ancillary issues that this thread touched, but I will present just this one…. The greatest adversary of every ruling class of all time has been the people they rule, not the ruling classes in other parts of the globe. The UFO cover-up is embraced by every ruling class on earth, because they know that if the ET presence was acknowledged, they all get knocked down a notch: www.baron-family.net/Documents/How%20the%20CIA%20Views%20the%20UFO%20Phenomenon.htmMarchetti knows what he is talking about. So, on issues of global power, the USSR and the USA had common interests, more often than they publicly admitted. The space race obviously did not have much noble motivation (an exercise in nationalism, etc.), but anybody who wants to convincingly argue that the moon landings were faked has a strenuous task ahead of them. Lear never got beyond announcing what he believed on this thread, and his claims got wilder as he went on, and I have never seen any “the moon landings were faked” evidence that stood up to scrutiny, and most evidence can be understood by laymen like me, although we sometimes need a little help from Jay and friends. So, good luck with participating in this forum. Best wishes, Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Aug 23, 2008 0:24:05 GMT -4
Hi all: I almost feel like apologizing. That was kind of embarrassing. Mr. Lear’s contribution to this thread was basically making a statement of faith and not even bothering to defend it, while telling even fancier tales in reply to questions about his first tale. To somebody who asked if it was really John Lear, I think the answer is yes. One of my aerospace pals was reading some of my posts at ATS, which was Lear’s regular Internet abode until recently, and one thing led to another, resulting in that email to me which began this sorry thread. It certainly seems like the John Lear that posts to ATS, but I have not seen him behave quite like that. While I can understand Lear’s reaction to vanilla breasts and other comments, ATS is a troll haven, as I discovered: www.ahealedplanet.net/critics.htm#troll2and Lear himself was banned when he began posting there, before the ATS folks realized his audience-building potential. Lear is used to getting assailed far more belligerently than by the relatively gentle jabs that this forum dished out (and he gave almost as good as he received on this thread). In his favor, when he mentioned that the old scientists have to die off so the young ones raised with the ideas can accept them, he was paraphrasing Max Planck: www.ahealedplanet.net/energy.htm#realbut all too often, such people throw out nonsense and then quote Planck and friends as if it somehow bolsters their case. That kind of behavior gives fringe science a bad name. In my adventures, I have encountered several people, who usually have a military background, but sometimes with academic or other establishment credentials, who join the side of the “conspiracy theorists” and others who probe the depths of JFK, 9/11, UFOs, global elites and so on, but they then proceed to harm the efforts in one way or another (attacking their new “friends,” proposing “theories” that go way, way out there, to discredit those whose efforts they joined, subtle sabotage, etc.). What a world. Best wishes, Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Aug 20, 2008 23:47:34 GMT -4
Well, this forum has not disappointed in its response, as far as dealing with the evidence versus Mr. Lear’s lunar theories, and the responses were relatively respectful of Mr. Lear’s position, as much in error as most in this forum believe it to be and, for that, I am glad this forum is here. Way too many forums are troll farms, etc.
Hi Jay:
For the record, I do not like the anonymous whistleblower phenomenon much, but I also understand why genuine whistleblowers often do not “go public” with their real names by themselves (which I think is a highly questionable strategy – anonymous leaks are often dead letters unless they are evidentiary/documentary leaks, and Deacon’s cred as a genuine whistleblower is way up in the air, especially when citing a UFO encounter which would have easily revealed his identity to insiders). That is why the Disclosure Project was formed, and even then, key members of that effort had sudden demises after their 1997 Congressional briefing. Megatons of chaff exist amongst the wheat of anonymous whistleblowers, so much so that I rarely try winnowing any of it and certainly do not rely on any of it. Dismantle the national and supra-national security apparatus, and almost all reasons for anonymous whistleblowers go away. I’ll vote for that.
That being said, I have been privy to inside info on the NASA/UFO/Military connection that is pretty mind-blowing, and some of the alien technology makes the mainstream physics texts look extremely crude, so what Deacon said has a certain plausibility, but it could be more disinfo from our MIC friends. Yes, some of it might seem to contradict your understanding of what the astronauts knew, but unless you have one of those way above Top Secret clearances, you are not going to see the state of the alien art for radiation-shielding, for instance, being used at Livermore. From my primitive understanding of the radiation issue, what they used on the Apollo missions was good enough, sans a solar flair aimed at earth, so there was probably little need for exotic technology for radiation shielding. What Deacon said could have been all lies, or sprinkled with some truth (in true disinfo style), or maybe the whole truth as he saw it, however inaccurate it may have been. That is why I shy away from stuff like that in my public work, and spend little time speculating about it.
This thread is about John Lear and his lunar theories, however, and I will bow out and watch. It would be nice to see an exchange that changed some minds, and at this time, I think that Mr. Lear has some good things that he can learn from this thread.
Best,
Wade
|
|
|
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=5QS3JSRGk3oApollo 12 www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CEGq2dgqCY&feature=relatedApollo 14 www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn5enJlqKak&feature=relatedApollo 15 www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSu4ekXXH-8Apollo 16 www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMOB6bR1QWMApollo 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#paydirtdisproving 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
|
|