|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Feb 9, 2008 12:01:04 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Jan 29, 2008 1:04:48 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Jan 2, 2008 11:42:06 GMT -4
Hi Jay: Thanks. It can be perilous to generalize on “conspiracies.” On the moon landings, yes, all the “conspiracy theorists” are amateurs, at least those who argue that the moon landings were faked. If that is what you meant, I agree. In other “conspiracies,” there are professionals, such as Gaeton Fonzi on the JFK hit. On JFK, if we are to believe the official narrative (which I do not), an amateur overturned the entire technical basis the second JFK official investigation’s findings. There is a Warren-Commission-defending documentary narrated by Walter Cronkite that lauds a drummer in a rock band who came up with the evidence that debunked the acoustic analysis performed by the experts, which showed several shots being fire at JFK. There have been further analyses by professionals of the acoustic evidence since then, and they still support the “several shots” theory, but the establishment draped an amateur in laurels for proving the experts wrong. I have been dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist” by engineering and scientific types when describing my EXPERIENCES in alternative energy, and it amazed me that they could not distinguish between reporting one’s “EXPERIENCES” and concocting a THEORY. www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#naiveThey could call me a liar, but not a theorist. Best, Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 31, 2007 16:37:24 GMT -4
Hi Jay:
I get it. If that article is done, it will be easy to refer people to it who want to challenge the official Apollo narrative, as it is for the others who make a name for themselves challenging the narrative (not a very respected name, BTW), so would-be challengers can see if they really want to end up on that reef.
This thread is a little untidy, but gets the point across regarding Ted’s analysis. Amateurs CAN fruitfully investigate such issues, but the “we never landed on the moon” issue is obviously rife with amateurs who do not even do their basic homework. I am glad Clavius is out there.
Best,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 31, 2007 11:12:26 GMT -4
Thanks Jay, and the rest of you.
Glad to see that Ted has been engaged on this and is confronted with the evidence. Years ago, I tried to get Rense to stop barking up the “we never went to the moon” tree. I hope an episode like this will not only help discourage this line of “analysis,” but raise the bar for people like Ted trying to tackle these kinds of subjects.
An article at Clavius may help, but I’ll leave it up to the experts.
Thanks again,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 28, 2007 12:46:22 GMT -4
Thanks. I will tweak language ("stripped down" is what it looked like, that "flying bedstead", and it was used to simulate flying the LM) and am aware of the Harrier craft, but do not believe that the astronauts trained in them during their Apollo days. VLTO was something novel, never done before or since by astronauts. "Flipped wrong switch" can be changed, but it adds up to the same thing: doing something incorrectly in the procedure that panicked the pilot. Not exactly an auspicious warm-up for landing on the moon. It was an insanely dangerous undertaking. My father once told me that John Glenn was asked in those days if he wanted to be the first man on the moon, and he replied that he would not mind being the first man SAFELY BACK from the moon. At the time of the missions, the estimates of the odds of a successful mission were around 50%.
I am not analyzing Ted’s article. I was hoping that the experts would.
Thx,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 28, 2007 11:37:17 GMT -4
Hi all:
I can tweak the language on "stripped down" (although I see this as a very minor semantic issue). The first "live" test of the LM landing was on the moon, and the first time NASA tried maneuvering the LM above the moon, they had an incident where the pilot thought he was going to crash it, because he threw the wrong switch. Pretty hairy. I believe that simulating 1/6 gravity was only part of it. The vertical landing aspect was also rather unique.
I would like this thread to stay on Twietmeyer's analysis, if it could. Thanks for the feedback so far. As I suspected, his analysis is not holding up very well. I would like it if these kinds of public humiliations (because their analyses are deeply flawed) might engender some caution out there. To put up an analysis that has not been tested with any rigor, and then to announce” case closed” is not very prudent.
It is nice that there are informed people out there, willing to provide the facts and analysis to counter the moon hoax people as they keeping barking up the wrong tree. There are other, far more productive issues to explore than to keep flogging the “we never went to the moon” horse.
Thanks again,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 28, 2007 0:02:15 GMT -4
Thanks for the replies. I will read the Bad Astronomy thread now.
Wade
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 27, 2007 23:23:49 GMT -4
Hi everybody: Every so often, I am either approached with moon hoax theories or I see somebody try to make the case that the moon landings were faked, and it invariably covers the same tired ground and begs for Jay and friends to weigh in. A year or so ago, one pal had the sense to ask me to assess a moon hoax essay that he was publishing for somebody else, and I kicked it into this forum. After Jay and friends critiqued the essay, they sensibly withdrew it, and it has not been seen in cyberspace since. In the past few days, Ted Twietmeyer has weighed in with his theory that some moon landing footage was faked, and he engages in image analysis to make his case. I have a rather strong hunch that his analyses will not hold up very well to third-party analysis, and this is right down your alley. Here are his analyses: www.rense.com/general79/rehar.htmwww.rense.com/general79/apol11.htmI may contact Rense to publish the analysis that results on this thread, depending on how it goes. As an aside, I regularly see my Apollo writings used as evidence that the moon landings were faked. It really blows me away that people can have such poor comprehension of my writings on the subject: www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#apolloparticularly when I put my conclusion right at the very beginning. Anyway, thanks in advance for your responses to Twietmeyer’s analysis. Happy New Year, and may 2008 be good to you, Wade Frazier
|
|