PDA

View Full Version : Former Apollo 17 communications worker voices his doubts...



Ian R
2002-Mar-27, 01:33 AM
This message was posted by the Admin over at JFKresearch.com after Jack White uploaded his latest batch of Apollo 'anomalies'. I believe that this post is of interest to us because it was written by someone who worked on a couple of the missions. He probably views the situation with a different perspective to most of the people here at this forum.

However, I most certainly disagree with the vast majority of what he has to say.


"The moon hoax topic tends to be an emotional issue. This is the first
time that Jack has been able to post his studies without attracting every
de-bunker floating around the Internet -- mainly due to changes we made
earlier this year vis posting privileges.
Suffice to say that there is compelling evidence that several moon photos
were altered. Many researchers made a "rush to judgement" and concluded
that the only reason to alter the photos was to conceal the fact that the
Apollo moon missions were faked. Of course, that is NOT the only reason.

Perhaps the photos were altered to conceal something else. Perhaps
NASA did not wish to display their technology or equipment which could
have been placed on the lunar surface for surveillance purposes. (When
I was in the USAF, we had some TS communications and cryptology
equipment which was so sensitive that if an escorted visitor came into the
complex, the equipment had to be covered so they it could not be seen).

Another possibility that has been advanced by some is that evidence of
extraterrestrials was concealed in photos and radio communications. (See
Alien Agenda by Jim Marrs).

Simply stated, while we know the photos were altered, we don't know with
certainty why. I have stated several times before that those who insist that
the U.S. did go to the moon do us a disservice unless they themselves
actually went there. Otherwise, we just don't know. The whole discussion
probably deserves a lot more research.

I worked communications for Apollo 17 and Apollo-Soyuz while in the USAF.
I always believed the missions were as advertised. But I cannot ignore
the evidence of photo tampering. I just don't know.

There are many non-photo related inconsistencies which have been discovered
and discussed here in the past. Among them are the astronaut's refusal
to speak or be interviewed; the recently-released NASA film showing
the Apollo 11 crew in low earth orbit on the days when they were reported
to be in lunar orbit; the fact that the collapsed lunar rover could not physically
fit in the space provided for it in the LEM (and NASA's refusal to explain);
the fact that NASA would not allow a direct video feed to the major TV
networks for the Apollo 11 mission (they could only point their cameras
at the projection screen in Mission Control); the report of several ham radio
operators who monitored the NASA radio frequencies and heard communications
on the private VOX channel in which the astronauts mentioned seeing
extra-terrestrials; and on and on and on. And then there is the fact that
while the hoax de-bunkers defend NASA's story to the hilt -- NASA does
not defend itself.

I just don't know. If someone else knows, we'd love to hear it. I have often
believed that an open mind is a researcher's most important asset.

Rich DellaRosa."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-03-26 20:39 ]</font>

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-27, 01:47 AM
In regards to the "photo tampering", is it possible NASA did alter the pictures, but only to make them sharper,brighter, more detailed and colorful etc.., for us?

Does anyone know the truth to the whole "collapsed lunar rover" not fitting inside the LEM? I've heard this mentioned alot.

Jim
2002-Mar-27, 02:49 AM
Oh, good grief!



"The moon hoax topic tends to be an emotional issue. This is the first
time that Jack has been able to post his studies without attracting every
de-bunker floating around the Internet -- mainly due to changes we made
earlier this year vis posting privileges.


That is to say, keep those who disagree with you away and you can finally say what you want w/o interruption.



Suffice to say that there is compelling evidence that several moon photos
were altered.


Those who claim the photos have been altered are partly right... many photos were reframed to show the item(s) of greatest interest. Those who claim they were faked want them to be faked; most of these folks haven't looked at the originals, only copies of prints of digital images of...



I have stated several times before that those who insist that
the U.S. did go to the moon do us a disservice unless they themselves
actually went there. Otherwise, we just don't know.


Using this reasoning, only those who have actually done something are qualified to discuss it, while those who haven't done it are free to claim it was never done.



I worked communications for Apollo 17 and Apollo-Soyuz while in the USAF.


Which could mean anything from designing and building the comunications systems on the Apollo craft to running messages down the hall for a Tech Sgt. Without details, this is no qualification... and, frankly, smacks of Kaysing's claims to be something other than a tech writer.

(I thought NASA was a civilian agency. How did an Air Force "specialist" get involved?)



Among them are the astronaut's refusal
to speak or be interviewed


Since when? Some astronauts are reluctant to assume a public role; others thrive on it. (Looking at his punctuation, he means one astronaut. Okay, maybe he's right after all.)



the recently-released NASA film showing
the Apollo 11 crew in low earth orbit on the days when they were reported
to be in lunar orbit


I think this has been covered already. And debunked.



the fact that the collapsed lunar rover could not physically
fit in the space provided for it in the LEM (and NASA's refusal to explain)


He's showing his ignorance. The LRV folded. Try the Lunar Science Journal for the full description at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html and a neat diagram of how it was deployed at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvf1-39.jpg. Seems pretty well explained.



the fact that NASA would not allow a direct video feed to the major TV
networks for the Apollo 11 mission (they could only point their cameras
at the projection screen in Mission Control)


If true, news to me. But, how does this confirm any sort of conspiracy or fake? Especially if there was live feed provided for subsequent missions?



the report of several ham radio
operators who monitored the NASA radio frequencies and heard communications
on the private VOX channel in which the astronauts mentioned seeing
extra-terrestrials


He makes claims, but gives no details. There are several Internet sites by ham operators who tracked the Apollos and make no mention of ET sightings.



while the hoax de-bunkers defend NASA's story to the hilt -- NASA does
not defend itself.


NASA has decided not to lend credence to the HBers' claims by getting engaged in dialouge with them. However, NASA has provided links to several debunking sites (including the BA's) for those interested.



I have often
believed that an open mind is a researcher's most important asset.


I couldn't agree more. Which is why Kaysing's statement on the PAX program and that opening quote above are so disturbing. It seems that the HBers want folks to look at their claims with an open mind, while at the same time refusing to listen to those with opposing viewpoints.


_________________
<font color=000099>In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.</font>
Douglas Adams

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-03-26 21:53 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 04:59 AM
He probably views the situation with a different perspective to most of the people here at this forum.

If his role can be substantiated. Hoax believers often drag out the occasional alleged Apollo insider. Upon further investigation we find that the individuals in questions had very marginal roles, and in any case we find serious prima facie problems with their stories.

This is the first time that Jack has been able to post his studies without attracting every de-bunker floating around the Internet

The JFK forum is notorious for banning posters simply for the crime disputing the conclusions of the "golden boys" who want to post essentially unchallenged. Unfortunately Jack White is an idiot when it comes to Apollo photos. He has been caught numerous times intentionally posting photographs he has altered to create "anomalies". He never posts the ID numbers to the photos, making it very difficult for anyone to verify his claims.

Suffice to say that there is compelling evidence that several moon photos
were altered.

Not from anything Jack White has provided. Mr. White understands nothing of parallax or perspective, and goes on to manipulate the evidence to appear to be in his favor. This is compelling evidence only that Mr. White is not a serious researcher.

Perhaps NASA did not wish to display their technology or equipment which could
have been placed on the lunar surface for surveillance purposes.

Hard to get it up there when the weights of the spacecraft were accounted for down to the tenth of a pound. This person's experience with USAF surveillance equipment is likely genuine, but has no bearing on Apollo. The only connection is the use of relatively cutting edge cameras in the CM SIM bay, and that was accounted for.

Another possibility that has been advanced by some is that evidence of
extraterrestrials was concealed in photos and radio communications.

Unfortunately the "evidence" supporting this conclusion is almost pure fiction.

Among them are the astronaut's refusal
to speak or be interviewed

An allegation of Bart Sibrel. As a matter of fact, the astronauts are asked frequently about the conspiracy theories. Ed Mitchell asks how we would have been able to fool the Russians. Neil Armstrong believes it would have been harder to fake them than to accomplish them. Jim Lovell has called the ideas "kooky", prompting an unsuccessful lawsuit by Bill Kaysing. And Buzz Aldrin calls the theories nothing but profiteering. (I agree.)

Oh, the astronauts do indeed speak out. No, they won't grant interviews to Bill Kaysing or to Bart Sibrel, but that's to be expected. These individuals, among others, intend to make their living by calling the astronauts liars, and do so according to extremely flimsy evidence. If the astronauts choose not to give these individuals the time of day, I think that's justified.

the recently-released NASA film showing
the Apollo 11 crew in low earth orbit on the days when they were reported
to be in lunar orbit

A.k.a. the Sibrel footage. Now I wonder why someone who claims expertise in USAF surveillance wouldn't know what the earth looks like from orbit.

Clearly this person is speaking outside his experience. We are expected to accept this person as an expert on space operations because he claims to have worked for NASA. And while he may have had some connection to the late Apollo communications, he evidently does not understand much about other aspects of space operations. This deficit cannot be made up by simply citing NASA as his employer.

the fact that the collapsed lunar rover could not physically fit in the space
provided for it in the LEM

A James Collier allegation -- totally false. Collier didn't understand how the lunar module fit into the LM quadrant. (Actually, what Collier doesn't know about Apollo would fill a warehouse.) Since Collier passes himself off as an expert, and he says he can't understand it, the general hoax believer will simply assume it's a big mystery.

Further, it is hightly suspicious that someone who claims to have "worked communications" for Apollo 17 would not know a great deal about the lunar rover. The relay equipment on board the rover was a very key component in the S-band communications with Apollo 17. The proficiency requirements for Apollo flight controllers were staggering. Controllers were expected to know nearly as much about the equipment that pertained to their specialty as the engineers who designed it. Such confusion over the lunar rover would not come from a legitimate Apollo flight controller.

and NASA's refusal to explain

Totally false. The Apollo Archive contains complete video footage of the deployment of the lunar rover. There are literally dozens of photographs showing the rover folded, unfolded, being loaded onto the LM, and the astronauts training to unload it.

One has to be almost intentionally ignorant of the lunar rover's stowage in order not to understand how it folded, and to claim NASA has provided no explanation.

the fact that NASA would not allow a direct video feed to the major TV networks for the Apollo 11 mission

And this guy claims to have "worked communications" for NASA? Did he understand anything about the unified S-band allocation?

The television signal from Apollo 11 was non-standard and therefore incompatible with broadcast TV equipment. It had been specially engineering to require substantially less bandwidth than a normal signal so that it could be transmitted on the LM's small S-band antenna. This way the Apollo 11 crew wouldn't have to waste time erecting the larger portable S-band antenna that was used on Apollos 12 and 14.

the report of several ham radio
operators who monitored the NASA radio frequencies and heard communications
on the private VOX channel in which the astronauts mentioned seeing
extra-terrestrials

This is eighth-hand testimony. Although fanciful (and completely out-of-character) "transcriptions" of these conversations can be found with a simple web search, none of the alleged ham operators have come forward to take credit for them and confirm them. Yet there are plenty of ham operators who are very proud of having monitored Apollo communications and love talking about it.

And then there is the fact that
while the hoax de-bunkers defend NASA's story to the hilt -- NASA does
not defend itself.

Anything NASA says is simply dismissed as propaganda and further coverup. If NASA remains silent, the critics claim it's to hide something. It's a no-win situation for NASA, so they simply avoid dignifying the hoaxers and letting them leach off of NASA's credibility.

Now if facts are the answer, then why would it matter where the facts come from? I studied engineering; I worked as an engineer. What makes my analysis any less factual or credible than someone from NASA. See, the issue isn't whether there any any explanations for the alleged anomalies. The issue is being acknowledged by NASA and therefore riding NASA's coat tails.

If anybody knows, we'd love to hear it.

Well, no they wouldn't. Especially at JFK Research they have made an art form out of suppressing opposing views. These are not new allegations, and the refutations have been out there for years.

[b]I have often believed that an open mind is a researcher's most important asset.[/b

Yes, but not so open that your brain falls out. Buying into Jack White's bull exhaust is not open-mindedness.

AstroMike
2002-Mar-27, 05:31 AM
the fact that the collapsed lunar rover could not physically
fit in the space provided for it in the LEM (and NASA's refusal to explain)

Does this guy understand anything about the lunar rover? Here's a webpage (http://www.nasm.si.edu/apollo/lrv/lrv.htm) that briefly describes the design and function of it.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 05:36 AM
How the rover folded to fit its bay on the LM is one of the easiest things to research about Apollo, and one of the things that an Apollo insider would know without having to research it. Good grief, we watched them unfold the darn thing on live television! The nice news people showed us diagrams of how it fit.

The fact that this alleged NASA insider is simply parrotting the arguments of the hoax believers -- even the tremendously absurd arguments -- casts serious doubt upon his claim to authority. I don't believe for a minute that this guy was involved with Apollo in any meaningful way.

Conrad
2002-Mar-27, 07:26 AM
The LRV didn't fit?

Not being an astronomer, engineer, physicist or astronaut, I have to resort to common sense to an allegation like that: duh, perhaps it *folded up*?!?!?

By Jack's logic, anyone riding to work on a folding bike taken from the boot (that's the trunk for you Americans)of their parked car would be a hoax biker, riding a fake machine on their way to an imaginary job for no wages.

jrkeller
2002-Mar-27, 12:06 PM
My beach chair won't fit into the trunk of my Escort unless it's folded.

As a child, I remember seeing video of the Rover being storaged in the LM and then being released.

This total lack of investigation clearly shows why most people with any sort of a brain don't beleive what they are promotting. Do they really think that the thousands of highly technical people who worked on Apollo won't notice something as simple as the rover being unable to fit into the LM?

ToSeek
2002-Mar-27, 01:33 PM
And then there is the fact that while the hoax de-bunkers defend NASA's story to the hilt -- NASA does not defend itself.

Yes, NASA does. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb%5F2.htm)

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 02:26 PM
Jack White's latest round of fanciful image "analysis" is being debated at ApolloHoax, http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/

My response to some of James Collier's arguments is found at http://www.clavius.org/bibcollier.html

Ian R
2002-Mar-27, 11:04 PM
Here is a great example of Jack White's work, for those of you who are not familiar with him:



http://jfkresearch.com/jfk/uploads/12surveylocationscompz.jpg

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 11:30 PM
Obviously White's "brilliance" at photo analysis doesn't extend to noting that his three landmarks change position relative to each other, clearly indicating a change in camera location.