According to my conversations with acquaintances of Bart Sibrel, he does in claim (in private) to have been kidnapped and drugged by the CIA. But since he doesn't make this claim publicly we're left with rebutting what amounts to hearsay. However, I corresponded briefly with Sibrel through an intermediary, and he confirmed that claim during the correspondence. But of course I can't prove that because Sibrel is not likely to grant me permission to publish his correspondence. Therefore I'm in the uncomfortable position of knowing myself, with some degree of assurance, that Sibrel claims to have suffered reprisals at the hands of the U.S. government, but being unable to prove it to anyone else's satisfaction.

In any case, I doubt Sibrel could substantiate his claim, so it makes no difference whether his claim is public or private.

As for Kaysing, I don't know whether he has ever claimed to suffer reprisals for his findings. I know of no claims of reprisals from Mary Bennett or David Percy.

Ralph Rene indirectly claims reprisals. On a radio appearance he blamed the U.S. government for his inability to acquire legitimate credentials in engineering or physics. He wasn't specific about what those impediments were.

Ironically Jack White claims that Clavius is a government attempt to smear his character. He has simply decided that our site is a government-funded attempt to silence him and salvage Apollo's reputation. His evidence, suggested by his friend Rich DellaRosa, is simply that Clavius is too "slick" to be a private site. That and the fact that his personal delusion is that anyone who opposes him must, ex hoc facto, therefore be a government disinformationist.

But the point remains. If the hoax believers are serious about their claims that such notable persons as astronauts and key officials have been murdered in order to keep them silent, then they must directly address the glaring discrepancy of their own continued state of non-death.

Of course, Rene's problems wouldn't have anything to do with his own inability to acquire legitimate qualifications in engineering and physics before asking for credentials, right?

Yeah, "slickness" is often a telltale attribute used to identify government websites.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Hi guys,
Glad to see that your all still having fun discussing my article. What sad people you must all be. I haven't been on this site for nearly a year and your still discussing it... haven't you anything new or better to do? I moved on from this debate ages ago.

I see that you are still twisting things to fit your own agendas, such as John Witts statement about the transparency on the window... qoute: 'and as I've mentioned before, the angle of the sunlight streaming into the hatch window makes it impossible for the sun to be backlighting a transparency taped over window'. I thought you guys were mad on this Earth glow theory??? Perhaps thats what lit up the transparency? or are you just changing your own 'facts' to fit your own theories?

Its been nearly a year now and still none of you can come up with a decent explanation as to how blue sky is viewable outside the Apollo 13's window when its 200,000 miles from Earth. Also you still don't seem to be able to agree whether there should be a flame under the LEM or not?

Oh well, just thought I'd pop in and say hello, after you posted this link on my message board.

Keep up the backslapping lads in your jolly little group!

Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US.

Ta Ta For Now,
Dave at Cosmic Conspiracies
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk

"Glad to see that your all still having fun discussing my article. What sad people you must all be. I haven't been on this site for nearly a year and your still discussing it... haven't you anything new or better to do? I moved on from this debate ages ago.

And yet, you were encouraging debate on this very topic as late as the 14th of April this year:

http://pub15.ezboard.com/fcosmiccons...opicID=1.topic

"Its been nearly a year now and still none of you can come up with a decent explanation as to how blue sky is viewable outside the Apollo 13's window "

It's light scattering off of the window.

"Also you still don't seem to be able to agree whether there should be a flame under the LEM or not?"

Various hoax proponents allege that the fact that there is no flame visible under the LM during ascent from the lunar surface is suspicious and suggests a hoax.

It is pointed out that the fact that their is no flame visible under the LM is not suspicious because the propellants used create little or no visible flame in a vacuum.

Hoax proponent then thinks by showing evidence of a flame proves debunkers wrong there-by proving the whole thing was a hoax?

Er, okay.

Anyway, it looks to me like sparks from the pyrotechnic bolts blowing and debris being blown around by the ascent engine, not a flame from the engine. WHere about in the video is the flame supposed to be visible?

Airbrush??? A forty billion dollar conspiracy and NASA can't even spring for a copy of Photoshop?

CosmicDave,

I just joined this BB about two months ago, so I have no idea of who you are.

BTW, what is your background? Are you an engineer, physicists, geologist, journalist or something else?

I do have a suggestion for you. Instead of using some unnamed air brusher, why don't you use Dick Underwood? If you don't know who he is, then you have no business evaluating any NASA photographs.

Pretty sure that was David Percy. Seemed the style; ignore or fail to comprehend 99% of what's been written in this thread, drop a hint about a major revelation to come, etc.

I was doing some thinking (thats a scary thought!) about the blue tint of the LM windows and remembered an image that shows the blur tint of the window while the LM is on the moon. The image is AS12-46-6726. The window has the surface of the moon reflected in it and it is a very blue tint. The best image to view this is at GRIN. I think there is just a blue tint to the window. Perhaps it is an artifact from some coatings on the window(?) or prehaps its just the nature of the window material.

Craig

How about this image? Taken en route to the moon during the LM inspection.

AS11-36-5389
ALSJ caption reads:This photo, taken during the initial LM inspection, on the day before lunar orbit insertion, shows the 16-mm Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) mounted in the LMP's window."

See the "blue sky"? You should epect to see this effect in any photo where the focal point is within the spacecraft's interior and there's a window in the background.
I think the consensus is that the windows scatter blue light much like our nitrogen atmosphere.

Also AS11-36-5390 is famous picture of Buzz Aldrin and is the next frame of the same magazine. There is the LMP's window in the background of that one too.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andrew on 2002-05-28 13:25 ]</font>

haven't you anything new or better to do?

I don't understand. Are you admitting that your theories aren't worth discussion? It is my understanding that you published your page and included "challenges" with the express intent that they would be discussed and answered.

Well, we're discussing and answering. Is this not what you wanted?

I moved on from this debate ages ago.

There are new people here now, and we have serious issues with your web site. You can either ignore the criticism, or you can take responsibility for your allegations and defend them against the criticism you solicited.

I see that you are still twisting things to fit your own agendas, such as John Witts statement about the transparency on the window.

How is Mr. Witts' answer "twisting" anything? He has pointed out a very salient fact which the hoax believers have not generally addressed.

I thought you guys were mad on this Earth glow theory?

No. It is the hoax believers who assert that the blue glow seen in the windows can only be the nearby earth.

Perhaps thats what lit up the transparency?

First you must prove that there was a transparency before you can argue what, if anything, lit it.

or are you just changing your own 'facts' to fit your own theories?

No, we are taking into account all the available facts, not just the ones that lead to the predetermined conclusion. You're a fine one to make that accusation. Your post is riddled with factual error, most of which have been pointed out to you. It is also filled with allegations of fact without any documentation or evidentiary support. What is your defense for that?

Its been nearly a year now and still none of you can come up with a decent explanation as to how blue sky is viewable outside the Apollo 13's window when its 200,000 miles from Earth.

Your proposition, as stated, is incorrect. A blue glow is noted. It is not established factually that the glow is being caused by the nearby earth. That is the assumption of the hoax believers, and it is not one that I share.

We've known for more than 25 years what causes that glow in the spacecraft windows, even when they are far from earth. And we've known for centuries why that glow is blue. It's the same reason the sky is blue. The sun puts out primarily yellow light. So why isn't the sky yellow? It's blue because blue wavelengths are the most susceptible to scattering.

Miles of air scatters the sunlight, so that the light we see indirectly is that which has been scattered. Similarly, contaminants on the spacecraft window (gasket outgassing, LES exhaust residue, and in the case of Apollo 13 condensed breath moisture) scatter the sunlight just as frost on the windshield on a cold morning scatters the sunlight and makes the windshield appear to glow no matter where in the car you're sitting.

Also you still don't seem to be able to agree whether there should be a flame under the LEM or not?

Incorrect. For a time, aerospace engineering was my profession. I know when Aerozine-fueled engines should produce a visible flame and when they shouldn't, and why. I know when they should produce a reddish cloud and when they shouldn't, and why. I know when they should make a loud roar and when they shouldn't, and why.

Your page amply demonstrates that you understand none of these things. You're simply trying to stir up enough controversy that it seems you know something about this. I will be glad to discuss the combustion characteristics of the TR-201 engine to any degree of detail you wish.

The red cloud is the reaction of nitrogen tetroxide with the atmosphere. It happens when you first light an engine -- in that atmosphere -- that uses this substance as its oxidizer. It is common to preinject oxidizer into a rocket engine's combustion chamber. You claim the red cloud should be visible under all circumstances. I want to know why your assertion contradicts both observed fact and theoretical predictions.

Because of the oxidizer preinjection and other factors, any rocket engine will burn unstably for a brief time. The transient for the space shuttle main engines, for example, is about six seconds. The transient for a Rocketdyne J-2 is 3-4 seconds. The transient for a Rocketdyne F-1 is a bit less than eight seconds.

TRW's documentation for the TR-201 gives its transient as 0.310 second to 90% rated thrust. Therefore we can expect to see a visible flame -- indicating sub-optimal combustion for that propellant -- for about a third of a second, perhaps a bit longer. After that, the engine reaches steady-state combustion at optimal propellant mixture, whereupon the flame is essentially transparent.

Had you studied even the most basic principles of rocket motor operation, you would have been introduced to these concepts. Contrary to your assertions, I understand rocket motors very well, and I can say with a large degree of assurity that your allegations are thoroughly ignorant.

Now you brought this up, so you can't turn around now and argue that you're no longer interested in this point. The question is whether you're mature enough to stand by your allegations and defend them against people with genuine expertise who have serious objections to them. Your choice.

I can't speak to the point of whether any Apollo defenders have made conflicting claims regarding whether a visible flame is expected. But I can speak to the point of your indecision about what the visibility of the flame means.

You originally argue that the absence of a flame proves it was a hoax. Fine; it's wrong, but it's a common misconception. But then when you think you see a visible flame, you argue that this also proves it was hoaxed. That quite flatly contradicts your original argument. They can't both mean it was hoaxed. So when you make up your mind what your argument is, come back and try to defend it. As it stands, it's quite preposterous.

Oh well, just thought I'd pop in and say hello

Well, you've done more than say hello. You've insulted us, you've attempted to poke fun at various explanations in the face of your own lack of understanding, and you've singularly avoided addressing any of the dozens of objections and inconsistencies that have been raised against your assertions.

And you think we're the ones wasting time?

Oh yeah, keep an eye out for the article soon to be posted on my site about how NASA employs people to airbrush out anomalies! I have got hold of a radio interview with one of the airbrushers from the US.

As long as it's not the same old unsubstantiated gossip that's been floating around among UFO enthusiasts. We've all heard that one before. Unless you have the real name of a real person we can call up and talk to, don't bother.

Perhaps it is an artifact from some coatings on the window(?) or prehaps its just the nature of the window material.

There were anti-glare and anti-reflection coatings on the windows of the LM and also of the CM. These are not dissimilar from optical coatings on photographic lenses. When you see external photographs of the LM on the lunar surface, the image of the surface reflected bluishly in the LM windows is the effect of the anti-glare coating. Without the coating the image would be much brighter, and not blue.

However, this isn't the same phenomenon which causes the blue-tinted glow seen from within the spacecraft, illustrated in the photograph above. That is scattering caused by the glass itself and by contaminants on the glass. It is possible that the coatings contribute to this effect, but not likely.

We generally don't see this degree of scattering through windows on earth because it's frequently drowned out by directly transmitted light from the atmospheric scatter -- i.e., it's scattered by the atmosphere but passes directly through the glass.

The angle at which the light strikes the glass and the angle from which it is viewed inside the cockpit determine how visible this effect is.

Well, here's something I've wondered: did the ascent module engine have enough power to boost the AM into lunar escape orbit, or did the CM/SM have to do any maneuvering to meet it and "pull it out" of the moon's gravity well?

All of the NASA diagrams show the former procedure, which would be (quite a bit!) safer. But is that the way it was done?

(This has nothing to do with the Hoax, only with a detail of the mission that I didn't know. You've already set me straight on a couple of other ideas I'd had -- since 1969! -- that were wrong, for which thank'ee!)

Silas

Hoo boy, lunar orbit rendezvous.

"Having enough energy" and "intended to be used that way" are really two separate questions. The APS was intended to put the ascent module into an orbit around the moon. That means a different trajectory than simply trying to exit the moon's sphere of dominant influence, which the APS might have been capable of, but I haven't done the computations to answer that. The ascent module pitched over after about ten seconds and started heading downrange. That's what you would do if you wanted to put the thing in orbit around the moon.

The ideal intended LM ascent orbit had most of the same elements as the CSM rendezvous orbit, except that their apsides were reversed. This was supposed to provide two rendezvous opportunities per rev. Or so the story goes. There was a whole slew of contingencies that involved the CSM swooping down and snatching the LM from the jaws of death, but none of these materialized.

Was that your question?

Addendum: I just re-read your post and I guess that was not your question. By "lunar escape orbit" I took you to mean a transearth injection, which, upon second reading was not your intent.

The answer, most definitely, is that the APS was intended to put the lunar module into a reasonably stable orbit. The LOR plan did not call for the CSM, as a matter of routine, to swoop down and save the astronauts from the jaws of death. If, for any reason, the APS failed to put the ascent stage into a stable orbit, there were various down-swooping manuevers that could be attempted, but that would be a contingency, not a nominal flight plan.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-28 14:35 ]</font>

About one second after the LEM lifts off.

The message dated 14th of April was directed at readers to my site - not this one. What I meant was, I had forgotten all about our little debate on here months ago, but it seems that you guys have still got a problem because you just can't stop talking about it. All I read is 'this person said this and that person said that', so what. You guys are never going to agree with what the other camp has to say so why not lay it to rest? constant bickering won't get anyone anywhere.

Your not convinced with my theories any more than I am convinced with any of yours.. so its a no win situation.

but it seems that you guys have still got a problem because you just can't stop talking about it.

Actually the topic just arose again a few days ago. Your site gets period mention in various online forums. We haven't been discussing your site continuously since your departure.

And it's not a matter of "can't" stop talking about it. We like talking about space travel, and especially about Apollo. Many of us are considered experts in Apollo, or at least in some aspect of space travel. When you make preposterous allegations having to do with our fields of expertise, it's not strange that we would want talk about it, and that we should expect you to be fortcoming with support for your statements.

You guys are never going to agree with what the other camp has to say so why not lay it to rest?

Because some of us feel strongly enough about our expertise and education to correct the rubbish that's being said about it. You don't just insult someone and then tell them to lighten up about it.

The reason we don't agree with you is because we have professional and educational qualifications in the fields that apply to your statements, and we find your theories to be rather ignorant. Yet you profess to be right.

The issue is not agreement. The issue is which of us is most likely to be correct. Clearly you want your theories to be regarded as correct. Unfortunately you don't seem to be willing to do what it takes in order to establish that perception. You want to spread your statements far and wide regardless of whether they can be factually supported. And you seem to want to be able to do this without anybody objecting to it.

Got news for you: we do object, and trying to make us look silly for objecting won't get you very far. In the end it's you who looks foolish for trying to make public statements without backing them up and without dealing with criticism.

Your not convinced with my theories any more than I am convinced with any of yours.. so its a no win situation.

The question is not whether one is convincing. That's a matter of rhetoric; one can be convinced of something that is not correct. The question is whether one is right or wrong. You have made allegations of fact. Those are either right or wrong. Those of us who are experts in the relevant fields have claimed that your allegations are wrong, and have provided various arguments to establish their point.

What can you do to prove you're right?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-28 14:49 ]</font>

Before we have a complete tidal wave of people accusing me of this and that, perhaps they could go and buy Percy and Bennetts 'DarkMoon -Apollo and the Whistle Blowers', a book that I thoroughly recommend and which is packed full of statements from people at least as well qualified as some of you on this board claim to be, stating the exact opposite of what you believe. Many who have worked or continue to work for NASA to this day. Its all documented and indexed in the book. No need for me to say anything else really, read and you will learn.

Perhaps the guy who wants to talk about rocket fuels could explain why NASA released simulated painting of the landings with red plumes of smoke or gas ejecting from the LEM? surely they would have told the artist what to draw? Again this arguement is quite satisfactorily answered in the above mentioned book.

I would be interested to know how far away from Earth the picture posted here was taken at? I bet it was no where near 200,000 miles from Earth.

Oh and don't worry yourselves about speculating about my article about the NASA airbrushing before its released. I can assure you that I have the name of the person involved and many other facts that you can check out.

Cheers

Dave at CC

Percy and Bennett's book is so full of errors that my highlighter ran out of ink about 100 pages into it. I rewcommend people read it too, to show just how silly HB claims can be.

I'm just glad someone sent me their (gratis) copy, so I didn't have to pay for it.

Before we have a complete tidal wave of people accusing me of this and that, perhaps they could go and buy Percy and Bennetts 'DarkMoon -Apollo and the Whistle Blowers', a book that I thoroughly recommend ...

... and from whom you've uncritically cribbed most of your web site. I know. I have read the book and I have watched the video.

... and which is packed full of statements from people at least as well qualified as some of you on this board claim to be, stating the exact opposite of what you believe.

No. Bennett and Percy are masters of appearing to substantiate with expertise, while subtley avoiding any real expertise. For example, they ask Jan Lundberg -- a mechanical engineer -- questions about lighting and exposure. He is not presumed to be an expert in those fields, and people whose expertise in them are not questioned, disagree with Dark Moon.

The supposed rocket scientist gives his opinion that the F-1 engines weren't powerful enough, just by looking at the plume. However, he can't profess to having even seen an F-1 firing, much less done any computations to prove his point.

Did you know that the F-1 is used to concepts of current rocket engine design? It's considered one of the best rocket engine designs ever, and many people know about it. Why have none of these unquestioned experts come forward with their doubts? When you have one "expert" whom nobody's ever heard of contradicting the combined expertise of people who are household names, it's pretty clear what's going on.

Many who have worked or continue to work for NASA to this day.

... and who have disavowed the conclusions in Dark Moon. Including those you mention by name.

Its all documented and indexed in the book.

No, very little of it is sufficiently documented to allow anyone to duplicate the research. It's just there to make you think they did their homework.

No need for me to say anything else really, read and you will learn.

Passing the buck will not avail you. I suppose, then, that you really don't understand any of the arguments put forth in your web site.

Perhaps the guy who wants to talk about rocket fuels could explain why NASA released simulated painting of the landings with red plumes of smoke or gas ejecting from the LEM?

Oh, please! Do you understand what "artist's conception" means? What some artist thinks, believes, or chooses to depict has nothing whatsoever to do with what actually is. You claim that the video footage, is wrong because it fails to meet your expectations of reality. Clearly the substantiation of your expectations is crucial to your point.

So you saw a painting that depicted a fanciful scene, and you believed it. So you saw some photographs of red clouds without understanding where they came from. And so now you're an expert in Aerozine combustion.

Again this arguement is quite satisfactorily answered in the above mentioned book.

No, it is not. David Percy is not a rocket scientist. Mary Bennett is not a rocket scientist. Bill Kaysing is not a rocket scientist. These are the people laying out their expectations which you have uncritically subscribed to, and I want to know where those expectations come from. If all you can do is point to some painting, then you're on way thin ice.

Do you, or do you not, know anything about the operation of an Aerozine-fueled TR-201 engine in a vacuum?

I would be interested to know how far away from Earth the picture posted here was taken at? I bet it was no where near 200,000 miles from Earth.

Upon what is your objection based.

I can assure you that I have the name of the person involved and many other facts that you can check out.

So if I were to call up NASA's personnel office and ask if this person worked there, and in what capacity, I would receive a satisfactory answer? And if I were to call up this person and ask him or her to produce evidence that he or she has retouched NASA photographs with the express intent of hiding material information contained therein from public scrutiny, I would not be disappointed?

If you can pull that off, I'd be impressed.

IMHO this statement belongs at the very top of What Moon Hoax Idea Has Made You Laugh The Most?

Along with the simulated painting showing a crater under the LM as proof that one should appear in the photographic record!

[added crater reference]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-28 15:21 ]</font>