I was going to answer SaturnV's unanswered questions but didn't have enough time, and the thread is now locked here, so I'll answer them my best here.

Which Dutch papers? Anybody got any source for this?

They aren't.

Or maybe because training and becoming an astronaut is very tiresome and hard work that not everybody can keep up for years.

Which ones suffer brain damage? Buzz Aldrin is the only one I know who suffered a nervous breakdown from alcohol. Could the accidents be due simply to natural causes?

What ever happened to it, I couldn't be that big since it was not damaging as the conspiracy theorists say.
http://www.clavius.org/baron.html

Don't know. Any source for this?

They weren't out of sight from the public who used telemetry satellites to track them. They weren't out of sight from the pickup carrier crews, who tracked their re-entry coordinates.

Why would they? That likely wouldn't convince everyone they were on the Moon, and probably no telescope was powerful enough to see it.

Again, any source for this? They were immediately sent to laboratories for geological analysis after they were decontaminated.

Let's see if anybody else can do better than me, and correct me if I'm wrong.

__________________
~AstroMike

Oops! Forgot to type...

Good follow-up questions. These queries only beg the question. They make no sense unless you assume that a conspiracy or cover-up of some kind took place.

Maybe because they were very smart people and good leaders, which is why they were chosen to be astronauts in the first place. Maybe the companies that hired them were banking on the idea that their fame as astronauts might bring a little fortune to the corporate coffers. What else would you have them do?

Why does anyone? What are the instances of these medical events for Apollo astronauts and how do they measure against rate of similar medical problems in the general public?

I'd like a source for this too, but let's just assume they did say the Apollo events felt "unreal". So what? It must have been unreal to watch your loved ones strap into a giant rocket, hurtle their bodies into space, and walk about on an alien world. Is the idea that this all might seem a little unreal all that... ummmm... unreal? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

I can sympathize. I had front row seats for the Pentagon events of 9/11 and still wake up somedays believing it was all a sureal dream.

Would you want to be under the landing sight in the event of a 'chute deployment failure. Think it might be smart to park that multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier and thousands of Navy personnel and reporters at a safe distance? I do. But then, I'm a pragmatist.

And how would they do that exactly? If a means is discussed please provide the math to show that the suggested signal could actually be seen from Earth and the cost in 1969 U.S. dollars in getting the additional signalling payload to the moon.

That's it for me.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rich on 2002-11-12 17:09 ]</font>

Why did the Dutch papers in 1969 question the authenticity of the moon landings?

I too wonder which Dutch papers questioned the authenticity of the moon landings. The question can't be answered until the papers in question are produced.

Why is it NASA records are not classified but not available to the public?

That depends on which records and what you mean by "available". Restriction of information is not always for reasons of "national security" or other lofty such goals. Debriefings were classified, for example, because they discussed private morale and health issues that are private matters between the astronauts and NASA doctors.

I don't know of any Apollo-related material which is yet unclassified and not available to the public. By "available" I mean that someone can go to the relevant authority at NASA, in person, and request to see it. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's published, mass-produced, and can arrive by FedEx at your door the next morning. Historical research often requires going to where the records are archived.

Why did so many astronauts end up as executives of large corporations? Was this their reward for the "trip" to the moon?

No, the prestige works the other way. It was quite fashionable in the 1970s to have an astronaut on one's board of directors. I have no doubt that the corporations in question attracted the astronauts in the customary way: by offering significant compensation packages.

The other reason is that many of the companies on whose boards astronauts served had aspirations to supply the space program. Just as retire generals often go to work for defense contractors, retired astronauts go to work for aerospace contractors. The astronauts offer the perception of an "inside track" to procurement favors. Whether you think this is a good idea or not is immaterial; it happens, and probably happened here.

My experience with astronauts indicates that some are good business leaders and some aren't. But they all tend to have quite a bit of drive, intelligence, and skill, and those qualify them at least in part to be business leaders.

Why did some astronauts die in accidents ...

Because astronauting is a dangerous profession. It requires one to fly high-performance aircraft on a regular basis and operate high-risk, experimental equipment.

The accident rate for astronauts is about the same as that for test pilots.

... others suffer brain damage ...

Who?

... still others have nervous breakdowns?

Buzz Aldrin is the only one that comes to mind. He suffered from depression and alcholism. His crewmate Michael Collins writes that Aldrin was a very driven individual, always seeking bigger and better challenges. Where do you go after walking on the moon? What's more challenging than that? After you reach the top of the mountain, the only direction is down.

What happened to the Baron report?

No one knows for sure. I am conducting inquiries at Congress and at the National Archives to attempt to locate it.

I infer from statements made during Thomas Baron's testimony that the report was likely destroyed. Baron wanted it published as part of the proceedings of the Congressional investigation into Apollo 1, but the House members who interviewed Baron were reluctant to print such a large document as part of the record.

There is also some question about how applicable and admissible (in the legal sense) the report would have been. It was largely hearsay, which has no direct application in law. It would have merely provided a list of people to interview, and it seems that the House had already gleaned that information from the report.

Further, some historians have lately followed up on Baron's reports and have found them to be factually and interpretationally flawed. Baron saw certain things happening, drew conclusions about the motives and reasons, and then considered only that interpretation thereafter.

Baron's involvement with the press taints his motives. We have to consider whether his celebrity status with the Florida press affected his ability and willingness to report his observations fairly.

Further, the only reason Baron was even presented to the Congressional investigation is because anti-NASA senator Walter Mondale made it happen. Sen. Mondale was responsible for getting Baron on the schedule, and for dredging up the Phillips report in an attempt to portray NASA's contractors as wasteful and slipshod. That was pure politics.

Since the lengthier Baron report was not published as part of the Apollo 1 findings, it would normally have reverted back to Baron's possession. However, Baron died shortly after the findings were published. The report would have been the property of his estate and subject to the disposition of the executor. Had the item been retained as an exhibit, it would likely be in the National Archives. However, my inquiries at the Archives have failed to turn up whether the Baron report was ever in their custody.

Conspiracy theorists argue that the "damning" report was destroyed by NASA. Here, in summary, are the major flaws in that argument:

1. NASA never, at any time, had custody of the report.

2. The report would have been inadmissible, thus hardly "damning". The shorter report, admitted by Baron to be equivalent in substance if not in scope to the lengthier report, survives.

3. The report is simply missing. It is not known to have been destroyed or suppressed. Since things are lost more often than they are suppressed, it is parsimonious to conclude, until further evidence suggests otherwise, that it has simply been mislaid or perhaps innocently discarded. It's possible locations include:

(a) the estate of Thomas Ronald Baron;
(b) the records of the House Committee on Science and Technology;
(c) the U.S. National Archives.

Why did the astronauts families often refer to the unreality of events?

We would have to see specific quotes and contexts to propery evaluate this charge.

If I may presume to interpret, expressions of incredulity are not out of place in response to momentous historical occasions. "This is unreal," or "This is so hard to believe," does not necessarily connote a perception of being fooled. It may simply be a reaction to something of great significance. I would argue that man's first steps on a world other than his earth is a moment of great significance.

Why did the landing of all Apollo return capsules take place out of sight of the public and even of the pickup carrier crews?

The Apollo capsules were recovered in the open ocean for obvious practical reasons: the water splashdown simplified the construction of the spacecraft, and the remote location provided for safety so that the spacecraft would not plop down on someone's head by accident. It was also partially dictated by the return trajectory.

It is patently untrue that the splashdowns happened out of sight of the carrier crews. In fact, predictions of the splashdown points were so accurate that the carriers had to be positioned a half mile or so away from the projected splashdown site to avoid the hazard of actually landing on the carrier deck.

There were literally thousands of Navy witnesses to the actual splashdowns.

Why didn't the astronauts attempt to make some visible signal from the moon?

First, this is a circular argument. It argues that NASA's inability to provide directly observable proof of success is suspicious, but that suspicion derives from a presupposed premise that NASA considered that a necessary goal. This in turn would arise only if NASA felt it needed to bolster its credibility, which would only be the case if it felt it had something to hide. In other words, the argument presupposes the hoax and is therefore invalid.

Second, nothing short of a nuclear explosion would be directly visible from this distance. And there would obviously be some significant and justified opposition to exploding a nuclear device on the surface of the moon.

Why were the moon rocks rushed to Switzerland right after they landed?

They weren't. They were rushed to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory where they remain today. Samples have subsequently been sent to laboratories and museums all over the world.

The solar wind experiment was rushed to Switzerland because it was a Swiss experiment, funded by the Swiss government and undertaken by a Swiss investigator. NASA was obligated to deliver the experiment quickly and safely to its owner.

Bill Kaysing is the one who claims this, though he can't produce any of the alleged papers in question either.

The Dutch papers on July 21 [1969] said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers, although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof, that the U.S. was spoofing everybody.

__________________
~AstroMike

"Why were the moon rocks rushed to Switzerland right after they landed?"
========================================
In Doug Boyd's book, "Rolling Thunder", he relates the rocks began increasing in size once back on Earth, and that American Indian medicine men were approached for an explanation. Their response was, "Why do you always come to us when you can't find answers?".

He "relates"? What does that mean?

How about, "he presented evidence"?

Of all the things I've read on this board, that is perhaps the silliest.

Because they needed a laugh?

Not to mention that they were all aired on live television (or is that supposed to have been faked, too?).

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

(Kaysing) The Dutch papers on July 21 [1969] said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers

Then how does he know they exist? If he has seen them, why didn't he ask for copies, or jot down the name of the paper? That would give us something to go on.

If he hasn't seen them, then how is this evidence any more than hearsay, rumor, and conjecture?

...although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof

Then where is the documentation? Bill Kaysing can produce absolutely nothing to substantiate this claim. He makes a claim that can be substantiated, that ought to be substantiated -- but he refuses to substantiate it. That's pure crackpottery.

You can't make an entire edition of a newspaper disappear. Copies of newspapers from July 20 and 21, 1969 are collector's items. They're mementos. Bill Kaysing wants us to believe that not one Dutch schoolboy's scrapbook or one Dutch town library back room contains a copy of even one of these newspapers!

This is what irritates me about conspiracy theorists. When you ask for evidence for their outlandish claims, all you get are outlandish excuses for why they can't produce that evidence.

I have seen conspiracy theorists claim that yes, those live broadcasts were indeed faked. They claim that the Apollo CMs were simply dropped from aircraft. After all, boilerplate CMs and even real CMs had been tested in this way.

Others claim that the Apollo spacecraft did make it into low Earth orbit -- but no further. So the splashdown would still happen legitimately, even if the missions were faked. (Never mind visual observations by amateurs proving that this was not the case.)

Never underestimate the creativity of a conspiracy theorist....

What they never do is look at the manned and boilerplate versions. They look nothing alike, either internal or externally.

Er, this is the same Doug Boyd who "related" the story about the woman who talked to bees?

http://zoo.adidam.org/zoo/leelas/rolling.htm

I would guess that the moon rocks increased in size the same way the bees told Alice exactly where to stop cutting.

Okay, here's the book's exact excerpt:
(March 1972)
"...Mad Bear was in L.A. when he called me...he'd been thinkin' about going to Washington, D.C.---he's back from that way, you know, from the Iroquois Nation. He belongs to the Tuscarora Tribe---someone from the White House sent him a request to look over some of those moon rocks, but he hasn't answered yet. The government's shook up about some of those rocks they brought back from the moon because they're increasing in size and they've got no explanation. They've got them on display in a museum and they're growing just like living things, They're like a lot of sick people who wouldn't think of talking to a medicine man until they're almost dead, and then they'll try anything...there's been many a time they've been worried enough to call for help...", pages 229-230, ROLLING THUNDER by Doug Boyd, a DELTA BOOK, published by DELL Publishing Co, copyright 1974 by Robert Briggs Associates.

This is pure speculation here, but as another possible final location, is it possible that the report could have been obtained and held by Sen. Mondale after the inquiry?
If he was instrumental in having Thomas Baron and the report introduced to the inquiry, he presumably had seen it beforehand and considered it to be useful in his 'campaign' against the space program. Might he then have held it for possible future use?
DK

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure Mondale ever had custody of the lengthy report himself. In Baron's testimony, one of the members of the House subcommittee that questioned Baron said the report had been received by the "full committee" (the House Committee on Science and Technology). Mondale himself was not directly involved with the actions of the committee, so I doubt they would have either received the report from him or delivered it back to him. But now that you mention it, Perhaps Mondale will know something of the report's disposition. Let's ask him.

Mondale was only able to get a copy of the 50 page summary. I'm not sure the 500 pager exists anymore. You can buy the 50 page summary at weirdvideos.com under the section about Kaysing and the moon hoax.

Moon rocks swelling? Someone want to document that claim? And I mean a NASA or science article, not hallucinated stories. And why would scientists go to medicine men? I mean, what possible reason would they have to even ask? Were there Indian stories of swelling rocks they heard of? This is just silly.

Yep. But I can see that SaturnV probably got most of his valuable info from this site. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

__________________
~AstroMike

Finally, a link to a page that will tell me how to attract and seduce with hypnosis. I never see great links like that on other science pages. These guys must really know their stuff.

'Ask Sen Mondale' ...Is that possible? Personally I just wouldn't know where to start.

Here's some more speculation on my part concerning the Baron report:

One of the things that has always bugged me is that the general assumption seems to be that there was only one copy. That suits the HB's claim that it went missing under mysterious circumstances. It's easier to claim that one copy went missing rather than multiple copies, but by my estimation there should have been at least three copies in different hands, and possibly more.

There was the so-called 'missing' copy that went to the inquiry,
There should have been a copy that Baron himself kept and probably
There should have been a copy taken by Sen Mondale, and possibly other copies made for the committee members.

It is inconceivable to me that Baron would have released the 'only' copy of what he must have considered his most important work on which he had laboured for months and over which he had lost his job. Even the infamous Fox film shows Baron entering the inquiry building carrying a large briefcase and a loose bound tome that looks as if it fits the bill. If that was the 500 page report as implied in the film then I would suggest that that copy probably went home with him afterwards leaving at least one other copy in the hands of the committee.

I would have thought that Sen Mondale was no fool. For him to have instigated Baron's appearance at the inquiry he would have had to have seen the report to know its contents and what Baron's testimony would be, if for no other reason than to safeguard his own credibility if Baron's testimony appeared to be inadequate in some way. That implies that he would have had it copied or that a copy would have been passed to him before the inquiry took place.

There were at least six members of the the committee. I would have thought that each of them would have been given individual copies of the original 'missing' copy to examine prior to the hearing, at least to appraise themselves of its contents, rather than the one copy passed among them.

Just conjecture though,
DK

Hallucinated stories, you say---can you document that?
Sure, it defies some peoples'logic, but consider that this book was written to document a then-current slice of time in the life of a contemporary Native American medicine man, warts and all. The rock incident was told as it happened; not to prove or disprove anyone's ideas about space, and is only another piece of the puzzle. I posted the excerpt simply to see if anyone else could corroborate or had heard anything similar. Furthermore, does anyone really believe NASA/the White House tells all? Particularly why we or nobody else (at least publically) has been back to the Moon?
As for the bee incident, anyone who's had a pet knows interspecies communication is possible.
(For any who may be interested, "Rolling Thunder Speaks" was published shortly after his passing.)

Sure, it defies some peoples' logic,...

No, it defies the historical records, not to mention various physical laws. Claiming that the lunar samples grew like living things is a truly extraordinary claim, and there is no evidence to back it up other than one guy's say-so.

Unless you care to provide [references to] any real evidence, there is no reason to believe this story was told "as it happened" rather than "as it was made up". (Hallucinated or not.)

BTW, I communicate quite well with my dogs and cats, but I don't pretend there's any symbolic ideas being exchanged.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-11-14 17:00 ]</font>

I could actually think of a scenario where they might shrink, but definately not grow.

Hollow on the inside with a vacuum. Earth pressure then crushes rock.

sts60 writes:
"...there is no reason to believe this story was told "as it happened" rather than "as it was made up"..."
Suit yourself, but to my way of thinking, anyone who can pass the 7 tests to be called a medicine man has my attention. (Note: my "as it happened" phrase only refers to RT's words (to author Doug Boyd) that "someone from the White House sent Mad Bear a request to look over some of the moon rocks". Attempting to contact Mad Bear now, thru RT's widow, to determine whether the "sent request" was in writing and whether he kept it.

"Mad Bear Anderson...passed in 1985..."
http://www.wovoca.com/

Oh, well...

The Seven Tests of a Medicine Man

1. Show that you have some medicine, like aspirin or wolf nipple chips, or demonstrate that you know where such things can be procured.

2. Show that you are, indeed, a man. This test is slightly different for medicine women.

Tests 3-7 are to be determined extemporaneously while doing a very somber dance and reading aloud from The Physician's Desk Reference.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Conqueror Worm on 2002-11-14 22:38 ]</font>

No, no, I seem to have confused you---that one is for Doctor of Medicine.
medicine man is the one that includes the rattlesnake, twin identical-appearing poison berries, telekinesis, etc.---that one.

How could I have forgotten the poison berries. The berries are integral to his understanding of medicine. To leave them out is to entirely miss the point of the whole medicine man experience. It's all about the berries, oh yeah, and the telekinesis. You can't have the berries without the telekinesis. That's like having a Penn with a talkative Tellar or eating your cereal with water which is something that only a dirty astronaut would do. Dirty, filthy astronauts. IS THERE NO END TO THEIR EVIL!

Hey, what can I say, and that's just the first three...

Okay, so you're not joking. You almost seem apologetic, and yet you say that someone who passes these tests is someone worth listening to, I'm paraphrasing. How are these tests conducted? How are the results quantified and reported?
My ex-roommate was a caucasian who was a practitioner of native (aboriginal) american spirituality. In many of our discussions he tried to recount to me how he'd been witness to levetation and telekinesis performed by a 6 year old child. I asked if things like this had ever been documented scientifically and he got angry and indignant. For some reason I don't think it's difficult to find practitioners of ancient religeons who eschew the modern scientific method.

Jigsaw wrote: Er, this is the same Doug Boyd who "related" the story about the woman who talked to bees?

Hey man, The Beastmaster could talk to ferrets and tigers and hawks. Bees are probably easy to talk to, like talking to an accountant, or maybe a riot participant.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Conqueror Worm on 2002-11-15 02:52 ]</font>