Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by DJW001


ALREADY been done, mate....already been done....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



(Am I the only one who misses good ole' "zorgon"???)

reply to post by weedwhacker


Cool, thanks. So it looks like this thread is just going to rattle along, then.

Well to be honest everything in this thread has already been done, I even pointed out several times one of the larger old threads with the subject matter in but the HBs ignore it, probably because it's not a video.
"What 179 pages? I'm not reading that!"
Makes you wonder how much studying they've done to qualify them to have a sensible opinion... oh.. wait a minute.....

Public Programming

Men Into Space was a half-hour American sci-fi series broadcast in black and white from September 30, 1959 to September 7, 1960 by CBS which depicted the efforts of the United States Air Force to explore and develop space. Spacesuit costumes and special-effects footage of space vehicles (shot with miniature models) were later re-used in The Outer Limits. The pilot episode used real, high-altitude pressure suits developed by the United States Navy.

The series was not set in a specific era, but clues throughout the scripts indicated that it took place in the mid 1970s to mid 1980s, with the first moon landingsomewhere around 1975.

In many episodes, the astronauts were faced with accidents or technical problems that required innovation. The program was not idealistic; missions sometimes failed and astronauts sometimes died. For example, a scientist-astronaut stricken with a heart attack while exploring the moon was not expected to survive the G-forces of the return flight, so his comrades stowed the space-suited patient in a steel drum filled with water, to cushion him during launch. A "Space Race" episode involved spacecraft from the USA and USSR starting out almost simultaneously on the first Mars mission, with one of the craft aborting its effort to rescue the other craft and crew after it experienced problems.

The series even included an episode whose plot essentially paralleled the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission's explosion in space more than a decade later, and another that was an uncanny foretelling of the accident that befell the real Gemini VIII mission in 1966.

Scripts often considered the human factor, and while action was the show's forte, humor and romance were part of the mix. Men Into Space predicted women astronauts and scientists, and married couples in space, although not entirely without a slightly sexist perspective from its all-male production staff.


The series was advertised as being for its era an extremely accurate preview of manned spaceflight, based on studies of the era and buttressed by technical assistance from the USAF's ballistic missile and space medicine offices. The spacecraft designs, however, veered inconsistently between early 1950s Wernher Von Braun concepts, and later, totally scaled-down proposals. Visual backdrops and conceptual designs of spacecraft, space stations and a moon base depended somewhat on contributions from notable astronautics artist Chesley Bonestell. The series also availed itself of extensive documentary footage of early missile launches. It evoked the earlier Disney space exploration documentaries, which in turn owed their look and feel to a widely read, early 1950s series on the subject in the old Collier's Weekly magazine, where Bonestell's art also held sway.

(using slo mo and wires on the moon)

Men Into Space, later syndicated as Space Challenge, used for its plots many technical and human problems anticipated by engineers and planners. For example, the show depicted attempts to refuel spacecraft by tanker in orbit, construction of a space telescope, an experiment to dispose of high level atomic waste by launching it into the sun, the search for life-sustaining frozen water on the moon, exploration and destruction of an asteroid whose orbit threatened Earth, and exo-fossil evidence of extraterrestrial life.

Although the series was modestly budgeted, it was cleverly mounted with what, for its era, were good special effects helmed by Louis DeWitt. Even decades later, the series can still be appreciated for its attention to detail and accurate physics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Looks like Foosm is the new cut-n-paste king. What's this got to do with White Noise again?

Yes indeed The Flying Nun was one of our projects. Less known, but of more lasting influence was our pioneering work on the three seasons of Men Into Space, which literally ushered in the era of manned space flight.

Fly by Foy

Peter Foy was born on June 11, 1925 in London, England. As a child, he was fascinated by James M. Barrie’s tale of Peter Pan, a story and character that would profoundly alter the course of his life.

At the age of 15, Foy first flew on a slim steel wire in a production of Where The Rainbow Ends, in which he performed the character of “the Sea Witch”. When the show’s stage manager was hospitalized, he also assumed those duties, which included the supervision of Kirby’s Flying Machines and the flying actors. He continued to act on stage and in film, joining the Royal Air Force in 1942 as a Navigator and Entertainment Officer.

After the war and the completion of his military service, he went to work for Joseph Kirby, a move that eventually brought Peter to New York as the flying supervisor for a 1950 Broadway production of Peter Pan, starring Jean Arthur and Boris Karloff. He began to experiment with and refine the Kirby equipment, redesigning the Compound Drum and eventually linking two of the systems together at a single suspension point, which he called the “Inter-related Pendulum”. This innovation made possible the soaring aerial choreography that helped define Mary Martin’s signature performance as Peter Pan for the 1954 Broadway musical, and for the live NBC telecast of the show in 1956.

1962 A Primitive Track-On Track™ is system developed for the Seattle World's Fair. This system revolutionizes theatrical flight, allowing for flights in environments with minimal available height, and allows for superb control, being especially useful in film work to come.

1963 The Track-On Track™ system is improved and is patented.

1965 Foy provides extensive flying systems making the filming of Fantastic Voyagepossible. The film wins that year's Academy Award™ for special effects... To aid in the film's floating effects, Foydevelops and then patents the Multi-Point Balance Harness... For even more advanced floating illusions,Foy develops the Fiberglass Body Tray

1968 The Floating Track System is Introduced.

1969 With PZAZZ produced in Las Vegas, Foyintroduces his Motorized Track-On Track™ System

Foy works with NASA and the television industry to be able to provide simulated coverage of the Apollo moon landing should live coverage be impossible.


In 1969, in preparation for the first manned moon landing, NASA engaged the services of Peter Foy to provide live simulations to the media in the event that the broadcast equipment in space failed (as was the case on an earlier Gemini mission). Of course sensible people realize that what we saw on TV was the actual landing, but nevertheless, the Foy/NASA team was at the ready. Perhaps the many strange rumors started from this experience.

Nearly 40 years ago, July 20th 1969, the world was glued to its TV sets in anticipation of Man's first landing on the moon......

FOY WAS THERE!

Amongst them was an apprehensive group of designers and engineers gathered at Grumman Aircraft. They were responsible for building the Lunar Module which had never been tested successfully in the Earth's atmosphere.

Among those present was Peter Foy. He too was apprehensive. Not that he was in any way responsible for the success of the mission. His only responsibility was simulating the actions of the Astronauts in the event the TV feed was lost.

He was in one of the Grumman Aircraft hangars which had been filled with rocks to simulate the lunar surface. In the middle of all of this was a full scale model of the LEM, an Astronaut (with wires attached), Mr. Foy, an assistant, and of course, a camera. As we now know, the landing was successful, and there was no break in the coverage. This was much to Peter's relief as their lunar landscape looked nothing like the place where they landed on that historic day.

yeah right...

at all those remarks that he worked on a fake set

Ok... so the BIG question is.... why would NASA need to have simulations filmed incase their broadcasting equipment failed?
Isnt reporting enough?
When have we ever simulated an event in the news incase broadcasting equipment failed during an event?


www.flybyfoy.com...
www.flybyfoy.com...
www.flybyfoy.com...

reply to post by FoosM


Your obnoxious over-exuberance and fascination with the cut-n-pasting indicates that you haven't yet been made aware of ATS' new policy regarding such actions.


In any case....after all the mess, to respond to your 's in earnest.

What part of the source that you copied/pasted didn't you understand?

It was perfectly clear, and spelled out completely (thanks to your extraordinarily large postings).

BTW!!.....was it, or was it NOT you, about 100 pages and several weeks ago, who posted videos of the CBS News coverage, where they simulated the Apollo Lunar landing action???

If it wasn't you, surely you must have seen the post???

In it, a person, using a lot of 's, asked just about a similar inane question as the one just above, in your latest screed.

For the record, and the benefit of those just stoppin' by....the SAME types of visual graphics were provided by all THREE major networks --- not just CBS, but ABC and NBC as well (and this is only in the USA...don't know about other nations' efforts) to help the audience understand what was happening at the time...when there was NO WAY to provide actual video footage!!

Isn't difficult to comprehend, is it?

Say a news organization is doing a story about an Aircraft Carrier....breaking news, something is happening to one of our vessels, well out to sea...and there is NO LIVE FEED! Simple, boring reporting does part of the job, but in order to get people's attention, and help them visualize what's going on, any number of simulated graphics, models, animation, etc can be used.

It was no different during Apollo missions.

I think just about every person over the age of eight understands this, by now.....



Side question to FoosM: Just how many people are accessing your screenname, and posting under it?? I see a definite change happening, every so often, in the tone and quality of narrative....

reply to post by FoosM

... His only responsibility was simulating the actions of the Astronauts in the event the TV feed was lost.
He was in one of the Grumman Aircraft hangars which had been filled with rocks to simulate the lunar surface. In the middle of all of this was a full scale model of the LEM, an Astronaut (with wires attached), Mr. Foy, an assistant, and of course, a camera. As we now know, the landing was successful, and there was no break in the coverage. This was much to Peter's relief as their lunar landscape looked nothing like the place where they landed on that historic day.

www.flybyfoy.com...

You need to read the whole thing, you know. In those days of live TV networks would often use simulated footage to provide some visual interest to live audio, Otherwise people might as well be listening to a medium they had then called "radio." In fact, I believe you have posted some clips of CBS's simulations.

As a keen photo analyst, do you see any difference between Foy's work and the real thing?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/62775f1a4598.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f0cfe7c3f83.jpg[/atsimg]
www.flybyfoy.com...

Thanks for sharing that info about the "Men Into Space" TV series. It sounds like it must have been great "hard" science fiction for the time. I'd like to find it on DVD somewhere!

reply to post by FoosM


Getting back to the "Apollo was a cover for the militarization of space" thread, let me just say: "I am shocked, shocked to discover that espionage is going on in outer space!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ebeaa7a54009.jpg[/atsimg]

The strategic and tactical advantage of the high ground was known for uncounted generations before Sun Tze got around to writing it down 2,300 years ago. It is therefore not surprising that the militaries and intelligence services of the world would be eager to exploit the obvious advantages of the ultimate "high ground."

Your cut and paste history fails to put certain things in their proper historical context. I was going to put it all in my own words, but I think a bit of cut and paste may be called for under the circumstances:

Clearly, the chief adversary of a nation's army should be another nation's army. But in practice, it often seems that the chief adversary of a nation's army is that nation's own navy or air force, and vice versa. Military services engage not only in international rivalry but also in interservice rivalry. These latter conflicts are fought not with lethal arms or over territory, but through lobbying and over “turf”—over the allocation of military roles, missions, and budgetary shares; they are fought not with weapons but over weapons; and they are fought not just in wartime but in peacetime as well.

With the full and formal independence of the U.S. Air Force in 1947, the army lost its major air mission. Indeed, in the Key West Agreement among the services in 1948, it lost any fixed‐wing combat aircraft and was left with only helicopters. ... Throughout the 1950s, the army tried to reenter the realm of airpower by exploiting the new technology of ballistic missiles. It had some initial success, but this route back into airpower was finally blocked by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who canceled the army intercontinental ballistic missile program, giving land‐based missiles solely to the air force....

The air force was the chief winner in these interservice conflicts of the late 1940s. During the next decade, through the Strategic Air Command (SAC), it continued to monopolize the strategic bombing mission, and under the Eisenhower administration it normally received fully half of the defense budget. The air force was supported by the new and politically influential aerospace industry. But the navy's development in the late 1950s of the submarine‐launched ballistic missile (SLBM) broke the air force monopoly of strategic nuclear weapons.

www.answers.com...

After the Second World War, it was obvious that the most important weapon would be what was then called the "Atom Bomb." (A misnomer, as all bombs are made of atoms.) At the time, the only way to deliver such a weapon was by air, making the newly independent Air Force the most strategically important service. The Army tried to counter this by developing missiles for that purpose. Their reasoning was as follows:

1. Rockets are artillery, and therefore come under the Army's remit
2. The rocket scientists surrendered to the Army, so finders-keepers.

The crazy rocket scientists had their own ideas. They wanted to send men to the Moon and Mars, but such ventures would be expensive, so they decided to squeeze funds out of the military by playing up the strategic aspects of spaceflight. It worked.

Naturally, the Air Force claimed jurisdiction. After all, space was "up," not on land or water. You can imagine how the other two services felt. (The Marines are part of the Navy... aren't they?) So, research into rocketry passed from service to service, landing in the Air Force's bailiwick.

Meanwhile, the wizards at CIA were chomping at the bit to put "eyes in the sky" with help from their pals at DARPA. Can you blame them?

Here's the point: none of this was secret. You were able to find all this out in public, on the ARPAnet, er, internet. It was covered extensively in the press at the time. Indeed, the Cold War consensus, reflected in editorials of the time, heavily favored the militarization of space.

Enter former General Dwight D. Eisenhower, brilliant commander of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, keen strategist and (allegedly) coiner of the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex."

More to come after "House, MD."




[edit on 6-8-2010 by DJW001]

The multiple FoosM's are derailing the thread again...all i see is a lot of cut and paste with no actually connection to Apollo.

FoosM(s), either make the connection explicitly or get back on topic. Beating around the bush isnt helping your cause. All anyone sees is a bizarre mix of anecdotes and no actual evidence.

Hello,

I'm looking into why Michael Collins aboard the command module was unable to see stars.

Anyway, something struck me while watching the press conference.

Does it appear to anyone else that Neil is being 'fed' his lines through an earpiece or similar device?

I think his stuttered delivery is quite strange. It is very apparent at 4.55 in the video.

reply to post by ppk55


Perhaps they are being told what to say by the teleprompter embedded in the desk?

And that is what they keep looking down at?

Originally posted by ppk55
Hello,

I'm looking into why Michael Collins aboard the command module was unable to see stars.

Anyway, something struck me while watching the press conference.

Does it appear to anyone else that Neil is being 'fed' his lines through an earpiece or similar device?

I think his stuttered delivery is quite strange. It is very apparent at 4.55 in the video.

Every time I see that video I cringe.
Guilty Guilty Guilty
Everything about their body language screams lies.
Its like they just had gotten into a big fight back stage.
I recall watching the TV show "LIE TO ME" and they had a picture of Neil at the press conference as if to say Neil lied.

Yes I it did sound like they were being fed information, or, as mentioned, they were reading off teleprompters, possibly there on their table.

As I understand there were no other press conferences of this sort for other Apollo missions?

Here is something small that maybe some of you can answer.
Is it possible to hit a golf ball on the moon at a distance of miles?

“Miles and miles and miles.” - Alan Shepard, Apollo 14, after connecting with his second golf ball on the moon.

Golf is played in many different types of weather. The type of weather affects how far the ball travels and its amount of spin. Knowing how the weather conditions affect your ball, therefore, is necessary to making correct club selections.

The trajectory of a golf ball and the distance it travels depends on its initial trajectory, speed and spin, as well as what it's moving through (air). The air is not always the same. It varies in temperature, pressure, humidity and density. If there were no air whatsoever, the golf ball would not travel far. Likewise, if a ball is hit in air with no spin, it will not travel far.

So correct me if Im wrong, but it appears it requires air for a golf ball to travel a significant distance. Or are we saying that due to the 1/6th gravity the ball travelled for miles?

“Because of the suit I was wearing, I couldn't make a good pivot on the swing. And I had to hit the ball with one hand.”

(wasn't it also because you were holding more than one ball?)

“The suit was so clumsy, being pressurized, it was impossible to get two hands comfortably on the handle and it’s impossible to make any kind of a turn. It was kind of a one-handed chili-dip.”

“Then I thought, with the same clubhead speed, the ball’s going to go at least six times as far. There’s absolutely no drag, so if you do happen to spin it, it won’t slice or hook 'cause there’s no atmosphere to make it turn.” - Alan Shepard talking about his moon shot to Ottawa Golf magazine.

Lets watch, shall we?


Wow... he seemed so disinterested after he hit the ball.
He just 'moon walked' away after he noted he hit the ball 'miles and mile's.
LOL.

And how could he tell the golf ball travelled miles?
How could he even see it with his helmet on?
oh wait...

Thirty-four years have passed since our most famous amateur golfer astronaut, Alan B. Shepard, Jr., described the exagerrated distance of his moon shot as “miles and miles and miles.” Those famous words followed a one-handed golf swing with a rigged up six iron on the moon. (See quotes) The first swing was reported to be a duff, but the next connected.

Although Shepard fired off those two golf balls in moon gravity which is about one-sixth of earth's (moon fact sheet), they did not go miles and miles and miles. Shepard later appended his estimate to drive distances in the 200 to 400 yard range. Still, not bad with one hand and encumbered by a suit that prevented a good pivot on the swing.

I sure wish I could see that javelin throw.


www.probablegolfinstruction.com...
www.pasturegolf.com...

Originally posted by zvezdar
The multiple FoosM's are derailing the thread again...all i see is a lot of cut and paste with no actually connection to Apollo.

FoosM(s), either make the connection explicitly or get back on topic. Beating around the bush isnt helping your cause. All anyone sees is a bizarre mix of anecdotes and no actual evidence.

No one is beating around the bush, if you cant see the connection, be patient, you will see it eventually.

I presented a question, or made a statement, and backed it up with quotes and references. The quotes tell the story.

Was Kennedy the main force behind the moon landing?
No, Kennedy was interested in playing politics with the Russians.
Did you get that? Did you get that Kennedy would have possibly cut the budget of NASA?

If you ask people to think about Apollo and a US president, Im sure they would say Kennedy. Even though Apollo moon landings happened under NIXON. Its time to really see what was happening during Apollo, peel the skins of the onion.

Now imagine who would be steaming hot mad if Kennedy cut the budget of Apollo?

The clue was stated in the film JFK.
Who was the real force behind space exploration, the militarization of space and the Vietnam War. Who had the most to gain?

Space was a new cash cow that would expand the Military Industrial Complex. That same complex Eisenhower warned the public about. So JFK had to go, because he stood in the way. Couldnt risk having him there for a second term.

When MLK was taking his anti war stance, guess what, he was eliminated.
His populist voice could have swayed minorities not to fight in Vietnam.

On 13 January 1968, the day after President Johnson's State of the Union Address, King called for a large march on Washington against "one of history's most cruel and senseless wars."

"We need to make clear in this political year, to congressmen on both sides of the aisle and to the president of the United States, that we will no longer tolerate, we will no longer vote for men who continue to see the killings of Vietnamese and Americans as the best way of advancing the goals of freedom and self-determination in Southeast Asia"

The Vietnam War was the most divisive American conflict since the end of the Civil War a century earlier. On the racial front, it was also America's first fully integrated war. Blacks and whites, Native Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans fought side by side. They saved each other's lives and died in each other's arms.

1966. CORE Cites "Burden On Minorities and Poor" in Vietnam: The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) issues a report claiming that the US military draft places "a heavy discriminatory burden on minority groups and the poor." The group also calls for a withdrawal of all US troops from Vietnam.

So who do you think opened the doors for minorities to have their equal rights, only to have them later fight in unpopular wars?

And who do you think they eliminated next for his supposed anti-war stance? You guessed it, RFK. Follow the Pentagon Papers.

It was King’s opposition to the Vietnam War that really upset J. Edgar Hoover. According to Richard N. Goodwin, Hoover told Lyndon B. Johnson that “Bobby Kennedy was hiring or paying King off to stir up trouble over the Vietnam War.” It is true that Robert Kennedy, like King, was growing increasingly concerned about the situation in Vietnam. Johnson became convinced that Kennedy was leaking information to the press about his feelings on the war. At a meeting on 6 th February, 1967, Johnson told Robert Kennedy: “I’ll destroy you and everyone one of your dove friends. You’ll be dead politically in six months.”

Find that individual, and find out when he died. Again, take a look at the timelines.

How does that relate to Apollo? Again, if Apollo was a cover for covert operations, expanding the Military Industrial Complex, by soaking up loads of funding for rocket technology and other military tech, then you can understand how important it is to see the entire picture. Blinders will not get you to the truth. And as far as I know, we are exploring in this thread, many angles to the hoax. Ive said that long before, Im going to hit you with all kinds of stuff. Some stuff will fly over your head, some will hit you between the eyes.

Did they go to the moon, if not, why did they lie about it? Furthermore, why fake it? This opens a door to a lot of theories and possibilities. My long research is taking me to this route. Maybe someone else has other, even better ideas.

More to come.

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
www.english.illinois.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.cdi.org...

Supposedly LBJ has classified several Apollo documents to the year 2026.
What could he possibly be hiding from the public?
UFOs?

Lets look at some declassified documents

Apollo 6 documents
Formerly classified as TOP SECRET
(declassified by the National Reconnaissance Office)

www.private-files.com...
Now why would the NRO be involved?

In May 1960 Francis Gary Powers fell out of a cold Siberian sky and into the flames of an international incident. But before the Soviet Union revealed that Powers was still alive, NASA implemented a cover story, rolling out a U-2 spyplane painted in agency markings and claiming that the missing airplane was a NASA aircraft on a civilian research mission. When the truth was finally made public, NASA was embarrassed and senior agency officials were outraged because they believed that they had been mislead by the intelligence community.

The Apollo program was carried out amid the klieg lights of the press on the world stage. That was, after all, the point—it had to be public, even the failures. However, there were aspects of Apollo that were classified. Relatively minor aspects, admittedly, but ones that still affected American national security.

In the event that an Apollospacecraft was unable to leave Earth orbit, which could have happened if there had been a problem firing the third stage engine on the Saturn 5 which placed the Command and Service Modules and the Lunar Module on a lunar trajectory, or an early problem with the Lunar Module, the Apollo astronauts had a backup mission. They were supposed to circle the Earth and take photographs of the surface using the various cameras that they had aboard their spacecraft. Although this would have been a scientifically disappointing mission, and a major propaganda failure, it was NASA’s best attempt at salvaging something from the mission. For some of the later Apollo missions, the Command Module mounted a powerful camera intended for photographing the surface of the Moon. In Earth orbit, this would have produced relatively good photographs of the ground, better than any publicly released before—in fact, of a quality not publicly released until the 1980s.

Memos about Apollo contingency orbits
Formerly classified as SECRET and TOP SECRET
(declassified by NASA)

www.private-files.com...

Itek Corporation was a US defense contractor that initially specialized in the field of camera systems for spy satellites. In the early 1960s they built a conglomerate in a fashion similar to LTV or Litton, during which time they developed the first CAD system and explored optical disk technology.

Itek also found a customer for their panoramic cameras with NASA, who used them both on Project Apollo for mapping the lunar surface,[15] as well as Project Viking's Mars landers. Later they built the back-up mirror for the Hubble Space Telescope as well as portions of the Keck Telescope and similar projects.

Here is one for Apollo 17
www.private-files.com...

Apollo 17 Contingency Plan to 40 Committee
Formerly classified as TOP SECRET
(declassified by the National Reconnaissance Office)

They would get 10 meter resolution imagery.

SKYLAB
www.private-files.com...

Apollo Earth Orbit Contingency Photography
Formerly classified as TOP SECRET
(declassified by the National Reconnaissance Office)

And here is something interesting... STANLEY KUBRIK
and other optional directors.

June 4, 1965 memo that mentions Stanley Kubrick (on USIA letterhead)
Formerly classified as CONFIDENTIAL
(from the LBJ Library -- plus photos of Kubrick with NASA officials)

www.private-files.com...

Now why would this be CONFIDENTIAL? And what was the end result ?


Some info on Committees mentioned

303 Committee
The covert actions oversight group was renamed the 303 Committee after National Security Action Memorandum No. 303 on June 2, 1964. McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor, became Chairman for the committee.

The successor to the Special Group was the 40 Committee.

40 Committee
The 40 Committee was a division of the Executive branch of the United States government whose mandate was to review proposed major covert actions. In 1970 the 40 Committee played a major role in so called "Track I" efforts to prevent Salvador Allende from taking office following the Chilean popular vote of September 4, 1970.

The Committee was a successor to earlier covert oversight and planning groups, variously known as the Special Group 10/2, 5412 Panel, NSC 5412/2 Special Group, Special Group (until 1964), 303 Committee (to 1969), existing since 1954 at the latest.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.private-files.com...
www.thespacereview.com...

More interesting than your previous points Foos.

However, just about everything is classified in some situations. Even when movie directors ask advice about certain topics they classify it anyway. See the Jackal.

I had a look through some of the documents - nothing jumping out at me yet.

reply to post by FoosM

And here is something interesting... STANLEY KUBRIK
and other optional directors.

The United States Information Agency was the government's international PR unit. They provided information about life in the United States in an attempt to counter COMINFORM propaganda. Sponsoring a film to portray America positively is in their remit. To guaranty that the film would be successful at the box office as well as make the intended talking points, they wanted to recruit the best possible director. Elia Kazan, George Stevens, William Wyler and Fred Zinnemann were their top choices. Stanley Kubrick was mentioned by four of the six critics consulted, putting him behind John Huston, with five, who was disqualified for no longer being an American citizen. Alfred Hitchcock was also mentioned, but it was obvious why he would not be appropriate for such a film.

So what does this have to do with Apollo? Here is a never classified photograph of Mr. Kubrick at Pinewood Studios during the filming of 2001. In it are some of the technical advisers he consulted for the film, including British author Arthur C. Clarke and US astronaut "Deke" Slayton. (And apparently some passing cricketer.) This is the photograph reproduced on the pdf file you link to.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd69f85f03db.jpg[/atsimg]
From the same source, a photo that illustrates some of the drawbacks in your beloved "front projection" process. Where is your blue spotlight?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/74b1a8a8e0b6.jpg[/atsimg]

www.danrichter.com...

I'll get back to revisiting your pseudo-historical thread later. Here's a clue: why did JFK create the NRO if there was already a CIA?

reply to post by FoosM


Foos..... Is it that you just don't care anymore??

The anonymity of the Web means that you can so thoroughly embarrass yourself, over and over again...is that it??

No consequences, no personal repercussions --- because no one knows who you really are???

Therefore, do you feel it's OK to just keep posting nonsense, no matter how idiotic....to further this ridiculous obsession with the "hoax theory"???

Would be interesting if you had a PUBLIC face, and reputation, to back these screeds...because they surely do not put you in the best of light, in the logic and rationality departments....

This for instance. It's the kind of school-yard-level "taunting" that no normal adult would take seriously:

Lets watch, shall we?

Wow... he seemed so disinterested after he hit the ball.
He just 'moon walked' away after he noted he hit the ball 'miles and mile's.
LOL.

And how could he tell the golf ball travelled miles?
How could he even see it with his helmet on?

Only YOU ( and possibly "Jarrah White" ) would be able to watch that video, and then respond as you did, with a seriously straight face.

Except, I believe it isn't the case. YOU ( and "Jarrah 'White Noise' White" ) are intentional provocateurs...and you are not alone in perpetuating this nonsense. Because there's a cynical side to it, and a GREEDY profit motive, isn't there???

There is no need to explain the obvious to those who watch that, and read your comments...they already speak volumes.

BUT...much gratitude FOR that video clip, because it (on the soundtrack) provides the PROOF that dispels yet another of the "hoaxist's" many inane claims....I suggest eveyone who may still be "on the fence" take a good, loud LISTEN to the radio conversations, between CapCom and the Astronauts.

Pay attention to the "beeps"....the Quindar tones, and you will clearly hear the time delay that exists, as radio waves have to make the round trip at lgiht speed, between Earth and Moon.

There are other such examples....but, many "hoaxists" attempt to fool their audience by selectively including ONLY those recordings of transmissions that don't happen to have an open mic that caught the delay, and thus recorded it for posterity....the apparent "lack" of delay is an illusion, and depends on the point-of-view of the particular recording's frame of reference.

Just watch a very remote satellite link-up on TV, even today --- the effect is shorter, since the Geostationary orbiting satellites are much closer to Earth then Moon, but the delay is noticeable.

FoosM....I am afraid, for you and "Jarrah 'White Noise' White" the only people who will continue to fall prey to this rubbish, this Apollo "hoax" [color=gold]BS are the ones who have not yet been educated sufficiently to see through the baloney.

Those who DO learn soon realize they've been had --- IF they had fallen for it, initially. I hope they get VERY angry at you, and yyour ilk.

You see....when people DENY IGNORANCE a great new area of enlightenment opens up to them.

It is truly tragic when certain others choose not to enrich their understandings of science and technology, and reality.

Truly tragic....









[edit on 7 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ppk55
Hello,

I'm looking into why Michael Collins aboard the command module was unable to see stars.

I am not sure excactly what you are refering to with that comment, this thread is very long (and has a lot of really long posts!) so I may have missed something. But I just wanted to mention that all the Apollo missions carried a sextant so they could also navigate by the stars.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0dff5019dfe.jpg[/atsimg]

Between December 1968 and December 1972, a total of nine Apollo spacecraft carried human crews away from the Earth to another heavenly body. Primary navigation for these missions was done from the ground. As a backup, and for segments of the mission where ground tracking was not practical, an on-board inertial navigation system was used. Astronauts periodically used a sextant to sight on stars and the horizons of the Earth and Moon to align the inertial system, and to verify the accuracy of the Earth-based tracking data.

(...)

The Apollo Guidance and Navigation System The sextant fulfilled the need for a device to aid the alignment and bound the drift of the inertial system. The instrument consisted of two telescopes. The first was a one-power, wide-field scanning telescope, which was used to locate a star or constellation in space. The second was a 28-power sextant, which took the actual reading. Although it did not look like a traditional sextant, it operated in a similar manner. The astronaut sighted on two heavenly bodies: two stars, or a star and the horizon of the Earth or Moon, adjusted the optics until they were aligned over one another, and then pressed a button marking the instrument’s reading and the time. One of the axes of the telescopes was fixed, so that the process of finding the Earth or Moon typically consisted of orienting the entire spacecraft around until that body came into the field of view. Once a reading was taken, the on-board Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) computed the spacecraft’s position, based on those readings and data stored in its memory.

Read more here:
www.ion.org...

And this is a star chart from the Apollo 11 mission, it was sold for an amazing $218,000 at an auction in New York last year:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb210d54fbbe.jpg[/atsimg]
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by DJW001

The United States Information Agency was the government's international PR unit. They provided information about life in the United States in an attempt to counter COMINFORM propaganda. Sponsoring a film to portray America positively is in their remit. To guaranty that the film would be successful at the box office as well as make the intended talking points, they wanted to recruit the best possible director...

So what does this have to do with Apollo? Here is a never classified photograph of Mr. Kubrick at Pinewood Studios during the filming of 2001. In it are some of the technical advisers he consulted for the film, including British author Arthur C. Clarke and US astronaut "Deke" Slayton. (And apparently some passing cricketer.) This is the photograph reproduced on the pdf file you link to.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd69f85f03db.jpg[/atsimg]
From the same source, a photo that illustrates some of the drawbacks in your beloved "front projection" process. Where is your blue spotlight?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/74b1a8a8e0b6.jpg[/atsimg]

www.danrichter.com...

According to the caption add:
George Mueller

George Mueller (born July 16, 1918) was hailed as one of NASA's "most brilliant and fearless managers"[2]. He was Associate Administrator of the Office of Manned Space Flight from September 1963 until December 1969. He was instrumental in the "All-up" philosophy of testing the Saturn V booster that accelerated a floundering Apollo program and ensured it would succeed in landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth by the end of 1969. Mueller (he pronounces it "Miller") also played a key part in the design of Skylab[3] and championed the space shuttle's development.

Apollo astronauts giving a shout out to the Shuttle
Must have been part of their contract, LOL.

1:15

and the Cricketeer is.... Frederick I. Ordway III

Frederick Ira Ordway III is a space scientist and well-known author of visionary books on spaceflight. He owns a large collection of original paintings depicting astronautical themes. Ordway was educated at Harvard and completed several years of graduate study at the University of Paris and other universities in Europe. He is a member of many leading professional societies and is the author, co-author, or editor of more than thirty books and over three hundred articles.

As scientific consultant, he was part of the production team of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

It all began back in January 1965. On the 14th, my close friend and working associate Harry H.K. Lange and I left Huntsville, Alabama...

During the course of the day, someone told me that Arthur C. Clarke was in town. Knowing that he usually stayed at the Chelsea Hotel, I rang him there at my first opportunity...

And so it turned out. Our conversation wandered from subject to subject. How was the work progressing on Saturn V and other programs at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville? Was Wernher von Braun well? And, by the way, what had brought us up to New York?

And what was Clarke up to? What was he doing in New York? Well, he said, he had come to publicize his recently published Time, Inc. book Man and Space and to work with motion picture director Stanley Kubrick on a space fiction film.

I inquired how the two had met. Kubrick, it seems, had read voraciously all the science fiction material he could lay his hands on as he was planning his project. Naturally, Clarke's work was prominent, leading Kubrick to seek him out.

Clarke briefly related what Kubrick hoped to accomplish. First of all, he wanted to create the space fiction film, one against which all others would be measured. It would-be a big budget, big screen effort, serious, and scientifically and technically plausible. It would portray man facing the immensity of the universe and consider the possibility that life may exist out among the stars. Lange and I listened attentively.

And Arthur Clarke's role in Kubrick's scheme? Author, or perhaps co-author, of the screenplay, which would be based on the Clarke short story The Sentinel published 15 years earlier.

Lange then said something like, "What a coincidence. One of the reasons Fred and I are here in New York is to turn over to Prentice-Hall some preliminary chapters and artwork for a book on the very subject you and Kubrick are planning." We then talked about our project: a book to be entitled "Intelligence in the Universe", co-authored by Roger A. MacGowan of the Army Computation Center in Huntsville and me, and illustrated by Lange.

Stanley Kubrick? Why was he calling me? How does he even know who I am? These thoughts flashed through my mind. Answering my unasked question, Kubrick explained that Arthur Clarke had just rung him up from a phone box on Sixth Avenue and suggested that he get in touch with Lange and me before we went off to our dinner. He was most anxious to meet us, and would we join Clarke and him the next day? The morning being committed, we agreed to get together in his apartment at 1pm the next afternoon, the 23rd of January, 1965.

Harry Lange and I spent most of the next afternoon with Kubrick and Clarke, learning what had been accomplished thus far and the schedule of activities shaping up for the coming months. Kubrick was particularly interested in the work Lange and I had been involved with for Von Braun at the NASA-Marshall Center and before that at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in Huntsville, Alabama.

Oh this is getting juicy indeed!

on the 25th of September 1965, the director of NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight, George Mueller, and astronaut Deke Slayton arrived at the studios. When Mueller saw the amount of documentation Lange and I had brought with us from the States, he dubbed our office complex "NASA East". Once filming got under way, the number of visitors increased, with the result that some days I had to gather groups into one of the screening theatres for mass-audience briefings. From there, we would invariably go onto the sets.

Now why would somebody like Mueller waste his time visiting the set of 2001? He had five years to land men on the moon. Was he looking for tips?

www.visual-memory.co.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...