Interview with an Astronaught

[David WJ Sherlock]

I went to the Science museum today (Fri 01 June) and managed to talk to a NASA astronaught. I put forward questions about Moon surface temperatures and the Van Allen Belt. I have made a video of this and hope to get it in the domain asap. I am not a professional interviewer by no means. Plus I had to rush it in. So it is a little shaky on my part. However. Still interesting.

[karlos]

did you ask him why he doesnt come clean because fewer and fewer people believe he or his co conspirators ever went to the moon

like the guy on the internet you should have asked him to swear on the bible that he is telling the truth

[David WJ Sherlock]

[telecasterisation]

[rodin]

[David WJ Sherlock]

[rodin]

No links No names No details

Look forward to your video footage. Been nice if it had been one of the Apollo masons tho..

[Realyweely]

[rodin]

[karlos]

[Realyweely]

[marky 54]

you was one of the first to see them on the moon? you got the signal?

then you call us conspiracy theorists, yet we don't make things up to make something believable.

why not try disproving the information with actual evidence rather than using name calling and the same old "i was there i should know more than you", when the fact is for all we know you could be sweaty bob the chip shop worker from essex.

you claim there is far more evidence that man walked on the moon than the claims being said in this thread, yet you have provided none whilst those claiming what is in this thread have, so one has to wonder if that statement is even true.

if there is evidence to prove wrong claims in this thread why not provide it instead of name calling and making up storys.

proving people wrong with evidence makes them look stupid, calling people names and waffling on makes you look stupid.

i don't hold a postion on if the moon walk was faked or not, but nothing you have said has proved wrong the claims in this thread and you only strenghten the claims by failing to provide evidence you claim there is plenty of.

[Realyweely]

Due to the position of the earth in relation to the moon, its was Carnarvon in West Australia that received the Moon signals first, then relayed the signals across to the US. My friend was a techie there and I had been doing some work at Wittenoom at the time. He invited me up and I went.

Now as for proof. Im not the one saying they werent there. Let the skeptic provide the proof of his claims. There is reams of evidence out there that anyone with a logial brain can understand proving we walked on the moon. I dont have to provide that evidence its out there on many many websites. The people who did it are still alive. What would be the point in them lying? for what purpose

However its human nature that for every situation there will be someone who will disagree, though why they picked on the moon missions beats me.

Then again I suspect that Rumsfeld Bush and Blair still think theres WMD in Iraq.

[John White]

[marky 54]

[Realyweely]

[quote="John White] Well, lets say I give you benefit of the doubt on everything you say here "Realyweely" (including accepting you are currently at least in your 60's).[/quote]
No im 56 and was 19 at the time

Here is the real "smoking gun", clearly demonstrating major problems with the Apollo 11 story, that has NEVER been credibly debunked
The source is no relation btw, but a nice clear copy. The important info starts about 50 seconds in
What explanation do you have for this? As a "man on the ground", your views should be interesting
I dont mean all the theorising about newspapers btw interesting as that might be: just:
"Why were the astronauts placing cut outs against windows and darkening the cabin to make it appear the earth was a considerable distance away when it was just outside the window?"
Thanks.[/quote]

Firstly I think youll find they werent darkening the cabin at all. Thats a reaction to the focus. Focus on something outside thats bright and the contrast close up will darken. Thats easily visible when whoever was using the camers focuses back in, and the light comes back. They didnt have autofocus then and the F settings had to be done manually.
I think you will find also that the 'cut outs' placed against the windows were to filter down the flare of the Sun.

[Realyweely]

[quote="marky 54
fair enough, although i'll never know if you were there when the signal was recieved, i don't know you and for all i know you could also be telling the truth. just out of intrest realyweely what is your message implying underneath your posts, once upon a time there was nothing............. which exploded.
are you sceptical of what we are told about the creation of the universe? or are you just someone who takes an intrest in space related things?[/quote]

My sig is what I heard Professor Eric Braithwaite say at a lecture many years ago. When trying to explain the big bang, that was what he said.
"Once upon a time there was nothing, which then proceeded to explode." He laughed and then moved on, brilliant man by the way.
Creation of the universe is a strange concept to grapple with realy.

Im interested in many things, UFO's (seen 2 things which were certainly unidentified, one at Rendlesham and one in Oz), Anti Gravity and attempting to unravel the truth about certain places in the UK.
I dont work (well not work, per se, Im a musician) so have plenty of time to poke around.

Just another point so people know where Im coming from. I dont believe in an 11 September Twin Towers conspiracy. I do believe it was simply the terrorist thing.

(though Im still puzzled about what happened on the 9th November though )

[John White]

So how come Aldrin said the camera was right up against the window, when it was in fact set at the back of the cabin? And you did notice that big fat earth they are orbiting around when the cutout is removed rather than a distant orb they were apparently over half the diatance to the moon away from?

It is a bit of a poser, isnt it? in fact: its a dead give away: its simply impossible for the astronauts to have been in Earth orbit at this timestamp and still have made a landing on the moon. Arguments over flags flying and shadows and faceplates and so on are all very well, and the proffesional skeptics are always all over them, casting "logical doubt", but no skeptic will touch this footage with a barge pole: ignoring it is the only strategy they have

Rather like the JREF forum and "Press for Truth"! LOL

check that out if you havnt seen it, very worthwhile

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=press+fo r+truth

Btw, I only count this footage as casting doubt on the veracity of the Apollo 11 mission, and I can understand the temptation to fudge it: after all, the stakes were plenty high, and a failed mission spending billions to put three corpses on the lunar surface would hardly be a propoganda coup in the "Space Race": it is certainly not proof that we never went to the moon, and such claims from Sibrel and co are hyperbole. Its interesting to study the body language of astronauts when Sibrel quizzed them though: the early astronauts are nervous, facial evasion and so on suggesting hiding something: the later astronauts clear eyed and definate "are you f*cking crazy of course I went to the moon!". And I for one believe them. The Van Allen Belt argument in particular is meaningless: mankind is plenty capable of doing something suicidally dangerous in the name of adventure, as anyone whose climbed Everest (and survived the descent) is happy to tell us

[John White]

[Realyweely]

But I still cant see why the US would fake Apollo 11 and then continue it several more times, with even more moon landings

That would have involved an awfull lot of people to keep the thing going/

If you look back at what they did then, was use existing technology, pretty basic but proven gear. Now we have Health and safety and god knows what else who would put a stop to it, but back then I dont really think it was such a big thing.

In the 60's I drove cars and weird contraptions that I wouldnt even go near now. I didn things that would bring shivers to me now. People then thought they were invincible, we thought we could change the world, the slaughter at the US University soon changed those ideas.
But people did dangerous things back then, because they could. If you werent around at that time you wouldnt understand but the world was changing. We (the youth of the time) didnt really give a stuff about anything "Hope I die before I get old" was the saying at the time. Im still flabergasted I made it past my 21st birthday.
Basically, going to the moon, technically wasnt a big deal. Lob something out into space and around the earth, at a certain point give it a kick with a rocket and boot it onto a course to the moon. get it near enough to the moon and it will be captured by the moons gravity. The descent and ascent wasnt that big a deal. Swing back round the moon, give it a kick with a rocket and its coming back towards earth. I think I remember Gene Cernan say once that the most hazardous job of all was getting them back through the earths atmosphere.
Now everyone wants 100% safety 5 backups for everything. Wonder what Chuck Yaeger would have thought of all that when they strapped him into nothing more than a rocket with a seat and windscreeen then sent him off at Mach1?
Look back at the trains in the 60's, all with suicide doors that didnt even have safety locks.
If they had asked me to get on that Saturn 5 and gone to the moon or even mars I would have paid them as would most everyone at the time, what a trip.

[Realyweely]

[marky 54]

[John White]

This isnt a subject I want to devote too much time to, but I'll pick up two points to leave you to think about

[Realyweely]

I dont really see the earth being right outside when the cutout (filter) was removed. I see it as a difference in the focus and focal length of the camera they were using. Remember, it was 1969, there was no autofocus at all, everything had to be set manually. Focus and F stops had to be pulled manually so if he adjusted the F stops without adjusting the focus it would show whatever point was brightest as being large, apart from the fact that the camera is all over the place.


My main argument with the Apollo Hoax people is, where do you start.
Do you accept John Glen and The Mercury programme?
Do you accept the Gemini programme and Agena docking stuff?
Do you accept Apollo 8 orbitted the moon?

If you accept the above then there is no reason to disbelieve Apollo 11
I mean if you can accept that Gemini was real and the docking with the Agena test vehicles were real then there is little difference other than time and Lunar Lander testing?

I simply cannot see your reasons for a Lunar fake up. If people had of died then it would have made them even more determined. so I cant see that as an excuse.

The Manhattan Project was a lot lot different. It was wartime, and most if not all of those 'in the know' were either restricted to the camp or very closely followed as Oppenheimer found out.
Apollo (all of them not just 11) was an open project, people came and went as they wished.
At Carnarvon we watched the whole thing in realtime and would have noticed if there had been anything dodgy.

'

[Realyweely]

[quote="marky 54]my reply.
you sound like someone who dos'nt question what you are told by the media unless you 'KNOW' differant because you experianced it firsthand.

.[/quote]

I will believe anything if there is
A) Empirical evidence
B) I can examine, see, touch, look feel or hear that which I am asked to believe.

[quote="marky 54]
the media control what information we are able to hear about events and everyone just takes their word for it. .[/quote]

AHH more conspiracy theories?.
Apart from some things concerned with national security, I have a reasonable amount of faith in the UK newspapers and their independance.
What isnt reported in one paper will certainly be reported in another, and if it isnt reported in one country, its certainly reported in another.

[quote="marky 54]
i have no reason to disbelieve your u.f.o sightings, afterall i have seen something unexplainable my self once and yes it was very anti gravity in movement and speed.
i would just say though that you should think for yourself about each subject you may come across, the media have proved overtime they cannot be trusted to report all the facts and be unbaised and fair, the u.f.o subject alone should prove this if you have researched it.[/quote]


Im 56 years old (57 in 5 days time, OH * ) Ive been around a bit, lived in a few countries and dont really give a flying f**k what anyone thinks about what I think. I believe in UFO's because I have seen something with my own eyes. In Australia I and 5 other people watched something move across the sky, stop then shoot off at a 90 degree angle.
I was also in a village close to Rendlesham and saw some weird things.
I dont care if anyone believes or disbelieves me, its totally irrelevant. I know what I saw. Im not standing upand asking anyone to believe it, thats up to every individual to make up his her own mind.

The main problem with UFO's and the media is that its usually always the crackpots who get the publicity. The 'man in the street' is scared to come forwards for fear of ridicule. You must also realise the responsibility carried by the media with respect to the 'majority' of people in the UK, if not the world.
If, lets say they began reporting every UFO sighting and every contact (if indeed there have ever been any contacts) You would probably get highly religious groups start killing themseves or each other, because God created them in his own image, and we are supposed to be Gods chosen people. The existance of Aliens would mean no God, The 'Church' would collapse along with mainline religion so the Media has to be very carefull how far it will actually go.
Remember, behind every story, there is usually another one!

[Long Tooth]

[Realyweely]

I could answer all of your questions but I realy dont think there would be much point?.

You continue with your beliefs and Ill continue with mine.

[rodin]

[Realyweely]

[Long Tooth]