19 replies to this topic

[American Patriot]

While not solving the on-going mystery of who Charles T. Hawkins is an interesting turn of events HAS been posted to Google video. After reviewing the video I too wanted to find out who this Charles T. Hawkins guy was/is, which lead me here. I read all the postings and have found them quite interesting. Please follow the links I have provided herein to view the two "lectures" and judge for yourself. I still fail to contain my own doubts as to their true "smoking gun" effect but at least its more information. If someone could verify that it is in fact James Van Allen (correct spelling for those in doubt) it would begin to be a bit more interesting. However, falling short of this if anyone is willing to pay the $1 million dollar asking price for the second half and "definitive proof" section please do for U.S.All. Or if codebreaker or anyone else can break the "encription" of the second video than perhaps we all can but the moon hoax to rest once and for all.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8778933971278822059

Second video - "encripted"

**EDIT**

**Let's leave the temptation to break encryptions out of this.**

P.S.
I am still waiting and wanting to see those Clementine photos NASA didn't want us to see!!!

P.S.S
On this fact I have done extensive research about possible photos taken by - Clementine, Lunar-1, Hubble, ESA, or the Very Large Telescope (VLT) and the closest it seems they have come to proving that there is in fact evidencce on the moon of the landings they all have NEVER shown ANY photos. Therefore, if we can take high resolution photos of the Earth, Venus, and Mars why do we not have the same for our nearest neighbor the moon? I find it a very strange fact that most of these at one time or another have set out to "prove" the conspiracy theories wrong but have never done so in the end. If anyone has a link to a picture taken by anyone, of the landing site from Earth or orbit please forward. And please do not send in a link to Google Moon where you only pan into the landing sites and see cheese. Give me a break Google...

Edited by aquatus1, 24 January 2007 - 09:32 PM.

[frenat]

My opinion on Charles Hawkins
His book is laughable and provides no evidence of a fake just like every other moon hoax book out there. The audio tape is laughable too. We are supposed to believe that the "smoking gun" is during the second part of the interview when the second part is not provided for us to listen to. Being only audio and bad quality, we have to take the poster's word for it that the people heard are really the Hawkins and Van Allen. One of them sounds like they are on the phone so there is no proof that they have ever met before. So much for the "Van Allen mentor" lie from Hawkins.

As far as high res photos of the landing sites, most of those sources mentioned do not have the resolution necessary to even begin to make out the landers.  Only the VLT might but has yet to actually show that ability.  The info I have read seems to indicate that its best resolution would be in infrared and the landers would not be visible.  The high res photos we have of other planetary bodies have been taken by probes in orbit around those bodies.  We will soon have a probe around the moon (lunar reconaissance orbiter LRO) and should get some good pics from that.  Why don't we have any now?  Well, first, we do.  We have thousands of pics and hours of video footage from the landings themselves.  Those are higher res than anything you'll get until we land there again.  Why not any good ones from orbit?  There has simply not been the political will or the money to do so.  Sending stuff into orbit is not cheap let alone sending out of low orbit.  Hopefully that (the lack of political will) will change.

[flyingswan]

How come NASA is hiding Clementine data when Clementine wasn't a NASA mission?  If you want Clementine images, this is a good place to start:

http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/cgi-bin/clemen...lib/multires.pl

We already have high-resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites.  The early ones were taken pre-landing by the unmanned Lunar Orbiter probes, but the last three Apollos carried high-resolution cameras in the orbiting CSMs, and these captured the LMs on the surface, though only as bright dots casting long shadows.  For Apollo 17 the picture appears to me to also show the tracks of the rover.  Check the "enlargement of high-res view" pictues here:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slide...ing_index.shtml

[postbaguk]

<snip>

My own opinion is that Hawkins is just trying to con the gullible out of their money. Wouldn't surprise me if he posted some of the positive book reviews on Amazon himself.

Edited by postbaguk, 29 January 2007 - 11:27 AM.

[Lilly]

Quote

My own opinion is that Hawkins is just trying to con the gullible out of their money. Wouldn't surprise me if he posted some of the positive book reviews on Amazon himself.

Well, my own opinion is that Mr. Hawkins isn't even a real person. I think he's a construct (not sure who did the constructing though) designed (just as you said postbaguk) to con the gullible/naive/credulous out of their money.

[American Patriot]

I tend to agree with all of you about this Charles T. Hawkins fellow, especially after reviewing the video "lectures." Any real great scientist would have had a more professional lecture with James Van Allen. Can anyone verify that it even is Van Allen speaking? And what about the "evidence for a nuclear scientist to review" does anyone hear anything of real scientific importance in this firs video lecture.

Sorry this started a new topic yesterday as I'm a bit new to this site and operation, but thank you all for replying and let's keep trying.

I will review the link provided for the photos of the landing sites and thank you, I have searched high and low on the net for these. Cheers!!!

[American Patriot]

Reviewed the photos and high-resolution shots you spoke of flyingswan. But I'm sorry I just don't see anything in the photos, especially the tracks you state. Perhaps there are and its not an attack on you or anyone for that matter. My point is simply, if we are so interested in the moon, its hidden wealth of minerals, being our closest neighbor and eventual return, we seem to lack any good detail shots. For instance I can see my car in the basic version of Google Earth, in NASA photos we can clearly see the Rovers on Mars - and a fully high-resolution detail of Mars is becoming available. Why do we not have this for the moon? In either case, pro or con moon hoax jargon, it just seems strange. For all the hoaxing could easily be dispelled by a clear photo of the LLM or LLR or even tracks as you as you say for any of the missions. In every photo I find its a big arrow pointing to virtually nothing discernable.  But really why do we (science) not care enough to even send a satilite to continuously monitor the moon? They are not that expensive and so on but I know fear we are getting of topic again here - thank you for listening to my ramplings

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slide...ing_index.shtml

What about this video stuff - Does any of it mean anything? I think not but I'd love to hear more from the Forum....

[Lilly]

Quote

NASA photos we can clearly see the Rovers on Mars - and a fully high-resolution detail of Mars is becoming available. Why do we not have this for the moon?

We have to have something in orbit to take such photos. Even the Hubble space telescope can only resolve objects at about 280 feet (86 meters)...Apollo landers are simply too small. However, soon this will be resolved by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. But, I'm willing to bet that even photos of the Apollo landing sites won't be enough for some.

[MID]

Quote

While not solving the on-going mystery of who Charles T. Hawkins is an interesting turn of events HAS been posted to Google video. After reviewing the video I too wanted to find out who this Charles T. Hawkins guy was/is, which lead me here. I read all the postings and have found them quite interesting. Please follow the links I have provided herein to view the two "lectures" and judge for yourself. I still fail to contain my own doubts as to their true "smoking gun" effect but at least its more information. If someone could verify that it is in fact James Van Allen (correct spelling for those in doubt) it would begin to be a bit more interesting. However, falling short of this if anyone is willing to pay the $1 million dollar asking price for the second half and "definitive proof" section please do for U.S.All. Or if codebreaker or anyone else can break the "encription" of the second video than perhaps we all can but the moon hoax to rest once and for all.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8778933971278822059

The "lecture" is not a lecture.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone cannot see what this recording is, nor can I understand how anyone could not realize that this is not a lecture, and has nothing to do with Charles Hawkins, who it appears has been laid to rest as a non-entity.

This clip, with irrelevant footage of Apollo lunar EVAs and such inserted to keep the viewer occupied, is a question and answer session between Dr. Van Allen, apparently, and a group of KIDS.  There is a master of ceremonies present as well who seems to be directing things, but it is not known who that person is.

My God...

You can put any piece of junk you want on the Internet, and you can say anything you want about it, and someone, somewhere, is going to buy into it...


Hawkins has been put to rest.  There is no evidence of his existence, there is no evidence that he was ever a student of Van Allen (Van Allen kept detailed records of his MS and PhD candidates which are easy to find), this video is not a lecture, there is no Hawkins present on it, and there is no "smoking gun" concerning Apollo that has ever been presented by anyone knowledgable...

[adkchamp]

What gets to me the most is that everyone i know believed we were never on the moon...Why do we want to deny the fact that we were on the moon? Why do we want things to be a conspiracy? Just why?

[chris0871]

Quote

What gets to me the most is that everyone i know believed we were never on the moon...Why do we want to deny the fact that we were on the moon? Why do we want things to be a conspiracy? Just why?

Because most everything is as you get older this becomes more your reality if you really look at the whole picture .And no we don't need everything to be a conspiracy just because we lose such loss of life.

All you have to do is read history and you will see the truth it's quite simple .Just look what happened to JFK .

[muddyfrog]

Most people want things not to be a conspiracy.
Some want things to be a conspiracy.
Some people see clearer than those two groups.

I was the top group untill I was mabey 16 I think. Then I came to find out that my uncle can bring a sanatized handgun onto airplanes even after 9/11(legally). Many other such things happened along those same lines and so I couldn't hang on to my old world view.

that being said, most conspiracies are laughable at best.
9/11 and NWO and mabey JFK... Those are the ones I believe.

back on topic I think Hawkins is a character for a hoax, and not a moon hoax, but a moon hoax hoax, if you get my meaning.

Edited by muddyfrog, 30 January 2007 - 08:37 AM.

[postbaguk]

Quote

Reviewed the photos and high-resolution shots you spoke of flyingswan. But I'm sorry I just don't see anything in the photos, especially the tracks you state. Perhaps there are and its not an attack on you or anyone for that matter. My point is simply, if we are so interested in the moon, its hidden wealth of minerals, being our closest neighbor and eventual return, we seem to lack any good detail shots. For instance I can see my car in the basic version of Google Earth, in NASA photos we can clearly see the Rovers on Mars - and a fully high-resolution detail of Mars is becoming available. Why do we not have this for the moon? In either case, pro or con moon hoax jargon, it just seems strange. For all the hoaxing could easily be dispelled by a clear photo of the LLM or LLR or even tracks as you as you say for any of the missions. In every photo I find its a big arrow pointing to virtually nothing discernable.  But really why do we (science) not care enough to even send a satilite to continuously monitor the moon? They are not that expensive and so on but I know fear we are getting of topic again here - thank you for listening to my ramplings

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slide...ing_index.shtml

What about this video stuff - Does any of it mean anything? I think not but I'd love to hear more from the Forum....

Welcome to the form and discussion AP - always nice to hear new vioces from either side.

However - having debated with variuos people on Apollo for some time now, I think I can state quite categorically that clear photos of Apollo sites would be dismissed as fakes... or the hardware was placed there recently... or some other equally bizarre explanation.

[MID]

Quote

However - having debated with variuos people on Apollo for some time now, I think I can state quite categorically that clear photos of Apollo sites would be dismissed as fakes... or the hardware was placed there recently... or some other equally bizarre explanation.

I will concur with this position wholeheartedly.
I see no way that a hard-core hoax believer would accept an actual photograph, in supremely (i.e., impossible) high resolution detail, which clearly and undeniably shows Apollo artifacts sitting on the surface of the Moon as being anything but a fake.

Of course, such a photograph will be all but impossible, until someone else goes to the surface and actually photographs the stuff.  In that case, we'll have to wait and see what hoax believers say about it.   I'm certain that there'll be some conspiracy about the reality of the new lunar landing missions as well...

[American Patriot]

The whole Charles T. Hawkins seems to be very much a hoax. Even in the sense that to make one sound more scientific they choose a REAL scientist name in likeness - as has been discussed before in the forum. What bother's me the most is that if they (meaning Hawkins or the hoaxers) were even remotely real they would certainly post the second Google video free solely to discredit NASA et. al as they wholeheartedly would intend. Or even, bravely post their website/email address so we all could talk back at the mystery person. It's all a big joke, to what end is beyond us all, but it seemed interesting enough to join and discuss with you all; thank you for that.

Oooo I think there is some new conspiracy about the upcoming moon mission MID and I'm sure they will find there way here soon enough.  

One last item where is that blogger who went to the Charles Hawkin/James Van Allan (mispeellling intended) lecture when you need them? I thought for sure this New DISCOVERY would draw them out in the open again. Or maybe they're the one that finally found their old tapes of the "lecture." Cause I know that must have been one heck of a science class if what they talked about on the video was their circulum. Gee I want to get a degree from that school - Phd anyone.

In closing here, does anyone have link to a REAL James Van Allen lecture???