Talk:Brian O'Leary

Attention tag

See note from Brian O'Leary. Rlevse 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparent posting from O'Leary, moved from article page to here

Dear Sir,

I just looked at my entry into Wikipedia, and it is quite a distorted biography! First, I want to emphasize that there is only a REMOTE chance the Apollo landings were faked. But this is so out of context, I recommend your browsing my website, www.brianoleary.com for who I really am and what I´m doing, and accordingly update your entries.

Sincerely,

Brian O´Leary, Ph.D.

(moved by Rlevse from article page to here) Rlevse 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

what the hell?

is that reall from o'leary. if so that can not stand. were are the wikipedia admin people?

Actually, I think it really is him. Check the web site out. Rlevse 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is one of the funniest things i have ever seen.

That's not what I'd call it, but whatever. Rlevse 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think that that section could be cut down. It is obvious he doesn't think the moon landings were fake and pains must be made to show that. Gingermint (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote Brian’s bio

I wrote Brian’s NASA biography that was recently published:

http://www11.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/oleary-bt.html

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paths.htm#bio

and have collaborated with Brian in the past:

http://newenergymovement.org/arpa_e_concept_paper.pdf

I wrote this Wikipedia bio in consultation with Brian, and tried to not change much of what had been written before, but this change was intended to put more meat on the bones of what Wikipedia was calling a “stub” article before I changed it. I put up a version on my site which contains information that might not fit within Wikipedia’s guidelines, but provides information that I think the public can benefit from.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm

I ask that if you want to make changes to Brian’s Wikipedia bio that we first discuss it on this talk page. I do not want to get into edit wars, and am not overly concerned if editors want to make changes, but could we please discuss them first?

For instance, if the collective opinion is that too many academic articles are cited (considered “first-person” by Wikipedia), then we could do something along the lines of Gerard O’Neill’s bio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_O%27Neill#Publications

I am willing to be quite flexible, in the spirit of getting this acceptable for Wikipedia’s standards, for somebody as controversial as Brian’s life’s work has proven to be. Thank you,

Wadefrazier (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Wadefrazier|Wade Frazier

The Moon Hoax edit wars

Very unfortunately, Brian seems to be best known for his moon landing hoax speculations. When I rewrote the biography, I left in the language that was already there, not wanting to fight that battle. I originally left it in the “frontiers of science” section. If you look at the article’s history, you will see that somebody quickly gave the moon hoax issue its own section, and now we have an edit war breaking out over it. Brian’s relationship to the moon hoax issue may always be a political football, at least until cameras return to the lunar landing sites and provide clearer images than have been seen to date. With this incipient edit war breaking out, in early March 2011, I asked Brian his desire regarding the moon hoax issue, and he provided me with the following statement.

Dr. Brian O'Leary's "final word" about the moon landing hoax or non-hoax issue

Often I'm confronted with my opinion about an issue which has polar-opposite constituencies. And now and then, that issue is couched in black-and-white terms which, as a scientist, I cannot be 100% sure of without further study. That regrettably happened regarding whether or not the Apollo lunar landings were hoaxed. When confronted with these questions in the media, and in a speculative frame of mind (in my later years, I'm a fairly free thinker and so am a truth-seeker outside any vested interests whenever I can be), many related questions came to me and caused me to think more deeply about the issue: Wouldn't NASA want to save face in one or more of the lunar landings and have a backup scenario such as this, unlikely as this could be? Could at least some of the astronauts merely have orbited the Moon and not landed because of technical challenges at times during the race to the Moon? The fact is, I don't know these things for sure, but my statements have been manipulated by both opposing sides of the issue to imply I'm taking their side. I'm not, although one would get the impression that I am.

This flap is regrettable, because I have simply not sufficiently examined the scientific evidence on either side of the issue. So, in good conscience as a competent scientist, I cannot form an expert opinion without much more detailed research that could come out of an impartial investigation. I have chosen not to take the time to do the research needed to form an authoritative opinion. I'm sorry if the politicized nature of the debate seemed to have put me in the forefront of the debate, and for that I may have helped give both sides some ammunition to do so.

My choice now is simply to carry on with my own work rather than address issues relating to past events. My choice is partially based on a desire to focus on what we need to do NOW about our pressing global problems such as war, torture, injustice, climate change, environmental pollution, dirty energy and water, deforestation, nonrenewable resource exploitation and unsustainable environmental, health and agricultural practices. In these respects, my public persona mismatches who I really am and what I truly represent. So, I'd like to be relieved of the responsibility for having a strong polarized position on an issue about which I know little and cannot contribute much to the greater responsibility we have as a civilization.

With best wishes for a satisfactory resolution of the matter,

Brian O'Leary

I also have it on my site:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#statement

I am currently looking for a place that will publish Brian’s statement that the Wikipedia “editors” will not erase because it is “poorly sourced” or other reasons. That entire moon hoax section is about what Brian thinks about the issue, so Brian’s statement is the most authoritative source there is on this issue.

Please do not edit that section without discussing it first on this talk page. I don’t want to have to get the admins involved, but it may end up happening.

Thank you,

Wadefrazier (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Wadefrazier|Wade Frazier

It's a bit of a stunner that O'Leary doesn't think we have good enough imagery of the Apollo landing sites yet. Isn't this good enough for him? El Ingles (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you may be misinterpreting what I wrote on my site. My point about better images eliminating the controversy is not about them convincing Brian of anything, but the people who think the moon landings were hoaxed. Even then, NASA is providing those images of the landing sites – the same organization that is suspected of fabricating the moon landing evidence. That is part of the problem. It takes time and energy to get into the images, analyze them (to the extent that one’s skillset allows) and make scientific conclusions. Brian has publicly talked about Hoagland stretching the data on the “city” near the “face.” I have watched his visits to Sai Baba become huge political footballs, and so on.

If NASA fabricated the moon landing evidence (I don’t believe that, but that IS the bone of contention at play here), then making smudges and light spots on those images would be far easier, especially today. As Brian stated, he regrets getting into that entire moon landing situation, and would like to bow out. Again, the day he can go see for himself, or somebody else besides NASA visits those sites, or gets close enough for some highly convincing pictures, this entire controversy should disappear. I look forward to that day, but until then, I respect that Brian has bowed out of the situation, at least to the extent that he is able. I have been drug into it far more than I wanted to. Ten years after I satisfied myself about the reality of the landings, I still get drug into it, sometimes in very strange ways.

Wadefrazier (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Wadefrazier|Wade Frazier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs)

Date of death removed?

The cache shows that he supposedly died on July 28, 2011, in Vilcabamba. The current version shows him as alive. The date of death has been removed. What's going on, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.109.161 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It was incorrectly removed as vandalism, however it was right to revert it. Citation of a reliable source for the news is really required to assert someone has died. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am doing a tribute show on Brian next week. He definitely passed on the 29th (or 28th, depending on what time zone we are talking about). My understanding is that it was on the morning of the 29th, at his home in Vilcabamba, Ecuador. I have notified NASA, and at minimum, it will appear on NASA’s site next week, at least in his bio:

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/oleary-bt.html

The American media probably does not consider his death newsworthy.

Wade Frazier 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the cause of death. He was successfully treated for skin cancer in 2009. He had a heart attack in 2010. Only about a week before he died, he was diagnosed with intestinal cancer. His body was obviously having systemic failures. The notion that an unsuccessfully-treated skin cancer is not in that article cited, and does not align with the facts as I know them, which includes emails from Brian. One day soon, I hope, there will be more substantial documentation, but for now, the cause of death that I cited I believe is accurate.

Wade Frazier 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can't have this information lingering with no references, so I've removed all of it. __meco (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)