ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: apollo16uvc on May 02, 2018, 08:58:47 AM

Title: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: apollo16uvc on May 02, 2018, 08:58:47 AM
Auditing Apollo An ongoing Photographic Investigation.

This guy has been making video's on the topic of flat-earth, faked space images and of course Apollo. It is updated regularly.

Below you can find a list of some of his video's on it:









Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 02, 2018, 02:18:44 PM
Oh. Deary. Me...

I made it about half way through the first one, then went off to look up Scott Henderson, who apparently put in over 10,000 hours* researching this.  This guy has a very serious problem with pareidolia, apparently seeing cars, trucks, beer cans, and all sorts of other nonsense in the images and videos.  I've seen quite a lot of people going down this route before, seeing things in images from the Moon and Mars, but he's taking it to a new level  ;D


[ * At a conservative estimate, 10,000 hours equates to at least 5 man-years full time work.  I'd call that extreme dedication, if it hadn't been spent on a completely pointless pursuit. ]
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 02, 2018, 04:45:31 PM
Although some of the video footage and photos, do indeed cast doubt on the Apollo missions, it’s the way the story unfolded that convinces me it was all an enormous hoax. There were just too many giant leaps for this fairy tale to be taken seriously, Apollo 8 being the prime example. Shortly after allegedly working out how to put men into orbit, they stuck three men on the top of a giant rocket and sent them to the moon and back.

It really annoys me, the way some people can sit there and defend this BS and twist things in order to make the likes of me look like insane idiots. I don’t have a higher education as some of you NASA enthusiasts may have, but I do possess common sense, and I don’t need to understand NASA’s take on radiation or orbital dynamics to understand, if it’s not tested, don’t put human life at risk.

I was seventeen when Apollo 8 was launched and I remember an article in a newspaper stating that several countries expressed grave concerns about the mission, saying that the astronauts would not survive. I also read an article shortly after the alleged mission, concerning an interview with a NASA spokesman, where he was asked if they had any concerns regarding radiation. His answer was, well we knew it was dangerous, but we decided to go anyway. Today, NASA tell us it was no big deal, but back then, according to Van Allen, space was a sea of deadly radiation.

As far as I’m aware, they didn’t have a time machine, so they could only go on information they had at the time, which was zilch. Even today, they are still trying to work out how to protect those delicate instruments before they can venture beyond LEO again. It’s a shame they destroyed the plans for the Apollo hardware as surely an extra layer of tinfoil would do the trick.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 02, 2018, 05:01:53 PM
The tinfoil is in your headgear.

None of the photos, video and TV footage cast doubt on the missions - quite the opposite. If you think they cast doubt, tell us the doubts you have. You doubt does not automatically cancel out my certainty, so you need to put a bit more effort in there to convince anyone here.

There were no giant leaps in the story, just a continuum of scientific and engineering steps balanced against what was considered to be acceptable risk.

It really annoys me, the way some people can sit there and defend hoax BS, particularly when they admit to having no expertise in the subject and don't seem too keen on acquiring any. Like, for example, an understanding of the  in depth and repeated testing that was done to prove the equipment's capabilities and that it met requirements.

If you can remember an article saying 'several countries expressed grave concerns' then let's see it. Show us the article. IN fact, show us anything that doesn't just amount to the same old 'gee it kinda looks funny' and 'boo NASA'.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 02, 2018, 05:22:43 PM
...

Shortly after allegedly working out how to put men into orbit, they stuck three men on the top of a giant rocket and sent them to the moon and back.

...
Ummm, no, that's not quite what happened.

I suggest more real research, and less youtubing for information on the full story of the development of spaceflight.  You might start from Gagarin's flight in 1961, or with Sputnik in 1957, or if you want a proper historical perspective, read up on people like Goddard and Tsiolkovsky.

Every step on the way to the Moon was built on top of what was learned in previous steps...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: raven on May 02, 2018, 05:41:47 PM
cambo, common sense is really just a bunch of biases and rules of them for a specific environment. When an environment is different from that one those biases are based on, 'common sense' is violated.
Sure, Apollo was dangerous, if you look at the missions in any detail, most, if not all, had some kind of problem that occurred, though only once did it result in a cancellation of a landing, but  it wouldn't be the first time a dangerous stunt was pulled for national prestige. The rest is just aimless  hearsay without sources. The 'Ah'm not a smaht man' shtick might work on your fellows with a distrust of anyone with any kind of expertise, but we try to stick to a higher standard of evidence here. Not everything is intuitive, though understanding the gist is no hardship to the intellectually honest. You look like  idots well enough enough without our help.
Mercury, Gemini and the earlier Apollo 7 flight (not to mention the unmanned Apollo flights that helped pave the way for Apollo 8, which in turn paved the way for later missions. Mercury showed NASA how to get into orbit, but Gemini  taught the techniques that were absolutely necessary for a successful Apollo flight, such rendezvous, docking, and EVA. Your ignorance is palpable.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: jfb on May 02, 2018, 05:47:25 PM
Although some of the video footage and photos, do indeed cast doubt on the Apollo missions, it’s the way the story unfolded that convinces me it was all an enormous hoax. There were just too many giant leaps for this fairy tale to be taken seriously, Apollo 8 being the prime example. Shortly after allegedly working out how to put men into orbit, they stuck three men on the top of a giant rocket and sent them to the moon and back.

Getting to orbit from the surface of the Earth is a significantly harder problem than getting from Earth orbit to the Moon and back.  Like the saying goes, once you've made LEO, you're practically halfway to anywhere in the solar system. 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 02, 2018, 06:40:52 PM
“Unmanned Apollo flights that helped pave the way for Apollo 8”?

Then can any of you explain what parts of the Apollo 8 mission were tested prior to launch? As far as I’m aware, there were no unmanned missions to test the Apollo 8 hardware. Everything beyond LEO, if we are to believe they got that far, was only theory. It would be the first time the third stage rocket would be fired to achieve the theoretical translunar injection in order to rendezvous with the moon in three days’ time. It would be the first time humans travelled through that deadly sea of radiation. It would be the first time an Apollo craft would attempt to achieve orbit around another celestial body. It would be the first time Trans earth injection would be attempted to set a trajectory toward earth. It would be the first time re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere was attempted at such a high speed (over 24,000 mph) and managing to splash down within three miles of the recovery ship.

Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable. It’s even taught in schools, which is criminal. Have any of you ever given serious thought to the fact that not one country has sent humans through the belts since the alleged Apollo missions? No of course you haven’t. Is it because it has already been done? Or maybe it’s the money? Pathetic!

As for the news articles, I was in the habit of throwing away newspapers after I’d read them back then, how stupid is that? And calling me an idiot is typical of you people, as you realise you might end up losing the argument, so you dish out verbal abuse in an attempt to dissuade people from making further comments. Grow up!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 02, 2018, 06:47:26 PM
I was seventeen when Apollo 8 was launched and I remember an article in a newspaper stating that several countries expressed grave concerns about the mission, saying that the astronauts would not survive. I also read an article shortly after the alleged mission, concerning an interview with a NASA spokesman, where he was asked if they had any concerns regarding radiation. His answer was, well we knew it was dangerous, but we decided to go anyway.

I'm sorry but I believe you are seriously mistaken. I am sure they said something to the effect of "There are risks, yes, but we have done our best to mitigate against them. We have a high degree of confidence".

Can you please show us examples of your claims?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 02, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
Oh - and "common sense"? "Common sense" tells you that in the image below, the squares A and B are different colours... but they are not. They are exactly the same colour. That's why you cannot rely on "common sense".

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 02, 2018, 06:53:46 PM
As far as I’m aware, there were no unmanned missions to test the Apollo 8 hardware.

Do more research then. For one thing Apollo 7 tested the CSM manned, and it worked. Apollo 4 and 6 tested it unmanned. Previous APollo test fights also occurred. Look them up.

Quote
Everything beyond LEO, if we are to believe they got that far, was only theory.

How do you draw that conclusion? There had been plenty of unmanned lunar flights by then, by NASA and the USSR. Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, Zond, Luna...

Quote
It would be the first time the third stage rocket would be fired to achieve the theoretical translunar injection in order to rendezvous with the moon in three days’ time.

And? Physics works the same way everywhere. If the thrid stage works (as the fact it got into Earth orbit proved), pointing it in the right direction and firing it will send the spacecraft on a translunar trajectory.

Quote
It would be the first time humans travelled through that deadly sea of radiation.

Are you seriously suggesting you have read this thread and actually think that argument has any validity whatsoever?

Quote
It would be the first time an Apollo craft would attempt to achieve orbit around another celestial body.

And?

Quote
It would be the first time Trans earth injection would be attempted to set a trajectory toward earth.

And?

Quote
It would be the first time re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere was attempted at such a high speed (over 24,000 mph)

Wrong. Apollo 4 tested Apollo hardwre in a simulated translunar speed re-entry.

Quote
and managing to splash down within three miles of the recovery ship.

It has nothing to do with 'managing' and everything to do with knowing how the physics of re-entry works

Quote
Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science,

Cobblers. It's physics and aeronautics, and it works, as plenty of other agencies have demonstrated by now.

Quote
It’s even taught in schools, which is criminal.

ANd now we're into plain ludicrous territory.

Quote
Have any of you ever given serious thought to the fact that not one country has sent humans through the belts since the alleged Apollo missions?

Irrelevant. SO many more spacecraft have been through and in the belts, and data has been gathered for decades, and none of it contradicts the Apollo story.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 02, 2018, 06:54:50 PM
Although some of the video footage and photos, do indeed cast doubt on the Apollo missions, it’s the way the story unfolded that convinces me it was all an enormous hoax. There were just too many giant leaps for this fairy tale to be taken seriously, Apollo 8 being the prime example. Shortly after allegedly working out how to put men into orbit, they stuck three men on the top of a giant rocket and sent them to the moon and back.


Oh my, Too many giant leaps?  The whole basis of Mercury, and Gemini were conducted to test procedures need for Apollo to be a success.  Starting in 1961 the tests built on what was learned from previous missions.  Learning how to operate in space, change orbital planes, rendezvous and docking to be able to successfully lift off from the Moon and dock to bring the rock samples, and photographic evidence.  Working in space for longer periods of time.  Radiation was and still is misunderstood by a large number of people, mostly because they don't take the time to research.  Back in 1969 there may have been countries that noted alarm, but not a show stopper.  If you had read the radiation thread you would find that there was a danger of Coronal Mass Ejections, something that was/is to be feared.  But these are infrequent and there were contingencies to protect the crew, more of the learned information.
Quote
 

It really annoys me, the way some people can sit there and defend this BS and twist things in order to make the likes of me look like insane idiots. I don’t have a higher education as some of you NASA enthusiasts may have, but I do possess common sense, and I don’t need to understand NASA’s take on radiation or orbital dynamics to understand, if it’s not tested, don’t put human life at risk.

There is no defense, only knowledge and that many long hours by hundreds of thousands of workers, engineers, scientist that went into the program.  You say that you have common sense, then why not do some research into the missions? Not tested???  read my previous paragraph. 
Quote


I was seventeen when Apollo 8 was launched and I remember an article in a newspaper stating that several countries expressed grave concerns about the mission, saying that the astronauts would not survive. I also read an article shortly after the alleged mission, concerning an interview with a NASA spokesman, where he was asked if they had any concerns regarding radiation. His answer was, well we knew it was dangerous, but we decided to go anyway. Today, NASA tell us it was no big deal, but back then, according to Van Allen, space was a sea of deadly radiation.

There are always concerns about any mission.  Was it dangerous, no the previous missions measured the radiation through the VARB, cislunar, Lunar orbit and Lunar surface radiation.  None of these was a show stopper either individually or cumulative.  Back in the 60's the VARB had been only discovered by the Explorer 1, and then not as fully as we have knowledge on it today.  And that information is continually being updated.  A deadly sea of radiation, no again.  Many missions had studied the belts and determined that if spacecraft construction and trajectory were used judicially then the mission would not be endangered by those belts.
Quote


As far as I’m aware, they didn’t have a time machine, so they could only go on information they had at the time, which was zilch. Even today, they are still trying to work out how to protect those delicate instruments before they can venture beyond LEO again. It’s a shame they destroyed the plans for the Apollo hardware as surely an extra layer of tinfoil would do the trick.

Again as obm indicated you should try researching and not on YT.  NASA website is full of information, although it is somewhat user unfriendly, try to find information one desires.  "They" didn't destroy the plans for Apollo.  They exist on microfilm at various NASA sites.  Paper copies are gone, yes and the companies didn't keep paperwork on a defunct program, such is life in governmental projects.  No an extra layer of tin foil isn't necessary, unless you are proposing that the program was a hoax.  Then you corner yourself in willful ignorance.
The program did indeed land 6 crews on the Moon and brought them back safely.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: raven on May 02, 2018, 09:12:49 PM
“Unmanned Apollo flights that helped pave the way for Apollo 8”?

Then can any of you explain what parts of the Apollo 8 mission were tested prior to launch? As far as I’m aware, there were no unmanned missions to test the Apollo 8 hardware. Everything beyond LEO, if we are to believe they got that far, was only theory. It would be the first time the third stage rocket would be fired to achieve the theoretical translunar injection in order to rendezvous with the moon in three days’ time. It would be the first time humans travelled through that deadly sea of radiation. It would be the first time an Apollo craft would attempt to achieve orbit around another celestial body. It would be the first time Trans earth injection would be attempted to set a trajectory toward earth. It would be the first time re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere was attempted at such a high speed (over 24,000 mph) and managing to splash down within three miles of the recovery ship.

Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable. It’s even taught in schools, which is criminal. Have any of you ever given serious thought to the fact that not one country has sent humans through the belts since the alleged Apollo missions? No of course you haven’t. Is it because it has already been done? Or maybe it’s the money? Pathetic!

As for the news articles, I was in the habit of throwing away newspapers after I’d read them back then, how stupid is that? And calling me an idiot is typical of you people, as you realise you might end up losing the argument, so you dish out verbal abuse in an attempt to dissuade people from making further comments. Grow up!
Well, NASA had already sent the Lunar Orbiter series to the moon, so they had practical experience putting spacecraft in orbit around the moon. They'd even landed unmanned, with the Surveyor series. Apollo flight hardware was tested unmanned numerous times, including Apollo 4-6. And, yes. those test flights including testing the Saturn V, including the third stage. A little googling will tell you that, There's no 'NASA science' here. Everything has been confirmed by other space agencies (while the USSR never sent full humans to the moon, they did send human cell cultures and they sent probes to and from the moon with radiation measuring experiments) and the basic principals of what was accomplished are as old as Newton. As for getting huffy about me calling you an idiot, I was pointing out that you do it to yourself, not from us 'twisting' anything as you so claimed.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 02, 2018, 09:25:30 PM
Scott Henderson, is this the Scott from old?  Any old members remember Scott?
The first video is full of errors that I won't go into, but the amount of errors precludes me from watching further.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 02, 2018, 10:15:22 PM
You're off to a good start, cambo. Let me know if I'm missing any.

(http://apollohoax.net/images/bingo/cambo.png)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 02, 2018, 10:21:36 PM
You're off to a good start, cambo. Let me know if I'm missing any.

(http://apollohoax.net/images/bingo/cambo.png)

Whoever assembled that did a great job, hitting the high spots :)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 02, 2018, 10:24:56 PM
Whoever assembled that did a great job, hitting the high spots :)


http://apollohoax.net/bingo (http://apollohoax.net/bingo)

I kind of cheated and told it to remove some of the less common HB claims when it generated that card.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 03, 2018, 12:20:25 AM

Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable.

Absolute garbage. There is no 'NASA brand of science', just science. Science that can be replicated.

If you don't want to be called an idiot, try less hard to sound like one. From your tedious, well-worn pronouncements so far, 'idiot' is just being polite.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Zakalwe on May 03, 2018, 03:37:11 AM
“Unmanned Apollo flights that helped pave the way for Apollo 8”?

Then can any of you explain what parts of the Apollo 8 mission were tested prior to launch?

Why do you think that it's someone else's job to educate you? Stop being so lazy (or is it wilful ignorance?) and Do Your Own Research.

As far as I’m aware, there were no unmanned missions to test the Apollo 8 hardware.
Argument from Incredulity. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity)

It would be the first time the third stage rocket would be fired to achieve the theoretical translunar injection in order to rendezvous with the moon in three days’ time.
It would be the first time an Apollo craft would attempt to achieve orbit around another celestial body.
It would be the first time Trans earth injection would be attempted to set a trajectory toward earth.

You do understand that there has to be a first time for everything, don't you? The first powered flight, the first parachute jump, the first time you kissed a girl/boy?
Also, the Soviets put a craft into a Lunar free return trajectory 9 years before Apollo 8. They also put a craft into Lunar orbit over two years before Apollo 8. The US also achieved a Lunar orbit four months after the Soviets in 1966.

humans travelled through that deadly sea of radiation.
Oh please! The old deadly sea of radiation garbage. If you want to be taken seriously, then make an effort to learn something before trotting out well-worn garbage like that.

It would be the first time re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere was attempted at such a high speed (over 24,000 mph) and managing to splash down within three miles of the recovery ship.

Wrong.
Argument from Ignorance (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). These techniques had been tested.

Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable. It’s even taught in schools, which is criminal

I'll hazard a guess here. You're time in school was, shall we say, limited and not very fruitful? it's never to late to educate yourself though...maybe some evening classes in the basic sciences?

Have any of you ever given serious thought to the fact that not one country has sent humans through the belts since the alleged Apollo missions? No of course you haven’t.
Wrong.
Argument from Ignorance (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Humans go through portions of the belts on a regular basis on the ISS.

Pathetic!
Yep, pretty much everything that you've posted so far is just that. There's a lot that you can learn here though, but first you need to drop the attitude, open your mind and be willing to learn. The alternative is for you to shuffle back to YouTube and CluesForum where you can join the other like-minded trolls going "Hur, hur, hur, astroNauts". You'll fit right in there.

As for the news articles, I was in the habit of throwing away newspapers after I’d read them back then, how stupid is that?
Stupid? personally I think that it just shows further evidence of wilful ignorance. You're in your 70's and you're ranting on the Internet with ridiculous arguments that a 6 year old would be embarrassed to utter. What a waste of 60 years on this planet!

And calling me an idiot is typical of you people, as you realise you might end up losing the argument, so you dish out verbal abuse in an attempt to dissuade people from making further comments. Grow up!
As far as I can see, you're the way doing the childish name-calling. As for growing up? You're nearing the end of your life and you haven't managed to learn even basic science knowledge. It's not too late though.....even old dogs can learn new tricks. All you need to do is make a small effort. Try it!

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on May 03, 2018, 07:21:21 AM
Although some of the video footage and photos, do indeed cast doubt on the Apollo missions, it’s the way the story unfolded that convinces me it was all an enormous hoax. There were just too many giant leaps for this fairy tale to be taken seriously, Apollo 8 being the prime example. Shortly after allegedly working out how to put men into orbit, they stuck three men on the top of a giant rocket and sent them to the moon and back.

That's right. Only six years and fourteen manned missions after John Glenn's orbital mission, Apollo 8 went to the Moon. If that's your definition of "short" I'd hate to see your definition of "long".

Quote
It really annoys me, the way some people can sit there and defend this BS and twist things in order to make the likes of me look like insane idiots. I don’t have a higher education as some of you NASA enthusiasts may have, but I do possess common sense, and I don’t need to understand NASA’s take on radiation or orbital dynamics to understand, if it’s not tested, don’t put human life at risk.

*puts hand up*

I did physics and biology to Year 10, and chemistry to Year 12, and I have no particular problems understanding the science and engineering of Apollo.

And anyway, when you say "not tested", what do you mean? If you mean "not tested by unmanned missions", well that's incorrect as pretty much every concept of Apollo had been tested unmanned, whether hardware or procedure. And if you mean "not tested by humans", well, then we run into a pretty serious problem - surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?

Quote
I was seventeen when Apollo 8 was launched and I remember an article in a newspaper stating that several countries expressed grave concerns about the mission, saying that the astronauts would not survive. I also read an article shortly after the alleged mission, concerning an interview with a NASA spokesman, where he was asked if they had any concerns regarding radiation. His answer was, well we knew it was dangerous, but we decided to go anyway. Today, NASA tell us it was no big deal, but back then, according to Van Allen, space was a sea of deadly radiation.

And I was one when Apollo 8 was launched. I don't remember anything of Apollo. But I've read plenty of newspapers from the time (on microfilm). I've read plenty of letters to newspaper editors complaining about the cost of Apollo, even before the first Moon landing. I've read articles in which people tried to come up with all sorts of gruesome ways the astronauts might die. But I've also read how the Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes; and if anyone was going to prove that NASA had faked Apollo, it would've been the masters of propaganda and fakery - the Soviets.

Quote
As far as I’m aware, they didn’t have a time machine, so they could only go on information they had at the time, which was zilch. Even today, they are still trying to work out how to protect those delicate instruments before they can venture beyond LEO again. It’s a shame they destroyed the plans for the Apollo hardware as surely an extra layer of tinfoil would do the trick.

Yeah, no. NASA didn't have "zilch" information. You only need to read science books from the time to show that scientists had a few pretty good ideas about the Moon even before the Space Age started. And the Ranger, Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter missions gave them a lot more. Plus scientists continued to study the Moon from the Earth all through this time. Even Soviet missions to the Moon gave NASA information - Soviet soft-landing missions proved perfectly well that the Moon's surface was solid enough to support a spacecraft.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on May 03, 2018, 08:00:17 AM
“Unmanned Apollo flights that helped pave the way for Apollo 8”?

Then can any of you explain what parts of the Apollo 8 mission were tested prior to launch? As far as I’m aware, there were no unmanned missions to test the Apollo 8 hardware. Everything beyond LEO, if we are to believe they got that far, was only theory. It would be the first time the third stage rocket would be fired to achieve the theoretical translunar injection in order to rendezvous with the moon in three days’ time.

First, S-IVB engines on previous missions had been reignited while in orbit. So that was nothing new. Second, unmanned spacecraft had been sent to the Moon. So that was nothing new either. There was nothing particularly special (except in the emotional sense) about firing an S-IVB engine to send a spacecraft to the Moon.

You seem to be arguing that if you've only ever used matches to light fires up to now, you need special training to use matches to light a candle.

Quote
It would be the first time humans travelled through that deadly sea of radiation. It would be the first time an Apollo craft would attempt to achieve orbit around another celestial body. It would be the first time Trans earth injection would be attempted to set a trajectory toward earth. It would be the first time re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere was attempted at such a high speed (over 24,000 mph) and managing to splash down within three miles of the recovery ship.

So that was closer than previous Apollo missions. What's so surprising about getting better with time?

Quote
Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable. It’s even taught in schools, which is criminal.

Um, seriously, what the heck are you talking about? I don't even know where to being responding to a statement like that.

Quote
Have any of you ever given serious thought to the fact that not one country has sent humans through the belts since the alleged Apollo missions? No of course you haven’t. Is it because it has already been done? Or maybe it’s the money? Pathetic!

What's pathetic about "it's been done by someone else" and "it's expensive"?

As you say you were 17 at the time of Apollo 8, you presumably remember the Cold War - that great propaganda-economic-diplomatic-military struggle between the world's two superpowers. And the Space Race was just one facet of the Cold War. When it came to trying to land people on the Moon, we know now that the Soviets were very much having a go. So why did they stop trying after Apollo 11? Because they knew that coming second in a two horse propaganda race is the same as coming last. They had kept their whole space program highly secret at the time, and that allowed them to claim afterwards that they'd never been trying to beat the USA - something a lot of people believed at the time, but which we obviously know now wasn't true.

As for money - yes, of course it's an issue. The USA paid $25 billion for Apollo in 1960s dollars. That's close to $200 billion now. Sure, it's small change compared to some of America's other expenses lately (*cough* Iraq *cough*) but that doesn't mean Apollo was cheap. The reason the money was spent at the time was mostly for propaganda value; and once it had achieved its intended propaganda outcome, President Nixon and Congress were perfectly happy to cut NASA's funding to help try to balance the budget.

Quote
As for the news articles, I was in the habit of throwing away newspapers after I’d read them back then, how stupid is that?

What's the problem? Plenty of old newspapers are now available on the Internet. If you go to https://trove.nla.gov.au/ you can read a whole bunch of old Australian newspapers - and I'll give you a hint: they had plenty of stories about Apollo 11 in 1969.

Quote
And calling me an idiot is typical of you people, as you realise you might end up losing the argument, so you dish out verbal abuse in an attempt to dissuade people from making further comments. Grow up!

Frankly I don't see how I might end up losing the argument - no one has ever come up with a plausible and internally consistent explanation for how Apollo was faked. The only internally consistent narrative is the historical one. But if you think you've got an explanation for all the evidence, then here is your opportunity.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 03, 2018, 11:11:58 AM


Quote
It would be the first time humans travelled through that deadly sea of radiation. It would be the first time an Apollo craft would attempt to achieve orbit around another celestial body. It would be the first time Trans earth injection would be attempted to set a trajectory toward earth. It would be the first time re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere was attempted at such a high speed (over 24,000 mph) and managing to splash down within three miles of the recovery ship.


Actually the Splash downs of Apollo had to be pretty much on the nose due to the narrow entry corridor. If they had been a hundred miles away they may well not have made it at all. The only thing that would have changed landing sites would be if they had to do a burn to change the approach speed for an some reason. Not that I could think of a reason for that, solar storm? Perhaps. Apollo 13 was accelerated home as fast as they dared with the limitations of the LM, for obvious reasons, but even then they knew pretty accurately where it would splash down.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 03, 2018, 11:20:26 AM
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here, but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud. We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”
Of course not, monkey then humans.

“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true 

Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB? 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 03, 2018, 11:53:35 AM
Reversal of burden of proof noted.

"No stars" argument noted.

"The Russians were in on it" noted.

Handwaving away of presented evidence noted.

Folks, this is one of the lazier HBs.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 03, 2018, 12:07:50 PM
Actually, I'm quite open about what would convince me I was wrong.  What would convince you?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 03, 2018, 12:13:55 PM
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here, but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud. We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

By no means is it an impossible task, just re-read all the responses.  Time consuming attempting to educate you, yes.
Quote


This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

As I stated earlier, I have no blind faith, but am positive that all the missions occurred as reported nearly 50 years ago.  There has been no vast indoctrination by NASA or anyone else, with the exception of YT land, where stupidity reins supreme.  Try spending less time watching stupid videos, that are linked at the beginning of the thread.  The first one is so full of errors, I had to laugh, and with "10000" hours of research.  We all have free minds and if you want to present to posterity your willful ignorance then do so, but those observations will not go unchallenged.
Quote


In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

As someone indicated to you there has to be a first in anything tried.  Get it?  Apollo 8 was not untested, Apollo 4 and 6 tested the capsule along with the Saturn V.  NASA engineers and scientists knew the small dangers that radiation poised, and went with the odds, although transit through the less dens regions of The VARB, was not a risk, period.  So what was untested?
Quote


They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Why spend ~400 million when 6 crews had landed on the moon previously.  This is rather a stupid observation.  The CIA had images of the Russian N-1 rocket, that could only have the use of a Moon landing.  In fact there were two in 1968  so when A 9's lunar module experienced testing delays they leap frogged an orbital mission to indeed beat the Russians.
Quote


Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

How was it faked?  How were hours of video in a near absolute vacuum win a low gravity shot?  How was this done, where was it done.  And if your comment is a sound stage, where was it how did they have no atmosphere aznd low gravity?  How was this accomplished?

Here is a video that tells the story that it could not be accomplished in the 60's.

&t=2s

Quote

Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

Money was the prime factor with funds no more hardware was built and no more missions planned after 17, although up to 20 were initially planed and hardware purchased.  And there has been only one planned manned mission to the Moon shelved during the Obama term.
Quote

“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”
Of course not, monkey then humans.

You seem to be hung up on this procedure much like Ralph Rene.  That is one way of doing it, but there are other methods.
Quote

“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

There are plans by several countries to land humans back on the Moon, all in the next decade.  Sadly I may not be around to observe it again.
Quote

You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true 

Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

It is you who is deluded.  Why is saying that the plans are stored on micro film?  Why is this insane?  For a scientist/engineer to go look them up would require a REASON TO DO SO.  What would that reason be?  If it was for another landing attempt, you first need money for a program, then hardware to fly it.  NASA has resisted the notion of placing humans back on the Moon and setting goals for Mars.
Quote

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

We have shown you proof.  How about 800 pounds of Lunar rock/regolith, that cannot be manufactured on Earth contrary to what you "learn" on YT.
Quote

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

You say you will admit if the evidence is convincing to you, I suggest this is a lie, you may never accept any evidence, as few individuals who believe that a hoax was perpetrated, will ever admit that they are wrong.  Just browse the history around here.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: jfb on May 03, 2018, 12:19:15 PM
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here,

You've inspired some laughs.  Not quite the same thing.

Quote
but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA,

I'm an atheist - I don't believe in gods.

Quote
who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

Somebody needs to dial the Hyperbolator down a notch.  Maybe two.

Quote
We are discussing a possible hoax here,

"We" are discussing no such thing.  You're claiming it's a hoax, we're pointing out why your arguments for that position are less than convincing. 

"I don't believe it happened that way" means dick.

Quote
in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing.

Physical samples from the moon, analyzed by labs all over the world. Thousands of photographs, hours of film and video, miles of data and telemetry.  Records from tracking stations all over the world.  Statements from our on again/off again geopolitical adversary that they were able to track the spacecraft's journey and communications to and from the moon.  Imagery from later missions showing the landing sites, with hardware.

That's more than enough evidence to convince most reasonable people.

You want to support your claim that it's a hoax, find evidence for the hoax.  You don't get to sit back and say "it's all fake, prove me wrong."  If your claim is that the physical samples are fake, then you need to demonstrate how and why they are fake.  How were they produced in such a way to fool labs across the world?  What would a genuine lunar sample look like?  Why would the samples returned from Apollo not look like that? 

If you claim that all the footage was shot on a soundstage, show us evidence for that soundstage.  Where was it built?  Who built it?  Who worked on it?  There will be a paper trail somewhere.  Find that paper trail. 

Find the line items in the federal budget that look like payoffs to the tens of thousands of people all over the world who were even tangentially involved with the Apollo missions - machinists, engineers, lab technicians, radio operators, etc.

But you're not going to do that.  You're just going to sit back, stick your fingers in your ears and scream FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE because you can't bear not being someone special, someone who Knows The Truth. 

"The X Files" was not a documentary. 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 03, 2018, 12:23:56 PM
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here, but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

Well, I guess it is fair for the hoaxies to get meta-textual. We debate all the time why they believe such stupid crap (actually, to be more accurate, why people with so little understanding of the world think they can lecture others about how it really works.)

We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing.

Those are not the same thing; in the gap between those two sentences you switched the burden of proof. "I think there might be..." and "Prove to me there aren't..." are two separate things.

Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

If your premise is that all world space agencies are lying, then isn't their evidence already inadmissible? Now by cutting out "third party evidence," you have removed any ability to rationally approach the problem. How do you intend to debate it from here? Based on dreams? On who can sing louder about it?


This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it,

Common sense is common, not sense. The universe isn't constrained by what seems reasonable to a two-meter meatbag trapped in a gravity well under a dense cloud of gas. I run into stuff in my daily work where common sense is test-ably wrong. Our perceptions lie to us, constantly.

because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

No, the difference is between someone who is too lazy to do the work and thinks they can push through the barriers of perception and expectation just by sheer willpower.

Simply declaring you aren't going to get fooled is how a fool approaches it. The scientific method and the work of science is a set of tools and approaches to help you figure out the difference between what you think is happening and what is actually happening.

In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

And you claim to have grown up during the space age? What were you doing, ignoring all the popular press? Because this stuff is OLD and it damn well was gone into at length.

So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

You are good at these! If they used Apollo hardware, then "OMG, they didn't test it first!" if they didn't use Apollo hardware, "OMG, they didn't test the real hardware first!" You've had your cake, eaten it, cut it into slices and served it to four close friends.

They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Why test after the missions are completed? Is this your new requirement now, that you have to test if something works after it has already worked? (Of course that's not counting all the animal tests that did take place, in their proper order. Guess in all your growing up during the Space Age you never heard of Ham, or Laika, or the Zond missions...)

Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”
Of course not, monkey then humans.

“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

Gish Gallop. Focus on one at a time. Or are you subconsciously aware that all your points are so weak sauce you need to throw them up a dozen at a time?

Seriously, pick one and discuss it like a gentleman. These walls of text are impossible.

You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true 

Yes, we do.

Your claim, your proof.

I claim Element 164 is proven to be a actinide metal, forming a quasi-crystaline solid of lustrous grey appearance at room temperate, stable and ferromagnetic and unreactive to standard reagents. I demand 164 be named after me, nomusium, and added to the official periodic table.

No, I have no lab work, no paper, no proof. That's your job to provide.

Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

In short, you don't have an explanation.

You also know shit-all about aerospace. We have people ON THIS BOARD who have as part of their jobs in that industry examined actual Apollo hardware and learned from it.

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

No, you don't. You don't know enough to able to categorize and measure our knowledge.

Sorry, but that's how things work.

Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

We're bored.

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why.

I don't.

You've explicitly explained you will throw away any and all evidence, merely on the grounds that if it appears to support the reality of space flight then it must automatically be part of the hoax.

And your understanding of the physical world is so poor you can not see and are possibly unattainably far from understanding that your so-called "NASA Science" is the same science practiced by industry and gets results -- results that many of us use professionally daily. Results that can be seen on a lab table or even a kitchen table by any amateur that wants to put in the effort.

There is no bright line. There is no barrier separating how things work "in space" and how they work, period. You are spouting the same nonsense Creationists say when they look at ongoing geologic processes and flap their gums with "But you didn't live a million years ago so you can't prove rocks still fell down then."

The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

Pick one. Bloody pick one. You want to talk about Jodrell Bank? We've got a big fan of that here (or maybe he's at CosmoQuest these days).

By the way, your description is laughably wrong, but that's okay; let's pick that one, lets actually discuss the durn thing instead of flapping off in all directions at once. Then you might be worth paying real attention to.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 03, 2018, 12:34:48 PM
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here...

Nope. No cage rattled here. Heard it all before.

Quote
but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA,

You need to look up the concept of God.

Quote
who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

There are few things I'd give up my life for. Family and friends, but not NASA.

Quote
We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing.

The burden of proof lies with you. Where's your smoking gun?

Quote
Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

You don't get to choose the evidence to suit your case. If the evidence holds true, then the case is answered.

Quote
This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

Most presumptuous. You're another blow hard that assumes they are able to think more critically than those that made Apollo possible. Delusions of grandeur are no replacement for erudition and expertise in relevant fields.

Quote
In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

Why should there be stars? Why is it not possible to shield against radiation in cislunar space? Describe the detail of the radiation environment.

Quote
So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

...but all the info comes from NASA. By your own argument... I won't bother.

Quote
They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Apollo budget cut? End of Apollo programme? Shift towards Skylab and the future shuttle programme? Your understanding of space history and your understanding of budgets leaves a little to be desired. The Apollo missions had ran their course with the administration, the objectives of a manned lunar landing has been achieved. The emphasis changed to LEO missions.

Quote
Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

[sarcasm] Yes, those gullible Americans. Poor gullible Americans. You have to feel for an entire nation that are guillible [/sarcasm]

Quote
Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

Why was it 6 years from scratch? Why dismiss the Mercury and Gemini missions as the testing grounds for Apollo, Why can't a programme the size of Apollo and with the budget and resources of Apollo deliver?

Quote
Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

How many countries could afford such a programme?

Quote
You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true

I don't believe you.

Quote
Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

Why would a company keep thousands of drawings at great expense to satisfy a future generation?

Quote
I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

You can't call us knowledgeable on one hand then remove that from us with our knowledge is false. Either we are knowldgebale or not. I agree that there are knowledgeable people her. You aren't.

Quote
Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

So charming.

Quote
Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

You are not willing to consider anything. You've made that clear.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 03, 2018, 12:46:36 PM
Rational argument doesn't work on these sorts. Time for a new approach.

After all, I've always wanted to write an oratorio....
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 03, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Oh Lord this is all so tediously familiar  ::)

I can prove Apollo 11 made a TV broadcast with a hand held camera half way to the moon. Can our new friend prove they didn't?

Nope, thought not.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: mako88sb on May 03, 2018, 01:50:34 PM
Even today, they are still trying to work out how to protect those delicate instruments before they can venture beyond LEO again. It’s a shame they destroyed the plans for the Apollo hardware as surely an extra layer of tinfoil would do the trick.

The plans for the Apollo program were never destroyed. Just the usual nonsense found on YT videos that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny:
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/004949.html

Plus two books with 3D renderings derived from the actual technical drawings of Grumman and North American Aviation:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/9848307
https://www.abebooks.com/9781894959148/Virtual-Pictorial-Essay-Engineering-Construction-1894959140/plp

As for the VAB's, the question that's always asked of hoax believers like you is what kind of radiation is found there that supposedly makes them impassable? None of you have yet to come up with anything remotely resembling real-world understanding of how radiation in the VAB's works and how it can be dealt with. The science and engineering behind all this has been available to the world for the past 45+ years. No radiation expert from any country in the world for the past 45+ years has brought forward any evidence that any of the info provided to them is fraudulent. That includes countries that have not been on the best political terms with the USA. You don't think the USSR would have loved to find something that proves their Cold War enemy was doing something shady in regards to a space mission? They clearly went all out to achieve many firsts in space exploration and were not too happy to see the USA overtake them.

As for those delicate instruments, the big problem in regards to what they are designing Orion for compared to the Apollo program is the difference in mission parameters. Apollo missions only lasted a maximum of 2 weeks whereas Orion is being developed for missions that could last years. While the Apollo missions were fairly close to Earth which allowed the mainframe computers to be data linked to the CM/SM, Orions missions could be much further away so they will need to bring as much computing power as possible since data linking will take too much time between the spacecraft and Earth which could be a serious issue in certain situations. Plus today's electronics are not as robust against the detrimental effects of radiation as the rope-core based computer systems used during the Apollo missions were. Also, for the first time ever, a glass cockpit will be used to help reduce weight:
https://www.designnews.com/aerospace/exclusive-closer-look-nasas-orion-glass-cockpit/98585537531841

The problem with hoax believers is they assume things like this. That the old technology can just be dusted off and re-used again without taking into account just how much more technically capable the newest generation spacecraft must be since it's being developed for a completely different mission profile. Yes, it can be used to go to the moon but it could also go to Mars so the testing criteria are much more important and extensive than anything that's been done before with regards to manned space missions.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 03, 2018, 01:52:38 PM
I always think it's hilarious that these idiots think we have NASA pyjamas we love them so much.

As a non-American, I couldn't a flying one about NASA or any other institution. Science and space exploration, on the other hand, is very very interesting.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 03, 2018, 03:55:28 PM
but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

So any arguments against your comments must be fake because they come from NASA? With that massive handwave you render any debate pointless, so why exactly are you here? It certainly is not to debate or learn.

Quote
We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing.

Really not how reasoned debate works. You don't get to accuse someone of lying then demand they prove they are not. You make the accusation, it is your burden to prove it.

Quote
Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon,
Two handwaves later and you have comprehensively discounted all evidence that says you are wrong as being faked because it either comes from NASA itself or from some other third party that is supporting NASA for reasons of its own. Again I must ask, what exactly is your purpose in coming here?

Quote
This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it,

Neither common sense nor blind faith have anything to do with it. Again, you handwave it to these two possibilities because it allows you to discount anything concrete and render it about free thought and propaganda, which you feel competent to discuss, rather than physics and engineering which you are clearly not.

Quote
You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie,

I do not have this thought that they wouldn't, but that they couldn't tell such a massive lie because if they did the evidence would be there for us to see clearly. And whatever you see in the evidence, it is not proof of faking it.

Quote
In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts.

None of those things have been added to the story after the event. They're in actual documents from the time. There are no stars in any photos of brightly sunlit objects taken in space from any space program before or since Apollo, and all for the same reason that any halfway competent photographer would understand.

Quote
The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

Why should the hardware make a difference to the physics of using a rocket engine to send a spacecraft to the Moon? What made Apollo so different?

Quote
They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board.

For what possible reason would such a flight be made?

Quote
That would have made the story slightly more believable

NASA is under no obligation to make the story what you think it should be.

Quote
How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology?

They're not trying to do it again. If they wanted another two-week lunar mission they could no doubt do such a thing. The planned missions are months or years long. Whole different problems arise in those cases.

Quote
There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane,

No, that would be standard practice to reduce storage space.

Quote
as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

Except that has been done and they agree it was possible, but you have already discounted all of their views as meaningless and 'bandwagon jumping'.

Quote
I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Do you think we just read some books and got told a few things by our teachers in school and accepted it blindly? People on this board have taken that learning and applied it to real problems and found it works, so it certainly isn't science fiction.

Quote
But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

ANd where, given your comments at the beginning of this that dismissed anything from NASA or a third party, is this solid proof to come from, and what would you consider solid proof in the first place?

Quote
The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon.

Irrelevant, and as expected finding ways to dismiss it. If the tracking of the landing was done, then why they didn't track it all the way is beside the point.

Quote
Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

It would, but not for the reasons you imagine...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 03, 2018, 04:44:14 PM
Just picking one point out of your wall of long-debunked claims and tinfoil-hattery about worldwide conspiracies :

...

 they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.
And where, pray tell, has all this "extorted" tax money gone?  How many NASA employees have holiday homes in the Bahamas, and drive Ferraris?

The money spent on Apollo can easily be traced.  What do you think the cost of employing 400,000 people (as I recall the estimate) is?  What do you think it costs to design, develop, test, and then launch the spacecraft and launch system?

If you actually build the hardware, employ the people, and do this openly under intense public scrutiny, how exactly is it "extortion"?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 03, 2018, 04:53:28 PM
"The X Files" was not a documentary. 

GOLD!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 03, 2018, 04:58:05 PM
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here, but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud. We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.

They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.

Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”
Of course not, monkey then humans.

“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”

You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true 

Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB? 


OMG!!! He's gone to plaid!

(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/plaid.png)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 03, 2018, 05:11:07 PM
And picking another gem from an earlier email :

...

Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable. It’s even taught in schools, which is criminal.
So in one fell swoop you dismiss all of science.  The science we all rely on is nothing but "NASA science" (tm) and somehow only you have knowledge of "true science".

So how exactly do you think the computer you are using was designed and developed?  Your car?  Bridges?  Medicines?  Etc?  Etc?

Science works, whether you "believe" in it or not, and part of science is a self-checking, self-correcting method of analysis which perhaps you should learn about, and then apply to the question of the reality of the Apollo missions...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 03, 2018, 08:30:23 PM
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here

Oh, you haven't rattled any cages here Tim, but you have succeeded in doing one thing.... making yourself look like the stupid fool that you are.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 03, 2018, 11:57:03 PM
Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have

I've mentioned this twice but weirdly, you don't seem to want to take up the challenge, so let's provide you with a little detail.

Here is a press photograph taken of a TV broadcast:

(https://i.imgur.com/6Oq8CaY.jpg)

It is dated.

It's not from the internet, it's my own personal, original copy. The image appeared on the front page of several newspapers the following day. It has also appeared in books produced at the time, along with still images taken at the same time.

The broadcast was made on the 16th of July 1969 using a hand held TV camera. That image shows Earth exactly as it should have appeared at the time of the broadcast in terms of the configuration of land masses and oceans on view and the perspective shown of it. The person holding the camera described the view and more importantly the weather patterns visible in it. One of the patterns they describe is:

"a pretty good circulation system a couple of hundred miles off the west coast of California"

That circulation pattern is the remnant of hurricane Bernice, which only existed in that specific formation on that day. Weather satellite imagery from two different satellites confirm every detail in the TV footage. Those satellite images were printed in the meteorological literature of the day, but were not available at the time of the TV broadcast.

So, here we have a hand held camera presenting a view of Earth only possible from cislunar space showing the exact configuration of Earth for the time of the broadcast and showing a unique time and date specific meteorological fingerprint.

I look forward to any reasonable explanation you might have that doesn't involve some ludicrous variation on "yeah well NASA faked the satellite imagery as well", because

a) It's a lazy cop out and everyone will see it for what it is
b) NASA weren't the only people operating meteorological satellites at the time, and
c) Anyone with the right equipment could intercept the weather satellite broadcasts to see the images for themselves.

NASA did not come up with any of that proof and you won't them using it as any kind of supporting evidence, because the investigation work was all mine.

You can do exactly the same kind of investigation into any image of Earth taken by Apollo, be that a still image, 16mm video or live TV broadcast. I say "you could", but somehow I doubt that you will. Every image matches up in every single detail.

Over to you.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on May 04, 2018, 03:49:06 AM
Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here...

Is that supposed to be evidence of anything? Cos if we didn't respond you'd no doubt claim that as significant too.

Sorry, but we hear statements like that all the time.

Quote
...but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.

You mean that bloated, bureaucratic organisation which, thanks to its shoddy management procedures and self-deceptions, was largely responsible for the deaths of the Challenger and Columbia astronauts? No, I don't feel particularly inclined to treat NASA like a god.

Quote
We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

Gee, it's so easy to make an argument when you arbitrarily rule that evidence contradicting you is inadmissible.

Quote
This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it, because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.

You mean, a lie like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", which unravelled in less than six months?

Quote
In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”

Um, you do realise these things were worked out by photographers and astronomers decades before NASA existed, don't you? Or are photographers and astronomers in on this conspiracy too? Careful, at this rate the only people not in on the conspiracy will be you and...well, I'm not sure who else.

[SNIP]

Quote
They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!

Because, as some bloke called Cambo put it:
Quote
I hate to have to point out something that is so obvious to all other people on this planet, but everything is about money.
Clever chap, that. Good insight.

[SNIP]

Quote
Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.

Out of interest, then, what do you think NASA has achieved? What about other space agencies? Are the Voyager spacecraft real? What about Viking or Sojourner or Curiosity? Magellan? Galileo? New Horizons? What about the International Space Station? What about communications satellites in geo-synch orbit? What about meteorology satellites? Ground sensing spacecraft? Did the Soviets ever send spacecraft to Venus? Was Mir real? Have the Chinese sent people into space? Has India sent a spacecraft to Mars? Do you believe anything about space exploration is real?

[SNIP]

Quote
“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

Oka-a-a-ay.

So who knew it was fake? The President? The Chiefs of Staff? Senior generals? At what military rank were soldiers and sailors and airmen informed that the Cold War was just a big fake? And nobody ever leaked that to the media? So what exactly was it that Daniel Ellsberg and Christopher Boyce leaked? Or are they part of the conspiracy too? Where did all the MONEY! come from to pay these people for their silence?

[SNIP]

Quote
You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true

Oh, settle petal! I'm perfectly willing to believe that there were quite a few newspaper articles talking about how dangerous Apollo 8 was. There were plenty of people in NASA who thought that Apollo 8 was dangerous. But as Raven said, it wasn't the first time a dangerous stunt was pulled for national prestige.

It's just that you grumbled: "I was in the habit of throwing away newspapers after I’d read them back then, how stupid is that?" And I offered you an alternative for you to use if you wanted it. You're welcome.

Quote
Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.

Actually, I'd also plump for the scientific knowledge gained by scientists studying the data sent back from the Moon, and the ~380 kilograms of rocks brought back. Unless, of course, you're going to throw a bunch more scientific disciplines into the conspiracy...

And anyway, even if we showed you the plans for the hardware, what would that prove. You pretty much admit you don't have the knowledge to interpret it, so you'd probably wave it away as a fake. Sorry, but we've walked this path many times before.

Quote
I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.

Boy I'd love to see you prove that. I've already admitted I have no science education beyond high school, but plenty of people here work in the fields you're dissing, fields in which their knowledge has commercial and legal implications. I know whose knowledge I'd back.

Quote
Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?

No, I don't think you're a complete dick. I think you're opinionated and colossally uninformed.

Cold War a fake...seriously?

Quote
Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?

Give me time to pull together some stuff about Moon rocks, and let's see where that leads.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 04, 2018, 05:54:22 AM
Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

I'm guessing you say that because you have never served, in particular didn't serve during that period and actually see what happened.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 04, 2018, 06:37:40 AM
Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

I'm guessing you say that because you have never served, in particular didn't serve during that period and actually see what happened.

I always wonder about the level of cynicism required to believe in the 'fake cold war' argument. It proposes a degree of co-operation and collusion that spans all political divides. It requires every incoming administration on either side to be informed of the truth, accept it, and carry it on. It requires the scam to be maintained across generations. It requires massive co-operation between superpowers to pretend to be arch-rivals while really working together somehow. It proposes a truly massive global co-operative effort ongoing for generation after generation, enduring whatever other events may occur around the world.

And yet, all this amazing global co-operation is just to keep the rest of the population subjugated somehow. It's supposedly impossible for such effort to go towards actually achieving something amazing. It's all turned inwards for nefarious purposes. What a massively depressing outlook on life these people must have.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 04, 2018, 06:53:08 AM
Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

I'm guessing you say that because you have never served, in particular didn't serve during that period and actually see what happened.

It's almost as if he wasn't actually alive at the time as he claimed.... ::)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on May 04, 2018, 08:23:10 AM
Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?

I'm guessing you say that because you have never served, in particular didn't serve during that period and actually see what happened.

I always wonder about the level of cynicism required to believe in the 'fake cold war' argument. It proposes a degree of co-operation and collusion that spans all political divides. It requires every incoming administration on either side to be informed of the truth, accept it, and carry it on. It requires the scam to be maintained across generations. It requires massive co-operation between superpowers to pretend to be arch-rivals while really working together somehow. It proposes a truly massive global co-operative effort ongoing for generation after generation, enduring whatever other events may occur around the world.

And yet, all this amazing global co-operation is just to keep the rest of the population subjugated somehow. It's supposedly impossible for such effort to go towards actually achieving something amazing. It's all turned inwards for nefarious purposes. What a massively depressing outlook on life these people must have.

Beyond that, look at the wars which the superpowers themselves got bogged down in - Vietnam for the USA and Afghanistan for the Soviets, just for two examples. Literally thousands of soldiers of one superpower were killed fighting against an enemy supplied by the other superpower. What exactly was the superpower co-operation that was happening here? Some sort of bizarre population control measure?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 04, 2018, 11:12:55 AM
“Try spending less time watching stupid videos, that are linked at the beginning of the thread.”

I never posted those videos, and I didn’t bother watching them. I saw the title of the thread and decided to jump in.


“If your premise is that all world space agencies are lying, then isn't their evidence already inadmissible? Now by cutting out "third party evidence," you have removed any ability to rationally approach the problem. How do you intend to debate it from here? Based on dreams? On who can sing louder about it?”

Yep, that’s the long and short of it sadly.

“So what was untested?”

Everything from earth orbit to the moon and back.

“Why spend ~400 million when 6 crews had landed on the moon previously”
“Why test after the missions are completed”

You both misread my statement, or maybe I worded it wrong. My point was, with all the rockets at their disposal, it would have made sense to send the monkey first, and if successful, put men on the next one.

“Here is a video that tells the story that it could not be accomplished in the 60's”

This video was debunked a while back by Jarrah White, who is a lot better looking than that fat sod in your video, so I’ll go with Jarrah on this one.

“You seem to be hung up on this procedure much like Ralph Rene.  That is one way of doing it, but there are other methods”

And what methods are these? Murdering astronauts for the sake of science?

“There are plans by several countries to land humans back on the Moon, all in the next decade.  Sadly I may not be around to observe it again”

No one will be around to see it in my opinion.

“Why is saying that the plans are stored on micro film?  Why is this insane?  For a scientist/engineer to go look them up would require a REASON TO DO SO”

Reason already stated, please try and keep up.

“We have shown you proof.  How about 800 pounds of Lunar rock/regolith, that cannot be manufactured on Earth contrary to what you "learn" on YT”

Where did you get that crap from? Gather up some meteorites, take away the fusion layer and apply some Helium 3, chop them up into slices and submit them for analysis, job done. There is no sample rock that everyone knows is from the moon, so we only have NASA’s word.

“You say you will admit if the evidence is convincing to you, I suggest this is a lie, you may never accept any evidence, as few individuals who believe that a hoax was perpetrated, will ever admit that they are wrong”

Now be honest, would you ever admit you were wrong? I honestly believe that if Trump announced tomorrow that it was all a big hoax to make you all think America kicks ass, you’d call him a liar. Unlike you, it would be a great weight off my mind if I was proved wrong, no don’t laugh, I’m serious. The only evidence is the photos and video footage, and the rest is just talk.

I see the Lunar module coming into land and I notice the calm way in which the astronauts talk, not realising they could die at any second (the thing was untested after all) I hear them speak, but there is nothing to be heard from that powerful thruster, which would surely be resonating through that flimsy looking craft. There are instances where we hear sounds on the moon, which the NASA faithful will tell us it’s because the sound travels through their suits, so why would that law not apply in this case. You on the other hand would see nothing wrong with it.

“You're claiming it's a hoax, we're pointing out why your arguments for that position are less than convincing”

That’s because you will never be convinced of anything negative put to you regarding Apollo.

“miles of data and telemetry”

What telemetry? Show me.

“That's more than enough evidence to convince most reasonable people”

Evidence isn’t proof unless the evidence is irrefutable, and none of you have produced that evidence so far.

“You want to support your claim that it's a hoax, find evidence for the hoax”

As above, I have given circumstantial evidence which I think points to a hoax, but it is by no means proof.

“If your premise is that all world space agencies are lying, then isn't their evidence already inadmissible? Now by cutting out "third party evidence," you have removed any ability to rationally approach the problem. How do you intend to debate it from here? Based on dreams? On who can sing louder about it?”
I’m honestly not trying to be a clever arse here, but sadly, that’s the way I see it. The way you people present your arguments intrigues me, I need a thesaurus to decipher some of your posts, it’s like talking to a computer sometimes. You think you are superior to the likes of me because of this knowledge you think you possess. Unfortunately in you lots case, knowledge isn’t power, it’s delusion. The reason I persist in pursuing this topic is because I believe I am the superior one here, because having a good education doesn’t necessarily make one an intellectual. You see intellect is something we are born with and it grows as we get older and wiser, more in some than others. The part of your brain that says “hang on a minute!” hasn’t been allowed to develop, for reasons I have already stated.

“Seriously, pick one and discuss it like a gentleman. These walls of text are impossible.”

You want to be in my shoes, having to get through all this shite thrown at me. If your attention span isn’t all that great, maybe you should forget about this thread an move on to something simpler like flower arranging perhaps.

“You also know shit-all about aerospace. We have people ON THIS BOARD who have as part of their jobs in that industry examined actual Apollo hardware and learned from it”

That’s not true, I do know a little bit. So did they examine it while it was on the moon?

“No, you don't. You don't know enough to able to categorize and measure our knowledge.
Sorry, but that's how things work”

There’s no need to apologise, I forgive you. .

“By the way, your description is laughably wrong, but that's okay; let's pick that one, lets actually discuss the durn thing instead of flapping off in all directions at once. Then you might be worth paying real attention to”

So you want me to get all technical? You and me both know that’s not gonna happen, what with me bin thick an all. So what was wrong with the description you mention? And what the hell is a durn? Is that a technical term or a typo?

“The burden of proof lies with you. Where's your smoking gun?”

Nope, that’s not fair, as I’ve already stated that I have no proof, only circumstantial evidence, and what makes you so high and mighty that you think you don’t have to share some of the burden?

“You're another blow hard that assumes they are able to think more critically than those that made Apollo possible”

Exactly, they never stopped to think that future generations would see through their lies.

“Why should there be stars? Why is it not possible to shield against radiation in cislunar space? Describe the detail of the radiation environment”

I never said there should be stars and nor did I say it was not possible to shield against radiation. This is typical among NASA disciples, they see what they want to see, when there is nothing there to see. As for the radiation environment, I could copy and paste from Google. Would you like me to do that, just to humour you? 

“Why was it 6 years from scratch? Why dismiss the Mercury and Gemini missions as the testing grounds for Apollo, Why can't a programme the size of Apollo and with the budget and resources of Apollo deliver?”

Sorry, the post I replied to had his facts wrong, which threw me a bit, but ten years from rockets blowing up on the launch pad to flying to the moon? That would be more incredible than going from the Wright brothers first flight to Concorde within the same period. If the know how doesn’t exist, no amount of money will change that.

“How many countries could afford such a programme?”

To fly round the moon just once? I’d say any country with a space programme.

“I don't believe you.”

So you think I am a liar? Well let me show you what a real liar looks like, in fact let me show you three liars.




“Why would a company keep thousands of drawings at great expense to satisfy a future generation?”

How much does a filing cabinet cost these days?

“You can't call us knowledgeable on one hand then remove that from us with our knowledge is false. Either we are knowldgebale or not. I agree that there are knowledgeable people her. You aren't.”

I possess the knowledge that the Apollo programme was fake, due to my critical thinking abilities, common sense and the ability to read between the lines. Something which you are obviously devoid of.

“You are not willing to consider anything. You've made that clear”

When one of you says something that makes sense to a sane person, I will consider it.

“the big problem in regards to what they are designing Orion for compared to the Apollo program is the difference in mission parameters”

The original first main goal was to go round the moon, which apparently had already been done multiple times with apparent ease.

“So any arguments against your comments must be fake because they come from NASA? With that massive handwave you render any debate pointless, so why exactly are you here? It certainly is not to debate or learn.”

Already addressed.

“I do not have this thought that they wouldn't, but that they couldn't tell such a massive lie because if they did the evidence would be there for us to see clearly. And whatever you see in the evidence, it is not proof of faking it”

But it is there, you just can’t see clearly. And as already stated, it’s evidence and not proof.

“None of those things have been added to the story after the event. They're in actual documents from the time. There are no stars in any photos of brightly sunlit objects taken in space from any space program before or since Apollo, and all for the same reason that any halfway competent photographer would understand”

Some astronauts say they saw stars and some say they didn’t. Why were they employing people with dodgy eyesight? I’m not disputing the photos.

“Why should the hardware make a difference to the physics of using a rocket engine to send a spacecraft to the Moon? What made Apollo so different?”

It would be the logical thing to test before putting lives at risk.

“NASA is under no obligation to make the story what you think it should be.”

Indeed not, but they could of at least put more thought into it.

“The planned missions are months or years long. Whole different problems arise in those cases”

Already addressed.

“ANd where, given your comments at the beginning of this that dismissed anything from NASA or a third party, is this solid proof to come from, and what would you consider solid proof in the first place?”

I want to see those plans which are allegedly hidden away on microfilm and allegedly available to engineers and researchers for scrutiny. Where are the testimonies from these engineers saying “yep, that’d work”

“Irrelevant, and as expected finding ways to dismiss it. If the tracking of the landing was done, then why they didn't track it all the way is beside the point”

So the fact that an independent body were able to track the supposed craft while in the vicinity of the moon, but were incapable of tracking Apollo on its journey there and back doesn’t mean anything to you? Are you in a coma?

“And where, pray tell, has all this "extorted" tax money gone?  How many NASA employees have holiday homes in the Bahamas, and drive Ferraris?”

Only the ones that were in on it.

“If you actually build the hardware, employ the people, and do this openly under intense public scrutiny, how exactly is it "extortion"?”

Yes, they did build the hardware and employ the people, and the rest was fiction. The only thing available for public scrutiny are the photos and videos. I’ll bet they wished they’d just held their hands up at the beginning and admitted it couldn’t be done and that Kennedy was a dick head.

“So how exactly do you think the computer you are using was designed and developed?  Your car?  Bridges?  Medicines?  Etc?  Etc?”

You’re talking real science here, not NASA science.

“Oh, you haven't rattled any cages here Tim, but you have succeeded in doing one thing.... making yourself look like the stupid fool that you are”

This the most constructive comment to date, you really are a smart cookie LOL.

“NASA did not come up with any of that proof and you won't them using it as any kind of supporting evidence, because the investigation work was all mine.”

So show me the proof of your investigation, all you are giving me is words. You think you have found irrefutable proof, which all those scientific brains at NASA have failed to pick up on? You should be embarrassed with yourself.

Do you believe anything about space exploration is real?

That’s a good question, take a look at this short clip. I already know that you won’t see anything odd.



“So who knew it was fake? The President? The Chiefs of Staff? Senior generals? At what military rank were soldiers and sailors and airmen informed that the Cold War was just a big fake? And nobody ever leaked that to the media? So what exactly was it that Daniel Ellsberg and Christopher Boyce leaked? Or are they part of the conspiracy too? Where did all the MONEY! come from to pay these people for their silence?”

I think you are underestimating a governments ability to keep big secrets. In my view it had to be fake, because the rest of my arguments would fall apart if it wasn’t. They had to be working together, or Russia would have torn the US to shreds over Apollo, as they will have known it couldn’t be done.

“And anyway, even if we showed you the plans for the hardware, what would that prove. You pretty much admit you don't have the knowledge to interpret it, so you'd probably wave it away as a fake. Sorry, but we've walked this path many times before.”

As I’ve already stated, although I wouldn’t mind seeing them for myself, it’s genuine signed testimonies from today’s engineers in the field to say that those contraptions would do the jobs that were allegedly achieved, that would swing it.

“Give me time to pull together some stuff about Moon rocks, and let's see where that leads”

Go for it! I’m waiting.

“It requires the scam to be maintained across generations. It requires massive co-operation between superpowers to pretend to be arch-rivals while really working together somehow. It proposes a truly massive global co-operative effort ongoing for generation after generation, enduring whatever other events may occur around the world.”

The pretence didn’t go on for long, as they’ve been openly working together for decades now, in the interests of this alleged pace exploration farce.

“It's almost as if he wasn't actually alive at the time as he claimed”

Oh, I believed it at the time, but the internet wasn’t around back then, and unlike you, I now realise we’d all been taken for fools.

What exactly was the superpower co-operation that was happening here?

So you don’t think it’s possible for two countries to fight over one thing, while secretly collaborating on another? The world must be so simple through your eyes, I’ll bet you’re ace at Rubik Cubes. 

Keep the comments coming guys, I’ve got nothing in my diary for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 04, 2018, 11:35:31 AM
This video was debunked a while back by Jarrah White, who is a lot better looking than that fat sod in your video, so I’ll go with Jarrah on this one.

Citing Jarrah White as a credible authority? I'll just ignore anything you write from this point forward. If you're a disciple of White, then we're done. I doubt Jarrah could find the little ladder to debunk himself for his bowl of coco pops in the morning, let alone debunk another person.

All I have to say is polar orbit and 1.5 x 1 = 2. There's no more to be said about Jarrah. I'm really not into ad hominen attacks, but where Jarrah is concerned, I'll make an exception. The guy is a foul mouthed idiot and cry baby. He's about as intellectually challenging as reading a 3 year old's Gruffalo book review written in crayon. He lives in a little walled garden where he can hear the echos of his sycophants as they purr and preen. 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 04, 2018, 12:30:19 PM
I always think it's hilarious that these idiots think we have NASA pyjamas we love them so much.

I have a NASA T-shirt.  But I have two MST3K T-shirts, and I wouldn't die for them, either.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 04, 2018, 12:36:51 PM
I have a NASA T-shirt.  But I have two MST3K T-shirts, and I wouldn't die for them, either.

I really need to get a NASA T-shirt. I need something to go with my pyjamas, when drinking hot chocolate from my NASA mug, while sitting in my NASA slippers and NASA dressing gown (US version of the word please?), before tucking into bed with my NASA pillow cases and NASA quilt cover, in my NASA wallpapered bedroom and NASA nightlight.  ;)

I do need a NASA T-shirt though.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 04, 2018, 12:40:26 PM
I have a NASA T-shirt.  But I have two MST3K T-shirts, and I wouldn't die for them, either.

I really need to get a NASA T-shirt. I need something to go with my pyjamas, when drinking hot chocolate from my NASA mug, while sitting in my NASA slippers and NASA dressing gown (US version of the word please?), before tucking into bed with my NASA pillow cases and NASA quilt cover, in my NASA wallpapered bedroom and NASA nightlight.  ;)

I do need a NASA T-shirt though.

I have a Walking Dead shirt, a Joker shirt, a Deadpool shirt, a Taco Bell Chihuahua shirt, and I'm currently wearing a Tesla shirt. No NASA shirt, though.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 04, 2018, 12:42:44 PM
I have a Walking Dead shirt, a Joker shirt, a Deadpool shirt, a Taco Bell Chihuahua shirt, and I'm currently wearing a Tesla shirt. No NASA shirt, though.

Marones and Metallica for me. That's how I rock... and roll. I think you need an Asimov T-shirt, but then we all need one of those.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: raven on May 04, 2018, 01:01:54 PM
I have a shirt that's a recreation of the front label of Huy Fong Foods Sriracha hot sauce, and I do love that stuff, but certainly not enough to die for it.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 04, 2018, 01:23:41 PM
cambo, you suggested several times to pick one subject and discuss, but since you threw the bath water wit the bat tub, that made it difficult.

So the ball is in your court, you pick a subject and we'll be more than happy to discuss.  Your choice.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: twik on May 04, 2018, 01:51:47 PM
cambo, I'm a chemist, but I'm not sure how you "apply" Helium-3 to a rock sample in order for it to be absorbed into the molecular structure. Can you explicate how that's done?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: apollo16uvc on May 04, 2018, 01:58:33 PM
Is there an American on here that can send a FOIA request to the parties that hold the microfilm plans with Saturn-V plans?

Would be great to finally have those.

Depending on the cost, I am sure many of us are happy to divide the cost between us all.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 04, 2018, 02:05:04 PM
cambo, which NASA employees have homes in the Bahamas and drive Ferraris? An intrepid reporter could dig out that information in an afternoon.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 04, 2018, 02:06:49 PM
I always think it's hilarious that these idiots think we have NASA pyjamas we love them so much.

I have a NASA T-shirt.  But I have two MST3K T-shirts, and I wouldn't die for them, either.
Funny, I have no such artefacts, but Cambo seems to think that no other nation exists on earth but his own, and the simple act of possession of such objects indicates that you are a bought and paid for shill for NASA. This is the same NASA that has no current heavy launch capacity by dint of budget cuts and is reduced to renting a seat on Soyuz just to reach ISS.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 04, 2018, 02:12:38 PM
cambo, suppose I took the several tractor-trailer loads of hardcopy Apollo blueprints and dropped them in front of your abode for your perusal. What could you, with your superior aerospace knowledge, glean from them?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 04, 2018, 02:16:46 PM
I always think it's hilarious that these idiots think we have NASA pyjamas we love them so much.

I have a NASA T-shirt.  But I have two MST3K T-shirts, and I wouldn't die for them, either.
Funny, I have no such artefacts, but Cambo seems to think that no other nation exists on earth but his own, and the simple act of possession of such objects indicates that you are a bought and paid for shill for NASA. This is the same NASA that has no current heavy launch capacity by dint of budget cuts and is reduced to renting a seat on Soyuz just to reach ISS.

That's what happens when you spend all of your MONEY! to pay off hoaxers.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 04, 2018, 02:21:02 PM
Is there an American on here that can send a FOIA request to the parties that hold the microfilm plans with Saturn-V plans?

Would be great to finally have those.

Depending on the cost, I am sure many of us are happy to divide the cost between us all.
No, such a mythical person or entity simply cannot possibly exist. Grumman have their blueprints, Lockheed have theirs, Boeing have theirs and so forth. It is an effort to track those down simply because they are diverse One can  track those down, sure. but there does not exist a central repository.  Each of the subcontractors is at liberty to retain such records or not as they see fit. They are private entities. Having acted as an auditor in a professional capacity, I can tell you for a fact. What you did in 1066 at the battle of Hastings is deeply uninteresting. I want to know what you do now.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 04, 2018, 02:24:47 PM
cambo, suppose I took the several tractor-trailer loads of hardcopy Apollo blueprints and dropped them in front of your abode for your perusal. What could you, with your superior aerospace knowledge, glean from them?
Suppose I burned said records?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 04, 2018, 02:30:45 PM
cambo, suppose I took the several tractor-trailer loads of hardcopy Apollo blueprints and dropped them in front of your abode for your perusal. What could you, with your superior aerospace knowledge, glean from them?
Suppose I burned said records?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 04, 2018, 02:41:43 PM
cambo, suppose I took the several tractor-trailer loads of hardcopy Apollo blueprints and dropped them in front of your abode for your perusal. What could you, with your superior aerospace knowledge, glean from them?
Suppose I burned said records?

It would be quite a fire.

My point, though, is that HBs always say that they want this one bit of evidence that they think doesn't exist, and the fact that they can't find it is somehow proof of the hoax. I'm asking cambo to show me how he would ascertain the truth or falsity of Apollo from those blueprints.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 04, 2018, 02:46:50 PM

~snips wall of crap~

Keep the comments coming guys, I’ve got nothing in my diary for the foreseeable future.

I gave you the one piece of evidence you asked for, you seem determined not to respond.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: apollo16uvc on May 04, 2018, 03:21:29 PM
Is there an American on here that can send a FOIA request to the parties that hold the microfilm plans with Saturn-V plans?

Would be great to finally have those.

Depending on the cost, I am sure many of us are happy to divide the cost between us all.
No, such a mythical person or entity simply cannot possibly exist. Grumman have their blueprints, Lockheed have theirs, Boeing have theirs and so forth. It is an effort to track those down simply because they are diverse One can  track those down, sure. but there does not exist a central repository.  Each of the subcontractors is at liberty to retain such records or not as they see fit. They are private entities. Having acted as an auditor in a professional capacity, I can tell you for a fact. What you did in 1066 at the battle of Hastings is deeply uninteresting. I want to know what you do now.
You are making very little sense.

Anyways, wrong:

Paul Shawcross, from NASA's Office of Inspector General, came to the agency's defense in comments published on CCNet -- a scholarly electronic newsletter covering the threat of asteroids and comets. Shawcross said the Saturn 5 blueprints are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm.

"The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, also has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents," he said. "Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart."

So again, if an American could send a FOIA request to Marshall Space Flight Center that would be great.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 04, 2018, 03:22:00 PM
My point, though, is that HBs always say that they want this one bit of evidence that they think doesn't exist, and the fact that they can't find it is somehow proof of the hoax. I'm asking cambo to show me how he would ascertain the truth or falsity of Apollo from those blueprints.

The blueprints argument. We had that with fattydash, until Jay pointed out that they would fill several warehouses. I can't quite remember what Jay said, but if I recall it was along the lines that drafting one design for a particular component could result in numerous drafts; each draft providing an audit to previous iterations of component design. The HBs don't understand the sheer number of components involved in the Saturn V. The idea that cambo thinks all one needs is a filing cabinet is ludicrous.

A proportion of the actual drawings were destroyed by the contractors (if I recall Jay correctly) as they had fulfilled their contractual obligations and were not going to carry the cost of storing the documents.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 04, 2018, 05:55:01 PM
I have a NASA T-shirt.  But I have two MST3K T-shirts, and I wouldn't die for them, either.

I really need to get a NASA T-shirt. I need something to go with my pyjamas, when drinking hot chocolate from my NASA mug, while sitting in my NASA slippers and NASA dressing gown (US version of the word please?), before tucking into bed with my NASA pillow cases and NASA quilt cover, in my NASA wallpapered bedroom and NASA nightlight.  ;)

I do need a NASA T-shirt though.

I have a Walking Dead shirt, a Joker shirt, a Deadpool shirt, a Taco Bell Chihuahua shirt, and I'm currently wearing a Tesla shirt. No NASA shirt, though.

I've got a Van Allen t-shirt. His initials, arranged so it looks like the Van Halen band logo. I've yet to find a place I can wear it; either they recognize one, or the other. Never both.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 04, 2018, 06:14:32 PM
I have T-shirts from 'Walking the Room', 'The Dollop', two US Navy shirts, one Eglin AFB shirt, two NASM and one NASA / JSC t-shirts.

Guess I must be part of the Military Industrial Complex (comedy sub-section).
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 04, 2018, 06:27:19 PM
I see no point in engaging the cam bot. He hasn't said anything interesting, he doesn't know the subject, and his posts are too unfocused to try to reply to.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 04, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
Is there an American on here that can send a FOIA request to the parties that hold the microfilm plans with Saturn-V plans?

Would be great to finally have those.

Depending on the cost, I am sure many of us are happy to divide the cost between us all.
No, such a mythical person or entity simply cannot possibly exist. Grumman have their blueprints, Lockheed have theirs, Boeing have theirs and so forth. It is an effort to track those down simply because they are diverse One can  track those down, sure. but there does not exist a central repository.  Each of the subcontractors is at liberty to retain such records or not as they see fit. They are private entities. Having acted as an auditor in a professional capacity, I can tell you for a fact. What you did in 1066 at the battle of Hastings is deeply uninteresting. I want to know what you do now.
You are making very little sense.

Anyways, wrong:

Paul Shawcross, from NASA's Office of Inspector General, came to the agency's defense in comments published on CCNet -- a scholarly electronic newsletter covering the threat of asteroids and comets. Shawcross said the Saturn 5 blueprints are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm.

"The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, also has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents," he said. "Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart."

So again, if an American could send a FOIA request to Marshall Space Flight Center that would be great.
Not sure I can dumb it down enough for you.  I could try, but am unsure if it would make the slightest iota of any difference to you to even make the effort. Colour me wrong, but if you think for a second that any central repositry exists then you are flat out wrong. Sure there exists some optomistic folks that think one can pull it all into some central database. Has not worked ever.

Besides, it is a NASA endeavour, populated by NASA shills. Of course it will be wrong, no?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 04, 2018, 06:56:29 PM
So again, if an American could send a FOIA request to Marshall Space Flight Center that would be great.
What is stopping you from doing that very thing? What prevents you issuing that very FOIA request? It cannot be that you are not a USian, because that is no block to issuing an FOIA. So why have you not done it?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: apollo16uvc on May 05, 2018, 06:04:57 AM
So again, if an American could send a FOIA request to Marshall Space Flight Center that would be great.
What is stopping you from doing that very thing? What prevents you issuing that very FOIA request? It cannot be that you are not a USian, because that is no block to issuing an FOIA. So why have you not done it?
I thought only a USA citizen could file a FOIA request. However, I do not know how it works. Nor do I think I know enough about the subject to file a proper FOIA request. I think it is best to email the  Marshall Space Flight Center first to get more details. Maybe they have already scanned all the microfilm and can provide it.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: apollo16uvc on May 05, 2018, 06:06:34 AM
Is there an American on here that can send a FOIA request to the parties that hold the microfilm plans with Saturn-V plans?

Would be great to finally have those.

Depending on the cost, I am sure many of us are happy to divide the cost between us all.
No, such a mythical person or entity simply cannot possibly exist. Grumman have their blueprints, Lockheed have theirs, Boeing have theirs and so forth. It is an effort to track those down simply because they are diverse One can  track those down, sure. but there does not exist a central repository.  Each of the subcontractors is at liberty to retain such records or not as they see fit. They are private entities. Having acted as an auditor in a professional capacity, I can tell you for a fact. What you did in 1066 at the battle of Hastings is deeply uninteresting. I want to know what you do now.
You are making very little sense.

Anyways, wrong:

Paul Shawcross, from NASA's Office of Inspector General, came to the agency's defense in comments published on CCNet -- a scholarly electronic newsletter covering the threat of asteroids and comets. Shawcross said the Saturn 5 blueprints are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm.

"The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, also has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents," he said. "Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart."

So again, if an American could send a FOIA request to Marshall Space Flight Center that would be great.
Not sure I can dumb it down enough for you.  I could try, but am unsure if it would make the slightest iota of any difference to you to even make the effort. Colour me wrong, but if you think for a second that any central repositry exists then you are flat out wrong. Sure there exists some optomistic folks that think one can pull it all into some central database. Has not worked ever.

Besides, it is a NASA endeavour, populated by NASA shills. Of course it will be wrong, no?
And why do you think you have a better understanding of the archive status than someone working at NASA?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 05, 2018, 08:04:57 AM
“So the ball is in your court, you pick a subject and we'll be more than happy to discuss.  Your choice.”

Ok, I’ll choose the subject of Apollo, I’ve already started, so feel free to jump in.

“I'm a chemist, but I'm not sure how you "apply" Helium-3 to a rock sample in order for it to be absorbed into the molecular structure. Can you explicate how that's done?”

You claim to be a chemist, so obviously, the drawback to being a chemist is the inability to conduct simple research. Apparently it would be done with a particle accelerator, although it would only penetrate the first couple of millimetres. Thankfully however, there were plenty of meteorites around with Helium 3 already present, which were the ones that are alleged to have come from the moon.

“which NASA employees have homes in the Bahamas and drive Ferraris? An intrepid reporter could dig out that information in an afternoon.”

Why ask me? If you’re so interested, pick up the phone book and look under “I” for intrepid reporters.

“suppose I took the several tractor-trailer loads of hardcopy Apollo blueprints and dropped them in front of your abode for your perusal. What could you, with your superior aerospace knowledge, glean from them?”

Already addressed, read before you post.

“HBs always say that they want this one bit of evidence that they think doesn't exist, and the fact that they can't find it is somehow proof of the hoax”

This word proof seems to get mentioned a hell of a lot in this thread, even though I made it quite clear early on, to anyone with an attention span longer than a goldfish, that I don’t have proof, only circumstantial evidence. No I can’t find it and neither can you, so why shouldn’t I have the opinion that it may not exist. I believe a lot of stuff exists, that I haven’t seen with my own eyes. I’ve never seen a blue whale, but I believe they exist, but who knows, it’s just my opinion.

“I gave you the one piece of evidence you asked for, you seem determined not to respond”

Was it you that gave me a link, regarding the Apollo blueprints? If it was, then you must have posted the wrong link, as they weren’t there and nor could I find a link to them.

“The idea that cambo thinks all one needs is a filing cabinet is ludicrous.”

I thought it was a humorous thing to say at the time, but I now realise, humour and sarcasm isn’t something you people are familiar with.

“I see no point in engaging the cam bot. He hasn't said anything interesting, he doesn't know the subject, and his posts are too unfocused to try to reply to.”

Bye-bye.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 05, 2018, 08:12:36 AM
This word proof seems to get mentioned a hell of a lot in this thread, even though I made it quite clear early on, to anyone with an attention span longer than a goldfish, that I don’t have proof, only circumstantial evidence. No I can’t find it and neither can you, so why shouldn’t I have the opinion that it may not exist. I believe a lot of stuff exists, that I haven’t seen with my own eyes. I’ve never seen a blue whale, but I believe they exist, but who knows, it’s just my opinion.

You started it:

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have

and actually I have already given you it.

Quote
“I gave you the one piece of evidence you asked for, you seem determined not to respond”

Was it you that gave me a link, regarding the Apollo blueprints? If it was, then you must have posted the wrong link, as they weren’t there and nor could I find a link to them.

No, it wasn't. Pay attention.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 05, 2018, 08:42:35 AM
“So the ball is in your court, you pick a subject and we'll be more than happy to discuss.  Your choice.”

Ok, I’ll choose the subject of Apollo, I’ve already started, so feel free to jump in.
  What specifically about Apollo?  You posted multiple comments, the idea was to stick to one subject.
Quote

“I'm a chemist, but I'm not sure how you "apply" Helium-3 to a rock sample in order for it to be absorbed into the molecular structure. Can you explicate how that's done?”

You claim to be a chemist, so obviously, the drawback to being a chemist is the inability to conduct simple research. Apparently it would be done with a particle accelerator, although it would only penetrate the first couple of millimetres. Thankfully however, there were plenty of meteorites around with Helium 3 already present, which were the ones that are alleged to have come from the moon.

“which NASA employees have homes in the Bahamas and drive Ferraris? An intrepid reporter could dig out that information in an afternoon.”

Why ask me? If you’re so interested, pick up the phone book and look under “I” for intrepid reporters.

“suppose I took the several tractor-trailer loads of hardcopy Apollo blueprints and dropped them in front of your abode for your perusal. What could you, with your superior aerospace knowledge, glean from them?”

Already addressed, read before you post.

“HBs always say that they want this one bit of evidence that they think doesn't exist, and the fact that they can't find it is somehow proof of the hoax”

This word proof seems to get mentioned a hell of a lot in this thread, even though I made it quite clear early on, to anyone with an attention span longer than a goldfish, that I don’t have proof, only circumstantial evidence. No I can’t find it and neither can you, so why shouldn’t I have the opinion that it may not exist. I believe a lot of stuff exists, that I haven’t seen with my own eyes. I’ve never seen a blue whale, but I believe they exist, but who knows, it’s just my opinion.

“I gave you the one piece of evidence you asked for, you seem determined not to respond”

Was it you that gave me a link, regarding the Apollo blueprints? If it was, then you must have posted the wrong link, as they weren’t there and nor could I find a link to them.

“The idea that cambo thinks all one needs is a filing cabinet is ludicrous.”

I thought it was a humorous thing to say at the time, but I now realise, humour and sarcasm isn’t something you people are familiar with.

“I see no point in engaging the cam bot. He hasn't said anything interesting, he doesn't know the subject, and his posts are too unfocused to try to reply to.”

Bye-bye.

Stick to one subject matter, Apollo is not really a subject, but many subjects, pick one, not ten.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 05, 2018, 09:11:07 AM
“The idea that cambo thinks all one needs is a filing cabinet is ludicrous.”

I thought it was a humorous thing to say at the time, but I now realise, humour and sarcasm isn’t something you people are familiar with.
Oh, we're very familiar with humour (and sarcasm).  If you'd spent more than 2 minutes looking through other threads on this forum, you'd have seen plenty of examples.

Unfortunately, people who believe in nonsensical hoax theories tend to be very depleted in the humour department, so it was natural to assume that you actually thought all of the Saturn V blueprints could be kept in a single filing cabinet.

And if you look at the top right of each post, you might notice a little button and the words "Insert Quote".  If you click that it'll put the post you're replying to in a quote box (as I've done above) which makes tracking posts and replies a lot easier...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 05, 2018, 09:30:10 AM
“which NASA employees have homes in the Bahamas and drive Ferraris? An intrepid reporter could dig out that information in an afternoon.”

Quote
Why ask me? If you’re so interested, pick up the phone book and look under “I” for intrepid reporters.

Way to miss the point. It is your contention that "NASA employees have homes in the Bahamas and drive Ferraris", presumably from their hoax payoffs. I'm just saying that if that was true, you could easily prove it. If you don't want to, that's your business. Just another one of your unevidenced contentions.


“suppose I took the several tractor-trailer loads of hardcopy Apollo blueprints and dropped them in front of your abode for your perusal. What could you, with your superior aerospace knowledge, glean from them?”

Quote
Already addressed, read before you post.

Liar. You've done no such thing.

And why do you need blueprints, anyway? There are unlaunched Saturn V rockets on display in Alabama and Florida. A Saturn V first stage engine was recovered from the Atlantic fairly recently. It seems to me that actual flight articles are as least as good a proof of something existing as their blueprints.





Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 05, 2018, 10:09:29 AM
I thought it was a humorous thing to say at the time, but I now realise, humour and sarcasm isn’t something you people are familiar with.

Ah bless, you know all about humour and sarcasm. That's lovely.

A horse walks into a bar, and the bar server says 'Hi, but what's with the long face?'

See we can do it too.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 05, 2018, 10:37:18 AM
Is there an American on here that can send a FOIA request to the parties that hold the microfilm plans with Saturn-V plans?

Would be great to finally have those.

Depending on the cost, I am sure many of us are happy to divide the cost between us all.
No, such a mythical person or entity simply cannot possibly exist. Grumman have their blueprints, Lockheed have theirs, Boeing have theirs and so forth. It is an effort to track those down simply because they are diverse One can  track those down, sure. but there does not exist a central repository.  Each of the subcontractors is at liberty to retain such records or not as they see fit. They are private entities. Having acted as an auditor in a professional capacity, I can tell you for a fact. What you did in 1066 at the battle of Hastings is deeply uninteresting. I want to know what you do now.
You are making very little sense.

Anyways, wrong:

Paul Shawcross, from NASA's Office of Inspector General, came to the agency's defense in comments published on CCNet -- a scholarly electronic newsletter covering the threat of asteroids and comets. Shawcross said the Saturn 5 blueprints are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm.

"The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, also has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents," he said. "Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart."

So again, if an American could send a FOIA request to Marshall Space Flight Center that would be great.
Oh super, now you are contending that Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing et al do not have their own records. That is a very strange claim.

ETA: Read your own citation...
Quote
"Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program."

Rocketdyne has those, not NASA.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: apollo16uvc on May 05, 2018, 11:02:54 AM
A few blueprints and detailed documents can be found here: https://archive.org/details/Apollo_blueprint_archive
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 05, 2018, 12:40:31 PM
A few blueprints and detailed documents can be found here: https://archive.org/details/Apollo_blueprint_archive

This can't be correct.  "Everyone" knows they have all been destroyed. ::)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 05, 2018, 01:05:20 PM
I have a NASA T-shirt.  But I have two MST3K T-shirts, and I wouldn't die for them, either.

I really need to get a NASA T-shirt. I need something to go with my pyjamas, when drinking hot chocolate from my NASA mug, while sitting in my NASA slippers and NASA dressing gown (US version of the word please?), before tucking into bed with my NASA pillow cases and NASA quilt cover, in my NASA wallpapered bedroom and NASA nightlight.  ;)

I do need a NASA T-shirt though.

"Bath robe."

I have the NASA T-shirt because it was $9 at a local department store at a time when I happened to have $9 in my budget.  As it happens, I do get money from the US government, and the program from which I get my money is one of the largest portions in the budget.  I get $700 a month.  That's not enough to make me stick to a lie about where I got that T-shirt, much less about my participation, or not, in one of the greatest triumphs of human history.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: apollo16uvc on May 05, 2018, 05:33:42 PM
A few blueprints and detailed documents can be found here: https://archive.org/details/Apollo_blueprint_archive

This can't be correct.  "Everyone" knows they have all been destroyed. ::)
Reality doesn't care about the opinion of some misinformed people.

I added a few more items today.
SEB12100030 comes from the NASA archives and it is the blueprint for the watchband.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 06, 2018, 04:14:34 PM
Quote
I gave you the one piece of evidence you asked for, you seem determined not to respond.

It must be your fuzzy black and white photo you are referring to, which I did respond to on page 4. Don’t be embarrassed, as I suppose my posts so far may have been a bit of a headache to get through.

Even back then, they were able to accurately predict weather patterns a day in advance, maybe not so much on a local scale, but on a global scale, I would say they would be bang on. In my original response, the one that you overlooked, I asked you to show me your work. Can you do that, or is it hidden away somewhere on microfilm?



So obviously, your photo came from the above telecast, right? Well it seems like it’s possible that I could be wrong in my assumption that they couldn’t even get men into orbit back then, as at around 15:10 we see a depiction of the way the earth might have looked from LEO. But hang on! Two completely different interpretations of the alleged earth in the same telecast? It’s ok, I got it now, it was complete BS!

 I also found the flashlight trick amusing, it’s a pity they never spun one of those food bags in mid “air”, although it wouldn’t be as easy without the aid of CGI.

Quote
You started it:
Stick to one subject matter, Apollo is not really a subject, but many subjects, pick one, not ten

Actually the OP started it, but I can see where you’re coming from, but due to the mass of responses I’ve received, I feel obliged to respond, because if I don’t, I might be accused of dodging the issues, that have developed since the thread started. You are free to pick one of your own, and I will happily respond to you, but you are not the only one here, seeking to shoot me down.

Quote
Unfortunately, people who believe in nonsensical hoax theories tend to be very depleted in the humour department

Not true, we fall about laughing at some of the statements and evidence put forward by Apollo believers.

Quote
It is your contention that "NASA employees have homes in the Bahamas and drive Ferraris

You said that, not me. What you assume you would do with all that money, doesn’t mean the rest of the people on the planet would spend it the same way.

Quote
suppose I took the several tractor-trailer loads of hardcopy Apollo blueprints and dropped them in front of your abode for your perusal. What could you, with your superior aerospace knowledge, glean from them?

 Already addressed, read before you post.

Liar. You've done no such thing

I did it twice on page 4, go back and look.

Quote
There are unlaunched Saturn V rockets on display in Alabama and Florida

That is the bit that did work, to some extent anyway.

Quote
A Saturn V first stage engine was recovered from the Atlantic fairly recently

Pity they couldn’t be arsed looking for the rest of it, because that where it’ll be.

Quote
A horse walks into a bar, and the bar server says 'Hi, but what's with the long face?

No, that’s just repeating an old joke, which doesn’t require any spontaneous wit whatsoever.

Quote
A few blueprints and detailed documents can be found here: https://archive.org/details/Apollo_blueprint_archive

Those are diagrams, here’s some of the U.S.S. Enterprise, but before you all start wetting yourselves with excitement, it’s just pretend.

 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/464996730253770078/

Quote
I added a few more items today.
SEB12100030 comes from the NASA archives and it is the blueprint for the watchband

A fully functional watchband? Don’t be so absurd!






Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 06, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Quote from: AtomicDog
It is your contention that "NASA employees have homes in the Bahamas and drive Ferraris"

Quote from: cambo
You said that, not me. What you assume you would do with all that money, doesn’t mean the rest of the people on the planet would spend it the same way.

My mistake. You didn't say it, you  just agreed with it:

Quote from: molesworth
“And where, pray tell, has all this "extorted" tax money gone?  How many NASA employees have holiday homes in the Bahamas, and drive Ferraris?”

Quote from: cambo
Only the ones that were in on it.

Since you agree with the statement, you own it.




Quote from: AtomicDog
suppose I took the several tractor-trailer loads of hardcopy Apollo blueprints and dropped them in front of your abode for your perusal. What could you, with your superior aerospace knowledge, glean from them?

Quote from: cambo
Already addressed, read before you post.

Quote from: AtomicDog
Liar. You've done no such thing.

Quote from: cambo
I did it twice on page 4, go back and look.

You mean this?

Quote from: cambo
I want to see those plans which are allegedly hidden away on microfilm and allegedly available to engineers and researchers for scrutiny. Where are the testimonies from these engineers saying “yep, that’d work”

I see nothing in that statement that speaks to your ability to interpret blueprints. Try again.


Or this?

Quote from: cambo
As I’ve already stated, although I wouldn’t mind seeing them (the plans) for myself, it’s genuine signed testimonies from today’s engineers in the field to say that those contraptions would do the jobs that were allegedly achieved, that would swing it.

I asked for evidence of your ability to interpret blueprints, not for your accepting the word of "today's engineers". You've already discounted the word of every qualified aerospace scientist, technician and engineer on earth; I don't believe for one moment that you would accept signed testimony from anyone.

Quote from: AtomicDog
A Saturn V first stage engine was recovered from the Atlantic fairly recently

Quote from: cambo
Pity they couldn’t be arsed looking for the rest of it, because that where it’ll be.

So how many engines would satisfy you? Why do you need more than one as evidence?

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 06, 2018, 05:46:29 PM
I'll leave OBM to deal with the dismissal of the weather satellite imagery, but...

I also found the flashlight trick amusing, it’s a pity they never spun one of those food bags in mid “air”, although it wouldn’t be as easy without the aid of CGI.
Exactly what was the state of the art in CGI in 1969?  Is this why you think a vacuum chamber wouldn't be needed to create realistic effects - because they could do it all with CGI in post?  Sheesh...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 06, 2018, 05:50:41 PM
My mistake. You didn't say it, you  just agreed with it:
Quote from: molesworth
“And where, pray tell, has all this "extorted" tax money gone?  How many NASA employees have holiday homes in the Bahamas, and drive Ferraris?”

Quote from: cambo
Only the ones that were in on it.
Yeah, sorry, I should have owned that one earlier.  It was intended to point out the stupidity of the idea that the whole Apollo / NASA / fake science thing is just a way to "extort" tax money for their own benefit.  (I don't think Cambo actually understands the meaning of the word "extort", but that's another discussion.)

Quote
Since you agree with the statement, you own it.
Agreed.  I'd like some sort of justification for the ridiculous claims as well.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 06, 2018, 06:03:24 PM
Quote
A horse walks into a bar, and the bar server says 'Hi, but what's with the long face?
No, that’s just repeating an old joke, which doesn’t require any spontaneous wit whatsoever.

Good evening mystery time traveller from 16th century Spain. You said that a sense of humour and sarcasm was wasted on us, not that we did not demonstrate spontaneous wit. That's just changing the goal posts now isn't it?

I draw your attention to my remark that I made about Jarrah, namely he could not find the little ladder to debunk himself each morning to eat his coco pops, let alone debunk anyone else. I felt that was quite spontaneous.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Geordie on May 06, 2018, 06:19:36 PM
(A reply to an old post; apologies for any lack of current relevance.)
“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”

Of course not, monkey then humans.
Just like the Vikings sent monkeys off in longboats to see if it was possible to sail a small boat from Iceland to Vinland. Yeah. They waited for those monkeys to return with the good news.

(I can't remember how they acquired monkeys in first millennia Iceland, maybe someone else here knows.)

Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why. The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?
Dig this, if you haven't already:
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

It's fascinating. The ham is still around. He still has his original recordings. The local newspaper reporter, who witnessed the recordings being made, is still around. The original newspapers if not in the morgue are in the microfilm collections of various regional libraries.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 06, 2018, 07:55:55 PM
A horse walks into a bar, and the bar server says 'Hi, but what's with the long face?'

A white horse walks into a bar.

The barman says: "Hi, what'll you have?"

The horse says: "Whisky, and make it a double"

The barman asks: "What brand of whisky would you like?"

The horse asks: "What brands have you got?"

The barman says: "Well, we've got Glenfiddich, and Balvenie, and Aberlour, and we've even got one named after you!!

The horse exclaims: What, you have a whisky called "Neddy"?!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 06, 2018, 07:58:53 PM
I want to see those plans which are allegedly hidden away on microfilm and allegedly available to engineers and researchers for scrutiny. Where are the testimonies from these engineers saying “yep, that’d work”

What, like modern day engineers examining the F-1 engines to see how they worked, even going so far as to test fire one?

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146829-nasa-resurrects-its-most-powerful-rocket-engine-after-40-years-for-science

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/

Like examining the spacecraft hardware to aid in designing the modern day equivalent?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/umbilical_inspection.html

Like modern applications that are directly linked to Apollo?

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2525898/app-development/nasa-s-apollo-technology-has-changed-history.html

RTGs. FBW. The list goes on and on. Just because you are willfully ignorant, it doesn't mean that others have to be.


Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 06, 2018, 10:22:28 PM
I'm interested in cambo's approach to this.

His reasoning appears to be that his self admitted lack of intelligence and any kind of a higher education makes him superior to us because he is unencumbered by all that "useless" knowledge and understanding stuff, and this allows him to see right through all that annoying science to the obvious hoax that lies beyond.

With this kind of thinking, its a minor miracle that the human species has managed to survive this long.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: VQ on May 06, 2018, 11:21:23 PM
Just like the Vikings sent monkeys off in longboats to see if it was possible to sail a small boat from Iceland to Vinland. Yeah. They waited for those monkeys to return with the good news.

(I can't remember how they acquired monkeys in first millennia Iceland, maybe someone else here knows.)

A more literally than usual "if I ran the zoo" argument.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 07, 2018, 01:26:30 AM
(A reply to an old post; apologies for any lack of current relevance.)
“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”

Of course not, monkey then humans.
Just like the Vikings sent monkeys off in longboats to see if it was possible to sail a small boat from Iceland to Vinland. Yeah. They waited for those monkeys to return with the good news.

(I can't remember how they acquired monkeys in first millennia Iceland, maybe someone else here knows.)

I wonder if Queen Isabella of Castile sent monkeys out to see if it was safe before allowing Columbus to go look for the New World?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Zakalwe on May 07, 2018, 05:41:55 AM
His reasoning appears to be that his self admitted lack of intelligence and any kind of a higher education makes him superior to us because he is unencumbered by all that "useless" knowledge and understanding stuff, and this allows him to see right through all that annoying science to the obvious hoax that lies beyond.


Isaac Asimov summed it thus:
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Nowhere Man on May 07, 2018, 05:49:56 AM
I wonder if Queen Isabella of Castile sent monkeys out to see if it was safe before allowing Columbus to go look for the New World? a new route to the Indies?
Fixed that for you.


Fred
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 07, 2018, 06:08:48 AM
I wonder if Queen Isabella of Castile sent monkeys out to see if it was safe before allowing Columbus to go look for the New World? a new route to the Indies?
Fixed that for you.


Fred

Ah yes of course,  my bad. He discovered the New World when he was looking for that new route.

Still no monkeys though!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 07, 2018, 06:10:13 AM
His reasoning appears to be that his self admitted lack of intelligence and any kind of a higher education makes him superior to us because he is unencumbered by all that "useless" knowledge and understanding stuff, and this allows him to see right through all that annoying science to the obvious hoax that lies beyond.


Isaac Asimov summed it thus:
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "

I knew I had read that somewhere... so cambo's approach is not so new after all!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Zakalwe on May 07, 2018, 06:28:56 AM
His reasoning appears to be that his self admitted lack of intelligence and any kind of a higher education makes him superior to us because he is unencumbered by all that "useless" knowledge and understanding stuff, and this allows him to see right through all that annoying science to the obvious hoax that lies beyond.


Isaac Asimov summed it thus:
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "

I knew I had read that somewhere... so cambo's approach is not so new after all!

DakDak (remember him?) also tried it. It didn't end well for him.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=164
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 07, 2018, 11:52:30 AM
I wonder if Queen Isabella of Castile sent monkeys out to see if it was safe before allowing Columbus to go look for the New World? a new route to the Indies?
Fixed that for you.


Fred

Ah yes of course,  my bad. He discovered the New World when he was looking for that new route.

Still no monkeys though!

Well, see? That's what comes of not using monkeys in the first place!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 07, 2018, 11:53:20 AM
His reasoning appears to be that his self admitted lack of intelligence and any kind of a higher education makes him superior to us because he is unencumbered by all that "useless" knowledge and understanding stuff, and this allows him to see right through all that annoying science to the obvious hoax that lies beyond.


Isaac Asimov summed it thus:
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "

I knew I had read that somewhere... so cambo's approach is not so new after all!

I never found it new. Just...balder.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 07, 2018, 04:24:33 PM
Quote
“I see nothing in that statement that speaks to your ability to interpret blueprints. Try again.”

I couldn’t possibly answer that question until I saw them. I know what the plans are for and what these contraptions are meant to do, so who knows, I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.

Quote
“So how many engines would satisfy you? Why do you need more than one as evidence?”

“Pity they couldn’t be arsed looking for the rest of it, because that where it’ll be.”

You will notice, I said “the rest of it” and not “the rest of them”. I was referring to the rest of the rocket, including the bits, they say they got into space.

Quote
“I also found the flashlight trick amusing, it’s a pity they never spun one of those food bags in mid “air”, although it wouldn’t be as easy without the aid of CGI.”

“Exactly what was the state of the art in CGI in 1969?”

It was non-existent, why do you ask?

You people are really annoying me now, I feel like I am talking to children here, can’t you digest a simple sentence without getting it totally wrong? The words “without the aid of CGI.” Should have gave you a clue, but because the initials “CGI” are in uppercase, that is all you noticed, and you went straight to your keyboard to ask your ridiculous question.

Quote
“I don't think Cambo actually understands the meaning of the word "extort"

“And where, pray tell, has all this "extorted" tax money gone?  How many NASA employees have holiday homes in the Bahamas, and drive Ferraris?”

“Only the ones that were in on it.”

I was answering the second part of your question, not the first part. Again, this inability you have to digest information is annoying. Or maybe you think you are being clever, twisting people’s words?

Quote
“he could not find the little ladder to debunk himself each morning to eat his coco pops, let alone debunk anyone else. I felt that was quite spontaneous.”

Well done! Sorry I didn’t give you the credit you so richly deserve, when you first said it.

Quote
“Just like the Vikings sent monkeys off in longboats to see if it was possible to sail a small boat from Iceland to Vinland."

Monkeys can’t sail boats, and I am laughing already, at the thought of you all searching the internet for a picture of a monkey sailing a boat, my wife nearly phoned an ambulance, as she feared my spleen would explode. I don’t think they had remote control either, which renders your analogy complete crap.

Quote
Dig this, if you haven't already:
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

Thanks so much for posting that story, I’ve read it before, but I enjoyed reading it again, so thanks again.

Quote
“What, like modern day engineers examining the F-1 engines to see how they worked, even going so far as to test fire one?”

As I’ve previously stated, those bits worked.

Quote
Like modern applications that are directly linked to Apollo?

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2525898/app-development/nasa-s-apollo-technology-has-changed-history.html

So you think electronics would not be as advanced, if not for Apollo?

Quote
"Without it, you wouldn't have a laptop. You'd still have things like the Univac."

That’s priceless! Go NASA!

Quote
“this allows him to see right through all that annoying science to the obvious hoax that lies beyond”

No science is needed to realise it would be suicide to try and land on the moon, in a cardboard box that was never landed anywhere, let alone the moon.

No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon.

It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to find it odd, how calm they sound when their lives are at risk, as apposed to how terrified they look and sound, while being interviewed.

There is no scientific explanation as to why there is no noticeable disturbance under the Landers from their thruster. Anyone who says otherwise are either lying or brainwashed.

Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.

I don’t need science to wonder why an astronaut who supposedly walked on the moon, would not know about the radiation belts, the lying little sod.

&index=8
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 07, 2018, 05:00:14 PM


Quote from: AtomicDog
“I see nothing in that statement that speaks to your ability to interpret blueprints. Try again.”


Quote from: cambo
I couldn’t possibly answer that question until I saw them. I know what the plans are for and what these contraptions are meant to do, so who knows, I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.

Oh, is that all? Here you go:

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/lunar-rover-designing-and-unpacking-car-moon
 (https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/lunar-rover-designing-and-unpacking-car-moon)

And here's the LRV deployment in action:



I keed, I keed! I know that you are going to deny the evidence of your own eyes like a good HB; I just wanted an excuse to post that fantastic video again.

Quote from: cambo
You will notice, I said “the rest of it” and not “the rest of them”. I was referring to the rest of the rocket, including the bits, they say they got into space.

I already said that there are intact flight Saturn Vs in Alabama and Florida. The first stages that splashed in the Atlantic were kind of crunched; hitting the water at 300 mph will kind of do that to a rocket. The engines were the only thing worth salvaging. But since intact rockets aren't good enough for you, I doubt that an F-1 engine whose serial numbers prove its provenance to the vehicle and mission it came from will.

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: raven on May 07, 2018, 05:05:40 PM
If it should have been disturbed as much as you say, cambo, with all the other details in place as part of set dressing, why didn't they . . . oh, make it like that?
By the way, there is evidence of some disturbance (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5921). They even intentionally took pictures of under the LM descend stage to record it, as linked.
Now why the hell would the hoax creators take the time to make such photos, let alone present them to the public, while not making it how everyone who knew anything knew it would be?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 07, 2018, 05:06:18 PM
Finally the gish gallop has picked up a little speed...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 07, 2018, 05:11:28 PM

No science is needed to realise it would be suicide to try and land on the moon, in a cardboard box that was never landed anywhere, let alone the moon.

Not a cardboard box.

Quote
No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon.

Didn't happen. The claim is false.

Quote
It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to find it odd, how calm they sound when their lives are at risk, as apposed to how terrified they look and sound, while being interviewed.

How you would react and how people trained to land on the moon would react are not the same thing.

Quote
There is no scientific explanation as to why there is no noticeable disturbance under the Landers from their thruster. Anyone who says otherwise are either lying or brainwashed.

Anyone who claims there wasn't noticeable disturbance is either lying or ignorant of the subject matter.

Quote
Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.

Science doesn't need to explain budget constraints.

Quote
I don’t need science to wonder why an astronaut who supposedly walked on the moon, would not know about the radiation belts, the lying little sod.

But you do need to understand dishonest editing and that Bean knows more about the VAB than you ever will.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 07, 2018, 05:14:38 PM


No science is needed to realise it would be suicide to try and land on the moon, in a cardboard box that was never landed anywhere, let alone the moon.

How do you propose to test land a vehicle designed for use in space and a 1/6G (airless) environment?

Quote
No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon.

I suggest you do some research, this question has been answered time and time again.

Quote
It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to find it odd, how calm they sound when their lives are at risk, as apposed to how terrified they look and sound, while being interviewed.

They were doing their job and they were all (with at least one exception) top grade test pilots used to taking risks, interviews was not something any of them were familiar with.

Quote
There is no scientific explanation as to why there is no noticeable disturbance under the Landers from their thruster. Anyone who says otherwise are either lying or brainwashed.

Again lack of research, there is plenty of evidence of disturbed regolith under the lander's, plus research the throttleability of the Lunar Modules engines and the effect of a vacuum on the thrust.

Quote
Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.

A mission to go where exactly? Actually the Russians tried to emulate (or even beat the Americans) with a lunar landing, unfortunately their N1 rocket failed.

Quote

I don’t need science to wonder why an astronaut who supposedly walked on the moon, would not know about the radiation belts, the lying little sod.

Can you prove that Sibrel did not edit this interview? He has been guilty of it before.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 07, 2018, 05:19:32 PM

Quote from: Obviousman
Like modern applications that are directly linked to Apollo?

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2525898/app-development/nasa-s-apollo-technology-has-changed-history.html

So you think electronics would not be as advanced, if not for Apollo?

Strawman. That is just one of the many examples of modern experts confirming that Apollo-related technology was capable of carrying out the functions they were designed to do.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 07, 2018, 06:55:22 PM
For someone who thinks for himself, he's damn familiar with the top twenty, low-rent, bingo-card worthy hoax claims.


(Okay, I say, "familiar," but that's because he's heard of them and can trot out a near-enough copy for other people to recognize. He shows no sign of being "familiar" in the sense of understanding them well and being able to expand and expound.)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 07, 2018, 08:13:38 PM
It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to find it odd, how calm they sound when their lives are at risk

You think professionally trained airmen cannot be calm under extreme pressure and threat of mortal danger? Try listening to the cockpit recording Chesley Sullenberger, Captain of US Airways 1549 as he attempts something no-one has ever managed to do successfully before... land a jet airliner (suffering a double engine failure) and full of passengers, on a river.



THAT is the very definition of calm under pressure.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 08, 2018, 02:24:41 AM
Quote
“I also found the flashlight trick amusing, it’s a pity they never spun one of those food bags in mid “air”, although it wouldn’t be as easy without the aid of CGI.”

“Exactly what was the state of the art in CGI in 1969?”

It was non-existent, why do you ask?

You people are really annoying me now, I feel like I am talking to children here, can’t you digest a simple sentence without getting it totally wrong? The words “without the aid of CGI.” Should have gave you a clue, but because the initials “CGI” are in uppercase, that is all you noticed, and you went straight to your keyboard to ask your ridiculous question.
Perhaps if you gave more than one-liner responses, and made an effort to properly track discussions, it wouldn't be as confusing.

However, I seem to recall that you were the one who made the claim that the footage en-route, and on the Moon, was filmed on a large non-vacuum sound stage, and that all the effects of vacuum and low gravity were added as effects later.  Perhaps you meant old-school effects and not CGI (although, as noted, it's hard to know what you mean sometimes) but that again begs the question of exactly how these effects were produced, given that even the most realistic movies of the time couldn't get anywhere close to the reality of space flight or the lunar surface.

Quote
Quote
“I don't think Cambo actually understands the meaning of the word "extort"

“And where, pray tell, has all this "extorted" tax money gone?  How many NASA employees have holiday homes in the Bahamas, and drive Ferraris?”

“Only the ones that were in on it.”

I was answering the second part of your question, not the first part. Again, this inability you have to digest information is annoying. Or maybe you think you are being clever, twisting people’s words?
I'm not twisting anyone's words.  Your response of “Only the ones that were in on it.” implies that you believe there are people living the high life on their ill-gotten gains from Apollo (and other programmes).  If you're sure these people exist, why has nobody tracked them down to expose the hoax?  And despite your belief that there would be very few people aware of the hoax, it's been pointed out many times that your ideas just don't work, and there would be, at a minimum, tens of thousands of people who could expose it.

And that's without going into the question of where the money to pay these people comes from, and why no politicians, in any country involved, have blown the lid and cut off the funding.  Given political rivalries, and the struggle that NASA (and science in general) has to get funding, it would be both a political coup and an easy win economically...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 08, 2018, 03:43:23 AM
I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.

Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked. Your argument from incredulity cuts no ice in reasoned debate. Can you look at the blueprints for a Hawker Harrier and convince yourself it could fly backwards and sideways just from those?

Quote
No science is needed to realise it would be suicide to try and land on the moon, in a cardboard box that was never landed anywhere, let alone the moon.

Why is it HBs are entirely incapable of arguing without resorting to absurd misrepresentation? The LM was nothing like a cardboard box, and landing on the Moon had been done years before Apollo. The only difference is putting men in the LM. The physics of landing a rocket-powered vehicle on the Moon were well known and tested by the time of Apollo 11.

Quote
There is no scientific explanation as to why there is no noticeable disturbance under the Landers from their thruster. Anyone who says otherwise are either lying or brainwashed.

Why do you feel the need to pre-emptively dismiss anyone who disagrees with you? It doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments that you are so unwilling to engage in debate you handwave away any contrary view before it is even presented. I can only assume you know full well you lack the necessary skill to provide a sound debate on the subject so you attack your opposition.

Quote
Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.

Because it's not a scientific problem but a financial and political one.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 08, 2018, 05:24:42 AM
Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked. Your argument from incredulity cuts no ice in reasoned debate. Can you look at the blueprints for a Hawker Harrier and convince yourself it could fly backwards and sideways just from those?

Indeed.

I have seen Harriers land vertically both on grass and  in the desert on loose soil/sand. The thrust of the Harrier's RR Mk 103 Pegasus engine is 23,800 lbf; over twice that of the Lunar Module's Descent engine (10,125 lbf) which was only ever operate between 10% and 60% anyway. I never once saw a crater under a landed Harrier!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 08, 2018, 05:46:28 AM

Indeed.

I have seen Harriers land vertically both on grass and  in the desert on loose soil/sand. The thrust of the Harrier's RR Mk 103 Pegasus engine is 23,800 lbf; over twice that of the Lunar Module's Descent engine (10,125 lbf) which was only ever operate between 10% and 60% anyway. I never once saw a crater under a landed Harrier!

Not withstanding the additional fact that the Harriers Exhaust would be confined to a fairly narrow column in the Earths atmosphere, whereas the Lunar Module is operating in a vacuum and the exhaust will be more diffuse. An effect that can be seen during a rocket launch, as the rocket gets higher the exhaust is seen to spread out as the atmospheric pressure reduces.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 08, 2018, 08:30:44 AM

I couldn’t possibly answer that question until I saw them. I know what the plans are for and what these contraptions are meant to do, so who knows, I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.
Lander had no "trunk". The rover was packed externally as you would well know if you were capable of operating google.

(https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_15/hskap15rovinstalls_sm.jpg)
(https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_15/hskap15rovchkscott_sm.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 08, 2018, 08:36:32 AM

I couldn’t possibly answer that question until I saw them. I know what the plans are for and what these contraptions are meant to do, so who knows, I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.
Lander had no "trunk". The rover was packed externally as you would well know if you were capable of operating google.

(https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_15/hskap15rovinstalls_sm.jpg)
(https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_15/hskap15rovchkscott_sm.jpg)
The assembly and the excellent video, supplied this time by AtomicDog  of the deployment should convince anyone with a bit of spatial  recognition.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 08, 2018, 09:18:36 AM

I couldn’t possibly answer that question until I saw them. I know what the plans are for and what these contraptions are meant to do, so who knows, I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.
Lander had no "trunk". The rover was packed externally as you would well know if you were capable of operating google.

(https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_15/hskap15rovinstalls_sm.jpg)
(https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_15/hskap15rovchkscott_sm.jpg)
The assembly and the excellent video, supplied this time by AtomicDog  of the deployment should convince anyone with a bit of spatial  recognition.

Thanks. For anyone who hasn't seen the excellent Moon Machines series, here's the segment on the LRV:




What a fantastic piece of engineering.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 08, 2018, 09:29:18 AM
Also, note the people being interviewed who worked on various aspects of Apollo. You think that they were living high on their NASA bribe MONEY!? Think their CIA handlers were standing out of camera shot, making ominous "don't spill the beans" gestures to the interviewees?

Conversely, if they were innocent dupe engineers, thinking that they were making real equipment designed to operate on the moon; they would...make real equipment designed to operate on the moon.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: jfb on May 08, 2018, 09:48:14 AM
[
Quote
“I also found the flashlight trick amusing, it’s a pity they never spun one of those food bags in mid “air”, although it wouldn’t be as easy without the aid of CGI.”

“Exactly what was the state of the art in CGI in 1969?”

It was non-existent, why do you ask?

At first blush, it sounded like you were claiming the flashlight footage was created with CGI - however, on a second read, I realize that's not what you meant.  Your argument has not been the easiest to follow.

I'm frankly surprised you didn't immediately hone in on the movie Apollo 13, which used a Vomit Comet to film some of the weightlessness scenes (like when they first take their helmets off, or where Haise (Paxton) is goofing around in the LM).  Those scenes were expensive to film (plane time isn't cheap), and they could only film for 30 seconds to a minute before they had to pull out of the dive.  But that's a very convincing way to fake weightlessness1, at least for short takes. 

Quote
Quote
“this allows him to see right through all that annoying science to the obvious hoax that lies beyond”

No science is needed to realise it would be suicide to try and land on the moon, in a cardboard box that was never landed anywhere, let alone the moon.

The LM was far from being a cardboard box.  Yes, it was thin and lightweight, but it was strong enough for its mission.  Grumman performed all kinds of tests, including drop tests, to verify its integrity (one such test was a minor plot point in the "Spider" episode of From the Earth to the Moon).

Quote
No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon.

Er?

Quote
It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to find it odd, how calm they sound when their lives are at risk, as apposed to how terrified they look and sound, while being interviewed.

These were combat veterans and test pilots, not public speakers.  I get nervous in front of crowds too.

Quote
There is no scientific explanation as to why there is no noticeable disturbance under the Landers from their thruster. Anyone who says otherwise are either lying or brainwashed.

Anyone who claims that there is "no noticeable disturbance" isn't looking at the pictures closely enough. 

Quote
Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.

Nothing to do with science, everything to do with $$$$$. The Apollo program cost something like US$25bn in 1973 dollars.  Manned spaceflight is expensive, BEO manned spaceflight is stupid expensive, even when we do it right.  Having said that, China's on pace to send people to the moon sometime in the 2020s. 


1.  Freefall isn't the same thing as weightlessness - they're still accelerating 9.8 m/s^2 towards the Earth's surface, but the plane is accelerating at the same rate, so there's no net force on the actors or the props, so everything acts like it's weightless.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 08, 2018, 11:11:46 AM
Here is a video of the same sequence but edited far differently, perhaps cambo can rethink the mission debriefing.

&t=8s
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Von_Smith on May 08, 2018, 12:28:27 PM
1.  Freefall isn't the same thing as weightlessness


Actually, I think it is.   People in the ISS or even the Apollo spacecraft are "weightless" for the same reason people in the Vomit Comet are:  they are in freefall.  It's not really because earth's gravity is so low as to be neglible.  If that were the main reason, then Jules Verne's notion that space travelers would only experience weightlessness briefly at the earth-moon equipotential would be what we see, but AIUI it isn't.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 08, 2018, 08:33:18 PM
Quote
“Oh, is that all? Here you go:”

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/lunar-rover-designing-and-unpacking-car-moon

And? We all know it was built to unfold, but I need the plans to show how it was constructed, in order to fold and unfold. Not just a set of diagrams showing where all the bits went, you get that sort of thing in a flat pack from a furniture store.

Quote
“The engines were the only thing worth salvaging”

They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there.

Quote
“there is evidence of some disturbance. They even intentionally took pictures of under the LM descend stage to record it, as linked.”

What proof is a close-up? That would be a very small area to fake. Zoom in and you’ll see all those tiny little rocks that should have been blown away.

Quote
“Not a cardboard box”

Ok, several cardboard boxes taped together. Would you like to explain why they would be confident of landing it?

Quote
“No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon”

“Didn't happen. The claim is false.”

It’s not a claim, you blind little soul, it’s a fact. What else could it be? We are talking official Apollo footage here, and although there are different edited versions, it’s all allegedly genuine footage from the journey to the moon.

Here it’s at 33:40

Here it’s at 33:50

Here it’s at 15:17

And here again at 33:50


You need to either give your own explanation to what you see through that window, which points to them being genuinely on their way to the moon, or explain why you think it is not genuine footage.

Quote
“How you would react and how people trained to land on the moon would react are not the same thing.”

I disagree, we are all human, and what these men were allegedly part of was just incredible, even by your standards, surely. It was the greatest achievement by mankind to date, and I and the rest of the world’s population in possession of their own faculties, would be buzzing our frigging nuts off. I’d turn up to that press conference in t-shirt and jeans, I’m a superstar after all. I’d be lying back on my chair with my hands clasped behind my head and my feet on the table with a joint hanging from my mouth, it was the sixties after all. My smug grin would be so wide, I’d get into the Guinness book of records. But you would be slouched there, looking down at the table, nervously fiddling with your pen, hoping no one would realise you were repeating the words you were hearing through your earpiece, As you knew nothing of what you did, because you never done it.

Quote
“Anyone who claims there wasn't noticeable disturbance is either lying or ignorant of the subject matter.”

Show me.

Quote
“Science doesn't need to explain budget constraints”

Just once, as opposed to nine?

Quote
“But you do need to understand dishonest editing and that Bean knows more about the VAB than you ever will”

Has he been educated since, because he knew naff all, at the time of the interview.

Quote
“How do you propose to test land a vehicle designed for use in space and a 1/6G (airless) environment?”

Either remotely, or just scrap the idea.

Quote
“No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon”

“I suggest you do some research, this question has been answered time and time again.”

So answer it.

Quote
“A mission to go where exactly? Actually the Russians tried to emulate (or even beat the Americans) with a lunar landing, unfortunately their N1 rocket failed.”

Around the moon of course, and the Russians failed because it was impossible at the time, and still is.

Quote
“Can you prove that Sibrel did not edit this interview? He has been guilty of it before”

He delivers one sentence in the clip, how could that sentence possibly be taken out of context?

&index=8

Quote
“Try listening to the cockpit recording Chesley Sullenberger, Captain of US Airways 1549 as he attempts something no-one has ever managed to do successfully before... land a jet airliner (suffering a double engine failure) and full of passengers, on a river.”

He’s nervous, we can hear the croak in his voice, although I’m sure he was confident of making a successful landing, as he will have known how his aeroplane would work under those circumstances, due to his training.

Quote
“I seem to recall that you were the one who made the claim that the footage en-route, and on the Moon, was filmed on a large non-vacuum sound stage”

Only the moon walks.

Quote
“and that all the effects of vacuum and low gravity were added as effects later”

I never said that, unless you mean slowing it down for playback? And what are these vacuum effects I keep hearing about, could anybody be more specific?

Quote
“implies that you believe there are people living the high life on their ill-gotten gains from Apollo (and other programmes”

As they aren’t building functional hardware, apart from the odd empty rocket, they have billions left over from the tax money they receive for the stuff they’re not actually doing.

Quote
“If you're sure these people exist, why has nobody tracked them down to expose the hoax?”

Like Bart Sibrel? Not an easy job when one gets punched in the face by a man so terrified of being found out, that he resorts to violence.

Quote
“it's been pointed out many times that your ideas just don't work, and there would be, at a minimum, tens of thousands of people who could expose it.”

Where the hell are you getting your figures from, one hundred for Apollo, and another couple of hundred for other projects, and an extra few dozen since the emergence of CGI (The ISS).

Quote
“Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked”

What’s your point?

Quote
“The physics of landing a rocket-powered vehicle on the Moon were well known and tested by the time of Apollo 11”

You mean these?

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-moments/4427834/Luna-9-makes-first-lunar-soft-landing--February-3--1966

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_1

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_13#/media/File:Luna-13_lander.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3#/media/File:Surveyor_3_on_Moon.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_5#/media/File:Surveyor_NASA_lunar_lander.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_6#/media/File:Surveyor_NASA_lunar_lander.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_7#/media/File:Surveyor_NASA_lunar_lander.jpg

If I didn’t know you people better, I’d think you were pulling my leg, the usually excuse is that those astronauts were a bunch of hard b#@t?rds.

Quote
“I never once saw a crater under a landed Harrier”

Nor would I expect to see a crater under a Lunar Lander.

Quote
“whereas the Lunar Module is operating in a vacuum and the exhaust will be more diffuse. An effect that can be seen during a rocket launch, as the rocket gets higher the exhaust is seen to spread out as the atmospheric pressure reduces”

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

Quote
“Lander had no "trunk". The rover was packed externally as you would well know if you were capable of operating google”

Another example of your inability to understand humour and sarcasm.

Quote
“For anyone who hasn't seen the excellent Moon Machines series, here's the segment on the LRV:”

Thanks, I actually downloaded this video and watched it on my TV. Very interesting, and I enjoyed it immensely, and I actually think it would work. It’s just a shame, they couldn’t get it to the moon to test it. I then watched the Lunar Module episode, which was a massive disappointment, lots of information, without actually explaining anything.

Quote
“Anyone who claims that there is "no noticeable disturbance" isn't looking at the pictures closely enough”

So post a picture and point it out.

Quote
“Here is a video of the same sequence but edited far differently, perhaps cambo can rethink the mission debriefing”

Edited differently? The full version is unedited, and in these carefully chosen segments, they still don’t look comfortable. Maybe if they shortened it to two minutes, they might find something.







Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: raven on May 08, 2018, 08:48:13 PM

So post a picture and point it out.
I did myself back in page 7. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1459.msg46912#msg46912) You must have missed it in your gallop.
Quote from: cambo
Edited differently? The full version is unedited, and in these carefully chosen segments, they still don’t look comfortable. Maybe if they shortened it to two minutes, they might find something.
The Apollo 11 astronauts spent in a couple weeks in quarantine in the remote possibility they had brought back some kind of pathogen from the moon and spent much of that time in debriefing from the mission itself. All the Apollo 11 astronauts were married men with families. Now, put yourself in their shoes. They've been away from their families for some time, and they're probably coming to terms with having probably hit their 'peak' as far as personal achievements go, and now you're going to deal with the press. I don't know about you, but I'd be a little grumpy in their position as well.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Geordie on May 08, 2018, 09:11:28 PM
I have T-shirts from 'Walking the Room', 'The Dollop', two US Navy shirts, one Eglin AFB shirt, two NASM and one NASA / JSC t-shirts.

Guess I must be part of the Military Industrial Complex (comedy sub-section).
How about Donald-Trump-as-JFK NASA shirts: "We do these things not because they are hard, but because they are easy."
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 08, 2018, 09:39:03 PM
Quote from: cambo
And? We all know it was built to unfold, but I need the plans to show how it was constructed, in order to fold and unfold. Not just a set of diagrams showing where all the bits went, you get that sort of thing in a flat pack from a furniture store.


Handwaving. You can SEE in the video and the drawings that the LRV was strapped AGAINST the Descent Stage, not inside it, and that it could unfold. You no more need blueprints to see that the LRV could be packed and deployed than you need to examine the blueprints to an umbrella to prove that someone can pull it out of an umbrella stand and open it.


Quote from: AtomicDog
   The engines were the only thing worth salvaging

Quote from: cambo
They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 08, 2018, 09:46:24 PM
Quote
“Try listening to the cockpit recording Chesley Sullenberger, Captain of US Airways 1549 as he attempts something no-one has ever managed to do successfully before... land a jet airliner (suffering a double engine failure) and full of passengers, on a river.”

He’s nervous, we can hear the croak in his voice, although I’m sure he was confident of making a successful landing, as he will have known how his aeroplane would work under those circumstances, due to his training.

Yet another example of your ignorance of aviation / aeronautics:

Quote
...However, despite his composure during the accident, Sully reveals to Telegraph Travel that he had received minimal training for a water landing (or “ditching”).

“The only training we had gotten for a water landing was reading a few paragraphs in a manual and having a brief classroom discussion,” he said.

“Little has changed since our flight. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has adopted only six of the 35 safety recommendations made by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in its final report on Flight 1549. We owe it to all who fly to act on what we have learned and not just let important recommendations gather dust on a shelf.”

He added: “I am still very glad that we were able to save every life in such a sudden and intense crisis for which we had never been specifically trained.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/what-happens-when-a-plane-lands-on-water/
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Geordie on May 09, 2018, 12:13:13 AM
Quote
Dig this, if you haven't already:
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
Thanks so much for posting that story, I’ve read it before, but I enjoyed reading it again, so thanks again.
Excellent. You're welcome. Could we please have your thoughts on it?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Geordie on May 09, 2018, 12:24:49 AM
Science can’t explain why no country has sent people beyond the safety of Earth orbit since Apollo.
You are right on the money here.
 Science is neither equipped nor intended to explain politics.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 09, 2018, 12:36:11 AM

Quote
“No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon”

“Didn't happen. The claim is false.”

It’s not a claim, you blind little soul, it’s a fact. What else could it be? We are talking official Apollo footage here, and although there are different edited versions, it’s all allegedly genuine footage from the journey to the moon.

Here it’s at 33:40

Here it’s at 33:50

Here it’s at 15:17

And here again at 33:50


You need to either give your own explanation to what you see through that window, which points to them being genuinely on their way to the moon, or explain why you think it is not genuine footage.

You might want to go back to the solid proof I gave you some time ago that you have ignored consistently.

The light through the windows is filtered by tints. The view outside is not in LEO. The explanation is that what you are seeing is the Earth. The Earth exactly as it should be at the time of those broadcasts, right down to every cloud. Convicted criminal Bart Sibrel (who deserved the punch in the face and much much more for his persistent stalking) lied when he claimed the footage he was sent was sent to him by accident. He was sent what anyone could be sent when they asked for it, and the images in the footage he got was published in newspapers and broadcast on live TV. Sibrel's claim that it was in LEO and they used cutouts to mask the Earth is utter garbage.

Educate yourself

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/ch4_3_1a.html

Quote

Quote
“How you would react and how people trained to land on the moon would react are not the same thing.”

I disagree, we are all human, and what these men were allegedly part of was just incredible, even by your standards, surely. It was the greatest achievement by mankind to date, and I and the rest of the world’s population in possession of their own faculties, would be buzzing our frigging nuts off. I’d turn up to that press conference in t-shirt and jeans, I’m a superstar after all. I’d be lying back on my chair with my hands clasped behind my head and my feet on the table with a joint hanging from my mouth, it was the sixties after all. My smug grin would be so wide, I’d get into the Guinness book of records. But you would be slouched there, looking down at the table, nervously fiddling with your pen, hoping no one would realise you were repeating the words you were hearing through your earpiece, As you knew nothing of what you did, because you never done it.

Your answer doesn't change mine one bit. The crew were not loudmouth braggadocios convinced of their own superiority.

Quote
Quote
“Anyone who claims there wasn't noticeable disturbance is either lying or ignorant of the subject matter.”

Show me.

Just ignorant of the subject matter. Learn some manners, you might get more back.

Quote
Quote
“Science doesn't need to explain budget constraints”

Just once, as opposed to nine?

Moon missions cost money.

Quote
Quote
“But you do need to understand dishonest editing and that Bean knows more about the VAB than you ever will”

Has he been educated since, because he knew naff all, at the time of the interview.

I suggest you go look at Gemini transcripts he was involved in and check that out.



Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: benparry on May 09, 2018, 03:20:17 AM
with regard to the Bart Sibrel faking halfway to the moon issue i have seen this 3 part documentary. i dont know if this has been seen by anybody else here


parts 2 and 3 are available on the right of this video
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 09, 2018, 01:05:45 PM
I disagree, we are all human, and what these men were allegedly part of was just incredible, even by your standards, surely. It was the greatest achievement by mankind to date, and I and the rest of the world’s population in possession of their own faculties, would be buzzing our frigging nuts off. I’d turn up to that press conference in t-shirt and jeans, I’m a superstar after all. I’d be lying back on my chair with my hands clasped behind my head and my feet on the table with a joint hanging from my mouth, it was the sixties after all. My smug grin would be so wide, I’d get into the Guinness book of records. But you would be slouched there, looking down at the table, nervously fiddling with your pen, hoping no one would realise you were repeating the words you were hearing through your earpiece, As you knew nothing of what you did, because you never done it.

I'd show up in the fanciest clothes I could get my hands on knowing the eyes of the world were on me and it was my opportunity to shine.  I wouldn't be doing anything blatantly illegal, and even if I would, I'd imagine the reasons I wouldn't smoke pot wouldn't change any in that era.  Besides, what need would you have for artificial highs after the highest high a human had ever experienced?  Gee, I guess we must be different people.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 09, 2018, 01:30:47 PM
with regard to the Bart Sibrel faking halfway to the moon issue i have seen this 3 part documentary. i dont know if this has been seen by anybody else here

parts 2 and 3 are available on the right of this video
That would be svectors film (used to be a member here). Part 4 and 5 are also available, however, svector himself has re-released it as a single 39 minute documentary about a month ago.

You can view it here on his channel in it's entirety.



Better resolution too in this release.

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Zakalwe on May 09, 2018, 02:23:40 PM
Cambo is a very old-fashioned conspiracy nut. He reminds me of hoax-believers from over 20 years ago in that his "arguments" are basic, simplistic and rely on arguments from incredulity or ignorance. His inability to learn means that he hasn't learned beyond the most basic of hoax beliefs.

More to be pitied than laughed at.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: jfb on May 09, 2018, 02:59:35 PM
Quote
“No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon”

“Didn't happen. The claim is false.”

It’s not a claim, you blind little soul, it’s a fact. What else could it be? We are talking official Apollo footage here, and although there are different edited versions, it’s all allegedly genuine footage from the journey to the moon.

At a distance of 200,000 km (a little more than halfway between the Earth and Moon), the Earth has an angular size of around 3.6 degrees.  For comparison, the Moon as seen from Earth has an angular size of about half a degree.  So, picture a full Moon in the sky, then imagine it about 7 times bigger - that's how big the Earth would have appeared out the window of the CM midway through transit. 

That's pretty damned big, big enough to fill a window, especially as shot through a camera with its own limited field of view. 

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 10, 2018, 02:53:55 AM

And? We all know it was built to unfold, but I need the plans to show how it was constructed, in order to fold and unfold. Not just a set of diagrams showing where all the bits went, you get that sort of thing in a flat pack from a furniture store.
OK Here https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_LunarRover2.pdf

And here


Now what?


Quote
“The engines were the only thing worth salvaging”
They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there.
Why attempt any salvage at all? If it were all a "hoax", why carry out an extra hoax 50 years later and risk exposing the "hoax"? In any event the salvage operation was not a NASA operation at all. It was a private venture. NASA or "they" as you like to refer to them, had no control at all over it.

Quote
“there is evidence of some disturbance. They even intentionally took pictures of under the LM descend stage to record it, as linked.”

What proof is a close-up? That would be a very small area to fake. Zoom in and you’ll see all those tiny little rocks that should have been blown away.
By what? The engine was cut off before reaching the surface.

Quote
“Not a cardboard box”

Ok, several cardboard boxes taped together. Would you like to explain why they would be confident of landing it?
That "cardboard" you refer to is simply the outer thermal blankets. Know what was under those? This...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5d/d7/35/5dd735860f06c3429794d111df8a5e2d.jpg)

Quote
“No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon”

“Didn't happen. The claim is false.”

It’s not a claim, you blind little soul, it’s a fact. What else could it be? We are talking official Apollo footage here, and although there are different edited versions, it’s all allegedly genuine footage from the journey to the moon.

Here it’s at 33:40


You need to either give your own explanation to what you see through that window, which points to them being genuinely on their way to the moon, or explain why you think it is not genuine footage.
Look out the window, see Earth. Point camera out window, film Earth. All of this is moot in any event given the transmission at 30:28.

Quote
“How you would react and how people trained to land on the moon would react are not the same thing.”

I disagree, we are all human, and what these men were allegedly part of was just incredible, even by your standards, surely. It was the greatest achievement by mankind to date, and I and the rest of the world’s population in possession of their own faculties, would be buzzing our frigging nuts off. I’d turn up to that press conference in t-shirt and jeans, I’m a superstar after all. I’d be lying back on my chair with my hands clasped behind my head and my feet on the table with a joint hanging from my mouth, it was the sixties after all. My smug grin would be so wide, I’d get into the Guinness book of records. But you would be slouched there, looking down at the table, nervously fiddling with your pen, hoping no one would realise you were repeating the words you were hearing through your earpiece, As you knew nothing of what you did, because you never done it.
Are you a military test pilot? Do you even know what that entails?

Quote
“Anyone who claims there wasn't noticeable disturbance is either lying or ignorant of the subject matter.”

Show me.
Again?
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9261.jpg)

Quote
“Science doesn't need to explain budget constraints”

Just once, as opposed to nine?
Nine what?

Quote
“But you do need to understand dishonest editing and that Bean knows more about the VAB than you ever will”

Has he been educated since, because he knew naff all, at the time of the interview.
Only one person knows "naff all" in this discussion.

Quote
“How do you propose to test land a vehicle designed for use in space and a 1/6G (airless) environment?”

Either remotely, or just scrap the idea.
Who flew the very first Boeing 747? How did they know it would work? Why didn't they do it remotely?

Quote
“No science is needed to spot blue sky and clouds through a window, when Apollo 11 was supposedly half way to the moon”

“I suggest you do some research, this question has been answered time and time again.”

So answer it.
Asked and answered. The transmission at 30:28 destroys your claims.

Quote
“A mission to go where exactly? Actually the Russians tried to emulate (or even beat the Americans) with a lunar landing, unfortunately their N1 rocket failed.”

Around the moon of course, and the Russians failed because it was impossible at the time, and still is.
The Russians failed because their N1 exploded every time they attempted a launch. It never got even close to LEO.

Quote
“Can you prove that Sibrel did not edit this interview? He has been guilty of it before”

He delivers one sentence in the clip, how could that sentence possibly be taken out of context?
What came before? What came after? Taking a sentence in isolation is exactly out of context.

Quote
“Try listening to the cockpit recording Chesley Sullenberger, Captain of US Airways 1549 as he attempts something no-one has ever managed to do successfully before... land a jet airliner (suffering a double engine failure) and full of passengers, on a river.”

He’s nervous, we can hear the croak in his voice, although I’m sure he was confident of making a successful landing, as he will have known how his aeroplane would work under those circumstances, due to his training.
Like the Apollo astronauts knew how their spacecraft worked and were confident of making a successful landing due to their training. Let us know when your foot recovers from the gunshot wound.

Quote
“I seem to recall that you were the one who made the claim that the footage en-route, and on the Moon, was filmed on a large non-vacuum sound stage”

Only the moon walks.
Explain the parabolic arcs of the dust. How would that be achieved in an atmosphere?

Quote
“and that all the effects of vacuum and low gravity were added as effects later”

I never said that, unless you mean slowing it down for playback? And what are these vacuum effects I keep hearing about, could anybody be more specific?
No billowing dust, no blowing flag, parabolic trajectories, hammer and feather.

Quote
“implies that you believe there are people living the high life on their ill-gotten gains from Apollo (and other programmes”

As they aren’t building functional hardware, apart from the odd empty rocket, they have billions left over from the tax money they receive for the stuff they’re not actually doing.
Now your problem is even bigger. All of the engineers etc. would have to knowingly build non-functional hardware. All of them. All 400,000 of them. Your hush-money fund now has to pay all of them for life.

Quote
“If you're sure these people exist, why has nobody tracked them down to expose the hoax?”

Like Bart Sibrel? Not an easy job when one gets punched in the face by a man so terrified of being found out, that he resorts to violence.
Watch the whole clip. Afterward Sibrel sued and got laughed out of court.

Quote
“it's been pointed out many times that your ideas just don't work, and there would be, at a minimum, tens of thousands of people who could expose it.”

Where the hell are you getting your figures from, one hundred for Apollo, and another couple of hundred for other projects, and an extra few dozen since the emergence of CGI (The ISS).
Oops, now you are contradicting yourself. If it was only so few, then all the scientists and engineers built actual working hardware.

Quote
“Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked”

What’s your point?
That you are hobbled by subject matter ignorance.

Quote
“The physics of landing a rocket-powered vehicle on the Moon were well known and tested by the time of Apollo 11”

You mean these?

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-moments/4427834/Luna-9-makes-first-lunar-soft-landing--February-3--1966

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_1

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_13#/media/File:Luna-13_lander.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3#/media/File:Surveyor_3_on_Moon.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_5#/media/File:Surveyor_NASA_lunar_lander.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_6#/media/File:Surveyor_NASA_lunar_lander.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_7#/media/File:Surveyor_NASA_lunar_lander.jpg

If I didn’t know you people better, I’d think you were pulling my leg, the usually excuse is that those astronauts were a bunch of hard b#@t?rds.
They were. They were military test pilots.

Quote
“I never once saw a crater under a landed Harrier”

Nor would I expect to see a crater under a Lunar Lander.
Then you concede all of your claims in that regard. Great.

Quote
“whereas the Lunar Module is operating in a vacuum and the exhaust will be more diffuse. An effect that can be seen during a rocket launch, as the rocket gets higher the exhaust is seen to spread out as the atmospheric pressure reduces”

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.
Super. More progress.

Quote
“Lander had no "trunk". The rover was packed externally as you would well know if you were capable of operating google”

Another example of your inability to understand humour and sarcasm.
Another example of you getting caught out and trying to backpedal.

Quote
“For anyone who hasn't seen the excellent Moon Machines series, here's the segment on the LRV:”

Thanks, I actually downloaded this video and watched it on my TV. Very interesting, and I enjoyed it immensely, and I actually think it would work. It’s just a shame, they couldn’t get it to the moon to test it. I then watched the Lunar Module episode, which was a massive disappointment, lots of information, without actually explaining anything.
Your inability to understand is not our problem.

Quote
“Anyone who claims that there is "no noticeable disturbance" isn't looking at the pictures closely enough”

So post a picture and point it out.
Again?
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9261.jpg)

Quote
“Here is a video of the same sequence but edited far differently, perhaps cambo can rethink the mission debriefing”

Edited differently? The full version is unedited, and in these carefully chosen segments, they still don’t look comfortable. Maybe if they shortened it to two minutes, they might find something.
It is the CT twits who use editing dishonestly.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Trebor on May 10, 2018, 04:42:34 AM

And? We all know it was built to unfold, but I need the plans to show how it was constructed, in order to fold and unfold. Not just a set of diagrams showing where all the bits went, you get that sort of thing in a flat pack from a furniture store.
OK Here https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_LunarRover2.pdf

And here


This is also good:
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 10, 2018, 05:21:00 AM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 10, 2018, 05:40:25 AM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

I doubt it. I'm sure he has seen them, but like all HB trolls, because they don't show the one arbitrary thing that would supposedly convince him, he handwaves them all away. Even the Apollo 15 live TV of the rover unpacking, while it does address the claims of those who insist there was no room for the rover in the LM, doesn't address his version of the argument because too much of the rover is out of shot when it is actually driven away to disprove claims of it being pulled out of shot or some other clever trick rather than actually demonstrating unequivocally the rover being unfolded and then driven off. He doesn't see (or claims not to be able to, at any rate) how a vehicle can fold up and remain functional, therefore it can't be done.

There's no point in providing all these pictures and diagrams and videos, because he has already handwaved away anything from NASA or any other third party as fake. Why feed the troll?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 10, 2018, 05:42:02 AM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

Really?

I don't find it in the last bit surprising.

He's already down the road of:

"I demand proof"

"This proof?"

"No, that proof fails on some arbitrary criterion or other that I didn't mention until you presented me with that proof. I want some other proof I'm pretty sure you don't have otherwise I wouldn't be asking for it..."
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2018, 07:26:37 AM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

That's because these videos aren't contained at auilis.com or any of the other HB produced YT videos.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 10, 2018, 09:14:20 AM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

That's because these videos aren't contained at auilis.com or any of the other HB produced YT videos.

My youtube channel settings, I have the word aulis banned, I get at least two items in my spam folder every week because of that. :)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 10, 2018, 10:45:06 AM

There's no point in providing all these pictures and diagrams and videos, because he has already handwaved away anything from NASA or any other third party as fake. Why feed the troll?
There is a point. Any occasional visitors will hopefully learn two things. A modicum of science and engineering, firstly. And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.

I am happy and content to contribute to both goals.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2018, 10:50:58 AM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

That's because these videos aren't contained at auilis.com or any of the other HB produced YT videos.

My youtube channel settings, I have the word aulis banned, I get at least two items in my spam folder every week because of that. :)

How/where did you do that, I don't see a banning on my channel?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2018, 10:52:29 AM

There's no point in providing all these pictures and diagrams and videos, because he has already handwaved away anything from NASA or any other third party as fake. Why feed the troll?
There is a point. Any occasional visitors will hopefully learn two things. A modicum of science and engineering, firstly. And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.

I am happy and content to contribute to both goals.

At the risk of feeding trolls, I agree and have stated that preference at CQ
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 10, 2018, 10:57:42 AM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

That's because these videos aren't contained at auilis.com or any of the other HB produced YT videos.

My youtube channel settings, I have the word aulis banned, I get at least two items in my spam folder every week because of that. :)
Colour me unsurprised. What have they left? Jack white is dead, but while he was vertical was embarrassed on the stand in the HSCA and also comprehensively on the education forum as well as here, CQ and so many other places. Percy has vanished without trace somewhere in the south of France. Ralph drank himself into the grave. Kaysing died in poverty. White has become an irrelevant internet liar. Cosmic dave was a joke from the outset. Sibrel is a convicted felon. Hoagland is so comprehensively nutty that he has become entertainment. Mary Bennett rarely post anything and does not respond to queries ever.

What is most amusing is that cambo is attempting to resuscitate long debunked nonsense from such "leading lights" as though it were new to us.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 10, 2018, 10:59:11 AM
For the fun of it, the work of GoneToPlaid....

Apollo images from LRO Deconvolved




ETA: ETA that is 8 minutes of video, I should have said. Worth a view IMHO. The detail is cool but the correlation with mission events is brilliant.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2018, 11:05:49 AM
For the fun of it, the work of GoneToPlaid....

Apollo images from LRO Deconvolved




ETA: ETA that is 8 minutes of video, I should have said. Worth a view IMHO. The detail is cool but the correlation with mission events is brilliant.

Lonely vigil on a remote and barren landscape! :)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 10, 2018, 11:19:41 AM
For the fun of it, the work of GoneToPlaid....

Apollo images from LRO Deconvolved




ETA: ETA that is 8 minutes of video, I should have said. Worth a view IMHO. The detail is cool but the correlation with mission events is brilliant.

Lonely vigil on a remote and barren landscape! :)
GTP packed it in on the basis that the only remaining Hoax proponents were so nutty that it was a waste of everyone's time to try and convince them of anything. I believe BertieSlack has most of his work. (use granted)

Have one of the A15 videos (4:45 min) Could it be more obvious?


 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 10, 2018, 11:23:26 AM
That last one was ytmoog, another youtube user with his head screwed on. Rehosted 5 years ago.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 10, 2018, 05:07:02 PM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

Really?

I don't find it in the last bit surprising.

He's already down the road of:

"I demand proof"

"This proof?"

"No, that proof fails on some arbitrary criterion or other that I didn't mention until you presented me with that proof. I want some other proof I'm pretty sure you don't have otherwise I wouldn't be asking for it..."

I again reference Jack White: 'I am more than willing to examine evidence that the Moon landings really happened but since we know they were faked, any evidence that says otherwise must also be faked and therefore it is a waste of my time to examine such evidence'.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2018, 06:02:49 PM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

Really?

I don't find it in the last bit surprising.

He's already down the road of:

"I demand proof"

"This proof?"

"No, that proof fails on some arbitrary criterion or other that I didn't mention until you presented me with that proof. I want some other proof I'm pretty sure you don't have otherwise I wouldn't be asking for it..."

I again reference Jack White: 'I am more than willing to examine evidence that the Moon landings really happened but since we know they were faked, any evidence that says otherwise must also be faked and therefore it is a waste of my time to examine such evidence'.

I came to these forums after Jack died, but wasn't one of his favorites, "My work speaks for itself"?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Geordie on May 10, 2018, 06:28:39 PM

There's no point in providing all these pictures and diagrams and videos, because he has already handwaved away anything from NASA or any other third party as fake. Why feed the troll?
There is a point. Any occasional visitors will hopefully learn two things. A modicum of science and engineering, firstly. And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.

I am happy and content to contribute to both goals.
  Thanks for doing so, and your points capture in a nutshell why I read these threads.

  The first explains what I get out of them. Being incensed by and then laughing at the poor trolling is a secondary benefit. Secondary, but awesome nevertheless.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 10, 2018, 08:50:35 PM

There's no point in providing all these pictures and diagrams and videos, because he has already handwaved away anything from NASA or any other third party as fake. Why feed the troll?
There is a point. Any occasional visitors will hopefully learn two things. A modicum of science and engineering, firstly. And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.

I am happy and content to contribute to both goals.
  Thanks for doing so, and your points capture in a nutshell why I read these threads.

  The first explains what I get out of them. Being incensed by and then laughing at the poor trolling is a secondary benefit. Secondary, but awesome nevertheless.
Thanks, but I have been doing this for years, so I have the benefit of experience. The likes of cambo trot out Aulis and the late Jack White's "photo analysis". It all seems just so iron clad except when one views
White's HSCA testimony...
Mr. GOLDSMITH: Mr. White, I just have one question.
Mr. WHITE: All right.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?
Mr. WHITE: I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-
Mr. GOLDSMITH Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically --
Mr. WHITE: What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
Mr. WHITE: No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I have no further questions. Thank you.

You read that right, White had no clue what Photogrammetry even was. Despite that, cranks will still wheel his "analysis" out as if it meant anything straight from Aulis. It was White who leant weight to the non parallel shadow baloney by dint of stolen valour.

Have a pic that messed him up, courtesy of member datacable...
(https://i.imgur.com/fyiPrQ4.jpg)

In crankworldTM all shadows must be parallel(lie) and the shadow of the photographer must be centered(lie). This image simply illustrates the lies. Nevertheless, cambo et al wheel this crap out as though reality does not happen.

I am nothing special, I stand on the shoulders of giants.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 10, 2018, 09:02:10 PM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

Really?

I don't find it in the last bit surprising.

He's already down the road of:

"I demand proof"

"This proof?"

"No, that proof fails on some arbitrary criterion or other that I didn't mention until you presented me with that proof. I want some other proof I'm pretty sure you don't have otherwise I wouldn't be asking for it..."

I again reference Jack White: 'I am more than willing to examine evidence that the Moon landings really happened but since we know they were faked, any evidence that says otherwise must also be faked and therefore it is a waste of my time to examine such evidence'.

I came to these forums after Jack died, but wasn't one of his favorites, "My work speaks for itself"?
You missed his heyday. It was a mind-boggling stream of nonsense. AFAIK one can still see those discussions on education forum. And on Aulis.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 10, 2018, 10:15:40 PM
What's remarkable is that cambo has seen none of these.

Really?

I don't find it in the last bit surprising.

He's already down the road of:

"I demand proof"

"This proof?"

"No, that proof fails on some arbitrary criterion or other that I didn't mention until you presented me with that proof. I want some other proof I'm pretty sure you don't have otherwise I wouldn't be asking for it..."

I again reference Jack White: 'I am more than willing to examine evidence that the Moon landings really happened but since we know they were faked, any evidence that says otherwise must also be faked and therefore it is a waste of my time to examine such evidence'.

I came to these forums after Jack died, but wasn't one of his favorites, "My work speaks for itself"?
You missed his heyday. It was a mind-boggling stream of nonsense. AFAIK one can still see those discussions on education forum. And on Aulis.

Yes they are still on the education forum and I have read some of it, the great debater between Fetzer and Burton.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 11, 2018, 03:37:26 AM

There's no point in providing all these pictures and diagrams and videos, because he has already handwaved away anything from NASA or any other third party as fake. Why feed the troll?
There is a point. Any occasional visitors will hopefully learn two things. A modicum of science and engineering, firstly. And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.

I am happy and content to contribute to both goals.

I guess I should clarify why I won't feed this troll in contrast to my tenacity with Tim Finch. Tim brought stuff to the table. He presented data and tried to show how it proved Apollo was fake. He brought specifics to the discussion, he tried some specific numbers and geometry in which errors could be clearly and unequivocally identified, and while it became apparent early on he'd never accept the answers, he didn't handwave the responses away before the discussion even began.

On the other hand, cambo practically started this discussion saying he would not accept evidence from NASA (liars) or from any third party (NASA-supporting liars), dismissed anyone who disagreed with at least one of his claims as 'lying or brainwashed', denounced all our science knowledge as 'fake science', and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is. Worse, as has already been pointed out, he's not bringing anything new to the discussion. He's just watched a Sibrel video or two and is pulling those arguments out as if they are new and not long-debunked.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 11, 2018, 03:56:45 AM

There's no point in providing all these pictures and diagrams and videos, because he has already handwaved away anything from NASA or any other third party as fake. Why feed the troll?
There is a point. Any occasional visitors will hopefully learn two things. A modicum of science and engineering, firstly. And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.

I am happy and content to contribute to both goals.

I guess I should clarify why I won't feed this troll in contrast to my tenacity with Tim Finch. Tim brought stuff to the table. He presented data and tried to show how it proved Apollo was fake. He brought specifics to the discussion, he tried some specific numbers and geometry in which errors could be clearly and unequivocally identified, and while it became apparent early on he'd never accept the answers, he didn't handwave the responses away before the discussion even began.

On the other hand, cambo practically started this discussion saying he would not accept evidence from NASA (liars) or from any third party (NASA-supporting liars), dismissed anyone who disagreed with at least one of his claims as 'lying or brainwashed', denounced all our science knowledge as 'fake science', and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is. Worse, as has already been pointed out, he's not bringing anything new to the discussion. He's just watched a Sibrel video or two and is pulling those arguments out as if they are new and not long-debunked.

Yup. that is why I have not really bothered posting much in this thread...

cambo just a troll; end of story. Not worth wasting time or effort on.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 11, 2018, 11:09:17 AM
Yup. that is why I have not really bothered posting much in this thread...

cambo just a troll; end of story. Not worth wasting time or effort on.

Ditto. Add to this the sort of anti-intellectualism displayed by Ralph Rene, another reason why I'm not really that bothered by cambo and this thread. I felt the gravity dark matter thing need addressing. As a physicist, I could not let that go unchallenged.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 11, 2018, 12:09:19 PM
Honestly, I feel as though I can bring more to the table this time.  No, cambo won't notice or care.  But for other people who might be swayed by some of the "cinematic" explanations, that's one of my areas of relative expertise, and it isn't written about as much.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 11, 2018, 12:57:19 PM
Yup. that is why I have not really bothered posting much in this thread...

cambo just a troll; end of story. Not worth wasting time or effort on.

Ditto. Add to this the sort of anti-intellectualism displayed by Ralph Rene, another reason why I'm not really that bothered by cambo and this thread. I felt the gravity dark matter thing need addressing. As a physicist, I could not let that go unchallenged.

What post number did say something about dark matter?  I searched and only come up with this post.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 11, 2018, 02:10:57 PM
What post number did say something about dark matter?  I searched and only come up with this post.

Post #68 in the 'Faking the Moon Landings' thread. Apparently if our theory of gravity is 'wrong' then all of spaceflight must be faked....
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 11, 2018, 02:20:57 PM
Honestly, I feel as though I can bring more to the table this time.  No, cambo won't notice or care.  But for other people who might be swayed by some of the "cinematic" explanations, that's one of my areas of relative expertise, and it isn't written about as much.

Very true. It tickles me somewhat that people tout Kubrck as the director of the faked Apollo footage, as it shows nicely how little understanding of the movie industry (and Kubrick specifically) they have. He may have been an influential American director who created some of the biggest movies of all time, but from 1961 he lived in the UK. His movies were shot over here using our world-famous studios. By the time Apollo was happening he was well-known enough that someone would have noticed him spending big chunks of time in the US that happened to coincide with Apollo missions, or the use of our studios to film the faked footage here, where he actually lived and worked.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 11, 2018, 02:40:28 PM
Very true. It tickles me somewhat that people tout Kubrck as the director of the faked Apollo footage, as it shows nicely how little understanding of the movie industry (and Kubrick specifically) they have. He may have been an influential American director who created some of the biggest movies of all time, but from 1961 he lived in the UK. His movies were shot over here using our world-famous studios. By the time Apollo was happening he was well-known enough that someone would have noticed him spending big chunks of time in the US that happened to coincide with Apollo missions, or the use of our studios to film the faked footage here, where he actually lived and worked.


... and all at the same time, someone threw the CM out of a military transport plane while a carrier and its crew watched before retrieving the space craft after reentry. Did Bill Kaysing propose this scenario? Yet another dimension that adds to the unlikelihood of a cover up.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 11, 2018, 10:37:19 PM
Very true. It tickles me somewhat that people tout Kubrck as the director of the faked Apollo footage, as it shows nicely how little understanding of the movie industry (and Kubrick specifically) they have. He may have been an influential American director who created some of the biggest movies of all time, but from 1961 he lived in the UK. His movies were shot over here using our world-famous studios. By the time Apollo was happening he was well-known enough that someone would have noticed him spending big chunks of time in the US that happened to coincide with Apollo missions, or the use of our studios to film the faked footage here, where he actually lived and worked.

Indeed.  There's no way Kubrick could have been the director simply because there's no way they could have forced him to travel to the US and no way the US government would have accepted filming the landings in the UK.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 12, 2018, 12:00:07 AM
It's so...circular or something.

Kubrick filmed 2001. So the hoaxies reach for him as someone who could fake footage of moonwalkers. When shown all the ways 2001 is clearly a film, and not a convincing fake at all, they shrug; "he was told to mess up 2001 so no-one would figure out that he'd done the better-looking moon landings."

So you mean, he gives no public evidence of the skills you wanted him for? You know what? That argument works just as well for Ed Wood!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: raven on May 12, 2018, 12:23:00 AM
Heh, Ed Wood. I absolutely love the guy. There's something endearing about someone who so absolutely sucked at doing what they loved and continued doing it. And it wasn't like it was a largely lone pursuit like painting or writing. He had to convince other people to fund his movies and work with him on them. Amazing!
If Ed Wood faked the moon landings, the LM really would have been made of cardboard. Heck, probably just a cardboard cut-out, waving in the breeze.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 12, 2018, 10:35:44 AM
At least they wouldn't have fought about how many takes he did.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on May 14, 2018, 08:43:45 AM
Quote
“How you would react and how people trained to land on the moon would react are not the same thing.”

I disagree, we are all human, and what these men were allegedly part of was just incredible, even by your standards, surely. It was the greatest achievement by mankind to date, and I and the rest of the world’s population in possession of their own faculties, would be buzzing our frigging nuts off. I’d turn up to that press conference in t-shirt and jeans, I’m a superstar after all. I’d be lying back on my chair with my hands clasped behind my head and my feet on the table with a joint hanging from my mouth, it was the sixties after all. My smug grin would be so wide, I’d get into the Guinness book of records. But you would be slouched there, looking down at the table, nervously fiddling with your pen, hoping no one would realise you were repeating the words you were hearing through your earpiece, As you knew nothing of what you did, because you never done it.

Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins had trained literally for years to do what they did on Apollo 11. Then, in the matter of a fortnight the mission was over (and in a matter of two hours the moonwalk was over). And that was it. No more space travel for any of them. Is it any surprise they were on a downer after the biggest high of their lives?

I can provide a comparison (on a different scale, but similar despite that) from my own life. I used to learn ballroom dancing at a studio which ran two balls a year. While the balls were mostly a chance for students to dress up and have fun doing what we'd paid to learn, we could also pay for extra lessons to learn a choreographed routine to perform at the ball. I did that, and spent a couple of months before the ball taking those extra lessons to learn a routine, as well as searching out suitable music for the dance I had in mind. I also searched out a costume appropriate to the routine. Lessons go by and you concentrate hard to learn the routine, getting more nervous as the ball approaches and you're not sure if you've learned it properly. Then, finally, it's the ball. You walk out onto the dance floor, perform your routine, and in two minutes it's over. The rest of the ball is a buzz from the adrenaline (and a bit of alcohol, and dancing with some lovely young women in beautiful ball gowns). But the next morning was such a downer that I remember thinking that if someone had told me I'd never be able to dance again I would have shrugged and accepted it. (The people who ran the dance studio were clever - they opened the studio that next morning, put on some biccies and strong coffee, and encouraged people to sign up for another routine.)

So I can completely understand why people who've just performed a most amazing thing can look so empty during the media circus.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on May 14, 2018, 09:24:50 AM
Quote
I gave you the one piece of evidence you asked for, you seem determined not to respond.

It must be your fuzzy black and white photo you are referring to, which I did respond to on page 4. Don’t be embarrassed, as I suppose my posts so far may have been a bit of a headache to get through.

Even back then, they were able to accurately predict weather patterns a day in advance, maybe not so much on a local scale, but on a global scale, I would say they would be bang on. In my original response, the one that you overlooked, I asked you to show me your work. Can you do that, or is it hidden away somewhere on microfilm?



So obviously, your photo came from the above telecast, right? Well it seems like it’s possible that I could be wrong in my assumption that they couldn’t even get men into orbit back then, as at around 15:10 we see a depiction of the way the earth might have looked from LEO. But hang on! Two completely different interpretations of the alleged earth in the same telecast? It’s ok, I got it now, it was complete BS!

 I also found the flashlight trick amusing, it’s a pity they never spun one of those food bags in mid “air”, although it wouldn’t be as easy without the aid of CGI.

How many examples would you like of astronauts messing around with food in zero gravity? How about you have a look at this video from 1985 showing examples of astronauts eating in zero gravity in Apollo (okay, not much), Skylab and the Shuttle:


And there are plenty of videos available from the ISS showing food preparation (and other activities) which are obviously being conducted in zero gravity over timescales which would be impossible in a Vomit Comet. How about this one as Canuckstronaut Chris Hadfield makes a burrito:


Before you dismiss it as a fake, watch it again. Look only at Hadfield's watch and explain its behaviour.

Or this one, making that American fave, peanut butter and jelly (two minutes, no cuts, things floating all over the place):


That it's so easy to find long-take videos of activities in zero gravity makes me wonder whether your skepticism about the ISS is just another example of your "humour".
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 14, 2018, 10:32:54 AM
I'm glad you picked this one out Peter, as I missed Cambo's pathetic response, for which I apologise.

So here's what he said:

Quote
It must be your fuzzy black and white photo you are referring to, which I did respond to on page 4. Don’t be embarrassed, as I suppose my posts so far may have been a bit of a headache to get through.

Even back then, they were able to accurately predict weather patterns a day in advance, maybe not so much on a local scale, but on a global scale, I would say they would be bang on. In my original response, the one that you overlooked, I asked you to show me your work. Can you do that, or is it hidden away somewhere on microfilm?

Yes, cambo, that is what I am referring to, however your claim is utterly ludicrous. At the time the science of satellite meteorology was in its infancy - they were still very much in the business of deciding how the readings they took from weather balloons and surface stations matched up with their visual observations. There is absolutely no way at all that they would have been able to predict the exact shape of Hurricane Bernice on July 16th from its configuration on July 15th.

No way at all. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise

My working is in the link in my sig and given to you since in either this or the other thread you've been active in. I suggest you read it and try and come up with something a little less stupid.

As for this:

Quote
So obviously, your photo came from the above telecast, right? Well it seems like it’s possible that I could be wrong in my assumption that they couldn’t even get men into orbit back then, as at around 15:10 we see a depiction of the way the earth might have looked from LEO. But hang on! Two completely different interpretations of the alleged earth in the same telecast? It’s ok, I got it now, it was complete BS!

Yes, your interpretation is complete BS, and Earth does not look like that in LEO. You see the whole Earth, as you can tell from the satellite images. There were several broadcasts featuring Earth on the way to the moon, and all of them showed Earth exactly as it should be, including the weather.

Try again.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 14, 2018, 11:03:25 AM
Quote
“How you would react and how people trained to land on the moon would react are not the same thing.”

I disagree, we are all human, and what these men were allegedly part of was just incredible, even by your standards, surely. It was the greatest achievement by mankind to date, and I and the rest of the world’s population in possession of their own faculties, would be buzzing our frigging nuts off. I’d turn up to that press conference in t-shirt and jeans, I’m a superstar after all. I’d be lying back on my chair with my hands clasped behind my head and my feet on the table with a joint hanging from my mouth, it was the sixties after all. My smug grin would be so wide, I’d get into the Guinness book of records. But you would be slouched there, looking down at the table, nervously fiddling with your pen, hoping no one would realise you were repeating the words you were hearing through your earpiece, As you knew nothing of what you did, because you never done it.

Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins had trained literally for years to do what they did on Apollo 11. Then, in the matter of a fortnight the mission was over (and in a matter of two hours the moonwalk was over). And that was it. No more space travel for any of them. Is it any surprise they were on a downer after the biggest high of their lives?

I can provide a comparison (on a different scale, but similar despite that) from my own life. I used to learn ballroom dancing at a studio which ran two balls a year. While the balls were mostly a chance for students to dress up and have fun doing what we'd paid to learn, we could also pay for extra lessons to learn a choreographed routine to perform at the ball. I did that, and spent a couple of months before the ball taking those extra lessons to learn a routine, as well as searching out suitable music for the dance I had in mind. I also searched out a costume appropriate to the routine. Lessons go by and you concentrate hard to learn the routine, getting more nervous as the ball approaches and you're not sure if you've learned it properly. Then, finally, it's the ball. You walk out onto the dance floor, perform your routine, and in two minutes it's over. The rest of the ball is a buzz from the adrenaline (and a bit of alcohol, and dancing with some lovely young women in beautiful ball gowns). But the next morning was such a downer that I remember thinking that if someone had told me I'd never be able to dance again I would have shrugged and accepted it. (The people who ran the dance studio were clever - they opened the studio that next morning, put on some biccies and strong coffee, and encouraged people to sign up for another routine.)

So I can completely understand why people who've just performed a most amazing thing can look so empty during the media circus.

Yup.

You should see me opening night. Every single show I designed. Months of the best my imagination could come up with, hundreds of hours of work (far too many of them packed into the last hectic weeks.) Opening night gala crowd, best clothes, congratulations from everyone but especially the people who shared that crunch with you. And all I want to do is go home, drink two beers and wrap the blankets over my head.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Northern Lurker on May 14, 2018, 12:20:04 PM
I can relate to "after achievement downer". I used to play Live Action Role Playing games and around here we even had term for it; post game angst. The emptiness and anxiety after hectic period of learning your character, practising mannerisms and getting your costume and props ready. Then the sheer terror of getting quickly knowing who is who and getting into your character and then the rush of the game, acting as someone else. Afterwards you have nice memories and few pics and mementos but otherwise it's all gone. Nothing to prepare and wait for anymore. Just string of mundane average days ahead (until the next game).

Lurky
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 14, 2018, 12:27:31 PM
In another "humans are different" moment, I don't have that reaction.  When I was in eighth grade, my city's community youth orchestra played Carnegie Hall, easily the most astounding moment of my life.  (I mean, I guess the births of my children . . . .)  My reaction to finishing the thing that I'd spent an entire school year building toward was elation that I hadn't embarrassed myself too badly.  Partially because being in an orchestra means no one can hear most of your individual flubs.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 14, 2018, 05:08:58 PM
Just in case cambo thinks I'm being overly dismissive of his claim and that I'm just making stuff up, here are a few choice quotes from meteorological journals of the day which, he may be surprised to know, I have actually spent many many hours poring through to provide exactly the kind of support for my conclusions that he seems to doubt.

Here's a nice one from this 1971 article

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281971%29052%3C0330%3AOTFOTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Quote
This commemorative year has also seen the first experimental practical application of the synchronous meteorological satellite. At our Hurricane Center in Miami and at our Severe Storms Center in Kansas City, experimental operational use is being made of the continuous view of the weather obtained from geostationary orbit from NASA Satellites ATS-1 and ATS-3. The remarkable implications of being able to have a view of the continuously changing cloud patterns at a weather forecast center points toward new benefits from our science and service.

Does that sound like a weather service that has figured out exactly how satellite imagery can be used to predict the form of cloud formations? Or one that hopes to use it for such a thing some time in the future?

Or how about this from the 1969 Eastern Pacific Hurricane report

ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/mwr/098/mwr-098-04-0280.pdf

Quote
"Lack of observational data during the night made the relocation of storms necessary twice during the life of Ava and once each in Bernice, Heather, and Irah."

Wait - they lost Hurricane Bernice? They didn't even know exactly where it was at one point but they still managed to work out what it would look like in time to make up a view of Earth for TV?

The January 1970 Mariner's Weather Log has this:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3876046

Quote
"The lack of late day and night satellite pictures made it possible to lose storms overnight."

That's right, they could lose storms overnight because of the lack of satellite data.

In all the contemporary meteorological literature satellite imagery is used to confirm ground observations, not predict it. Bernice's actual storm track was confirmed by analysis after the storm, not during it.

Even if it were possible to produce an accurate prediction of how a hurricane behaves in terms of its track and configuration at a specific moment in time, cambo still needs to come up with a sensible, technologically feasible explanation as to how the image was used to produce a live colour TV broadcast made before the images were actually collected. So far his best effort seems to be "They guessed right".

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 15, 2018, 11:10:53 AM
Just making sure I’m using the insert image button correctly.

(http://[Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/MIRt43W.jpg))
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 15, 2018, 11:23:50 AM
Second try.

(https://i.imgur.com/MIRt43W.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Mag40 on May 15, 2018, 11:26:41 AM
Second try.

Obvious troll. You've had numerous posts explaining why Kubrick didn't have anything to do with the manned lunar landings. The whole Kubrick thing was an online joke that the conspiracy community blindly believed. It had a section about shooting on location, ie  the moon!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 15, 2018, 12:31:10 PM
What Kubrick movies have you seen, Cambo?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 15, 2018, 12:33:33 PM
The work involved in just one part of 2001:

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--G_36mD7T--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/776645638400635819.jpg)

Next.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 15, 2018, 01:32:49 PM
Second try.

(https://i.imgur.com/MIRt43W.jpg)
And this tells us what, exactly?

Yes, it's a very well known picture of Stanley Kubrick on set, or are you claiming this is him filming the Apollo footage?

And I would like to ask - are you planning to address any of the points made in previous responses to your posts, or just going to drop in, post nonsense, and depart again?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 15, 2018, 02:16:34 PM
Second try.

(https://i.imgur.com/MIRt43W.jpg)

Shock! Horror! Stop the press... influential film director photographed directing a film.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Geordie on May 15, 2018, 03:02:40 PM
Second try.

(https://i.imgur.com/MIRt43W.jpg)
  To be fair, he did say he was just fiddling with the insert image button.

  But Cambo, while I've got you on the line, what did you think of http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11 ? You mentioned that you've read it twice now; I'm very interested in hearing your report.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on May 15, 2018, 03:50:51 PM
Quote
“The engines were the only thing worth salvaging”

“They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there.”

“I have no idea what this sentence means.”

I would spell it out for you, but I get the feeling, you are deliberately acting dumb.

Quote
“The only training we had gotten for a water landing was reading a few paragraphs in a manual and having a brief classroom discussion,”

“I am still very glad that we were able to save every life in such a sudden and intense crisis for which we had never been specifically trained.”

First he says he had training, and then he says he didn’t. Lying seems to be a bit of a trait among aircraft pilots.

Quote
“Dig this, if you haven't already:”

http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

“Thanks so much for posting that story, I’ve read it before, but I enjoyed reading it again, so thanks again.”

“Excellent. You're welcome. Could we please have your thoughts on it?”

He managed to pick up a transmission emanating from the direction of the moon, what more can I say?

Quote
“I have actually spent many many hours poring through to provide exactly the kind of support for my conclusions that he seems to doubt”

At the beginning, when you said it was all your own work, I was under the impression you actually came up with the evidence. It wasn’t until you eventually posted the evidence, that I realised I’d seen that evidence many years ago. Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11. With all the other evidence available from both sides of the argument, this is about as convincing as the waving flag evidence.

OK boys and girls, pay attention. Here, the camera is allegedly up against a window, zoomed in on the alleged Earth.

(https://i.imgur.com/AAiLmxT.jpg)

Now the camera is zoomed out, away from the window. The entire earth is still in view. No glare to be seen around the edge of the window.

(https://i.imgur.com/3Sk4VXj.jpg)

Now we see that same window, from the same viewpoint, with the lights turned up. Now we see glare.

(https://i.imgur.com/7kvJ86l.jpg)

And finally, we see this. There was allegedly only one window with a view of the earth, at the time of the alleged broadcast.

(https://i.imgur.com/byf1RRt.jpg)

This is the effect we should see in the second image.

(https://i.imgur.com/cINVQop.jpg)

Well it looks like the hand waving is now on the other foot, if that makes sense, which it probably won’t, knowing you strange lot. The way you defend the indefensible is both sickening and at the same time, hilarious, as this is proof, that this footage is fake, which proves NASA were lying, which in turn suggests, that the whole Apollo project was probably a lie, and no amount of hand waving will change that. How does reconfiguring the camera for interior lighting, get us from the second image to the third and fourth images? Yes, it is old evidence, but it is solid evidence, which can only be debunked inside those deluded minds of yours. I would ask you what it’s like to be brainwashed, but it would be like asking what it would be like being dead.

I eagerly await your scathing insults and ridicule, as it shows just how insecure you all are. I call it “Buzz Syndrome”

Quote
“So, picture a full Moon in the sky, then imagine it about 7 times bigger - that's how big the Earth would have appeared out the window of the CM midway through transit. 

“That's pretty damned big, big enough to fill a window, especially as shot through a camera with its own limited field of view.”

That second image I posted doesn’t really agree with you, does it.

Quote
“More to be pitied than laughed at”

Right back at ya!

Quote
“They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there”

“Why attempt any salvage at all? If it were all a "hoax", why carry out an extra hoax 50 years later and risk exposing the "hoax"? In any event the salvage operation was not a NASA operation at all. It was a private venture. NASA or "they" as you like to refer to them, had no control at all over it”

It’s a simple enough sentence, and it’s in English. I’m beginning to think English and American are two different languages. Everything in relation to NASA is controlled by NASA, which includes those primitive minds, you all possess.

Quote
“The engine was cut off before reaching the surface.”

The pads were allegedly on the ground when the engine was stopped, on the Apollo 11 mission. The other five missions cut their engines between three and six feet. The Apollo 11 crew reported billowing sand, I mean dust from 40ft above the surface.

Quote
“That "cardboard" you refer to is simply the outer thermal blankets. Know what was under those? This...”

(https://i.imgur.com/3dKkQkh.jpg)

Plastic?

Quote
“Are you a military test pilot? Do you even know what that entails?”

Lying?

Quote
“Science doesn't need to explain budget constraints”

“Just once, as opposed to nine?”

“Nine what?”

Really?

Quote
“Who flew the very first Boeing 747? How did they know it would work? Why didn't they do it remotely?”

It’s a plane, we know how they work in an earth environment. Boy, you lack intelligence, for want of a shorter word.

Quote
“Like the Apollo astronauts knew how their spacecraft worked and were confident of making a successful landing due to their training. Let us know when your foot recovers from the gunshot wound”

What training? That bullet ricocheted off my steel toecap and went straight up your nose, blowing your deluded brains out.

Quote
“Explain the parabolic arcs of the dust. How would that be achieved in an atmosphere?”

 For the last time, it’s sand! Kick up some sand, and it comes straight back down. This is the weakest evidence you could possibly come up with. And spare me those videos, with dune buggies going really really fast, as it just shows your ignorance.

Quote
“No billowing dust, no blowing flag, parabolic trajectories, hammer and feather.”

I stand corrected, the hammer and feather trick is even weaker evidence.



Quote
“Now your problem is even bigger. All of the engineers etc. would have to knowingly build non-functional hardware. All of them. All 400,000 of them. Your hush-money fund now has to pay all of them for life”

Why would they have to know?

Quote
“Oops, now you are contradicting yourself. If it was only so few, then all the scientists and engineers built actual working hardware.”

Your logic sucks, there’s definitely a language barrier here.

Quote
“Watch the whole clip. Afterward Sibrel sued and got laughed out of court”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2272321.stm

Here’s an extract from the news article.

“Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, which occurred 9 September, but said that the charges were dropped after witnesses came forward to say that Mr Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible before he was punched”

I suggest you watch the whole clip, as he never poked that liar with his bible. Sibrel handed the tape over to the police, but they decided to go with those lying witnesses, rather than the hard evidence. And what’s this about court? You’re just making things up as you go along, which makes you a liar.

Quote
“Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked”

“What’s your point?”

“That you are hobbled by subject matter ignorance.”

Did it work after it was unpacked? Oh of course, we have footage of that too.

Quote
“the usually excuse is that those astronauts were a bunch of hard b#@t?rds.”

“They were. They were military test pilots.”

Test pilots, yes, kamikaze pilots, no.

Quote
“Nor would I expect to see a crater under a Lunar Lander.”

“Then you concede all of your claims in that regard. Great”

When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.

Quote
“I then watched the Lunar Module episode, which was a massive disappointment, lots of information, without actually explaining anything.”

“Your inability to understand is not our problem”

Here’s the episode. Point out some parts that show how they knew it would work, for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of. They say they used a simulator, and that was it. If that’s what you call informative viewing, it’s no wonder you take everything NASA tells you at face value.



Quote
“My youtube channel settings, I have the word aulis banned, I get at least two items in my spam folder every week because of that”

So you refuse to consider any arguments from the hoax point of view? How sad.

Quote
“And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.”

So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?

Quote
“and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is.”

You believe what you are told to believe, as in your deluded little fantasy world, there is only one side to every story.

http://www.whale.to/b/mullins6.html

Quote
“By the time Apollo was happening he was well-known enough that someone would have noticed him spending big chunks of time in the US that happened to coincide with Apollo missions, or the use of our studios to film the faked footage here, where he actually lived and worked.”

So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told.

Quote
“someone threw the CM out of a military transport plane while a carrier and its crew watched before retrieving the space craft after reentry.”

Re-entry? How high was the bloody plane? Seriously though, they’re still doing it now, courtesy of their friends over in Russia.

Quote
“There's no way Kubrick could have been the director simply because there's no way they could have forced him to travel to the US and no way the US government would have accepted filming the landings in the UK.”

Wow, most people could only assume stuff like this, but you people seem to know everything for a fact.

Quote
“When shown all the ways 2001 is clearly a film, and not a convincing fake”

We knew it was a film, because we were told so, and Apollo was only convincing to those deluded nut jobs.

Quote
“I used to learn ballroom dancing”

And where is your proof? It’s all done in a massive vacuum chamber.

Quote
“your skepticism about the ISS is just another example of your "humour"

Oh it’s fake alright. The real one is in a large pool of water, and they don’t need to be in a plane all the time, doing a series of dives to mimic zero gravity. All three of your videos involve the use of CGI.

Quote
“The whole Kubrick thing was an online joke that the conspiracy community blindly believed”

I must have missed that story. There was a gap in his film projects between Apollo 11 and a short while before Apollo 13, which could be the reason why they had to turn 13 into a failure.

Quote
“What Kubrick movies have you seen, Cambo?”

I’ve can remember seeing six of his films, why should it matter which films they are?

Quote
“The work involved in just one part of 2001”

Watch the movie and you will see how simplistic the Apollo footage is in comparison, or maybe you won’t, LOL.

I came here in the hope that I would be able to take part in some lively debates going on between NASA apologists and hoax believers, as the sites name would suggest, but this seems not to be the case. It is just a site for a very small minority of people to discuss amongst themselves, the latest fake news from NASA, and the never ending discussion regarding radiation. It seems I’m the only HB here, as the rest of them are kicking ass over on YT, which is a very scary place for you people, which is why you prefer to huddle together in the comfort of your own little communities, away from us naughty normal folk. I suppose I’ll stay until the discussion fizzles out, and you never know, we might even beat that incredibly boring radiation thread.










Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 15, 2018, 04:06:57 PM
By a strange coincidence, I've just been watching a program here in the UK on one of the BBC channels  - Tomorrow's Worlds: The Unearthly History of Science Fiction (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01yqkdq) - which, amongst other things, has looked in detail at Kubrick's work on "2001: A Space Odyssey".

From talking to many people who were involved in the movie, apparently Kubrick made huge efforts to make it as accurate as possible, such as getting information from aerospace engineering companies of designs for likely spacecraft, finding out how they'd behave in space, designing the effects to look as real as possible, even if they didn't conform to the "accepted style" for science fiction at the time.

But despite all that, he was limited in what he could achieve.  It was better than most, but still didn't quite get there.  Any claim that somehow he could follow up with something much closer to reality, when he was already pushing the limits of what could be achieved at the time needs extraordinary evidence to back it up.

And also an explanation of why, even today, movies or TV shows can't get it right, despite nearly 50 years of ongoing special effects development.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 15, 2018, 04:17:24 PM
For the last time, it’s sand! Kick up some sand, and it comes straight back down. This is the weakest evidence you could possibly come up with. And spare me those videos, with dune buggies going really really fast, as it just shows your ignorance.

Have you ever actually been on a dirt road?  Because I have.  I've also seen people driving on beaches.  Which are sand, last I checked, and still had plumes of dust behind people driving.  Because sand comes in many particle sizes, down to dust caused by friction of particles rubbing against one another.  Take a geology class.  Take any class.

Quote
Why would they have to know?

Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints.  Especially not the ones designing the craft.  While I dispute that all 400,000 people would know (that number doesn't just count engineers), a substantial percentage of those would, because they would have to either be in on it or doing their level best to design to the mission specifications.  If the LM were plastic, the engineers would know that it would fail, because plastic is insufficient for mission requirements.  Hell, the people building the things who weren't engineers would've seen something fishy.

Quote
So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?

We're bored.

Quote
So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told.

I thought you were old enough to remember it.  If you were, you'd remember that a pivotal aspect of certain movements was distrust of the government.  Hell, I know that and I'm not old enough to remember it.

Quote
Wow, most people could only assume stuff like this, but you people seem to know everything for a fact.

No, just things that are obvious and documentable.  Kubrick was afraid of flying.  Once he settled in the UK, he didn't leave if he had to fly.  The Vietnam scenes of Full Metal Jacket are filmed in the UK.  If you do perhaps five minutes of research into his life, you will learn that there are no periods of his life when you can fit in filming the Apollo missions, given things like his filming style.  What do you know about his filming style?

Quote
I’ve can remember seeing six of his films, why should it matter which films they are?

Because seeing his films should have shown you that his work is nothing like the Apollo footage we see.  Not just that the sets for 2001 are (deliberately, because he preferred the fakes) nothing like the Moon but because of how he uses the camera, how he directs actors, how he lights things.  Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style?  It would be expensive, difficult, time-consuming, and frankly stupid.

Quote
Watch the movie and you will see how simplistic the Apollo footage is in comparison, or maybe you won’t, LOL.

Are you kidding?  How many people are involved in doing wire work for a single person?  How many people do you have to add in order to have two people crossing back and forth in front of and behind one another in front of the camera?  How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?  Just because you're too ignorant of film to know how incredibly complicated a shoot a faked Apollo mission would be doesn't mean those people wouldn't have been necessary on the set, much less your alleged special effects after the fact.

Quote
I came here in the hope that I would be able to take part in some lively debates going on between NASA apologists and hoax believers, as the sites name would suggest, but this seems not to be the case. It is just a site for a very small minority of people to discuss amongst themselves, the latest fake news from NASA, and the never ending discussion regarding radiation. It seems I’m the only HB here, as the rest of them are kicking ass over on YT, which is a very scary place for you people, which is why you prefer to huddle together in the comfort of your own little communities, away from us naughty normal folk. I suppose I’ll stay until the discussion fizzles out, and you never know, we might even beat that incredibly boring radiation thread.

Hoax belief is dying.  There aren't debates here anymore because the majority of people have realized that hoax belief doesn't hold water.  YouTube hosts all sorts of charlatans, but you've got it precisely backwards--they're afraid to come here because they'll have their ignorance shown for what it is, and they don't get to feel special anymore.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Geordie on May 15, 2018, 04:18:12 PM
Quote
Dig this, if you haven't already:

http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
Quote
Thanks so much for posting that story, I’ve read it before, but I enjoyed reading it again, so thanks again.”
Quote
Excellent. You're welcome. Could we please have your thoughts on it?
He managed to pick up a transmission emanating from the direction of the moon, what more can I say?
  Is it your contention that the signals Baysinger picked up came from somewhere near the moon, but not necessarily the moon itself?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on May 15, 2018, 04:18:24 PM
Molesworth, does the special talk about the actual features of the Moon as shown in the movie?  Because it was known at the time that the Moon wasn't all jagged peaks and so forth, but Kubrick went with that because he thought it looked more dramatic.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Geordie on May 15, 2018, 04:31:42 PM

Quote
And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.
So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?
  Speaking in general terms, idiocy is much welcomed in western society for its rich entertainment value. One might say it gives so much and asks so little.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 15, 2018, 04:34:00 PM

At the beginning, when you said it was all your own work, I was under the impression you actually came up with the evidence.

It is and I did.

Quote

It wasn’t until you eventually posted the evidence, that I realised I’d seen that evidence many years ago.

I have been posting it on the internet for quite some years now. If you've seen other sources then good for you, that means more than one person has drawn exactly the same conclusions as I did.

Quote
Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11.

Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it. Satellite meteorology was very much learning from other instrumentation. Even today imagery does little to forecast the weather, it is still mostly based on instrumentation. If you bothered to read the links I posted above you will see an article about the SIRS instrument on board a NIMBUS satellite - that isn't an imaging device, it's an instrument. Photos show you how things are, not how they will end up being.

Quote
With all the other evidence available from both sides of the argument, this is about as convincing as the waving flag evidence.

Prove it wrong. Where is the evidence that says the image of Earth doesn't match the satellite record? Where is your evidence to suggest how weather data ended up in live TV broadcasts before the data were collected? Your only effort so far as "They guessed".

Quote

OK boys and girls, pay attention. Here, the camera is allegedly up against a window, zoomed in on the alleged Earth.

(https://i.imgur.com/AAiLmxT.jpg)

An entire Earth showing exactly what it should do for the time it was broadcast, from the weather to the shape of the terminator. Live on TV, described in detail by the people filming it.

Quote
Now the camera is zoomed out, away from the window. The entire earth is still in view. No glare to be seen around the edge of the window.

(https://i.imgur.com/3Sk4VXj.jpg)

Now we see that same window, from the same viewpoint, with the lights turned up. Now we see glare.

(https://i.imgur.com/7kvJ86l.jpg)

And finally, we see this. There was allegedly only one window with a view of the earth, at the time of the alleged broadcast.

(https://i.imgur.com/byf1RRt.jpg)

This is the effect we should see in the second image.

(https://i.imgur.com/cINVQop.jpg)

And you come to that conclusion how? Did you work it out for yourself? Let's see that working, or is it hidden away on microfilm somewhere?

There was more than one window through which Earth could be viewed, here they are:

(https://i.imgur.com/hRnSvcJ.jpg)

Quote

Well it looks like the hand waving is now on the other foot, if that makes sense, which it probably won’t, knowing you strange lot. The way you defend the indefensible is both sickening and at the same time, hilarious, as this is proof, that this footage is fake, which proves NASA were lying, which in turn suggests, that the whole Apollo project was probably a lie, and no amount of hand waving will change that. How does reconfiguring the camera for interior lighting, get us from the second image to the third and fourth images? Yes, it is old evidence, but it is solid evidence, which can only be debunked inside those deluded minds of yours. I would ask you what it’s like to be brainwashed, but it would be like asking what it would be like being dead.

I eagerly await your scathing insults and ridicule, as it shows just how insecure you all are. I call it “Buzz Syndrome”

You are beneath every bit of contempt I have for you, and not worthy of any insults I could be bothered to type. You have presented no evidence, simply regurgitated verbatim long discredited nonsense put out by a liar and a fraud.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 15, 2018, 04:51:39 PM
Molesworth, does the special talk about the actual features of the Moon as shown in the movie?  Because it was known at the time that the Moon wasn't all jagged peaks and so forth, but Kubrick went with that because he thought it looked more dramatic.
Unfortunately it didn't get into that much detail about the sets or effects.  It was about 10 minutes out of the hour-long programme, and was looking more at his style, and his approach to filming and to directing.  It certainly didn't contradict what's been mentioned many times about his perfectionism, and why he'd be probably the worst choice for director if you wanted to film a fake moon landing on time and on budget  :D

The series is a repeat from a couple of years ago, and a very entertaining look at the history of science fiction  I'm not sure if it's available via BBC America, but there are ways to get around that using proxies etc.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 15, 2018, 04:59:56 PM
Quote from: cambo
I stand corrected, the hammer and feather trick is even weaker evidence.




All that video shows is that someone does not know what they are talking about.

Both the youtuber video and the Apollo video use flight feathers, which are airfoils. As soon as the youtuber releases the feather, it reacts to the air it is passing through and starts to tumble, and is tumbling merrily by the time it hits the ground. On the other hand, the Apollo feather is released flat and keeps that orientation all the way to the ground - no tumbling or spinning. The only way to duplicate that is in a vacuum. It is also obvious that both times in the youtuber video, the hammer landed first.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on May 15, 2018, 05:07:22 PM

Quote from: cambo
I would spell it out for you, but I get the feeling, you are deliberately acting dumb.

Nope, just confused. But if you refuse to clarify, I guess I'll just have to declare myself the winner and move on.

Ready to tell me why you need blueprints for the LRV when you can see it unfold, or do I have to declare victory on that point, too?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 15, 2018, 05:55:27 PM
Now we see that same window, from the same viewpoint, with the lights turned up.

The lights were not changed, the f-stop on the camera was, and that would be expected to change the way the window looks. I doubt you'll care since you're only trolling, but felt like pointing tat out anyway as it illustrates the drivel you are talking.

Quote
How does reconfiguring the camera for interior lighting, get us from the second image to the third and fourth images?

Very easily, in reality. And you know it.

Quote
It’s a plane, we know how they work in an earth environment. Boy, you lack intelligence, for want of a shorter word.

The LM is a spacecraft. We know how they work in space. Your own intelligence doesn't seem to be conspicuous at the moment.

Quote
For the last time, it’s sand!

Except for all the times it's seen not acting like sand at all.
Quote
I stand corrected, the hammer and feather trick is even weaker evidence.

And as usual with anyone who tries to replicate it, they fail to do it without stacking the odds in their favour by holding the feather vertical as opposed to horizontal. Why don't you go try doing it yourself?

Quote
When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.

Failure of the record to meet your expectations is irrelevant. Except of course when it comes to the usual question: if your expectations match how it should really have looked, why wasn;t it made to look that way if it was faked?

Quote
for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of.

Physics is a wonderful thing: it allows you to model and simulate without actual experience.

Quote
Quote
“and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is.”

You believe what you are told to believe, as in your deluded little fantasy world, there is only one side to every story.

And you selectively edit to make a point. Sad really. What do you actually get out of this?

Quote
So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told.

Told? You claimed to have lived through it earlier.

Quote
All three of your videos involve the use of CGI.

Prove it.

Quote
I came here in the hope that I would be able to take part in some lively debates going on between NASA apologists and hoax believers,

Bullshit. No-one with a serious interest in a debate starts the debate by dictating that everything that contradicts him is fake, wherever or whoever it comes from.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 15, 2018, 10:46:48 PM
As I was passing by the forum today I saw Duane Gish running out the side door, shaking his head, muttering, "The horror! The horror!" as he ran.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 16, 2018, 12:21:48 AM
As I was passing by the forum today I saw Duane Gish running out the side door, shaking his head, muttering, "The horror! The horror!" as he ran.

cambo is nothing more than a PTW and I have stopped responding to it.

It is clearly not at all interested in any kind of debate; its sole purpose is to insult, wind up and demean everyone here. That makes it a troll.

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: raven on May 16, 2018, 01:25:57 AM

Here’s the episode. Point out some parts that show how they knew it would work, for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of. They say they used a simulator, and that was it. If that’s what you call informative viewing, it’s no wonder you take everything NASA tells you at face value.
Quote from: cambo
When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.
Interesting contradiction. You think something can't be simulated if you have no experience with it, yet you just mentally 'simulated' what you think the crater disturbance should be like, though you've never been to the moon.
Of course, as I pointed out on page 7 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1459.msg46912#msg46912), and Jason Thompson pointed out as well, if it should be as you say, why isn't it? If you are right, why didn't the makers of the alleged hoax think the same and do it your way?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on May 16, 2018, 02:54:18 AM
Here’s the episode. Point out some parts that show how they knew it would work, for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of. They say they used a simulator, and that was it. If that’s what you call informative viewing, it’s no wonder you take everything NASA tells you at face value.
I think I already mentioned that I spent a considerable part of my career (over 12 years) working on simulators - for planes, trains, ships, tanks, all sorts at all scales.  You obviously don't have a clue about the amount of mathematical modelling and engineering that goes into making an accurate simulation system.

Add to that, it wasn't something they had "no experience of", since there had been multiple missions of both manned and unmanned craft before Apollo which provided plenty of data on the environment they'd be operating in.

Taking it to extremes, here's a lunar lander game - https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/lunar-lander/lunar-lander_en.html - not very accurate, but gives you an idea of what can be done even with very basic physics!  :D
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 16, 2018, 03:56:15 AM
I am going to correct an earlier statement I made about the number of windows with a view of Earth - I posted a view of 2 windows, which I reproduced from the interior 3D scan of Columbia from an earlier discussion. However, I believe that related to a different broadcast.

During the broadcast cherry-picked by cambo, in which Armstrong describes in detail the view of Earth and answers questions about it from Mission Control, he says this:

Quote
Unfortunately, we only have one window that has a view of the Earth and it's filled up with the TV camera, so your view now is probably better than ours is.

So, mea culpa, one window.

However there is also this exchange:

Quote
01 10 13 34 CC
Roger. It's a little dark now, 11. Maybe a bigger f-stop might help.

01 10 13 44 CMP
Yes, that's in work.

So they did re-configure the camera for interior shooting by increasing the f-stop. Anyone who has every tried to photograph the moon knows how bright it is, Earth is considerably brighter.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 16, 2018, 10:12:15 AM

So they did re-configure the camera for interior shooting by increasing the f-stop. Anyone who has every tried to photograph the moon knows how bright it is, Earth is considerably brighter.
Add how photography works to cambo's list of things he does not understand.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 16, 2018, 10:23:16 AM
Just for shiggles...

(https://i.imgur.com/lwO2KzJ.jpg)The obvious pareidolia of my trousers on the back of the chair is irrelevant.

Note the over exposed kitchen window.


ETA: In case it isn't quite obvious, even standard double glazing is sufficient to cast a blue tone over the walls surrounding the window. They have never been blue...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on May 16, 2018, 11:01:06 AM
Here’s the episode. Point out some parts that show how they knew it would work, for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of. They say they used a simulator, and that was it. If that’s what you call informative viewing, it’s no wonder you take everything NASA tells you at face value.
I think I already mentioned that I spent a considerable part of my career (over 12 years) working on simulators - for planes, trains, ships, tanks, all sorts at all scales.  You obviously don't have a clue about the amount of mathematical modelling and engineering that goes into making an accurate simulation system.

Add to that, it wasn't something they had "no experience of", since there had been multiple missions of both manned and unmanned craft before Apollo which provided plenty of data on the environment they'd be operating in.

Taking it to extremes, here's a lunar lander game - https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/lunar-lander/lunar-lander_en.html - not very accurate, but gives you an idea of what can be done even with very basic physics!  :D

If simulation didn't work, planning wouldn't work. There's no bright line.

Saying you can't possibly simulate a deep space trajectory -- despite the ground truth of a number of said trajectories that agreed with the previous predictions and thus validates the models, is like saying you can't cook from a recipe.

Does the cambot cook by setting his stove to some random temperature because how could anyone predict how hot and how long for a pie? Does he refuse to use bus schedules or museum hours when planning a trip downtown?

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on May 16, 2018, 11:47:03 AM
Just to nail this down for the nonsense it is, two pictures right now of the same window from a couple of years ago...

(https://i.imgur.com/fhk3CDI.jpg)


That a tree outside my kitchen window.

(https://i.imgur.com/bLG3MTz.jpg)

Same shot different settings.

Notice the blue bloom. cambo has no clue about Apollo.

Notice also that I need to clean my lens. I could have done so, but I thought it informative to leave it in. Some wingnuts would be claiming that as evidence of orbs.

Notice also, that were I of a mind, I could demonstrate the exact Apollo effect, I simply chose to demonstrate how the blue wash creeps in gradually. I can do the mad version if anyone is pushed for it.

Note also that my kitchen window is NORTH FACING. Even so, I could replicate the Apollo results.

Finally, note that if anyone has any use for those, they have my express permission to use them. They were only quick hacks to demonstrate the principle.




Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on May 21, 2018, 10:06:35 AM
Quote
“Nor would I expect to see a crater under a Lunar Lander.”

“Then you concede all of your claims in that regard. Great”

When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.

Cleared a few metres away, and ending with a uniform ridge? Why so?

The gases are emerging from the engine bell at a couple of thousand metres per second and interacting with material (dust, sand, whatever) on a Moon with one-sixth of the Earth's gravity: that material is going to disappear over the horizon rather than settle on the ground a few metres away.

Quote
Quote
“And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.”

So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?

It's that delicious irony: if we leave you alone you claim victory on the grounds that no one can challenge you, and if we answer you then you claim victory on the grounds that so much attention is suspicious. Please tell us, exactly how much attention is appropriate?

Quote
Quote
“and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is.”

You believe what you are told to believe, as in your deluded little fantasy world, there is only one side to every story.

http://www.whale.to/b/mullins6.html

Once again I ask you, at what level of the military (and for that matter political) hierarchy did people find out the Cold War was faked? The crews of the nuclear missile submarines? Their captains? The admirals? Because if the President knew it was fake, but we ordinary people didn’t, there must be some level in the hierarchy below which people didn’t know the “truth” and above which people did. And in the case of a promotional hierarchy there will be people who will move from the first group to the second group, yet none of them has stepped forward to reveal this “truth”.

As with faking Apollo, but on a much more massive scale, something is preventing these people from making confessions, even posthumous confessions. Must be that MONEY! again.

As for the article you link, it contains all sorts of errors and omissions which show the analysis to be about as useful as a sunroof on a submarine. Examples of errors:
-Senator Vandenburg didn’t turn from an isolationist into an internationalist overnight; his change (as was the case for many Republicans) was gradual over the period 1940 to 1945, given that for example he supported aid to Finland in 1940.
-It’s unlikely Truman supported continued deficit spending after WW2 given that he vetoed two Congress votes for income tax cuts.
-Jacob Schiff didn’t fund the 1917 Communist revolution but the 1905 revolution – the 1917 Communist revolution was largely funded by Imperial Germany.
-Averill Harriman didn’t control Joseph Stalin, but instead did what he could to manage him in order to not act too much against the interests of the Western Allies (such as signing a separate peace agreement with Germany).
-The idea that the USSR could simultaneously have a powerful military and a poor standard of living is not contradictory – the USSR simply spent a much greater proportion of its income on the military than the USA did.

Examples of omissions:
-The article fails to mention that the Soviets had form for expansionist aggression before its entry into World War Two, such as the occupations of eastern Poland (1939), Karelia (1940), the Baltic states (1940) and Bessarabia (1940), so post-war aggression was unsurprising.
-It fails to mention Soviet subversion of post-war governments in eastern Europe in the period 1946-1949, and similar attempts across western Europe, and the funding and/or arming of Communist movements around the world (and concurrently fails to mention the funding and/or arming of anti-Communist movements around the world).
- It fails to explain why a fake Cold War even required American soldiers to actively participate in any conflicts (and fails to mention that Soviet soldiers actively participated in several conflicts, especially in Afghanistan).
-And it fails to explain why Warsaw Pact nations went to extraordinary lengths to stop people from leaving their countries for the West, and why a negligible number of people chose to move from the West to Warsaw Pact countries even though they were free to do so.

And that’s just the points I could be bothered addressing – there were other errors and omissions I could have mentioned.

Quote
Quote
“your skepticism about the ISS is just another example of your "humour"

Oh it’s fake alright. The real one is in a large pool of water, and they don’t need to be in a plane all the time, doing a series of dives to mimic zero gravity. All three of your videos involve the use of CGI.

All three videos involve the use of CGI, do they? Including the one from Skylab (the astronaut running and somersaulting around the ring) which was filmed in 1973. CGI in 1973? Seriously?

And how do you do CGI of a watch wriggling around the astronaut's wrist? Care to show us examples filmed on Earth?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: paulontheplane on May 30, 2018, 10:36:50 PM
Thanks for posting my videos. Mr. Henderson and I appreciate the support. For more of Scott's work, check out http://www.aulis.com. We've wrapped up the Apollo Moon Hoax with a neat little bow with that discovery of the wet flag on Apollo 17, drying from the edges in. No comeback from that.

I've uploaded a total of 10 Apollo Hoax videos now - all can be found on my YouTube playlist here:



Cheers!

-Paul On The Plane
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on May 31, 2018, 12:49:33 AM
(https://orig00.deviantart.net/ec07/f/2009/135/7/c/daniel__s_facepalm_by_xaikanokurayami.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 31, 2018, 03:35:37 AM
Thanks for posting my videos. Mr. Henderson and I appreciate the support. For more of Scott's work, check out http://www.aulis.com. We've wrapped up the Apollo Moon Hoax with a neat little bow with that discovery of the wet flag on Apollo 17, drying from the edges in. No comeback from that.

I've uploaded a total of 10 Apollo Hoax videos now - all can be found on my YouTube playlist here:



Cheers!

-Paul On The Plane

It takes you just 48 seconds to get your facts wrong. Can you guess what?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on May 31, 2018, 06:02:18 AM
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wu6slc5xp87wcnq/implied-facepalm.png?raw=1)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on May 31, 2018, 06:57:13 AM

NASA has never claimed that the pre-mission calibration charts were shot on the Moon.  Get at least some of your facts straight before opening your mouth.

The facepalm replies are indeed appropriate for this video.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on May 31, 2018, 10:49:34 AM
Thanks for posting my videos. Mr. Henderson and I appreciate the support. For more of Scott's work, check out http://www.aulis.com.

G'day Paulontheplane, and welcome to Apollohoax.

Quote
We've wrapped up the Apollo Moon Hoax with a neat little bow with that discovery of the wet flag on Apollo 17, drying from the edges in. No comeback from that.

Please tell us, why is it that "wet flag...drying from the edges in" is the only possible explanation for the colours on the flag. What other explanations did you investigate and how did you eliminate them?

Quote
I've uploaded a total of 10 Apollo Hoax videos now - all can be found on my YouTube playlist here:


2:40 - On what basis do you say the Helium tank has been removed? Just because it isn't shown in the picture? In that case why don't you say anything about the engine and propellant tanks not appearing either? Or is it because you think there isn't room for both the Helium tank and the rover in that one corner of the LM Descent Stage? In that case why don't you accept that one is placed above the other?

2:58 - What is the problem with rebalancing the whole machine? Please explain why engineers would be unable to do this.

3:15 - How visible should the LM's rocket exhaust be? Please explain in the context of the chemical reaction of hypergolic chemicals in a vacuum. And given the LM is supposed to be operating in a vacuum, please explain why you think heat waves would be visible.

Ah, heck, I'm bored now, and that was only 30 seconds of the video.

Quote
Cheers!

-Paul On The Plane

Cheers to you too, Big Ears.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nickrulercreator on May 31, 2018, 10:54:33 PM
Probably shouldn't have, but I posted a reply in the comments. I'm waiting to be called a retard, or for it to get deleted. Here's a copy. Please critique:


BEGIN
This is ridiculous.

1. The "moisture" on the flag is quite clearly a shadow, or an effect of reflected light due to the angled fabric. The flag is clearly creased, so there will be differences in the orientation of the fabric. Light reflects back at the observer best when the observer is directly between the light source and the fabric. If this is not the case, the fabric will appear dimmer. You can see this from a different angle in this photo: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20380HR.jpg. The area that appears to be moisture is now brighter, while the brighter, more sun-lit areas are now dark. It's the same in this one: http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS17/processed/AS17-134-20377.png, and this one: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20382HR.jpg. What you now have to explain, since you made the claim, is HOW the flags supposedly got their moisture.

2. This site is also the only place I could find that image on the right showing changes made: http://www.ninfinger.org/models/LM-11/LunarModuleOrion.html. No where does it mention the removal of a helium tank.

3. There IS evidence the engine was fired. Let's break it down by claim.

"Lack of visible exhaust" This is not true. Just as the ascent stage took off, a plume can be seen exiting the engine here:
=2m55s. Very briefly you can see a flash and plume exit the engine. This is exhaust from the propellants igniting. After that, there is no exhaust, nor should there be. The propellants burned were N2O4 and Aerozine 50. When burned the exhaust is virtually colorless and transparent. The titan rockets that carried Gemini capsules into space used Aerozine 50, and had a similar lack of exhaust plume. The fourth answer on this site goes into much more depth: http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html

"No heat waves" there shouldn't be any. Heat waves require an atmosphere. There is none on the Moon..

"No crater" there shouldn't be any crater. This requires a bit of math. The Lunar module's engine bell had a diameter of 54 inches: http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/lmdlsion.htm. The lunar module at landing had a power of 3,000lbf. The area of the engine bell was 2290in^2. 3000/2290 is about 1.5 psi. This means that, at the end of the engine bell, the pressure of the exhaust was 1.5 psi, this is actually less than your footprint on Earth. Additionally, because its in  a vacuum, the exhaust plume would spread out more as it left the engine bell, reducing the pressure. Finally, the engine never got close to the surface as it was running. The engine stopped a few meters above the surface, and the LM fell the rest of the way, so the pressure at the surface was never enough to make a crater, just blow the dust around (which we can see in photos).

"No scorching on the paint/exhaust bell housing". There was no paint on the engine so we can rule that out. As for scorching on it, that really would've been impossible to see. The outside of the bell would not have any scorching since no exhaust touched it, but the inside would. The only problem is that the descent engine was a few inches above the surface when on the Moon, so looking up and into the engine bell would've been impossible for an astronaut. There's no way you can know, for certain, that there was "no scorching."

"No dust on footpads." Nor should there be. In an airless environment, dust doesn't billow like it does on Earth. It moves in a straight line, and keeps moving in that line. Before the pads even got close to the surface, all the dust was blown away to the sides of the LM. Very little of it was sent up and any that was traveled in an arc away from the LM. There was no way for dust to settle on top of the landing pads.

4. The checklist was for astronauts to look at so they didn't have to memorize every task that they had to do. Let's break down your claims again.

"Information contained months in advanced was impossible for NASA to know" Why? Why was it impossible?

"NASA knew the exact size, shape, and location of each rock" Where does NASA claim to have this information in the checklists? No specifics are given in your images, only general examples of rock setups.

"NASA knew the exact time astronauts would arrive at each rock" No they didn't, where does NASA say this in the checklist? What NASA is likely saying is what time they want the astronaut to arrive to a STATION, not any specific rock. They can figure this out based on the speed of the rover, and how long it'd take to get to the station on the Moon. The time assumes everything is going correctly and the astronauts are not behind schedule. They do not claim to know what time the astronauts will arrive at each rock.

"NASA knew the camera settings" Of course they did, why wouldn't they? How is this supposedly impossible? It's easy for professional photographers to figure out the settings needed to expose photos correctly.

"NASA knew the position of the sun" Of course they would know this. It can be calculated. Why is this impossible?

"NASA knew where footprints would be." How did they know this? Where does NASA say they know this? What evidence do you have that shows us that NASA says where the footprints will be?

"NASA knew the mineral composition of rocks before they were analyzed" Where does NASA say they know this in the checklist?

5. NASA is not saying "ALSEP photos taken" in past tense. You failed to read the second line. The full text reads "ALSEP photos taken at (F:11, 1/250), which are camera settings. This is being used as a guide to tell the astronaut which photos will be taken at what position relative to the ALSEP on the Moon.

Also, if it was impossible for the astronauts to get instructions from the film crew and had limited vision, why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 11 have checklists then?

6. What is so impossible about knowing the location of the craters for Apollo 17? How is this impossible? NASA had imagery of the landing sites at this point in time and knew the location of every crater in the area. They knew this prior to the landings thanks to impactor and orbiter missions that took photos of the site. Why is this supposedly impossible? You also fail to explain where it says one astronaut is operating 2 cameras to take photos at the same time. I'm guessing it's the checklist on the left (A16), but no where does it say any of what you claim. You also present no evidence for the claim that "Jones" was an inspector for filming and would be in that location.

7. The video was NOT shot prior to the mission taken place. The only section done before the mission launched was that one scene shown. The camera was calibrated, and information presented on the cards so that NASA could know what settings were used by the camera. That is when the film was shot. The film later on, the actual film of astronauts or whatever, was not shot on the same date.

8. All LMs were dropped prior to the final touchdown. They had sensors sticking out of the landing pads that detected the surface. When the surface was touched, the engine was cutoff, and the LM dropped the remaining meter (or so). It was not done on accident, and did not result in any damage to the LM, other than a slight dent in the engine bell of the Apollo 15 descent engine. This did not damage any of the ascent stage, though.

I won't be watching part 7. This is already enough BS for me.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 01, 2018, 03:44:56 AM
I'd add a couple of things to your list there nickrulecreator.

The mission EVAs were constrained by resources, and as such the timelines for each EVA were pretty tight. Each stop was planned very carefully and any unplanned overstays had to be approved - possibly with time being deducted from other sections of the EVA.

It is therefore entirely reasonable that they would know when they were due at a specific stop.

As for knowing where rocks and craters were, the early missions relied mostly on Lunar Orbiter images, but later ones used images taken from orbit by other Apollo missions. Apollo 17, for example, was very well covered by Apollo 15's Panoramic camera which has a resolution almost equivalent to the current LRO.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on June 01, 2018, 07:46:45 AM
8. All LMs were dropped prior to the final touchdown. They had sensors sticking out of the landing pads that detected the surface. When the surface was touched, the engine was cutoff, and the LM dropped the remaining meter (or so). It was not done on accident, and did not result in any damage to the LM, other than a slight dent in the engine bell of the Apollo 15 descent engine. This did not damage any of the ascent stage, though.
By way of illustration...

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/l6x0bcovecy66et/A11-groundsensor.jpg?raw=1)
Here are the ground sensors stickong out of the bottom of the landing feet. They are 53 inches (almost 1½m) long.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/17vc8b901jhx26a/All-contactlight.png?raw=1)
Here you can see the shadow of the ground sensor as Apollo 11 lands. The moment it touches the ground, the LMP gets a contact warning light, the engine cuts off and the LM drops the last 1-1½m onto the lunar surface.

I won't be watching part 7. This is already enough BS for me.

You're very brave watching as much as you have. I wouldn't risk the potential brain damage from exposing it to so much stupid.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: MBDK on June 01, 2018, 12:06:49 PM
Here you can see the shadow of the ground sensor as Apollo 11 lands. The moment it touches the ground, the LMP gets a contact warning light, the engine cuts off and the LM drops the last 1-1½m onto the lunar surface.

Perhaps my memory is messing with me, but didn't Apollo 11 actually keep the engine firing until final touchdown (the only LM to do so, I believe)?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: JayUtah on June 01, 2018, 12:24:09 PM
Perhaps my memory is messing with me, but didn't Apollo 11 actually keep the engine firing until final touchdown (the only LM to do so, I believe)?

Yes.  There was some debate over this quite a few years ago.  Mark Gray and I convinced ourselves after looking at the highest quality 16mm film transfers that the DPS cutoff actually occurred after touchdown.  It's difficult to see because of the sheet of entrained regolith that you have to look through.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nickrulercreator on June 01, 2018, 03:55:31 PM
So I got into contact with Eric Jones over 4:57 in the video regarding the area on the right labeled "jones."

Turns out its actually a crater, not a person. Here's what Eric said:

Quote
Sometime after the cuff checklists were printed but before the Apollo 17 launch, Jack named a cluster of craters along their planned route to Station 6 in honor of American Revolutionary naval officer John Paul Jones.  The following is from https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.site.html

“Jones (crater) - 'Named for John Paul Jones (1747-1792), Scottish-born naval hero of the American Revolution who established his adopted country as a seafaring nation which was, eventually, without peer.’
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nickrulercreator on June 01, 2018, 03:55:52 PM
It also appears that my comment was deleted from the video. Who would've guessed?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on June 01, 2018, 05:13:14 PM
They don't want any nasty ol' facts disrupting their fairy tale!

Just remember HB Rule No 1: "My ignorance is better than your facts"
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on June 01, 2018, 06:30:25 PM
Quote
“Any claim that somehow he could follow up with something much closer to reality, when he was already pushing the limits of what could be achieved at the time needs extraordinary evidence to back it up.”

Extraordinary evidence? On nearly all the photos and videos, allegedly taken on the moon, that have background scenery, we can see a clear line between the edge of the stage and the fake scenery, or should I say, most of us can. You can post pictures of landscapes on earth, showing the same effect, but the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots, which you refuse to see, as Mr Armstrong and co. have that covered by telling us that distances are hard to perceive on the moon. We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.









Quote
“Have you ever actually been on a dirt road?  Because I have.  I've also seen people driving on beaches.  Which are sand, last I checked, and still had plumes of dust behind people driving.  Because sand comes in many particle sizes, down to dust caused by friction of particles rubbing against one another.  Take a geology class.”

Why take a Geology class when I got YouTube?

=249

Quote
“Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints.  Especially not the ones designing the craft.”

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.

Quote
“If the LM were plastic, the engineers would know that it would fail, because plastic is insufficient for mission requirements.”

Oh come on, it’s sarcasm! Do you need a custard pie in your face before you can see humour?

Quote
“So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told”

“I thought you were old enough to remember it”

I wasn’t there to witness it, as I live thousands of miles away, but I can remember reading an article in a newspaper at the time. I’ll try and dig it up for you.

Quote
“If you do perhaps five minutes of research into his life, you will learn that there are no periods of his life when you can fit in filming the Apollo missions, given things like his filming style.  What do you know about his filming style?”

1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

1969: Napoleon (the greatest film never to be made) scrapped

1969: Apollo 11 & Apollo 12 (the sequel)

1970: Production starts on A Clockwork Orange. Released 1971.

As for his direction techniques, all I can say is, he was bloody good at what he did. One of my favourite films was Shawshank Redemption, but I hadn’t a clue who directed it until I looked it up a moment ago.

http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/stanley-kubrick-film-techniques.html

Quote
“Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style”

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it. They knew they would have to film indoors, as even the slightest breeze would expose the fraud, which is why they would have required those front projection techniques to give the illusion of distance. His directional skills would have been at a minimum, as NASA would know what they wanted their men in the spacesuits to do, and they would also write the scripts. Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.

The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”. Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you. It becomes so obvious that the job interview represents an interview, Kubrick may or may not have had with the president, and the rant at his wife concerning his contract and responsibilities also becomes obvious. He is either telling us he was involved, or he was merely having a laugh to fuel the speculation of a conspiracy. I personally don’t think it was the latter, as it would be a lot of trouble to go to, just to wind people up.

Quote
“How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?”

I must have missed that one, so you are telling me there is an uncut scene where they walk for miles? Really?

Quote
“YouTube hosts all sorts of charlatans, but you've got it precisely backwards--they're afraid to come here because they'll have their ignorance shown for what it is, and they don't get to feel special anymore”

No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive, which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT. To be honest, I wouldn’t post comments over there either, but to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.

Quote
“Is it your contention that the signals Baysinger picked up came from somewhere near the moon, but not necessarily the moon itself?”

It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.

Quote
“Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11”

“Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it”

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p30a.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p32c.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p33a.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p37a.htm

Source.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/section1.htm

Quote
“Prove it wrong. Where is the evidence that says the image of Earth doesn't match the satellite record?”

I went onto your site, and after reading your homepage, containing the usual derisive comments towards the people you think you are trying to educate, I went straight to your cloud evidence. At first, I found it quite compelling reading, but then I noticed there didn’t seem to be a single link to this satellite record, you mention. Where are the links to these satellite image archives, as all you have are images, without any proof of where they came from?

This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told, as long as it comes from one of your trustworthy sources, so you expect people to do the same with the information you provide on your site. Unfortunately for you, you lost that trust from the beginning, due to your choice of words on your homepage.

Quote
“And you come to that conclusion how? Did you work it out for yourself? Let's see that working, or is it hidden away on microfilm somewhere?”

The images I posted were from the third in a series of transmissions, shot during Apollo 11’s alleged journey to the moon. The first two alleged broadcasts were just practice sessions, that weren’t broadcast to the public and the third out of the four transmissions on its outward journey was the only live broadcast aired to the public.

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/06day2-tv.html

At the start of the first alleged practice transmission, we see the segment included in the Sibrel edit, when a third party voice instructs the alleged astronauts to talk. Why would they need direction from another source, telling them when to speak, of all things, when they had that fella in Houston? It’s like actors in a play receiving cues from the bloke with the script. It sounds as if they were practicing the length of time to wait before responding to the control centre.



A transparency was obviously used to create the illusion of earth in the third broadcast, as was the case with the first alleged transmission, as when the camera is at the back of the mock-up craft and we see the floodlight to the left, the entire earth is still visible, which just isn’t possible, taking into account the size of the window in relation to the size, the earth should be from 130,000 miles, and you all know this fact better than I do. One of the images below, depicts a bright blue sky, and yet the other shows us the whole globe, without any part of it being cropped off by the edge of the window. This snippet of evidence alone, should be enough proof for most people.

(https://i.imgur.com/byf1RRt.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/U8wjUzb.jpg)

The NASA apologists will point out that there are instances, where we see the alleged earth disappearing behind the window as the camera moves, but what they fail to mention is that these instances come from the second alleged broadcast, where we can see that the alleged earth is noticeably different in colour from the first and third videos, which suggests a different method of trickery was used.

(https://i.imgur.com/AiaMKFq.jpg)

They have either used an internally lit globe hanging outside the window, or another transparency stuck to a window, set into a black partition wall. Also, the quality of the interior shots are very poor and dark, compared to what we see in the first and third transmissions, as they say they were getting bad reception, but it’s more likely, a poorer picture was necessary in order to mask the trickery from the earth window. When the camera moves back from the window, near the end of the transmission, and the alleged earth disappears from view, the view resembles what we would get from a window with a street light outside. There’s nothing in the other two transmissions that come close to matching that view in the second video. This would suggest they were experimenting with different ways to portray the earth from a far distance, before deciding which method to use for the final cut, which would be passed off as the live transmission, people seen on their TV sets.

(https://i.imgur.com/rRFspFl.jpg)

See the white dot in the picture below? That’s apparently the earth, you’d be forgiven for thinking they were half way to the Sun!

(https://i.imgur.com/knNrZeB.jpg)

=1204

As for zero gravity, apart from the torch trick, there is next to no suggestion of it at all. During the third transmission, one of the supposed astronauts says “Zero G is very comfortable, but after a while you get to the point where you sort of get tired of rattling around and banging off the ceiling and the floor and the side”. So with nearly three hours of footage, over four transmissions, we never see an example of this? All we get is the very odd close-up view of a person, with a slight hint of a swaying motion.

For the next piece of evidence, all the credit goes to you, onebigmonkey, as it did at the start, when you first reminded me of the footage, while going on about your cloud evidence.

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: frenat on June 01, 2018, 06:46:49 PM
We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.
none of which require wires. If they had wires, why fall in the first place?


The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work.
Sure, let's add hundreds more to be in on it.

The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”.
did you know many old typewriters don't have a separate 1 and L key? the typist had to type a lower case "l" for the one and as a result the font was made so it could work for both.


It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.
Then you need a separate team designing those spacecraft, and launching and operating them.  None of which there is evidence for.

A transparency was obviously used to create the illusion of earth in the third broadcast, as was the case with the first alleged transmission, as when the camera is at the back of the mock-up craft and we see the floodlight to the left, the entire earth is still visible, which just isn’t possible, taking into account the size of the window in relation to the size, the earth should be from 130,000 miles, and you all know this fact better than I do. One of the images below, depicts a bright blue sky, and yet the other shows us the whole globe, without any part of it being cropped off by the edge of the window. This snippet of evidence alone, should be enough proof for most people.
A transparency with current weather that shows signs of rotation?  Amazing! 

(https://i.imgur.com/byf1RRt.jpg)
Looks like glare on the window IIRC caused by the coating on the windows and seen in other footage including some from the shuttle.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on June 01, 2018, 06:51:26 PM
CONTINUED…..
Now before I go further, let’s get one thing straight. I am with you in the opinion that Bart Sibrel is a total [email protected] and I cannot stress enough, what a complete [email protected] he is. The way he conducted his interviews were nothing short of disgraceful, as he would have extracted far more information from those men if he’d conducted those interviews in a polite and respectful manner, rather than put them on the defensive with his scathing accusations and insults.

So, onebigmonkey, unlike your satellite images, I noticed plenty of links to Apollo photos and videos. Among them was a link to a rerun of a live news broadcast from the time, which showed the alleged live TV broadcast from that third video. It lasted 16 minutes, but should have lasted 26 minutes from where they joined the alleged live feed, to the point where they cut back to the studio.

The missing 10 minutes includes a key part of the footage which Mr Bart Sibrel alleged was proof of fakery. The supposed live footage cuts from a point where we see the alleged earth in close up, to a point ten minutes later in the original, where the man in Houston control says “we can still see the earth through the left window” and we have to wait a further few seconds for the footage to cut back to full screen from the control room, by which time, the camera is being reconfigured for interior viewing. Now why would he bother mentioning something like that? The same reason you would tell someone that their shirttail is hanging out I suppose. How embarrassing would that be if other people spotted it?

=123

When I first seen Sibrel’s edited footage of the event, even though, by that time I had already decided Apollo was a hoax, I brushed it aside as weak evidence, as people had stated that the footage was freely available on an official Apollo 11 DVD. It turns out, that the information was misleading, as Sibrel received the tape in 2000, and released the film “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” in 2001, but the said footage wasn’t released to the public until 2002 on a triple DVD set entitled “Apollo 11: Men on the Moon” and even then, it still wasn’t in its entirety, for example, the “talk” scene was omitted, and the word is also missing from the Apollo journal. Why?

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/04nav-housekeep.html

http://www.collectspace.com/resources/reviews/dvd/apollo11_men_moon.html

They were obviously forced to release it, due to the increasing controversy surrounding the tape, in order to make us believe they had nothing to hide. The leaked tape had a caption at the beginning, with the words “This film of the Apollo 11 Mission was produced as a report film by THE MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER and is not for general public distribution” and as we see from the live news report, part of the footage really was unseen by the public, even at the time of the alleged event.

I’ve spent a lot of time, since I viewed that live news broadcasts, searching for other live news broadcasts, reporting on that alleged broadcast, but it seems that the ABC network have the only record of the event, as numerous other networks have followed NASA’s example in taping over historically notable events. I’m sure if it wasn’t for that intrepid reporter and film maker, Bart Sibrel, we would never have gotten to see the missing footage, albeit, still in edited form. So I have to agree with Sibrel and David Percy, in that those videos are undeniable proof, of a cover-up, but not while in LEO, as they assumed, but in a mock-up craft on earth.

Well, onebigmonkey, it seems that all that work you put into your cloud evidence was based on a fake TV broadcast, and don’t forget to provide those links to the archives, where you got those cloud pictures from, not that it would mean anything now, as my evidence is pretty much nailed on as proof.

Quote
“You are beneath every bit of contempt I have for you, and not worthy of any insults I could be bothered to type. You have presented no evidence, simply regurgitated verbatim long discredited nonsense put out by a liar and a fraud”

Whereas I think you are the dogs’ [email protected]@cks, as without your unwitting help, I probably wouldn’t have gone back over this evidence, so thanks again for supplying me with the ammunition I needed to kick all your sorry little butts! Oh, the irony! Although the man was a dick, and maybe a fraud, because of the way he obtained the odd interview, which would also make him a liar, all I can say is, it takes one to know one.

It seems pointless, me replying to the rest of the responses on here, now that I have proved NASA to be a bunch of frauds, but I’ll do it anyway, as long as you don’t mind me coming across as being smug, condescending, sarcastic and above all, darn right rude, as I think we all deserve it.

Quote
“On the other hand, the Apollo feather is released flat and keeps that orientation all the way to the ground - no tumbling or spinning”

Another instance of a deluded mind defending the indefensible. The feather in the sideways drop by the youtuber neither tumbles nor spins, whereas the feather on the movie set does at least two full rotations before it hits the ground.

Quote
“It is also obvious that both times in the youtuber video, the hammer landed first.”

You sad nit-picking individual.

“I would spell it out for you, but I get the feeling, you are deliberately acting dumb”

“Nope, just confused. But if you refuse to clarify, I guess I'll just have to declare myself the winner and move on”

Ok, where do I start? The rocket launches, using the working bits to get it out of sight, or at least to a point after the producer cuts to the control room. It then runs out of juice and the entire rocket, including the bits that don’t work, fall into the ocean. Some years later, they say they’ve recovered a first stage rocket. But I was implying that the third stages and LM’s from all the lunar missions are also down there, which are the bits, that if found and reported, would give the game away. On second thoughts, make that just the third stage, as the LM would just add unneeded weight. If I was any good at drawing, I’d have a go at doing you a diagram.

Quote
“Ready to tell me why you need blueprints for the LRV when you can see it unfold, or do I have to declare victory on that point, too?”

That one’s yours to keep. Use it wisely.

Quote
“The LM is a spacecraft. We know how they work in space. Your own intelligence doesn't seem to be conspicuous at the moment”

We know how they work in space? Don’t you mean “we knew how they worked in space”?

No they didn’t. They knew how to launch a rocket, and that was about it. How could they build something, to do something that’s never been done and be so confident of it working first time, they would put three men on board, knowing that a failure meant certain death?

Quote
“For the last time, it’s sand!”

“Except for all the times it's seen not acting like sand at all.”

Oh no, not another one with a dust fetish!

=249

Quote
“And as usual with anyone who tries to replicate it, they fail to do it without stacking the odds in their favour by holding the feather vertical as opposed to horizontal”

It was a two minute video, and you couldn’t even bother to watch it to the end.

Quote
“I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.”

“if your expectations match how it should really have looked, why wasn;t it made to look that way if it was faked?”

Because they probably overlooked it the first time and so had to make the rest of the mission’s match, along with some dodgy contrived explanation of why lunar dust is impervious to a rocket blast.

Quote
“for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of”

“Physics is a wonderful thing: it allows you to model and simulate without actual experience.”

And then you test the real thing and die.

Quote
“And you selectively edit to make a point. Sad really. What do you actually get out of this?”

I’m just honing my typing skills. I’m up to three words a minute now.

Quote
“All three of your videos involve the use of CGI”

“Prove it”

There are instances of obvious fakery on board the alleged ISS, even today, so it is only logical to assume that all of it is a combination of CGI and simulation in a plane.

WARNING! The naughty man, talking on this video says a bad word.



Quote
“Bullshit. No-one with a serious interest in a debate starts the debate by dictating that everything that contradicts him is fake, wherever or whoever it comes from”

So what is the difference between you and I? I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions, where as you are convinced that it is all genuine. I came here thinking the Rover wouldn’t work, but now, thanks to certain people on this forum, I believe, if it were possible to get it on the moon, it would work. Have you ever conceded you were wrong in regards to anything concerning this subject, or is your head so far up your pompous arse, that you can’t hear logical arguments from the non-brainwashed among us?

Quote
“It is clearly not at all interested in any kind of debate; its sole purpose is to insult, wind up and demean everyone here. That makes it a troll”

It? Doesn’t that make you a troll?

Quote
“it wasn't something they had "no experience of", since there had been multiple missions of both manned and unmanned craft before Apollo which provided plenty of data on the environment they'd be operating in”

That’s if you believe those other missions took place, as alleged, and even then, the logical thing to do, would be to test the newly designed hardware unmanned.

Quote
“Taking it to extremes, here's a lunar lander game - https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/lunar-lander/lunar-lander_en.html - not very accurate, but gives you an idea of what can be done even with very basic physics!”

Yeah, that’d work!

Quote
“Saying you can't possibly simulate a deep space trajectory -- despite the ground truth of a number of said trajectories that agreed with the previous predictions and thus validates the models, is like saying you can't cook from a recipe”

That is assuming the person who created the recipe isn’t pulling your plonker.

Quote
“Notice also, that were I of a mind, I could demonstrate the exact Apollo effect”

Which one?

(https://i.imgur.com/4r5APal.jpg)

Quote
“The gases are emerging from the engine bell at a couple of thousand metres per second and interacting with material (dust, sand, whatever) on a Moon with one-sixth of the Earth's gravity: that material is going to disappear over the horizon rather than settle on the ground a few metres away”

You have your assumption and I have mine, but if your assumption is correct, there would only be bare rock for miles, or at least till we get to the edge of the soundstage.

Quote
“Please tell us, exactly how much attention is appropriate?”

I would ask you to ignore the posts, that you deem to be nonsense, which would mean I shouldn’t get any attention at all, but you wouldn’t be able to resist telling me this, and therefore I would still be getting attention. I challenge you all to ignore me from now on, it’ll give me a well-deserved rest, and I would also have the last word. It’s not gonna happen, is it!

Quote
“As for the article you link, it contains all sorts of errors and omissions which show the analysis to be about as useful as a sunroof on a submarine”

http://www.whale.to/b/mullins6.html

I never read a word of that article, I just seen the title and posted it. I was going with my assumption that Russia must have been pretty certain they never went, but the fact that the Russians never made a song and dance about it, even going to the lengths of congratulating them on their astonishing achievements, tells me that the Cold War wasn’t as reported, as far as Apollo was concerned anyway. I think you are grossly underestimating the powers of governments and possibly an even higher, unseen power, who knows?

Quote
“All three videos involve the use of CGI, do they? Including the one from Skylab (the astronaut running and somersaulting around the ring) which was filmed in 1973. CGI in 1973? Seriously?”

The one with Skylab gives a brief mention to Joseph P. Allen on-board the alleged Space Shuttle, which used CGI, so yes, that video involved CGI. 

https://ak3.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/1006693933/preview/stock-footage-circa-astronauts-prepare-food-on-board-the-space-shuttle-discovery-sts-a-candy-floats-in.mp4

The one with the watch and the burrito, the longest portion of uncut film was 27 seconds. Why so many cuts, when the film would’ve been the same length without the cuts? Do I have to tell you how it was done? So I may be wrong about the use of CGI on that one.

&feature=youtu.be

Did you not wonder why the person running round the ring, doesn’t float away from the ring every time he takes a step? No gravity means weightless and therefore there would only be his momentum holding him to the ring, which would work with, let’s say a bicycle, but not a person running. It would be easier to do in earth gravity. Even Stanley Kubrick realised this, five years earlier, which is why the characters in 2001 had Velcro on the soles of their shoes.

In videos from Skylab, it’s very rare to see the entire ring, but if you watch from 3:15 in the second video, you’ll notice the ring is angled inwards, so it is narrower in diameter at the top than the bottom, and no, it’s not an illusion. Let’s see if your deluded brain can work out why it was made that way.





And just for fun.
=144

=26




Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 01, 2018, 07:20:11 PM
Quote
“The LM is a spacecraft. We know how they work in space. Your own intelligence doesn't seem to be conspicuous at the moment”

We know how they work in space? Don’t you mean “we knew how they worked in space”?

No they didn’t. They knew how to launch a rocket, and that was about it.

Bull. Physics is physics. A rocket works the same everywhere. It makes no odds what the spacecraft looks like, the principle of operation is the same.

Quote
How could they build something, to do something that’s never been done and be so confident of it working first time, they would put three men on board, knowing that a failure meant certain death?

Argument from incredulity is irrelevant. Firstly, landing on the moon had been done before, and secondly, the vehicle was tested in flight unmanned and manned. It worked. What was so unique about landing the LM that made it impossible to believe a couple of professional test pilots would voluntarily pilot it to a risky landing?

Quote
Quote
“Physics is a wonderful thing: it allows you to model and simulate without actual experience.”

And then you test the real thing and die.

Why? What was so impossible about simulating something using the known laws of physics?

Quote
Quote
“Bullshit. No-one with a serious interest in a debate starts the debate by dictating that everything that contradicts him is fake, wherever or whoever it comes from”

So what is the difference between you and I?

I haven't dismissed everything you can possibly provide as fake before you even provide it. Not that hard to understand, is it?

Quote
I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions, where as you are convinced that it is all genuine.

The difference is my conclusion was arrived at with a sound understanding of science and physics whereas yours is based on incredulity and a strange conviction that because you don't get something it cant be real.

Quote
I came here thinking the Rover wouldn’t work, but now, thanks to certain people on this forum, I believe, if it were possible to get it on the moon, it would work.

Thanks to certain people on this forum who provided you with a piece of footage that takes all of three seconds to google up from the web, and which you didn't even know existed. Says a lot about your abiity to research the subject, doesn't it?

Quote
Have you ever conceded you were wrong in regards to anything concerning this subject

Several times over the last decade and a half. Your failure to elicit such a response does not mean it can't or hasn't happened.

Quote
or is your head so far up your pompous arse, that you can’t hear logical arguments from the non-brainwashed among us?

Your arguments are not logical. It is not logical to begin a debate by dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you.

Quote
That’s if you believe those other missions took place, as alleged, and even then, the logical thing to do, would be to test the newly designed hardware unmanned.

Why? How many aircraft were ever tested unmanned before taking off with a pilot in?

But in any case, the Apollo spacecraft were tested unmanned. Your failure to understand that testing does not mean flying the entire mission is your probem, not ours.

Quote
You have your assumption and I have mine, but if your assumption is correct, there would only be bare rock for miles, or at least till we get to the edge of the soundstage.

Why? How deep is the rock and how much regolith would have to be blown away to expose it, and is the engine capable of excavating that amount? Same old 'it either blew all or none of the dust away' crap.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on June 01, 2018, 08:39:36 PM

<irrelevant bollocks snipped>


I guess you really do believe your own ignorance
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on June 01, 2018, 09:05:13 PM
Why? How many aircraft were ever tested unmanned before taking off with a pilot in?

Few, if any, of the weird and wonderful "X-planes" of the 1950's and early 1960's were test flown unmanned (at least I don't know of any). They took their first flights manned. That is what test pilots do!! The reason being that control systems were not yet developed to be reliable enough to control aircraft remotely.

In fact, it was for this reason that the GAF Jindevik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAF_Jindivik), a remote controlled drone developed in Australia for target towing, was first tested using a manned prototype.

This is a case of the exact opposite of what cambo is claiming, testing the aircraft manned before allowing it to be flown unmanned!!


 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 01, 2018, 11:24:51 PM

Quote
“Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11”

“Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it”

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p30a.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p32c.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p33a.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p37a.htm

Source.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/section1.htm

I'll be generous and assume you aren't being deliberately obtuse. I am well aware of the history of meteorological satellites. The point I made was that the science of understanding what was in the images was still in its infancy and a long way from being able to predict weather patterns from them. I repeat: even today forecasting is not done primarily from images taken in the visible spectrum.

Quote
Quote
“Prove it wrong. Where is the evidence that says the image of Earth doesn't match the satellite record?”

I went onto your site, and after reading your homepage, containing the usual derisive comments towards the people you think you are trying to educate, I went straight to your cloud evidence. At first, I found it quite compelling reading, but then I noticed there didn’t seem to be a single link to this satellite record, you mention. Where are the links to these satellite image archives, as all you have are images, without any proof of where they came from?

This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told, as long as it comes from one of your trustworthy sources, so you expect people to do the same with the information you provide on your site. Unfortunately for you, you lost that trust from the beginning, due to your choice of words on your homepage.

Diddums. It's my site, I pay for it, I decide the content and I am under no obligation to massage the egos of idiots.  You are also completely wrong. I provide sources to all the images I used in the introduction to every mission. If you bothered to look at all of the pages you might find that I actually own physical copies of some of them, and it's only the expense of it that stops me buying more, like this one:

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=18269247226&searchurl=kn%3Dmeteorological%2Bdata%2Bcatalog%26sortby%3D17%26n%3D100121503&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title3

Quote
Quote
“And you come to that conclusion how? Did you work it out for yourself? Let's see that working, or is it hidden away on microfilm somewhere?”

The images I posted were from the third in a series of transmissions, shot during Apollo 11’s alleged journey to the moon. The first two alleged broadcasts were just practice sessions, that weren’t broadcast to the public and the third out of the four transmissions on its outward journey was the only live broadcast aired to the public.

Again, you haven't been paying attention. The footage you cite was broadcast on TV news, and images from them appeared in the next day's newspapers. An original copy of a still from one of those broadcasts was one of the first things I asked you about. The TV broadcasts were also discussed in detail in this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/10-Historic-Conquest-Reported-Television/dp/075676159X

published in 1970 and a copy of which I own. Colour stills from them appear in there.

Far from being some sort of secret Sibrel supposedly stumbled across they were always known about and the content was always available.

Quote
At the start of the first alleged practice transmission, we see the segment included in the Sibrel edit, when a third party voice instructs the alleged astronauts to talk. Why would they need direction from another source, telling them when to speak, of all things, when they had that fella in Houston? It’s like actors in a play receiving cues from the bloke with the script. It sounds as if they were practicing the length of time to wait before responding to the control centre.



Why do assume that it says 'talk'? Did someone tell you? You are making a priori judgements based on someone else's script and fitting your conclusions to 'evidence' accordingly. As for your later comment, I own a copy of the Apollo 11 Spacecraft Films box set, and the "talk scene" is not omitted.

Quote
A transparency was obviously used to create the illusion of earth in the third broadcast, as was the case with the first alleged transmission, as when the camera is at the back of the mock-up craft and we see the floodlight to the left, the entire earth is still visible, which just isn’t possible, taking into account the size of the window in relation to the size, the earth should be from 130,000 miles, and you all know this fact better than I do. One of the images below, depicts a bright blue sky, and yet the other shows us the whole globe, without any part of it being cropped off by the edge of the window. This snippet of evidence alone, should be enough proof for most people.

"Obviously"? What seems obvious that it is Earth, showing the exactly what it should show. Have you any proof as to how big the Earth should appear from that distance? There's plenty of astronomical software to help you out there. It isn't showing bright blue sky, it's showing glare through the window with the camera set to interior exposure.

Quote
The NASA apologists will point out that there are instances, where we see the alleged earth disappearing behind the window as the camera moves, but what they fail to mention is that these instances come from the second alleged broadcast, where we can see that the alleged earth is noticeably different in colour from the first and third videos, which suggests a different method of trickery was used.

Steady now, you're letting your confirmation bias show.

Quote
They have either used an internally lit globe hanging outside the window, or another transparency stuck to a window, set into a black partition wall. Also, the quality of the interior shots are very poor and dark, compared to what we see in the first and third transmissions, as they say they were getting bad reception, but it’s more likely, a poorer picture was necessary in order to mask the trickery from the earth window. When the camera moves back from the window, near the end of the transmission, and the alleged earth disappears from view, the view resembles what we would get from a window with a street light outside. There’s nothing in the other two transmissions that come close to matching that view in the second video. This would suggest they were experimenting with different ways to portray the earth from a far distance, before deciding which method to use for the final cut, which would be passed off as the live transmission, people seen on their TV sets.

And we're still waiting for you to come up with any kind of sensible suggestion as to how they managed to produce a live colour image of Earth with accurate weather imagery superimposed on it for a live TV broadcast. "It was a transparency" doesn't fall into that category because at the time of the broadcasts they did not have the images they needed to show the whole globe. How would your transparency manage to reproduce signs of rotation when it is filmed for extended periods?

(https://i.imgur.com/SErknFH.gif)

Quote
See the white dot in the picture below? That’s apparently the earth, you’d be forgiven for thinking they were half way to the Sun!

Amazing how it resolves to Earth when they zoom in on it though.

Quote
Among them was a link to a rerun of a live news broadcast from the time, which showed the alleged live TV broadcast from that third video. It lasted 16 minutes, but should have lasted 26 minutes from where they joined the alleged live feed, to the point where they cut back to the studio.

The missing 10 minutes includes a key part of the footage which Mr Bart Sibrel alleged was proof of fakery. The supposed live footage cuts from a point where we see the alleged earth in close up, to a point ten minutes later in the original, where the man in Houston control says “we can still see the earth through the left window” and we have to wait a further few seconds for the footage to cut back to full screen from the control room, by which time, the camera is being reconfigured for interior viewing. Now why would he bother mentioning something like that? The same reason you would tell someone that their shirttail is hanging out I suppose. How embarrassing would that be if other people spotted it?

Because Apollo 11 had already told them they were going to the inside view and were reconfiguring the camera but that wasn't showing in what was being seen back on Earth. Your trying to weave something significant out of smoke. If you check the transcripts you'll find that the ABC broadcast you link to joins the Apollo 11 broadcast almost immediately after it begain. The missing 10 minutes may be missing from the internet, it does not mean that they are missing from the original broadcast. Sibrel's claim that they were not publicly available until 2002 is very much at odds with the opening screen in this



which shows that the footage was available in 1994.

I've already addressed the rest of your comments: I do provide links, claims by Sibrel that the TV footage was somehow secret are nonsense, and it was physically impossible to produce a live image of Earth. Your evidence is not 'nailed on' - it pretty much isn't your evidence, it's just a regurgitation of someone else's.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on June 02, 2018, 12:33:10 AM
Here you can see the shadow of the ground sensor as Apollo 11 lands. The moment it touches the ground, the LMP gets a contact warning light, the engine cuts off and the LM drops the last 1-1½m onto the lunar surface.

Perhaps my memory is messing with me, but didn't Apollo 11 actually keep the engine firing until final touchdown (the only LM to do so, I believe)?

Oops. that's right, I had forgotten about that.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on June 02, 2018, 05:00:22 AM
Quote
“Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints.  Especially not the ones designing the craft.”

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.
You really don't have a clue about the real world of engineering, in any field - mechanical, electrical, electronic, chemical, software or whatever.  If you think anyone at any level putting together systems as complex as those for Apollo wouldn't have noticed it was fake, you're deluding yourself.

Quote
“Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style”

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it.
And again your lack of knowledge / understanding is showing.  Kubrick didn't create the effects himself (do you actually know what a director does on a movie?).  He had ideas and concepts for what he wanted, and relied on a team of specialists to achieve it.  Look up "Doug Trumbull" and his work if you want some insight into one of the greatest effects designers in the history of movies.

In fact, if you were going to be creating this hoax footage, as you claim was done, you'd have absolutely no need for someone as demanding and picky as Kubrick.  You'd want a team of effects designers and builders, like Trumbull, who could recreate the exact effects as predicted by the physics of lunar gravity, vacuum and the material properties of the lunar surface.  Kubrick wouldn't have been able to stop himself from interfering, changing "the plot", asking for unrealistic effects because "they'll look better" etc.

Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?   ::)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on June 02, 2018, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: cambo
Another instance of a deluded mind defending the indefensible. The feather in the sideways drop by the youtuber neither tumbles nor spins, whereas the feather on the movie set does at least two full rotations before it hits the ground.


You can deny it all you want. I'll leave it to the observer to see that the YouTube video shows exactly what I say it shows.

Quote from: AtomicDog
It is also obvious that both times in the youtuber video, the hammer landed first.

Quote from: cambo
You sad nit-picking individual.

The Youtuber contended that he could duplicate the "hammer and feather" video. He failed miserably.

Since lying and crying "nit-picking" is the only response you have, I'll have to declare victory again.

Quote from: cambo
Ok, where do I start? The rocket launches, using the working bits to get it out of sight, or at least to a point after the producer cuts to the control room. It then runs out of juice and the entire rocket, including the bits that don’t work, fall into the ocean. Some years later, they say they’ve recovered a first stage rocket. But I was implying that the third stages and LM’s from all the lunar missions are also down there, which are the bits, that if found and reported, would give the game away. On second thoughts, make that just the third stage, as the LM would just add unneeded weight. If I was any good at drawing, I’d have a go at doing you a diagram.

Oh? You say that the Apollo third stages are at the bottom of the ocean? These people say that they saw Saturn third stages and Apollo spacecraft leave earth orbit and head for the Moon:

https://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Notice that there are witnesses to, and they provide contemporary photographic evidence of, among other things, Apollo TLI,  S-IVB shroud deployment, and command module reentry. Or are they in on it, too?

Here's an astronomer who found Apollo 12's third stage. He thought it was an asteroid, but the spectroscopic signature of titanium paint identified it as a S-IVB:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3

I know: he was a paid CIA troll, right? Or was he just a dupe?

Quote from: AtomicDog
Ready to tell me why you need blueprints for the LRV when you can see it unfold, or do I have to declare victory on that point, too?

Quote from: cambo
That one’s yours to keep. Use it wisely.

Typical cambo. Argues a HB point vociferously, and when shown definitely that he is wrong, dismisses the point with a wave of his hand. A common tactic of yours.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on June 02, 2018, 12:17:24 PM
It's lke cambo has simply sucked up and barfed every crackpot loon website ever known.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: dwight on June 02, 2018, 12:21:23 PM
Wait a minute! Did someone without any clue whatsover about Skylab other than perhaps its name, post the ring locker (Skylab 500) TV without referring to the 16mm footage showing the full ring locker)? I wonder what would happen if someone who actually -did- know about Skylab decided to debunk it?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on June 02, 2018, 01:54:34 PM
I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it.
And again your lack of knowledge / understanding is showing.  Kubrick didn't create the effects himself (do you actually know what a director does on a movie?).  He had ideas and concepts for what he wanted, and relied on a team of specialists to achieve it.  Look up "Doug Trumbull" and his work if you want some insight into one of the greatest effects designers in the history of movies.

In fact, if you were going to be creating this hoax footage, as you claim was done, you'd have absolutely no need for someone as demanding and picky as Kubrick.  You'd want a team of effects designers and builders, like Trumbull, who could recreate the exact effects as predicted by the physics of lunar gravity, vacuum and the material properties of the lunar surface.  Kubrick wouldn't have been able to stop himself from interfering, changing "the plot", asking for unrealistic effects because "they'll look better" etc.

Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?   ::)

Seriously.  I'm not going to go back and dig through to figure out which responses are to me (again, Cambo, please leave in the tags that show who you're responding to!), but he's definitively proven that he doesn't know anything about film.  Or Kubrick.  He apparently thinks that citing Napoleon proves he does, but even Frank Darabont has a specific style.  And I wouldn't hire him to fake Moon landings, either, and by all accounts he's easier to work with.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on June 02, 2018, 02:02:33 PM
I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it.
And again your lack of knowledge / understanding is showing.  Kubrick didn't create the effects himself (do you actually know what a director does on a movie?).  He had ideas and concepts for what he wanted, and relied on a team of specialists to achieve it.  Look up "Doug Trumbull" and his work if you want some insight into one of the greatest effects designers in the history of movies.

In fact, if you were going to be creating this hoax footage, as you claim was done, you'd have absolutely no need for someone as demanding and picky as Kubrick.  You'd want a team of effects designers and builders, like Trumbull, who could recreate the exact effects as predicted by the physics of lunar gravity, vacuum and the material properties of the lunar surface.  Kubrick wouldn't have been able to stop himself from interfering, changing "the plot", asking for unrealistic effects because "they'll look better" etc.

Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?   ::)

Seriously.  I'm not going to go back and dig through to figure out which responses are to me (again, Cambo, please leave in the tags that show who you're responding to!), but he's definitively proven that he doesn't know anything about film.  Or Kubrick.  He apparently thinks that citing Napoleon proves he does, but even Frank Darabont has a specific style.  And I wouldn't hire him to fake Moon landings, either, and by all accounts he's easier to work with.

Yes his posting style is a bit cumbersome to follow.  Perhaps he thinks it is short hand, or he doesn't want folks to search to find the original quotes?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on June 02, 2018, 02:14:05 PM
I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it.
And again your lack of knowledge / understanding is showing.  Kubrick didn't create the effects himself (do you actually know what a director does on a movie?).  He had ideas and concepts for what he wanted, and relied on a team of specialists to achieve it.  Look up "Doug Trumbull" and his work if you want some insight into one of the greatest effects designers in the history of movies.

In fact, if you were going to be creating this hoax footage, as you claim was done, you'd have absolutely no need for someone as demanding and picky as Kubrick.  You'd want a team of effects designers and builders, like Trumbull, who could recreate the exact effects as predicted by the physics of lunar gravity, vacuum and the material properties of the lunar surface.  Kubrick wouldn't have been able to stop himself from interfering, changing "the plot", asking for unrealistic effects because "they'll look better" etc.

Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?   ::)

Seriously.  I'm not going to go back and dig through to figure out which responses are to me (again, Cambo, please leave in the tags that show who you're responding to!), but he's definitively proven that he doesn't know anything about film.  Or Kubrick.  He apparently thinks that citing Napoleon proves he does, but even Frank Darabont has a specific style.  And I wouldn't hire him to fake Moon landings, either, and by all accounts he's easier to work with.

Yes his posting style is a bit cumbersome to follow.  Perhaps he thinks it is short hand, or he doesn't want folks to search to find the original quotes?

I think that's his intent. Sometimes it takes me days to find one of his references to a quote of mine in his wall of merde.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on June 02, 2018, 02:40:22 PM
I think that's his intent. Sometimes it takes me days to find one of his references to a quote of mine in his wall of merde.
It may be that he still hasn't figured out how to use the quote feature, especially for multi-quotes.  The fact that he tends to put quoted text in inverted commas, even within the quote block, kind of implies something like that...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on June 02, 2018, 05:56:34 PM
In fact, it was for this reason that the GAF Jindevik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAF_Jindivik), a remote controlled drone developed in Australia for target towing, was first tested using a manned prototype.


Slight correction there: The manned version of the Jindivik was known as the Pika.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on June 02, 2018, 05:58:13 PM
It's lke cambo has simply sucked up and barfed every crackpot loon website ever known.

I think they have a predilection for The Blunder From Down Under.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on June 02, 2018, 06:23:31 PM
Wait a minute! Did someone without any clue whatsover about Skylab other than perhaps its name, post the ring locker (Skylab 500) TV without referring to the 16mm footage showing the full ring locker)? I wonder what would happen if someone who actually -did- know about Skylab decided to debunk it?

I can’t think 🤔 who should we call 😂👍
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: apollo16uvc on June 02, 2018, 07:34:10 PM
Thanks for posting my videos. Mr. Henderson and I appreciate the support. For more of Scott's work, check out http://www.aulis.com. We've wrapped up the Apollo Moon Hoax with a neat little bow with that discovery of the wet flag on Apollo 17, drying from the edges in. No comeback from that.

I've uploaded a total of 10 Apollo Hoax videos now - all can be found on my YouTube playlist here:



Cheers!

-Paul On The Plane
You're welcome Paul!

This forum was a little dead with mostly old 'Conspiracy Evidence'  that has been debunked countless times. So I wanted to bring in some new looks at the Apollo footage.

The best,
apollo16uvc
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: paulontheplane on June 02, 2018, 11:23:39 PM
(https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20383HR.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on June 02, 2018, 11:32:59 PM
Quote
“Any claim that somehow he could follow up with something much closer to reality, when he was already pushing the limits of what could be achieved at the time needs extraordinary evidence to back it up.”

Extraordinary evidence? On nearly all the photos and videos, allegedly taken on the moon, that have background scenery, we can see a clear line between the edge of the stage and the fake scenery, or should I say, most of us can.
That is a ridgeline, do I need to post the obligatory Fr. Ted video?

You can post pictures of landscapes on earth, showing the same effect, but the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots,
Is it? You have ignored the famous house rock.

Not only does this sink your "few yards" bollocks, it also illustrates the ridge lines.

which you refuse to see, as Mr Armstrong and co. have that covered by telling us that distances are hard to perceive on the moon.
Why do you refuse to see anything?
We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.
Nope. You have no evidence at all.

So let's go with your evidence...

https://youtu.be/2Hrz0XeYtk0
Why is your supposed wire curved? Why does your supposed wire have different attachment points? Why aer your supposed attachment points never in line with the COG? Why is lens flare evidence of wires when it suits you, yet ignored when it does not?

https://youtu.be/uq9cZbHSnhs
First, a whinge that resolution in the 60's was not as good as your cell. Of course it wasn't. tech has moved along in the intervening 50 some years. Get a clue. Then a claim of "identical frames". A flat out lie. 29.97 frame rate? another lie. The footage has been CONVERTED to 29.97 fps. It originally was at a much lower frame rate. Dupes are inevitable in such a conversion. And that is a problem for you. Your claim is now that the lunar footage was shot at 29.97 fps. That is utter bollocks, but it is your claim. Defend it.

https://youtu.be/OLjRfUfgyTg
Further illustrates that you have no comprehension of frame rates or how cameras actually work.

https://youtu.be/llIqXODC3jk
And now you try to do math. Amusingly borked.

Quote
“Have you ever actually been on a dirt road?  Because I have.  I've also seen people driving on beaches.  Which are sand, last I checked, and still had plumes of dust behind people driving.  Because sand comes in many particle sizes, down to dust caused by friction of particles rubbing against one another.  Take a geology class.”

Why take a Geology class when I got YouTube?
Sez it all. We are dealing with an individual who actually thinks he can become an expert on anything by dint of youboob.

https://youtu.be/9S30XLds5gc?t=249

Quote
“Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints.  Especially not the ones designing the craft.”

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.
Yup. According to cambo, all engineers everywhere are simply automatons. Which begs the question. ~If all engineers are automatons simply following the instructions of their masters, then why do those masters even bother?

Quote
“If the LM were plastic, the engineers would know that it would fail, because plastic is insufficient for mission requirements.”

Oh come on, it’s sarcasm! Do you need a custard pie in your face before you can see humour?
No, we simply observe that when caught out on the facts you try to pretend it was a joke. We see you, and it is not a pretty picture.

Quote
“So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told”

“I thought you were old enough to remember it”

I wasn’t there to witness it, as I live thousands of miles away, but I can remember reading an article in a newspaper at the time. I’ll try and dig it up for you.
Oh, so you weren't there. thus everything you say may be dismissed.

Quote
“If you do perhaps five minutes of research into his life, you will learn that there are no periods of his life when you can fit in filming the Apollo missions, given things like his filming style.  What do you know about his filming style?”

1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

1969: Napoleon (the greatest film never to be made) scrapped

1969: Apollo 11 & Apollo 12 (the sequel)

1970: Production starts on A Clockwork Orange. Released 1971.

As for his direction techniques, all I can say is, he was bloody good at what he did. One of my favourite films was Shawshank Redemption, but I hadn’t a clue who directed it until I looked it up a moment ago.

http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/stanley-kubrick-film-techniques.html
Super, and in the middle of all of that effort, Kubrick squeezed in Apollo. Sure.

Quote
“Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style”

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it. They knew they would have to film indoors, as even the slightest breeze would expose the fraud, which is why they would have required those front projection techniques to give the illusion of distance. His directional skills would have been at a minimum, as NASA would know what they wanted their men in the spacesuits to do, and they would also write the scripts. Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.
What a load.

The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”. Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you. It becomes so obvious that the job interview represents an interview, Kubrick may or may not have had with the president, and the rant at his wife concerning his contract and responsibilities also becomes obvious. He is either telling us he was involved, or he was merely having a laugh to fuel the speculation of a conspiracy. I personally don’t think it was the latter, as it would be a lot of trouble to go to, just to wind people up.
That is all in your head. It has no intersection with reality.wa


Quote
“How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?”

I must have missed that one, so you are telling me there is an uncut scene where they walk for miles? Really?
Yeah, you missed that one.

Quote
“YouTube hosts all sorts of charlatans, but you've got it precisely backwards--they're afraid to come here because they'll have their ignorance shown for what it is, and they don't get to feel special anymore”

No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive, which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT. To be honest, I wouldn’t post comments over there either, but to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.
Wander along with a stupid notion and then complain that said stupid notion is mocked? You are somehow surprised?

Quote
“Is it your contention that the signals Baysinger picked up came from somewhere near the moon, but not necessarily the moon itself?”

It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.
Sure. Now explain it.

Quote
“Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11”

“Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it”
Jesus. I have lost the will to continue with the nonsense
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on June 03, 2018, 12:08:35 AM
(https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20383HR.jpg)

Hey! Earth photobombs the flag!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: paulontheplane on June 03, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
(https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385HR.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2018, 02:25:50 AM
Not entirely sure why paulontheplane is posting these splendid images of Apollo astronauts at Taurus-Littrow, but let's go with the assumption that he is building towards making another point about the flag being wet and I'll ask him a question.

Here are two images of the flag taken as part of a sequence of tourist shots. They show the flag in roughly the same orientation, although one is slightly further away. They are AS17-134-20385 and AS17-134-20381. That numbering sequence should tell you that one of the images was taken later than the other. In one of these images, the flag shows what paulontheplane is claiming signs of moisture and drying at the creases. On the other, it does not. Which one do you suppose is the 'wettest', and therefore should have been taken first?

(https://i.imgur.com/q3RWBup.jpg)

Psst: it's a trap.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 03, 2018, 02:27:50 AM
Quote
“Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11”

“Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it”
Jesus. I have lost the will to continue with the nonsense

To be fair to cambo there, the 'handwaving' part was my response to him. It was his follow-on response that deserved your ire ;)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nweber on June 03, 2018, 03:14:46 AM
Psst: it's a trap.

The shadow in the one on the right looks like Stanley Kubrick giving the finger to someone.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on June 03, 2018, 03:48:49 AM
Psst: it's a trap.

The shadow in the one on the right looks like Stanley Kubrick giving the finger to someone.

Pareidolia.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nickrulercreator on June 03, 2018, 06:35:18 AM
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on June 03, 2018, 06:51:32 AM
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?
Indeed!  Some of the ideas the HBs have about "whistle-blowers" is completely nonsensical.  Sneaking a hard to find clue into the photographs, film or even audio is one thing, but hanging a wet flag on a set with dozens of crew, director, DP, gaffer, camera, sound, etc. etc. present is ludicrous. Not one person on the set, including presumably the "NASA Special Forces" team making sure it was done properly ;D noticed it, or stopped filming so it could be dried out.

It takes a special kind of suspension of disbelief to rationalise something like that...  ::)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on June 03, 2018, 07:20:20 AM
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?
Indeed!  Some of the ideas the HBs have about "whistle-blowers" is completely nonsensical.  Sneaking a hard to find clue into the photographs, film or even audio is one thing, but hanging a wet flag on a set with dozens of crew, director, DP, gaffer, camera, sound, etc. etc. present is ludicrous. Not one person on the set, including presumably the "NASA Special Forces" team making sure it was done properly ;D noticed it, or stopped filming so it could be dried out.

It takes a special kind of suspension of disbelief to rationalise something like that...  ::)

Like all those that preceded cambo and paulontheplane. Critical thinkers---BAH, More like dead from the neck up. 8)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nweber on June 03, 2018, 08:52:34 AM
Pareidolia.

Well I'm glad you cleared that up, because I thought it was actually Stanley Kubrick giving someone the finger.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: tikkitakki on June 03, 2018, 11:41:06 AM
The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”.
did you know many old typewriters don't have a separate 1 and L key? the typist had to type a lower case "l" for the one and as a result the font was made so it could work for both.
The Adler Universal 39 used in the movie does have a 1 key and number 1 is clearly differerent from lowercase L.
http://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter (http://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter)


Conclusion: no "A-eleven work" there.

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on June 03, 2018, 01:25:27 PM
Quote
“If you do perhaps five minutes of research into his life, you will learn that there are no periods of his life when you can fit in filming the Apollo missions, given things like his filming style.  What do you know about his filming style?”

1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

1969: Napoleon (the greatest film never to be made) scrapped

1969: Apollo 11 & Apollo 12 (the sequel)

1970: Production starts on A Clockwork Orange. Released 1971.

As for his direction techniques, all I can say is, he was bloody good at what he did. One of my favourite films was Shawshank Redemption, but I hadn’t a clue who directed it until I looked it up a moment ago.

http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/stanley-kubrick-film-techniques.html
Super, and in the middle of all of that effort, Kubrick squeezed in Apollo. Sure.

Not only that, but who filmed the other sequels?  You can tell, if you know directors, the difference in style between--for example--even for-hire Spielberg and, say, Joe Johnston (I can't think of any sequels to Kubrick films, much less any Kubrick sequels!), or even Spielberg-trying-to-Kubrick.  So suddenly, all a director is for is directing special effects, a huge waste of talent, but they took Kubrick's time for the first two Apollos and then let him go off and direct another movie instead of continuing with the series?

Quote
“Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style”

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it. They knew they would have to film indoors, as even the slightest breeze would expose the fraud, which is why they would have required those front projection techniques to give the illusion of distance. His directional skills would have been at a minimum, as NASA would know what they wanted their men in the spacesuits to do, and they would also write the scripts. Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.
What a load.

Indeed.  Definitely someone who knows nothing about Kubrick, either as a person or a director.

The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”. Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you. It becomes so obvious that the job interview represents an interview, Kubrick may or may not have had with the president, and the rant at his wife concerning his contract and responsibilities also becomes obvious. He is either telling us he was involved, or he was merely having a laugh to fuel the speculation of a conspiracy. I personally don’t think it was the latter, as it would be a lot of trouble to go to, just to wind people up.
That is all in your head. It has no intersection with reality.wa

There's a frankly not-very-good documentary on the subject, and about several other possible things "proven" by The Shining.  I watched the documentary, and the only evidence I saw in that movie was that Kubrick doesn't know much about baking powder. 


Quote
“How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?”

I must have missed that one, so you are telling me there is an uncut scene where they walk for miles? Really?
Yeah, you missed that one.

Funny how these people know so much about Apollo without ever really doing research on the Apollo record, isn't it?

Quote
“YouTube hosts all sorts of charlatans, but you've got it precisely backwards--they're afraid to come here because they'll have their ignorance shown for what it is, and they don't get to feel special anymore”

No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive, which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT. To be honest, I wouldn’t post comments over there either, but to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.
Wander along with a stupid notion and then complain that said stupid notion is mocked? You are somehow surprised?

I think this is another one of mine, and I'd use the word "charlatan" again.  While I do believe that a majority of the people who think Apollo was hoaxed was really do believe it, they flatly do not have the skill level they're claiming.  Once again, we've hit here on a topic I really do know about.  I know a lot about film, and a certain amount about Kubrick in particular.  (I'm not a huge fan, but you can't avoid discussion of him in film circles, you know?)  And it's become quite clear that Cambo knows nothing about filmmaking, very little about Kubrick, and nowhere near as much as he's claiming about special effects.  That means he fits the dictionary definition of a charlatan.  And that's before we get into the people who are just making Apollo claims to fleece the hoax believers.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on June 03, 2018, 01:36:31 PM
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?

Kubrick got upset it was dirty and ordered it washed right then and there.

Then everyone on the set conspired to keep him from noticing he was shooting a wet flag. Somehow.



(And it was really, really wet. So wet it hadn't dried yet after ten hours of re-takes under hot studio lights.)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nickrulercreator on June 03, 2018, 01:37:16 PM
One thing I wonder about the whole “wet flag” claim is why the flag would be wet in the first place. What is the purpose of making it wet? Why would NASA be that stupid, if they did that (they didn’t)?

Kubrick got upset it was dirty and ordered it washed right then and there.

Then everyone on the set conspired to keep him from noticing he was shooting a wet flag. Somehow.



(And it was really, really wet. So wet it hadn't dried yet after ten hours of re-takes under hot studio lights.)
Somehow indeed
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on June 03, 2018, 01:43:55 PM
Well, at least it is a single point, even if it isn't being coherently argued. Unlike the cambot and his Jackson Pollock performance art.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: frenat on June 03, 2018, 03:32:37 PM
The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”.
did you know many old typewriters don't have a separate 1 and L key? the typist had to type a lower case "l" for the one and as a result the font was made so it could work for both.
The Adler Universal 39 used in the movie does have a 1 key and number 1 is clearly differerent from lowercase L.
http://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter (http://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter)


Conclusion: no "A-eleven work" there.
Thank you.  So it is even worse for his case.  He just doesn't know how the l was supposed to look.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Bop on June 03, 2018, 11:21:11 PM
The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”.
did you know many old typewriters don't have a separate 1 and L key? the typist had to type a lower case "l" for the one and as a result the font was made so it could work for both.
The Adler Universal 39 used in the movie does have a 1 key and number 1 is clearly differerent from lowercase L.
http://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter (http://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter)


Conclusion: no "A-eleven work" there.

Just to be sure, I grabbed a screenshot from The Shining (specifically 16 seconds in on this utube clip https  ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lQ_MjU4QHw )
(https://s20.postimg.cc/u7fsb2g1p/the_shining.png)

here is the font used in that typewriter (from http  ://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter )
(https://s20.postimg.cc/p8s9wkmjh/shing_typewriter.png)

Definitely a L, not a ONE (maybe they have never actually used or even seen a typewriter in the flesh?)

Just because a modern font uses it, doesnt mean it was always used

Edit to change  to ONE as modern fonts do use a 1 as one, they didnt in 1968 tho...

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Bop on June 03, 2018, 11:42:20 PM
One thing that younger people may not know about, and it can be seen above, is that the ZERO and the capitol O look the same, which is where we got the zero with a slash through it, to be able to distinguish the zero from an O, when typing out stuff on a typewriter and it was important to distinguish them, you could type zero, backspace one space and type / over the top to give the slashed zero seen in earlier computer fonts
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: twik on June 04, 2018, 11:31:48 AM
I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it. They knew they would have to film indoors, as even the slightest breeze would expose the fraud, which is why they would have required those front projection techniques to give the illusion of distance. His directional skills would have been at a minimum, as NASA would know what they wanted their men in the spacesuits to do, and they would also write the scripts. Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.

Why on earth would you hire Kubrick for "special effects," and not, oh, his special effects team?

It becomes so obvious that the job interview represents an interview, Kubrick may or may not have had with the president, and the rant at his wife concerning his contract and responsibilities also becomes obvious. He is either telling us he was involved, or he was merely having a laugh to fuel the speculation of a conspiracy. I personally don’t think it was the latter, as it would be a lot of trouble to go to, just to wind people up.

It's so obvious that something may or may not have happened.

And it's not too much trouble to create a hoax that would have to become apparent as science proceeds, but "too much trouble" to throw a few Apollo references in a movie.

BTW, with all this control the Powers That Be have to ensure no one spills the beans, and Kubrick goes off happily planting clues that to you are "obviously" about a hoax?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on June 04, 2018, 02:07:11 PM
I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it. They knew they would have to film indoors, as even the slightest breeze would expose the fraud, which is why they would have required those front projection techniques to give the illusion of distance. His directional skills would have been at a minimum, as NASA would know what they wanted their men in the spacesuits to do, and they would also write the scripts. Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.

Why on earth would you hire Kubrick for "special effects," and not, oh, his special effects team?

It becomes so obvious that the job interview represents an interview, Kubrick may or may not have had with the president, and the rant at his wife concerning his contract and responsibilities also becomes obvious. He is either telling us he was involved, or he was merely having a laugh to fuel the speculation of a conspiracy. I personally don’t think it was the latter, as it would be a lot of trouble to go to, just to wind people up.

It's so obvious that something may or may not have happened.

And it's not too much trouble to create a hoax that would have to become apparent as science proceeds, but "too much trouble" to throw a few Apollo references in a movie.

BTW, with all this control the Powers That Be have to ensure no one spills the beans, and Kubrick goes off happily planting clues that to you are "obviously" about a hoax?

NASA's death squads must have missed this one. ::)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on June 04, 2018, 04:22:49 PM

The Adler Universal 39 used in the movie does have a 1 key and number 1 is clearly differerent from lowercase L.
http://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter (http://typewriterdatabase.com/1968-adler-universal-39.2159.typewriter)


Conclusion: no "A-eleven work" there.

To this day I ask for a glass of M (one) LK if I want a glass of milk a holdover from an old canteen that had a typewritten menu.. The wife thinks I'm nuts, as I have never explained it to her.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: twik on June 04, 2018, 04:55:36 PM
If I remember the novel correctly, the "All work and no play" came from it, correct? (I haven't read it in ages, so someone may correct me.)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on June 05, 2018, 02:10:10 AM
No, I don't believe it does.  In the novel, he's working on a book about the history of the hotel--it's one of the things Kubrick, in my opinion, screws up about the story.  The malign force of the hotel feels less insidious.  It convinces Jack that he deserves to be special and then breaks his heart by wanting his son more.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Rob48 on June 05, 2018, 11:18:01 AM
It turns out, that the information was misleading, as Sibrel received the tape in 2000, and released the film “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” in 2001, but the said footage wasn’t released to the public until 2002

Is Sibrel not a member of the public now? He just got the tape magically even though it wasn't available? No, he ordered it like anyone else could.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 05, 2018, 06:10:52 PM
It turns out, that the information was misleading, as Sibrel received the tape in 2000, and released the film “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” in 2001, but the said footage wasn’t released to the public until 2002

Is Sibrel not a member of the public now? He just got the tape magically even though it wasn't available? No, he ordered it like anyone else could.

Ah, but NASA 'accidentally' sent him the wrong stuff, thus blowing the hoax wide open. Which of course means NASA is simultaneously competent enough to pull of a hoax that basically fooled the world, but too inept to avoid sending out the key bit of footage that blows open the whole story to any old joe who asks for it. No HB has ever been able to explain why such fotage a) was ever made in the first place, b) was retained at all when it would be so easy to destroy it, and c) was so poorly controlled that it could be accidentally sent to some nobody who requested it.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on June 06, 2018, 07:16:34 AM
It turns out, that the information was misleading, as Sibrel received the tape in 2000, and released the film “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” in 2001, but the said footage wasn’t released to the public until 2002

Is Sibrel not a member of the public now? He just got the tape magically even though it wasn't available? No, he ordered it like anyone else could.

Ah, but NASA 'accidentally' sent him the wrong stuff, thus blowing the hoax wide open. Which of course means NASA is simultaneously competent enough to pull of a hoax that basically fooled the world, but too inept to avoid sending out the key bit of footage that blows open the whole story to any old joe who asks for it. No HB has ever been able to explain why such fotage a) was ever made in the first place, b) was retained at all when it would be so easy to destroy it, and c) was so poorly controlled that it could be accidentally sent to some nobody who requested it.

But Jason, surely you should realize by now that in the fantasy land that is CT world,  NASA is faultlessly brilliant and at the same time utterly incompetent.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: jfb on June 07, 2018, 04:28:46 PM
Interesting footage for cambo to peruse:



Crew of Apollo 10 in transit.  This is obviously a cramped, closed space.  Plenty of stuff floating around (helmet, flashlight, John Young). 

Curious how cambo would say it was faked. 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on June 07, 2018, 05:04:50 PM
(waiting for the flurry of handwaving....)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on June 07, 2018, 05:19:24 PM
Looks like fun being in zero G for awhile. :)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on June 07, 2018, 05:37:44 PM
(waiting for the flurry of handwaving....)
Well, it's nearly the weekend, so we can expect one, or maybe two "wall o' text" posts from Cambo any day now…  ::)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: twik on June 07, 2018, 10:27:57 PM
No, I don't believe it does.  In the novel, he's working on a book about the history of the hotel--it's one of the things Kubrick, in my opinion, screws up about the story.  The malign force of the hotel feels less insidious.  It convinces Jack that he deserves to be special and then breaks his heart by wanting his son more.

The Shining, great a movie as it is, really should be credited as "inspired by" the novel, rather than "based on."
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nweber on June 08, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
Never read the book, and the film didn't do much for me.  I'm still annoyed that they killed Scatman Crothers.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: twik on June 08, 2018, 11:25:55 AM
Never read the book, and the film didn't do much for me.  I'm still annoyed that they killed Scatman Crothers.

Well, that's another deviation from the book. In the book, his character fights off the mental manipulations of the Hotel and rescues everyone but Jack, who gets blown up by the exploding boiler in a "fire, not ice" climax. It's clear that Jack is *possessed*, and there's a scene where his real, "good" personality emerges one last time to say goodbye to Danny before being taken over forever by the Hotel.

Apparently King and Kubrick cordially disliked each other, or at least their world view.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Count Zero on June 08, 2018, 12:06:10 PM
That reminds me of Max Brooks' response after seeing the film version of his book "World War Z":

"I liked it - I had no idea what was going to happen next."
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on June 08, 2018, 01:11:48 PM
I won't say that King's attempt at a remake is good, but if you don't like the plot of the movie, I do suggest giving the book a try.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on June 11, 2018, 06:52:11 AM
On nearly all the photos and videos, allegedly taken on the moon, that have background scenery, we can see a clear line between the edge of the stage and the fake scenery, or should I say, most of us can. You can post pictures of landscapes on earth, showing the same effect, but the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots, which you refuse to see, as Mr Armstrong and co. have that covered by telling us that distances are hard to perceive on the moon.

Sure you can see "clear lines" - they're local horizons where the ground dips down and then rises again. And despite this, you know what? You can match the views in Apollo photographs against maps of the landing sites - they match.

Quote
We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.

Ah yes, NASA can pull off the most amazing bit of fakery in the 20th century, and they somehow failed to notice the evidence you can spot. The thing is, if those brief flashes above the astronauts are supposed to be wires for Peter Pan rigs, why don't the antennas sticking out of the tops of their backpacks also sometimes reflect sunlight.

This is exactly the same problem as people claiming some bright light in the sky in the west just after sunset must be an alien spacecraft: if that bright light isn't Venus, then where's Venus?

Quote
Quote
“Have you ever actually been on a dirt road?  Because I have.  I've also seen people driving on beaches.  Which are sand, last I checked, and still had plumes of dust behind people driving.  Because sand comes in many particle sizes, down to dust caused by friction of particles rubbing against one another.  Take a geology class.”

Why take a Geology class when I got YouTube?

Another example of Cambo humour?

Quote
Quote
“Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints.  Especially not the ones designing the craft.”

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.

Wow, so all the people who tested the LM during and after construction - its electrical systems, its environmental systems, its reaction control system, its engines, and all the rest of it - they all didn't have a clue? Please tell me, how do you load hypergolic chemicals into LM fuel tanks and run its engine and measure the fuel flow rates and calculate its thrust and somehow have that part of a fake?

Quote
Quote
“If the LM were plastic, the engineers would know that it would fail, because plastic is insufficient for mission requirements.”

Oh come on, it’s sarcasm! Do you need a custard pie in your face before you can see humour?

A smiley goes a long way.

Quote
Quote
“So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told”

“I thought you were old enough to remember it”

I wasn’t there to witness it, as I live thousands of miles away, but I can remember reading an article in a newspaper at the time. I’ll try and dig it up for you.

Dig away. We'll wait.

[SNIP]

Quote
Quote
“Is it your contention that the signals Baysinger picked up came from somewhere near the moon, but not necessarily the moon itself?”

It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.

There, how hard was it, making an admission like that?

Of course, the problem with your hypothetical explanations is the one we've pointed out earlier - what spacecraft, and who launched it and operated it and why haven't they come forward in the decades since? Plus any spacecraft transmitting while in lunar orbit would have its radio transmission frequencies shift in measurable ways which would differ from the actual orbiting CM or the LM stationary on the Moon's surface. Sorry, you lose. Again.

Quote
This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told, as long as it comes from one of your trustworthy sources, so you expect people to do the same with the information you provide on your site. Unfortunately for you, you lost that trust from the beginning, due to your choice of words on your homepage.

Yeah, no. There are plenty of people on this site who've done the leg work to test stuff for themselves. Bob B tested from first principles that (for example) the LM had enough thrust and fuel to make it into lunar orbit. I checked copies of the "West Australian" newspaper to confirm that the Coke Bottle claim made on the Aulis site was a load of cobblers.

You, on the other hand, sometimes Google something that you're pretty sure backs you up...or you read it somewhere.

Quote
The NASA apologists will point out that there are instances, where we see the alleged earth disappearing behind the window as the camera moves, but what they fail to mention is that these instances come from the second alleged broadcast, where we can see that the alleged earth is noticeably different in colour from the first and third videos, which suggests a different method of trickery was used.

*golf applause*

Very good, Sherlock Holmes. Now please explain what you've done to eliminate every other possible explanation for the change in colour.

Quote
As for zero gravity, apart from the torch trick, there is next to no suggestion of it at all. During the third transmission, one of the supposed astronauts says “Zero G is very comfortable, but after a while you get to the point where you sort of get tired of rattling around and banging off the ceiling and the floor and the side”. So with nearly three hours of footage, over four transmissions, we never see an example of this? All we get is the very odd close-up view of a person, with a slight hint of a swaying motion.

Oh, give me a break. How much footage do you want of weightless astronauts that can't be faked in the Vomit Comet?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Peter B on June 11, 2018, 07:58:24 AM
Whereas I think you are the dogs’ [email protected]@cks, as without your unwitting help, I probably wouldn’t have gone back over this evidence, so thanks again for supplying me with the ammunition I needed to kick all your sorry little butts! Oh, the irony! Although the man was a dick, and maybe a fraud, because of the way he obtained the odd interview, which would also make him a liar, all I can say is, it takes one to know one.

 :) Sorry. Couldn't help it.

Quote
Quote
“All three of your videos involve the use of CGI”

“Prove it”

There are instances of obvious fakery on board the alleged ISS, even today, so it is only logical to assume that all of it is a combination of CGI and simulation in a plane.

WARNING! The naughty man, talking on this video says a bad word.


Oh, stop it, please, I may burst with laughter. You manage to find one dodgy conspiracy theory video and somehow manage to miss the dozens of other videos showing periods of minutes and longer where people are obviously weightless.

Quote
I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions...

Ah, so all the people who work at the Tidbinbilla Tracking Station, just outside Canberra, as part of the Deep Space Network, are all...what? Playing "World of Warcraft" all day? Why don't they spill the beans? Or does MONEY! work here in Australia too?

Quote
Quote
“The gases are emerging from the engine bell at a couple of thousand metres per second and interacting with material (dust, sand, whatever) on a Moon with one-sixth of the Earth's gravity: that material is going to disappear over the horizon rather than settle on the ground a few metres away”

You have your assumption and I have mine, but if your assumption is correct, there would only be bare rock for miles, or at least till we get to the edge of the soundstage.

Dear Lord, never mind my assumptions, where do you pull your assumptions from? Why would there only be bare rock for miles?

Quote
Quote
“As for the article you link, it contains all sorts of errors and omissions which show the analysis to be about as useful as a sunroof on a submarine”

http://www.whale.to/b/mullins6.html

I never read a word of that article, I just seen the title and posted it. I was going with my assumption that Russia must have been pretty certain they never went, but the fact that the Russians never made a song and dance about it, even going to the lengths of congratulating them on their astonishing achievements, tells me that the Cold War wasn’t as reported, as far as Apollo was concerned anyway. I think you are grossly underestimating the powers of governments and possibly an even higher, unseen power, who knows?

Wow. Higher, unseen power. Spooky. Almost as spooky as linking an article you didn't bother to read.

In the meantime, in the reality that the rest of us inhabit, how about you have a chat to some RN submariners from decades gone by and see how well you go telling them the Cold War they served in was fake.

Quote
The [video] with the watch and the burrito, the longest portion of uncut film was 27 seconds. Why so many cuts, when the film would’ve been the same length without the cuts? Do I have to tell you how it was done? So I may be wrong about the use of CGI on that one.

Gee, a video you actually watched. Well folks, you read it here first - sometimes it is possible to make Cambo do some actual research.

And yes, 27 seconds would probably be manageable on a Vomit Comet. Of course, that means that the Mythbusters would have to be in on the fake too, along with the chef and everyone in the production company. And I'm sure they'd never spill the beans. Nope. Not a chance. Not with all that MONEY!

Quote
Did you not wonder why the person running round the ring, doesn’t float away from the ring every time he takes a step? No gravity means weightless and therefore there would only be his momentum holding him to the ring, which would work with, let’s say a bicycle, but not a person running. It would be easier to do in earth gravity. Even Stanley Kubrick realised this, five years earlier, which is why the characters in 2001 had Velcro on the soles of their shoes.

Su-u-ure, and see how fast the hostess and Dave Bowman move around their respective rings, compared with the Skylab astronaut? And if you can't work out why the astronaut doesn't float away, look again at the direction his feet push off each time he takes a step.

Quote
In videos from Skylab, it’s very rare to see the entire ring, but if you watch from 3:15 in the second video, you’ll notice the ring is angled inwards, so it is narrower in diameter at the top than the bottom, and no, it’s not an illusion. Let’s see if your deluded brain can work out why it was made that way.





And unfortunately, Cambo, what you keep on missing is that while you think each video proves a point for you, the video  proves you wrong in plenty of other ways.

In the first video (Skylab 1), note that the astronauts move in all three dimensions, including moving around behind the floor screen we can see through: so we know that can't be done with wires. Plus, it was recorded live, so it wasn't recorded ahead of time. Plus, it lasts several minutes, so it wasn't done on a Vomit Comet. Next theory please.

In the second video, sure, it's an impressive effort by those people in the wind tunnel. But both you and the person making the video seem to have missed a couple of vital points. For one, watch how the clothes of the wind tunnel people flutter in the wind - the Skylab astronauts' clothes don't do that. For another, the wind tunnel people don't speak, and we don't get to hear how loud the dang thing is - the Skylab astronauts are talking throughout. For another, you can see the path the air takes in the wind tunnel - where's the equivalent in the Skylab?

Plus the person who made the video is really bad at maths - if Skylab was really 30 feet in diameter as the narrator claims then five people standing (floating) head to toe to could span the room. That clearly isn't the case from watching the astronauts. That room's actual diameter was closer to 21 feet, which makes a lot more sense given the size of the astronauts. As for how it was launched - they went in that massive rocket you saw.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on June 11, 2018, 08:20:48 AM
Try floating a sheet of paper or a blob of water in a wind tunnel and see what happens.
The wind tunnel guys wear helmets with face shields to keep their eyes from drying out and getting foreign objects blown into them at high speed.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on June 11, 2018, 02:15:22 PM
Try floating a sheet of paper or a blob of water in a wind tunnel and see what happens.
The wind tunnel guys wear helmets with face shields to keep their eyes from drying out and getting foreign objects blown into them at high speed.
It's hard to understand the lack of understanding, or even basic common sense, that would allow anyone to think that you could realistically simulate low gravity environments using a wind tunnel.  Even the name itself gives a very strong clue as to what the conditions are like in the air stream  ;)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on June 11, 2018, 04:15:25 PM
The wind tunnel guys are using the airstream to maneuver and to orient their bodies-like a skydiver would. On the other hand, the astronauts are moving in ballistic trajectories according to Newton's third law. They push off a surface or each other and do not stop until they encounter a surface or each other. Notice how the wind tunnel guys almost never touch the tunnel surface. They don't need to-they are using the wind as a brake.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Dalhousie on June 11, 2018, 08:56:22 PM

Quote
I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions...

Ah, so all the people who work at the Tidbinbilla Tracking Station, just outside Canberra, as part of the Deep Space Network, are all...what? Playing "World of Warcraft" all day? Why don't they spill the beans? Or does MONEY! work here in Australia too?

They weren't when I was there a couple of months back.....
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on June 14, 2018, 09:45:17 AM

Quote
I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions...

Ah, so all the people who work at the Tidbinbilla Tracking Station, just outside Canberra, as part of the Deep Space Network, are all...what? Playing "World of Warcraft" all day? Why don't they spill the beans? Or does MONEY! work here in Australia too?

They weren't when I was there a couple of months back.....

Looks like they took a break and poised for you. :)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: JayUtah on June 14, 2018, 02:31:33 PM
...the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots...

And how did you determine this?  Do you realize we have stereo-pair images from several lunar landscapes that allow us to measure accurately the distance to objects in the scene?  Do you understand that we have parallax-controllable sets of images?  Show me the math.

Quote
...telling us that distances are hard to perceive on the moon.

And we know the reasons why distances are hard to perceive on the Moon.  There is no intervening atmosphere, which was known even back in da Vinci's day to attenuate tonal range over distance.  There is no weathering of rocks, which is a size cue.  And apparent size is one of the strongest depth cues.  And there are no familiar features like vegetation, which is another size/distance cue.  Given that we know so much about what affects depth perception, it's disingenuous of you simply to ignore the best explanation in favor of a farfetched hoax theory.

Quote
We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.

The problem with your "strong evidence of wires" is that the wires we use in film and theater are carbon-coated and don't shine, and it has been this way since the 1940s.  I'm a Foy-certified flying technician, and I designed and built the flyrig for the 1000-seat theater I sometimes work in.  I'm also familiar with the proprietary Cirque du Soleil flyrigs.  But don't take my word for it.  Go get a good Blu-Ray transfer of Mary Poppins from a 70mm print.  It dates to the same time as the Moon landings.  Have a look at Dick Van Dyke's wire-assisted dance dressed as a rag doll for the Baron's birthday.  Can you see the wires?  Only if you look very, very carefully and you have a good high-def television.  Even back in 1969 Hollywood knew how to conceal wires to the point where they don't register on a 70mm negative and a set lit with a hundred kilowatts.  And you're telling us NASA is stupid enough to use shiny wires that can be seen on 16mm film and field-sequential television.  No, film producers of that era weren't that stupid.

Quote
Why take a Geology class when I got YouTube?

Because hands-on experience and correct, adjudicated knowledge are better than watching television.  I live in the desert.  I'm also an engineer, which means working with graded and sifted particulates from time to time.  Dust is simply ubiquitous, and what I see in the lunar videos bears no resemblance to how I see dust, sand, and general particulates behave in an Earth environment.

Quote
The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.

It's clear you've never been within ten miles of any actual advanced engineering and manufacturing facility.  Since aerospace engineering is principally what I do for a living, and what I've done for 30 years, please tell me all about how airplanes and spacecraft are actually assembled.  Please go into as much detail as you need to get your point across, because I guarantee there is no chance you'll be talking over my head.  And the regulars here love to hear the details.

The "designers" you speak of -- anonymous in your story -- were actually already giants in the industry:  Tom Kelly, Max Faget, Bill Tindall, Charles Draper, etc.  They worked for companies that already had long and glorious histories.  Their reputations were already made.  Now in hoax circles no one knows any of the important names, except of course for Wernher von Braun.  No hoax claimant has yet given a convincing reason why all these made men would risk their reputations by agreeing to help perpetrate a hoax which, if they were caught, would amount to criminal behavior.  It's like asking a millionaire if he wants to go pick pockets at the train station.  They have no incentive whatsoever to go along with a hoax and every incentive not to.

Quote
Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.

Except I've spoken at length with Tony Frewin, Kubrick's assistant, and he can attest that Kubrick had nothing to do with anything that you're talking about.  Nor would he have agreed to do any such project on those terms.  He wasn't just someone else's photographer.  Frewin insists Kubrick would not be interested in any project over which he didn't have substantial if not full control.  And this is consistent with all the other people I've interviewed who worked with Kubrick.

Quote
The jumper on its own could be just coincidence...

And was, since the costume designer arranged for it on her own and Kubrick didn't know anything about it until he saw Danny Lloyd wearing it on set.

Quote
...it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”.

...on a page full of misspellings intended to show Shelly Duvall just how unhinged her husband has become.  You haven't explained why the "obvious" interpretation is not the simple, parsimonious one suggested by the plot of the movie the scene comes from.  "A11" is not any sort of abbreviation used in the industry or in government to refer to the Apollo 11 mission.

Quote
Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you...

Or rather, once you've convinced yourself that a film is full of Easter eggs, you'll keep lowering your critical standards until you see them.  People do this all the time to support any number of non-conspiratorial fan theories.  Work on a real film just once in your life and you'll see that there simply isn't time or material available to have intended all the Easter eggs people say they see.

Quote
No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive...

Or so you say.  Until they come here and attempt it, you can't say that for sure.

Quote
...which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT.

I don't debate on YouTube because the comment format and interaction controls don't really allow for comprehensive, fair debate.

Quote
...to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.

Several of our regulars have come from YouTube and can speak from experience.  I've debated a few ex-YouTubers including Jarrah White, and I can say that they are charlatans.  By that I mean they profess knowledge and understanding they clearly don't have, and are clearly trying to fool their audiences into believing they are as well-informed as they claim.  White even went back to the third-party forum where I debated him and deleted all of his posts so that he could then lie about it back on his YouTube channel.  Similarly Bart Sibrel claimed on his YouTube channel that his invitation to participate in a U.K. Channel 4 program that I was also in had been rescinded when the producers were unable to refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie; Sibrel was dropped from the cast because he demanded an exorbitant fee.  So when I say so many of the YouTubers on this point are charlatans, it's because I know them to be.  Before Ralph Rene died, we filmed him for the History Channel for an unaired pilot, and all he could do was whine about how all the other conspiracy theorists had robbed him of his living by allegedly stealing his material and passing it off as their own.  These people know exactly what they're doing and who their audience is.

I've been listening and responding to conspiracy spew since the late 1990s.  You can hardly accuse me and the others here for allegedly not considering other people's observations and opinions.  We have listened patiently to people who repeat the same debunked rubbish over and over again, every one of them thinking it was something new and earth-shattering.  You're not telling us anything we haven't already heard before and already debunked a hundred times already.  So it's going to be really hard for you to succeed with the "You're all so closed-minded" ploy.

Quote
It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.

You're telling us what "there would have to be," but you don't say what or how it was done, or show any evidence that it was done.  Telling us what the premise would have to be in order for your belief to hold is not the same thing as proving the premise.  This is all too common in conspiracy-related argumentation.  The holes in the theory are simply plugged with speculation, accompanied by no evidence at all.  This reinforces a sort of inferential way of reasoning.  You've convinced yourself that the missions were a hoax, so that becomes your foundation on which to speculation that somewhere, somehow, something must have been done to solve the problems your theory raises.

Quote
This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told...

Where is your evidence for this?  We don't even believe everything we tell each other on this site.  The other people have a contest to give out virtual T-shirts to people who catch me in an error.  You on the other hand seem to have believed a lot of the nonsense YouTubers have fed you, with little if any attempt to verify their claims.  You've even gone as far as suggesting above that YouTube is your trustworthy source and that you don't have to study anything in order to properly interpret what its contributors are telling you.

Quote
...as long as it comes from one of your trustworthy sources...

The reliability of the source of information is indeed a factor, but mostly this ends up being an ad hominem ploy to avoid having to face contrary evidence because "it comes from NASA," or some such nonsense.  As far as simply believing what we're told, you clearly don't know your audience very well.  A few of us are professionally qualified in the areas that we speak on regarding the hoax claim, such as photography, photographic analysis, film and theater stagecraft, engineering, geology and science, radio communications, and so forth.  And you'll find that many of us can back up our explanations of things with details and demonstrations.  In contrast, when asked to substantiate the foundation for your beliefs and expectations, you mostly seem to be relying on intuition and YouTube.

Quote
...you lost that trust from the beginning, due to your choice of words on your homepage.

You seem to be groping for excuses not to read information that challenges your belief.

Quote
At the start of the first alleged practice transmission...

Actually one of the broadcasts that Sibrel tries to tell you was only a practice session really was broadcast.  He didn't know that because he really did no research into Apollo before trying to make a quick buck off of it.

Quote
...when a third party voice instructs the alleged astronauts to talk.

No, you hear a noise that Sibrel insists is a person saying the word "talk."  He doesn't try to interpret any of the other crosstalk garbles that happen all over in the Apollo audio.

Quote
One of the images below, depicts a bright blue sky, and yet the other shows us the whole globe...

No, the "bright blue sky" you see is scatter that is blooming on the pickup tube whose aperture is set too open.  Some of us are old enough to have owned and used vidicon-based video cameras.

Quote
...which suggests a different method of trickery was used.

Or that TV cameras work differently than people intuitively expect, such as when they have manual apertures and color vidicon pickup tubes.  You've just swallowed Sibrel's nonsense hook, line, and sinker.  Here's a hint:  Sibrel doesn't have much experience with that equipment either.

Quote
So with nearly three hours of footage, over four transmissions, we never see an example of this? All we get is the very odd close-up view of a person, with a slight hint of a swaying motion.

Have you see the footage from Apollo 13?  From Apollo 8?  Do you realize that there is more evidence than just for Apollo 11?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: sts60 on June 14, 2018, 03:04:29 PM
I second Jay’s comment about cambo’s claim about the “designers obviously new [sic] they were designing something that wouldn’t work”.  I used to work for Max Faget and Caldwell Johnson (long after Apollo); cambo obviously has no experience or understanding of space projects and the people who make them happen.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Count Zero on June 14, 2018, 05:17:09 PM
This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told...

Where is your evidence for this?  We don't even believe everything we tell each other on this site.  The other people have a contest to give out virtual T-shirts to people who catch me in an error.

Case in point:

Go get a good Blu-Ray transfer of Mary Poppins from a 70mm print.  It dates to the same time as the Moon landings.  Have a look at Dick Van Dyke's wire-assisted dance dressed as a rag doll for the Baron's birthday.

That dance was from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968), not Mary Poppins (1964).  Both films have great wire-work.

Not claiming a T-shirt (though I have three).
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: JayUtah on June 14, 2018, 08:09:09 PM
That dance was from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968), not Mary Poppins (1964).  Both films have great wire-work.

Not claiming a T-shirt (though I have three).

Haha, it's funny that I think Dick Van Dyke and that's where my mind automatically goes.  Yes, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, not Mary Poppins.  Also I've been at Disney lately working on a thing, so I guess I have Disney stuck in the head.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on June 14, 2018, 09:50:02 PM
And I assume that "thing" has an NDA attached to it.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: JayUtah on June 14, 2018, 10:42:22 PM
And I assume that "thing" has an NDA attached to it.

A truly terrifying one.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on June 15, 2018, 02:29:52 AM
And I assume that "thing" has an NDA attached to it.

A truly terrifying one.
<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cos on June 15, 2018, 09:24:32 AM

<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D

Damn you guessed. Have to put you on the payroll too.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: JayUtah on June 15, 2018, 10:00:58 AM
<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D

"That's no moon..."
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on June 15, 2018, 12:58:27 PM
Haha, it's funny that I think Dick Van Dyke and that's where my mind automatically goes.  Yes, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, not Mary Poppins.  Also I've been at Disney lately working on a thing, so I guess I have Disney stuck in the head.

I noticed your pictures from the other day!  And immediately thought, "Oh, it's good to see that Jay is having a good time; I haven't heard from him for a while."
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on June 15, 2018, 05:35:51 PM
<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D

"That's no moon..."
Sidebar: Is SW:ANH single handedly responsible for creating that nutty idea?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: JayUtah on June 15, 2018, 06:51:27 PM
Sidebar: Is SW:ANH single handedly responsible for creating that nutty idea?

I don't think so.  Don Wilson's book came out in 1977, but still months before ANH was released.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on June 16, 2018, 11:12:36 AM
<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D

"That's no moon..."
Sidebar: Is SW:ANH single handedly responsible for creating that nutty idea?

What in the world is SW:ANH?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 16, 2018, 11:19:07 AM
<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D

"That's no moon..."
Sidebar: Is SW:ANH single handedly responsible for creating that nutty idea?

What in the world is SW:ANH?

Star Wars: A New Hope (ie the original Star Wars film).
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: JayUtah on June 16, 2018, 11:43:55 AM
I noticed your pictures from the other day!  And immediately thought, "Oh, it's good to see that Jay is having a good time; I haven't heard from him for a while."

I'm having a great time, but I don't prioritize announcing it on social media.  While I love social media, a careless approach to consuming it gives the wrong impression of what's going on in life.  Here it was important because one of the people pictured had his first trip to the Disney parks.  Celebrating that on social media is somewhat worthy, because the event had been built up for years.  I would most more socially neutral stuff, but I'm so far too lazy to get the Lightroom plugin hooked up; most of my appropriate photos are from my professional cameras.  Then there are the many photos that probably can't legally see the light of day.  That should give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on June 16, 2018, 01:05:25 PM
I'm lousy at posting on Instagram because I use a separate camera; we discovered recently that, even though you're supposed to be able to do it, you can't get photos off my phone and have to forward them to someone who can.  I have a camera and a desktop, and Instagram wants you to use devices.  It's just sheer coincidence that I took pictures I thought were worth it at a time when you'd recently posted!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on June 16, 2018, 02:06:03 PM
Sidebar: Is SW:ANH single handedly responsible for creating that nutty idea?

I don't think so.  Don Wilson's book came out in 1977, but still months before ANH was released.
Oh, hello. I had not happened upon him before. Just goes to show, one can always find something new.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on June 16, 2018, 06:15:07 PM
<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D

"That's no moon..."
Sidebar: Is SW:ANH single handedly responsible for creating that nutty idea?

What in the world is SW:ANH?

Star Wars: A New Hope (ie the original Star Wars film).

Thanks, OBM
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: 12oh2alarm on June 24, 2018, 12:13:16 PM
Interesting footage for cambo to peruse:



Crew of Apollo 10 in transit.  This is obviously a cramped, closed space.  Plenty of stuff floating around (helmet, flashlight, John Young). 

Curious how cambo would say it was faked.

Not wanting to put words in cambo's mouth but that was obviously filmed under water. NASA had low-friction, oxygen-enriched breathable water which allowed for the gizmos to spin much longer than in regular water.

OK, I suck at simulating a hoax nut.  ;D
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Drewid on June 25, 2018, 07:35:30 AM
That'd be a good challenge.
Create rigs for passing the tools back and forth exactly like that, that sort of timing and speed of rotation, in those directions.
Just proof of concept is all, should be easy to make with household materials readily to hand? right?  ;D
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Flookie on June 25, 2018, 07:36:37 PM

<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D

Damn you guessed. Have to put you on the payroll too.

No, wait, that's misdirection!!! Where are they really pretending to head for ...?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on July 01, 2018, 10:11:50 AM
cambo asked a question relating to satellite data, wondering all innocently how long it took for the satellite images to be made public.

The answer is "it depends" - mainly on whether there was any public interest in what was on display.

This image

(https://i.imgur.com/TklnKN7.jpg)

was published in the media on July 23rd. As I have access to a restored version of that image with the original date stamp on I know it was taken on Julian day 203 at 22:43 GMT. Julian day 203 is the 22nd of July. The image was on sale on ebay, until I bought it just now :D

The weather system can be seen in this photo

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/38/5693.jpg

and in this live TV broadcast

=182

Other satellite images of the area were published in October 1969 in this in house ESSA publication

ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/journals/essa_world/QC851U461969oct.pdf
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on July 06, 2018, 10:54:19 PM
This video has the advantage of actually being shot in zero g. If you look carefully, you can catch the edits between parabolic arcs, but it does a lot better job than that joke of a video that cambo posted:



It shows the ballistic paths that people and objects actually take in zero g.

This video shows how it was done:

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: ka9q on July 07, 2018, 03:37:08 AM
That video really demonstrates some of the limitations of airplane zero-g besides the limited duration. I also noticed it in some scenes in Apollo 13. We should point them out the next time some hoaxer just waves his hands and says "zero gravity airplane flights".

The plane is still surrounded by air so it is never going to be in an absolutely perfect free fall. Objects floating freely in the cabin (which are in true free fall as long as they don't hit the cabin walls) will seem to move somewhat irregularly as the plane jostles around them. You'll never see that in videos from the ISS except when they do an orbit-raising burn (there are cool Youtube videos of a few).

The other day I asked an experienced pilot friend about zero-g maneuvers. He pointed out that not only do you have to fly a perfect parabolic path, you also have to carefully ride the throttles to keep thrust and drag matched as the airplane loses airspeed on the way up and regains it on the way down. You must always keep some forward airspeed or you would lose control surface authority that might put you into a wings-level fall that might not be recoverable.

I still wonder (he didn't know) if planes dedicated to zero-g flight use special autopilots to do these maneuvers, or if they just hang some fuzzy dice in the cockpit so the flight crew can try to manually keep them floating in one place. But even if you did that perfectly, the fuzzy dice wouldn't be at the plane's center of mass so you still wouldn't be flying a correct parabola. You have to slowly pitch the airplane down around its center of mass, and that would push the fuzzy dice to the top of the cockpit even on a perfect parabola.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on July 07, 2018, 03:58:39 AM
Quote
“The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”

“did you know many old typewriters don't have a separate 1 and L key? the typist had to type a lower case "l" for the one and as a result the font was made so it could work for both.”

“Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?”

“he's definitively proven that he doesn't know anything about film.  Or Kubrick”

“Super, and in the middle of all of that effort, Kubrick squeezed in Apollo. Sure.”

“with all this control the Powers That Be have to ensure no one spills the beans, and Kubrick goes off happily planting clues that to you are "obviously" about a hoax?”

“I've spoken at length with Tony Frewin, Kubrick's assistant, and he can attest that Kubrick had nothing to do with anything that you're talking about”

“The jumper on its own could be just coincidence.”
“And was, since the costume designer arranged for it on her own and Kubrick didn't know anything about it until he saw Danny Lloyd wearing it on set”

“"A11" is not any sort of abbreviation used in the industry or in government to refer to the Apollo 11 mission”

“once you've convinced yourself that a film is full of Easter eggs, you'll keep lowering your critical standards until you see them”

Ok, I’m a little annoyed that I got the bit with the “Eagle” typewriter wrong, but his intension was the same. I think we are nearly all agreed that Kubrick had a meticulous eye for detail, and with that in mind, if you haven’t seen the video below, then please watch it and come back with your “HONEST” thoughts. I was so taken aback by this video, that I had to go and find the scene, being analysed in the video, to make sure the poster hadn’t manipulated the images I was seeing. This is the sixth lecture, as the poster calls them out of seventeen in total, covering The Shining from start to finish.  After seeing this one, I watched the rest of the series in order, which was no easy task, as this man is by far the worst narrator I have ever come across.

The number of discontinuities in this movie are mind boggling, as objects move, disappear and reappear between consecutive scenes. The total lack of logic in some scenes were so obvious when pointed out, that it had to be deliberate, considering who made the film. One example is when the family arrive at the hotel and we see the luggage they brought with them. They drove there in a VW Beetle and it would’ve required three of those vehicles to carry that much luggage, or should I say equipment?

Having said all this, the poster points to a few instances that are too subtle and obscure to be taken seriously and if we add to this, the way the narrator stumbles over his words and dwells on some minor instances for too long, it can make for painful viewing at times,. As the poster points out in his description, the second half of the eleventh lecture is worth a view also.

There have been several alternative suggestions as to the hidden messages Kubrick was actually trying to convey in The Shining, but one thing’s for certain, he was definitely having a dig at America, for instance, the American flag being hung the wrong way, and the native American atrocities and Apollo were without doubt, part of it. The bears are definitely referring to Russia, although they could also have other meanings, and it’s so obvious, when Danny stands up, wearing that jumper that he is referring to the launch of Apollo 11 and its alleged journey to the moon. I toyed with the idea that maybe he was merely going along with the hoax theory, but that message on the typewriter, confirms to me that he was definitely heavily involved.

When I first saw the film, I remember being not all that impressed with it, but now that I realise that this film was in part, Kubrick’s confession and not an adaptation of Stephen King’s novel, which he confirms near the end of the film, when we see a crushed, red VW Beetle, the film becomes a masterpiece in my eyes.

Please try and stick with it without skipping through, at least until Wendy and the Doctor leave Danny’s room, as it builds to a point that I’m sure will raise a few eyebrows among you, and if it doesn’t, then to me, you are beyond saving.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Scene from the film.
=25

One thing that becomes obvious straight away in the above scene, after watching the video is when Danny is being asked about tony, he looks toward the window area several times, waiting for permission to answer.

Second half of lecture 11.
=623

Quote
“A transparency with current weather that shows signs of rotation?  Amazing!”

“How would your transparency manage to reproduce signs of rotation when it is filmed for extended periods?”

The camera was pointed at the alleged earth for around nine minutes, from when the camera was first fully zoomed in, until the point where they were asked to show the inside of the set. A substantial movement occurs in the first ninety seconds, with around the same amount of movement occurring in the following three minutes, which takes us to the halfway point in the scene. For the last half of the scene, the earth stops moving and in fact moves a tiny fraction in the opposite direction, so sadly, this is more proof that the video was faked.

Movement from 00:00 to 01:30
(https://i.imgur.com/yhprysw.gifv)

Movement from 01:30 to 04:30
(https://i.imgur.com/O5Os8C3.gifv)

Movement from 00:00 to 04:30
(https://i.imgur.com/Z4vtUhM.gifv)

Movement from 04:30 to 09:00
(https://i.imgur.com/Ph0rlR5.gifv)

Quote
“Looks like glare on the window IIRC caused by the coating on the windows and seen in other footage including some from the shuttle.”

“It isn't showing bright blue sky, it's showing glare through the window with the camera set to interior exposure.”

“No, the "bright blue sky" you see is scatter that is blooming on the pickup tube whose aperture is set too open.”

We won’t get anywhere if you all persist in lying, as the white areas are glare from whatever the light source is being shone through the window, whereas the blue area is neither glare or scatter on the pickup tube, as the blue area meets up precisely with the outer edge of the window frame, which confirms that this is the view outside of the window.
(https://i.imgur.com/RFXZapU.jpg)

This is what glare looks like.
(https://i.imgur.com/gOCUjoZ.jpg)

Have not one of you got the balls to admit there is something wrong here? Remember, you would only be admitting that this particular video is fake and not the entire Apollo programme. Most of you are highly educated individuals, who must surely know the difference between right and wrong, which is why I find it hard to understand why you persist in this childish behaviour. At least try and come up with a believable explanation as to why you see nothing wrong with that window image.

Quote
“Physics is physics. A rocket works the same everywhere. It makes no odds what the spacecraft looks like, the principle of operation is the same.”

Launching a rocket with a small satellite on-board may have been possible, but to launch a rocket of Apollo’s alleged weight and expect it to reach orbit is a very contentious issue in some people’s eyes.

Quote
“Firstly, landing on the moon had been done before”

Whether we believe a successful soft landing had already been achieved or not, it wasn’t achieved with the Apollo craft, which would make it lunacy to put people’s lives at risk before testing with an unmanned craft first.

Quote
“What was so unique about landing the LM that made it impossible to believe a couple of professional test pilots would voluntarily pilot it to a risky landing?”

No ejector seats for obvious reasons and no emergency services to rescue them, and the only thing they volunteered for was being part of the fraud.

Quote
“Why? What was so impossible about simulating something using the known laws of physics?”

A flight simulator is modelled from the working plane it is simulating. In the landers case they would only be able to simulate how they assumed it would work in a real environment. They had the tech to do it remotely, so why put lives at risk when it wasn’t necessary? If they had applied a bit of logic to the story they were telling, then it may have been slightly more plausible, but it wouldn’t have mattered either way to Mr Kubrick, as he was only in it for the money and the fame, he knew he would eventually receive.

Quote
“I haven't dismissed everything you can possibly provide as fake before you even provide it. Not that hard to understand, is it?”

Now that’s a lie, as it’s likely that you all have debunking sheets at the ready, which cover every possible scenario, that a HB could throw at you, plus a few more that we haven’t thought of yet. 

Quote
“The difference is my conclusion was arrived at with a sound understanding of science and physics whereas yours is based on incredulity and a strange conviction that because you don't get something it cant be real.”

You come to your conclusions because you say you understand science, whereas I come to my conclusions because of the evidence I see before me. How does science prove that we went to the moon? Give me some examples of scientific facts which prove this to be the case. You are the one exhibiting incredulity here, as you find the idea that a government would tell such a huge lie, so incredible that you will wave away all evidence, no matter how credible, as being nonsense.

Quote
“Why? How many aircraft were ever tested unmanned before taking off with a pilot in?

But in any case, the Apollo spacecraft were tested unmanned. Your failure to understand that testing does not mean flying the entire mission is your probem, not ours.”

Your complete lack of logic makes you and your fellow NASA followers a difficult bunch to argue with, as only a child would compare an aircraft to a spacecraft, as they are two completely different concepts. Why would they choose military pilots to man these crafts, when it would be logical to employ the very people who designed the craft, as they would know them inside out and would understand the principles of space flight. Who flew the first plane? Who drove the first car? The reason they chose those men is obvious, as it was to instil a sense of bravery, pride and patriotism into a nation that had very little to be proud of at that time.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on July 07, 2018, 04:23:50 AM
Quote
“Your arguments are not logical. It is not logical to begin a debate by dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you”

I disagree, as I think my arguments display both logic and common sense, and I joined this thread to give reasons why I don’t believe in the moon landings and not to dismiss anyone that disagrees with me, so your ideas to the contrary are all in your head.

Quote
“Why? How deep is the rock and how much regolith would have to be blown away to expose it, and is the engine capable of excavating that amount? Same old 'it either blew all or none of the dust away' crap”

I was merely responding to your assumption that the lander would have blown the dust clear over the horizon, in which case I would assume it was powerful enough to blast away the lunar soil underneath it, leaving nothing but bare rock. On the other hand, if the soil was feet deep rather than inches, then we would see a massive crater.

Quote
“They took their first flights manned. That is what test pilots do!! The reason being that control systems were not yet developed to be reliable enough to control aircraft remotely.

In fact, it was for this reason that the GAF Jindevik, a remote controlled drone developed in Australia for target towing, was first tested using a manned prototype.

This is a case of the exact opposite of what cambo is claiming, testing the aircraft manned before allowing it to be flown unmanned!!”

The lander was capable of landing remotely, as was the case with Apollo 11’s descent until its computer allegedly went tits up.

Quote
“Diddums. It's my site, I pay for it, I decide the content and I am under no obligation to massage the egos of idiots.  You are also completely wrong. I provide sources to all the images I used in the introduction to every mission. If you bothered to look at all of the pages you might find that I actually own physical copies of some of them, and it's only the expense of it that stops me buying more, like this one:

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=18269247226&searchurl=kn%3Dmeteorological%2Bdata%2Bcatalog%26sortby%3D17%26n%3D100121503&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title3”


I’m probably nit-picking here, but why show this book, when it would not cover the Apollo 11 mission?

Quote
“Far from being some sort of secret Sibrel supposedly stumbled across they were always known about and the content was always available”

Wrong, only the footage shown at the time was available, and the fact that ten minutes were cut out during a live broadcast proves that the Apollo footage wasn’t live. Do you think the live news broadcast was edited? Then go find the unedited version, showing the missing ten minutes. I guarantee you won’t find it, as I am certain that the broadcast, you gave a link to on your site was unedited.

Quote
“Why do assume that it says 'talk'? Did someone tell you? You are making a priori judgements based on someone else's script and fitting your conclusions to 'evidence' accordingly. As for your later comment, I own a copy of the Apollo 11 Spacecraft Films box set, and the "talk scene" is not omitted.”

You are right of course, as the human brain can be easily fooled by the power of suggestion, but the fact that it is a third party who says the word, coupled with the fact that the word doesn’t appear in the flight record, tells me they have something to hide. My copy of that box set arrived a few days ago and I can confirm that the word is there (Sibrel, the lying sod). I have a strange feeling of pride, now that I own it and although I know it is all fake, it’s a piece of history nonetheless.

Quote
“What seems obvious that it is Earth, showing the exactly what it should show. Have you any proof as to how big the Earth should appear from that distance? There's plenty of astronomical software to help you out there”

https://sizecalc.com

Well according to this calculator, the earth, seen during the second transmission should have appeared eight times the diameter of what the moon would appear from earth, while in its Apogee which makes the view in this image an impossibility.
(https://i.imgur.com/KoeGkjA.jpg)

And it would be seven times bigger during the third broadcast, which would render this image an impossibility also.
(https://i.imgur.com/bo8WShw.jpg)

I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.

Quote
“And we're still waiting for you to come up with any kind of sensible suggestion as to how they managed to produce a live colour image of Earth with accurate weather imagery superimposed on it for a live TV broadcast.”

My explanation of how they managed to produce an image of the earth with accurate weather patterns is a hell of a lot more plausible than you saying that the blue area in that window is merely glare, and you also suggesting that the size of the earth, when the camera is zoomed out, is as it should be, for which you haven’t even given an explanation yet, never mind a plausible one.

Quote
“It was a transparency" doesn't fall into that category because at the time of the broadcasts they did not have the images they needed to show the whole globe”

You persist in your assumption that weather patterns would be impossible to predict in advance, whereas I have shown you evidence to the contrary.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p37a.htm

Here’s a snippet from the above page. “The overall track of the storm, and specifically the September 14 picture, was used to provide reliable advanced warning to the island of Wake”

Quote
“See the white dot in the picture below? That’s apparently the earth, you’d be forgiven for thinking they were half way to the Sun”

“Amazing how it resolves to Earth when they zoom in on it though”

I was referring to its size.

Quote
“The missing 10 minutes may be missing from the internet, it does not mean that they are missing from the original broadcast. Sibrel's claim that they were not publicly available until 2002 is very much at odds with the opening screen in this which shows that the footage was available in 1994.”

That caption most likely shows when it was compiled and not the date when it was released to the public. If it was released in 1994, then we would be able to trace the media through which it was released on. You won’t find it, because it doesn’t exist, as it’s now, common knowledge that the bulk of these transmissions weren’t officially released until 2002, so unless you can point to the actual media it was released on, then you need to leave this one alone until you can do so.

Quote
“Your evidence is not 'nailed on' - it pretty much isn't your evidence, it's just a regurgitation of someone else's”

Although the evidence isn’t mine, I felt the need to explain to you all, the reasons why this is proof that the footage was faked.

Quote
“If you think anyone at any level putting together systems as complex as those for Apollo wouldn't have noticed it was fake, you're deluding yourself.”

Anyone at any level? And you say I’m deluded.

Quote
“The Youtuber contended that he could duplicate the "hammer and feather" video. He failed miserably.

Since lying and crying "nit-picking" is the only response you have, I'll have to declare victory again.”

Whether or not the video is precise to the millisecond, isn’t the issue here. The video shows how easily the Apollo feather and hammer experiment can be replicated on earth, but having said this, I admit that the You Tuber didn’t manage to make his feather bounce.

=883

Quote
“Oh? You say that the Apollo third stages are at the bottom of the ocean? These people say that they saw Saturn third stages and Apollo spacecraft leave earth orbit and head for the Moon:

https://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html


Notice that there are witnesses to, and they provide contemporary photographic evidence of, among other things, Apollo TLI,  S-IVB shroud deployment, and command module reentry. Or are they in on it, too?”

I don’t believe any of those images are of Apollo craft while in orbit, as if we watch the Apollo launches, we notice that the rockets always level out, and in some cases, they are on their way down again, towards the end of the footage. You could argue that it is just the angle of view, but I prefer to believe my eyes, rather than the BS excuses provided by NASA.

=860

And as the years roll by, it doesn’t get any better.
=16606

Quote
“Here's an astronomer who found Apollo 12's third stage. He thought it was an asteroid, but the spectroscopic signature of titanium paint identified it as a S-IVB”

It was never proven, but just assumed.

Quote
From gillianren  page 16  reply #230

“I'm not going to go back and dig through to figure out which responses are to me (again, Cambo, please leave in the tags that show who you're responding to”

Due to the large number of responses to my posts, I find it easier to gather them up into a word document and post my responses in one go, so in future I’ll try and include the poster, the page and the post number, and if your still not satisfied, then tough!

Quote
From molesworth  page 16  reply #233

“It may be that he still hasn't figured out how to use the quote feature, especially for multi-quotes.  The fact that he tends to put quoted text in inverted commas, even within the quote block, kind of implies something like that...”

Although I’ve never tried it, I can see how it works, but I’d rather do it at my own leisure rather than sit for hours trying to do it in one session, which is partly why the intervals between my posts are getting longer.

Quote
From Abaddon  page 16  Reply #239

From cambo
“You can post pictures of landscapes on earth, showing the same effect, but the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots,”

From Abaddon
“Is it? You have ignored the famous house rock. Not only does this sink your "few yards" bollocks, it also illustrates the ridge lines.”

It is no more than seventy yards from the camera to the point where the stage drops down into a pit, judging by the number of steps they take to get there. Then it is another thirty yards to the projected screen. The big rock is a prop in the pit. I thought about drawing a line to show where the edge of the stage drops away, but it’s so obvious that I will decline from insulting your intelligence.

What the hell do you see when you watch these clips? I still find it hard to comprehend how easy it is for some people to succumb to brainwashing. What has been done to you is evil, but as time goes on, more and more people are waking up and realising what a corrupt world we are living in. I am thankful that I never succumbed to this evil affliction which you all suffer from and due to this, I can put up with your ridicule, in the knowledge that I am not conversing with real people, but rather NASA’s stooges.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on July 07, 2018, 05:00:26 AM
Quote
From Abaddon  page 16  Reply #239

From cambo
“We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.”

From Abaddon
“Nope. You have no evidence at all.”

Oh but I do. It’s in the dust!

Quote
From Abaddon  page 16  Reply #239

From cambo
“It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.”

From Abaddon
“Sure. Now explain it.”

A probe, possibly placed there months in advance, so why don’t you explain why this wouldn’t be possible.

Quote
From gillianren  page 17  reply #251

 “How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?”

From cambo
“I must have missed that one, so you are telling me there is an uncut scene where they walk for miles? Really?”

“Yeah, you missed that one.”

From gillianren
“Funny how these people know so much about Apollo without ever really doing research on the Apollo record, isn't it?”

So post the damn clip and prove you’re not lying.

Quote
From Jason Thompson  page 18 reply #264

“Ah, but NASA 'accidentally' sent him the wrong stuff, thus blowing the hoax wide open. Which of course means NASA is simultaneously competent enough to pull of a hoax that basically fooled the world, but too inept to avoid sending out the key bit of footage that blows open the whole story to any old joe who asks for it”

These are the same people that taped over the original Apollo 11 footage, and it never fooled the whole world, only you lot.

Quote
From Jason Thompson
“No HB has ever been able to explain why such fotage a) was ever made in the first place, b) was retained at all when it would be so easy to destroy it, and c) was so poorly controlled that it could be accidentally sent to some nobody who requested it.”

Well let me take a stab at it.

a) Two of the four alleged transmissions were aired on live news broadcasts, in edited form and the other two were allegedly unscheduled broadcasts, but more likely different takes in order to decide which of them would be billed as the live broadcast. It’s all in the flight record, which I’m sure was amended after realising their balls up.


b) The second alleged broadcast should definitely have been destroyed, as it totally contradicts the first and third alleged broadcast, but due to their incompetence it never happened.

c) Because they were incompetent

Quote
From jfb  page 18  reply #266

“Interesting footage for cambo to peruse:

Crew of Apollo 10 in transit.  This is obviously a cramped, closed space.  Plenty of stuff floating around (helmet, flashlight, John Young). 

Curious how cambo would say it was faked.”

Well this one completely through me at first, as it’s the first piece of evidence I’ve seen from any of you that I had trouble with. I was telling myself it must be fake, even though it looks genuine. Could Apollo 10 have actually achieved orbit? They do seem to be in a bit of a rush while performing their little stunts, which would suggest they had a limited amount of time, and I think this could be the key, so it looks like they were able to simulate Zero G for a longer period than we see on board your run of the mill commercial Vomit Comet. The bulk of the action occurs in a fifty eight second clip, which would be twice the time experienced on a normal parabolic flight, but I see no reason why those clever people at NASA wouldn’t be able to achieve longer periods of weightlessness in an aircraft flying at a higher altitude.

Quote
From Peter B  page 19  Reply #275

“you know what? You can match the views in Apollo photographs against maps of the landing sites - they match”

I’m sure they do, who do you think mapped the moon?

Quote
From Peter B
“NASA can pull off the most amazing bit of fakery in the 20th century, and they somehow failed to notice the evidence you can spot”

It is indeed puzzling as to why they would show us footage that is so clearly faked, and I can only assume that they thought the public would be too dim to pick up on what they thought were minor details.

Quote
From Peter B
“Wow, so all the people who tested the LM during and after construction - its electrical systems, its environmental systems, its reaction control system, its engines, and all the rest of it - they all didn't have a clue? Please tell me, how do you load hypergolic chemicals into LM fuel tanks and run its engine and measure the fuel flow rates and calculate its thrust and somehow have that part of a fake?”

You are missing the point here, as you are assuming the thing would actually work. A couple of videos showing its rocket engine firing would suffice in making people believe they were actually conducting tests. They couldn’t even get a prototype to work properly in an environment they knew, as it was too unstable, but when we look through the window of the Apollo 11 LM, the descent is so smooth, you’d think it was on rails.
(https://i.imgur.com/DQMG2Ym.jpg)

Quote
From Peter B
“A smiley goes a long way”

I prefer to read the reactions to my good old subtle English wit as it amuses me.

From Peter B

From cambo
“I wasn’t there to witness it, as I live thousands of miles away, but I can remember reading an article in a newspaper at the time. I’ll try and dig it up for you”

From Peter B
“Dig away. We'll wait”

See what I mean? Remember ages ago, when I said I’d read an article in a newspaper and I was asked to find the article and prove it? You people are so amusing, although a little slow on the uptake. :) :) :) :) :) :)

Quote
From Peter B
“any spacecraft transmitting while in lunar orbit would have its radio transmission frequencies shift in measurable ways which would differ from the actual orbiting CM or the LM stationary on the Moon's surface. Sorry, you lose. Again”

Differ from the actual orbiting CM? What CM? To you, logic is just a meaningless word, and what would stop them having a transmitter on the surface, as well as in orbit, as I’m sure the Americans and Soviets would have something worked out between them.

Quote
From Peter B

From cambo
“we can see that the alleged earth is noticeably different in colour from the first and third videos, which suggests a different method of trickery was used.”

From Peter B
“Very good, Sherlock Holmes. Now please explain what you've done to eliminate every other possible explanation for the change in colour.”

Absolutely naff all, as the contradicting views through the windows from the interior shots, make any further investigation unnecessary.

Quote
From Peter B

From cambo
 “As for zero gravity, apart from the torch trick, there is next to no suggestion of it at all. During the third transmission, one of the supposed astronauts says “Zero G is very comfortable, but after a while you get to the point where you sort of get tired of rattling around and banging off the ceiling and the floor and the side”. So with nearly three hours of footage, over four transmissions, we never see an example of this? All we get is the very odd close-up view of a person, with a slight hint of a swaying motion”

From Peter B
“Oh, give me a break. How much footage do you want of weightless astronauts that can't be faked in the Vomit Comet?”

Are you saying that there is footage of the alleged Apollo astronauts in space that cannot possibly be faked?

Quote
From Peter B  page 19  Reply #276

“You manage to find one dodgy conspiracy theory video and somehow manage to miss the dozens of other videos showing periods of minutes and longer where people are obviously weightless.”

I have to disagree, because when it comes to the ISS, it’s as if they are deliberately trying to get themselves caught out, and with the invention of CGI, how can anything be obvious?

Quote
From Peter B

From cambo
“I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions”

From Peter B
“Ah, so all the people who work at the Tidbinbilla Tracking Station, just outside Canberra, as part of the Deep Space Network, are all...what? Playing "World of Warcraft" all day? Why don't they spill the beans? Or does MONEY! work here in Australia too?”

Is this the same Deep Space Network ran by NASA?

Quote
From Peter B
“The gases are emerging from the engine bell at a couple of thousand metres per second and interacting with material (dust, sand, whatever) on a Moon with one-sixth of the Earth's gravity: that material is going to disappear over the horizon rather than settle on the ground a few metres away”

From cambo
“You have your assumption and I have mine, but if your assumption is correct, there would only be bare rock for miles”

From Peter B
Dear Lord, never mind my assumptions, where do you pull your assumptions from? Why would there only be bare rock for miles?

Really? God, you people are so irritating at times and if I had a proper hobby, I’d be long gone. It was a response to you, saying that the gas would be expelled at a couple of thousand metres per second. My reply was exaggerated in an attempt to get my point across, that if you was correct, then there would be a very significant amount of disturbance. I’m sure you do this deliberately in the hope I’ll get pissed and disappear, and to be honest, I’m nearing that point, as this debate is going nowhere.

Quote
From Peter B
And yes, 27 seconds would probably be manageable on a Vomit Comet. Of course, that means that the Mythbusters would have to be in on the fake too, along with the chef and everyone in the production company. And I'm sure they'd never spill the beans. Nope. Not a chance. Not with all that MONEY!

It’s a TV show, they knew they weren’t conversing with the astronaut, as it was just edited to look that way. Those two muppets were just reading their lines, and the producers gave NASA the script and NASA produced a video to fit in with that script. Now why on earth would the producers suspect foul play?

Quote
From Peter B  Re: SKYLAB  page 19  Reply #276
“look again at the direction his feet push off each time he takes a step”

Nope, he’d float away, and if you were honest, I think you’d agree, but honesty isn’t something you people are good at.

Quote
From Peter B
“it was recorded live, so it wasn't recorded ahead of time”

What gave you that idea? That’s gullibility taken to the extremes!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on July 07, 2018, 05:18:48 AM
Quote
From Peter B  page 19  Reply #276
“watch how the clothes of the wind tunnel people flutter in the wind - the Skylab astronauts' clothes don't do that.”

First of all, we can only see their clothes rippling, when in close-up, and not moving around, and even then you need to be looking for it. Secondly, the alleged Skylab astronauts clothes are snug fitting, and coupled with the quality of the video, it would be almost impossible to spot.

Quote
From Peter B
“the wind tunnel people don't speak, and we don't get to hear how loud the dang thing is - the Skylab astronauts are talking throughout”

You mean the voiceover? It’s people like you who get scammed through Emails and phone calls, and I’ll be willing to bet, if it hasn’t happened already, you will be caught out sooner or later.

Quote
From Peter B 
“you can see the path the air takes in the wind tunnel - where's the equivalent in the Skylab?”

Not sure I’m with you on this one, how do you see air? What exactly is showing you its path?

Quote
From AtomicDog  page 19  Reply #277

“Try floating a sheet of paper or a blob of water in a wind tunnel and see what happens”

I would suspect it would be impossible. Oh, hang on, you think I am saying that all the trickery was done in a wind chamber, is that right?

Quote
From AtomicDog
“The wind tunnel guys wear helmets with face shields to keep their eyes from drying out and getting foreign objects blown into them at high speed”

Ah, but don’t forget these people had the balls to climb aboard a rocket and get shot up into space, so I can’t honestly see a bit of wind bothering them.

Quote
From AtomicDog  page 19  Reply #279
“The wind tunnel guys are using the airstream to maneuver and to orient their bodies-like a skydiver would. On the other hand, the astronauts are moving in ballistic trajectories according to Newton's third law. They push off a surface or each other and do not stop until they encounter a surface or each other. Notice how the wind tunnel guys almost never touch the tunnel surface. They don't need to-they are using the wind as a brake”

Those people are not trying to simulate weightlessness, and I’m sure they could perform the same manoeuvres as those Skylab performers, and vice versa.

Quote
From JayUtah  page 19  Reply #282
“And how did you determine this?  Do you realize we have stereo-pair images from several lunar landscapes that allow us to measure accurately the distance to objects in the scene?  Do you understand that we have parallax-controllable sets of images?  Show me the math.”

You mean like we are shown by those brilliant people at Aulis?
https://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax/

So you think because NASA throw a few concocted images at you, it will actually prove something? Show you what math? All you need to do is swap your delusional eyes for your reality eyes, which you will find in your early childhood.

Quote
From JayUtah 
And you're telling us NASA is stupid enough to use shiny wires that can be seen on 16mm film and field-sequential television.  No, film producers of that era weren't that stupid.

I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned shiny wires, as being evidence.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“Because hands-on experience and correct, adjudicated knowledge are better than watching television.  I live in the desert.  I'm also an engineer, which means working with graded and sifted particulates from time to time.  Dust is simply ubiquitous, and what I see in the lunar videos bears no resemblance to how I see dust, sand, and general particulates behave in an Earth environment”

So you think I’ve never kicked up sand on a calm day? I have a sand pit in my garden for my granddaughters, so I can do this anytime I want, and I can tell you, it acts exactly the same way as we see in those fake videos. If you open your eyes, you’ll notice the alleged moon dust clouds in exactly the same way as sand does on earth. As I have said before, you are only able to see it as fine lunar dust, as this is what your brain has been trained to believe, and no one will ever persuade you otherwise.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“It's clear you've never been within ten miles of any actual advanced engineering and manufacturing facility.  Since aerospace engineering is principally what I do for a living, and what I've done for 30 years, please tell me all about how airplanes and spacecraft are actually assembled.  Please go into as much detail as you need to get your point across, because I guarantee there is no chance you'll be talking over my head.  And the regulars here love to hear the details.”

What would be so complex in following a set of instructions? My job would be to assemble a set of components, which would be passed on to someone who would bolt my finished set of components onto another finished set of components and so on. It’s hardly rocket science!

Quote
From JayUtah 
“No hoax claimant has yet given a convincing reason why all these made men would risk their reputations by agreeing to help perpetrate a hoax which, if they were caught, would amount to criminal behavior.  It's like asking a millionaire if he wants to go pick pockets at the train station.  They have no incentive whatsoever to go along with a hoax and every incentive not to.”

It is that countries government who would be held responsible, and since there is no higher authority, at least that we know of, they will never be found out, and as time goes on, the memory will slowly fade and won’t even appear in history books.

Quote
From JayUtah 

From cambo
“No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive”

From JayUtah 
“Or so you say.  Until they come here and attempt it, you can't say that for sure”

Well you got that one bang on, as I realised a while back that I’m in the wrong place, but I’m here now, so I might as well go with it for the time being. If I’d read up on this site first, I would have realised it’s a closed shop for science nerds, and not a place for low life’s like me to hold a fair and honest debate.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“You're not telling us anything we haven't already heard before and already debunked a hundred times already.  So it's going to be really hard for you to succeed with the "You're all so closed-minded" ploy.”

I strongly disagree, as although you’ve heard it all before, you haven’t debunked as many of the claims as you say you have. For instance, you cannot prove that there should be no disturbance under the landers, as it is just your assumption that the thrust wouldn’t be enough to move the lunar soil, as there has been no demonstration, as far as I know that would prove it beyond doubt. Then we have the flag. Can it be proven that the alleged astronauts arm brushed the flag in that Apollo 15 scene? In fact after watching it again, the alleged astronaut is a hell of a lot closer to the camera than the flag is, judging by his height compared to his height while standing next to the flag.

And then there are those transmissions from Apollo 11 on its merry way to the moon. You see, there are a couple of anomalies in that footage which you cannot explain, without resorting to lying, and we only need one proof of fakery to throw NASA’s version of events into question. I know that not one of you on here will admit defeat, which I find sad, but at the same time, amusing as I know I am right, and your childish hand waving, lying and belittling tactics only makes me laugh all the louder.

Quote
From JayUtah 

From cambo
“It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon”

From JayUtah 
“You're telling us what "there would have to be," but you don't say what or how it was done, or show any evidence that it was done”

Most of the crap regarding Apollo can’t be proved either way, and in this case it is my assumption that there may have been a craft positioned in orbit and something lying on the surface, relaying transmissions. This, however would be hard to prove, but it would be hard to prove that this was not the case, and for all I know, they may have been simply bouncing radio signals off the moon. I mean, how accurate was Jodrell Bank’s tracking system, and as their equipment was apparently by courtesy of NASA, I wonder if NASA were able to fool the system, or maybe, dare I say it, they were so heavily involved that they didn’t need to.

Quote
From JayUtah 

From cambo
“This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told”

From JayUtah 
“Where is your evidence for this?”

You believe in the moon landings, don’t you? You say I do little or nothing to verify people’s claims, but what makes you think that? Is it because my conclusions contradict yours? Contrary to what you assume, I spend hours upon hours scrawling through web pages and videos, trying to gain knowledge from not just hoax sites, but NASA archives, Apollo flight journals and the like, and I recently purchased that triple DVD set from 2002 in order to verify one of the claims made by another member on here. I’d be willing to bet my life’s savings that you spend less than a tenth of the time on hoax sites than I spend on pro Apollo sites. This is another reason why my posts are so infrequent.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“A few of us are professionally qualified in the areas that we speak on regarding the hoax claim, such as photography, photographic analysis, film and theater stagecraft, engineering, geology and science, radio communications, and so forth.  And you'll find that many of us can back up our explanations of things with details and demonstrations.  In contrast, when asked to substantiate the foundation for your beliefs and expectations, you mostly seem to be relying on intuition and YouTube”

Oh I know how qualified you all are, but it seems to me that the more qualified people are, the less able they are to use their own intuition, as the so called facts from NASA are set in stone, and to question it would be sacrilege.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“Have you see the footage from Apollo 13?  From Apollo 8?  Do you realize that there is more evidence than just for Apollo 11?”

I’d prefer to spend a little more time on Apollo 11, as this is where some of the most damning evidence lies, but due to the stubbornness of you people, I cannot really see this episode coming to a conclusion any time soon.

Well despite you peoples stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious, we now have proof, not only of fakery, but we also have a confession from the man responsible. You lose!


Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on July 07, 2018, 05:28:22 AM
Movement from 00:00 to 01:30
(https://i.imgur.com/yhprysw.gif)

Movement from 01:30 to 04:30
(https://i.imgur.com/O5Os8C3.gif)

Movement from 00:00 to 04:30
(https://i.imgur.com/Z4vtUhM.gif)

Movement from 04:30 to 09:00
(https://i.imgur.com/Ph0rlR5.gif)
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on July 07, 2018, 05:42:16 AM
I must apologise to AtomicDog, as the video’s I posted regarding rockets coming back down and the bouncing feather didn’t start at the point I wanted them to, which would have been confusing, so I’ll have one last go.
Rockets

=273

=16606

The bouncing feather

=884

Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: cambo on July 07, 2018, 05:48:21 AM
Ok, I'll just give you the time to start watching

First clip 00:04:40

Second clip 04:36:45

Third clip 00:14:44
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on July 07, 2018, 11:30:37 AM
Cambo, you are now being deliberately obtuse in your trolling.

No-one is claiming that weather can't be forecast. What I have very clearly stated is that it is not possible to predict the exact appearance of clouds from one day to the next and I have provided you with several examples where experts in the field (which does not include you) have stated that satellite meteorology in the 1960s was not yet in the position to provide accurate forecasts. Have another:

http://themilitaryengineer.com/tme_mag/07_08_2013/capsule/08_2013/Aug_16.pdf

Quote
"Knowledge of the physical behaviour of this kind of storm has progressed to the point where it is possible to issue alerts and provisional warnings to the public for areas which may be affected by them. But so far, it is impossible to predict the exact times and locations at which these severe storms may occur."

and

Quote
"The public benefit [of satellite information] is tremendous but the system is too new for its potential to be fully realised"

The link you provide does indeed show the path of a hurricane, but it could not have predicted the exact configuration of the storm over time, only that it where it was heading.

And yes, you are nit-picking, you have yet again misunderstood the context of what I posted and ignored the fact that I provide links to every document containing satellite weather data for every mission on my website. The links are there, all you need to do is go look.The point I was making was that the documents I use are not hidden away, they are public, and often the satellite images were published in newspapers when something of interest came up.

Fantastic image of Earth rotating over the course of the live broadcast by the way. How exactly does this prove your case?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Jason Thompson on July 07, 2018, 12:02:10 PM
Quote
“Your arguments are not logical. It is not logical to begin a debate by dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you”

I disagree, as I think my arguments display both logic and common sense, and I joined this thread to give reasons why I don’t believe in the moon landings and not to dismiss anyone that disagrees with me, so your ideas to the contrary are all in your head.

Bullshit. In one of your eariest posts you said this:

Quote
unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

Quote
Quote
“Why? How deep is the rock and how much regolith would have to be blown away to expose it, and is the engine capable of excavating that amount? Same old 'it either blew all or none of the dust away' crap”

I was merely responding to your assumption that the lander would have blown the dust clear over the horizon, in which case I would assume it was powerful enough to blast away the lunar soil underneath it, leaving nothing but bare rock. On the other hand, if the soil was feet deep rather than inches, then we would see a massive crater.

Why? Prove it.

Quote
You are right of course, as the human brain can be easily fooled by the power of suggestion, but the fact that it is a third party who says the word, coupled with the fact that the word doesn’t appear in the flight record, tells me they have something to hide.

So you acknowledge that the brain can be fooled by the power of suggestion, but somehow insist yours is immune. Tell us exactly how you have concluded that it is actually a word and not a random noise being interpreted as a word because the narrator tells you it is a word.

Quote
Well according to this calculator, the earth, seen during the second transmission should have appeared eight times the diameter of what the moon would appear from earth, while in its Apogee which makes the view in this image an impossibility.
(https://i.imgur.com/KoeGkjA.jpg)

And it would be seven times bigger during the third broadcast, which would render this image an impossibility also.
(https://i.imgur.com/bo8WShw.jpg)

I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.

WHat information have you used to calculate how big the Earth shold appear in the FOV of the TV camera? DO you even know the FOV of the camera? If not, how are you deciding that's how big it should look?

The Moon appears 0.5 degrees wide from Earth. That would make the Earth 4 degrees across at the time of the first transmission. Your image proposes that the field of view of the TV camera when fully zoomed out is only about four times that, or 16 degrees. Does that seem likely?

Quote
I don’t believe any of those images are of Apollo craft while in orbit, as if we watch the Apollo launches, we notice that the rockets always level out, and in some cases, they are on their way down again, towards the end of the footage. You could argue that it is just the angle of view, but I prefer to believe my eyes, rather than the BS excuses provided by NASA.

SO you really can't see why something heading towards a distant horizon might appear to be heading downwards? I don't believe you, because you keep telling us how intelligent you are. The two statements are irreconcilable.
 
Quote
I can put up with your ridicule, in the knowledge that I am not conversing with real people, but rather NASA’s stooges.

Predictable trolling.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on July 07, 2018, 12:16:07 PM
This video has the advantage of actually being shot in zero g. If you look carefully, you can catch the edits between parabolic arcs, but it does a lot better job than that joke of a video that cambo posted:


After trying to read through Cambo's "incomprehensible stream-of-consciousness" posts, I came back and rewatched that to relax myself again  8)

OK Go have made some incredible videos over the years, and this is definitely one of their best!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on July 07, 2018, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: AtomicDog
“The wind tunnel guys wear helmets with face shields to keep their eyes from drying out and getting foreign objects blown into them at high speed.


Quote from: cambo
Ah, but don’t forget these people had the balls to climb aboard a rocket and get shot up into space, so I can’t honestly see a bit of wind bothering them.

It doesn't matter how brave you are, if wind and debris are blasted into your face at 120 plus miles per hour,  you're going to SHUT YOUR EYES. It's a reflex action.


Quote from: AtomicDog
“The wind tunnel guys are using the airstream to maneuver and to orient their bodies-like a skydiver would. On the other hand, the astronauts are moving in ballistic trajectories according to Newton's third law. They push off a surface or each other and do not stop until they encounter a surface or each other. Notice how the wind tunnel guys almost never touch the tunnel surface. They don't need to-they are using the wind as a brake.


Quote from: cambo
Those people are not trying to simulate weightlessness, and I’m sure they could perform the same manoeuvres as those Skylab performers, and vice versa.

You posted that video as an example of how weightlessness can be faked. When you are shown how it fails miserably to do just that, you turn around and say that they are not trying to simulate weightlessness. You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on July 07, 2018, 12:53:44 PM
Another thing. How can astronauts be "ballsy" enough to risk blindness to fake a zero g video, but not brave enough to pilot a LM down to the moon?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on July 07, 2018, 01:09:27 PM
(http://)
Quote from: cambo
Whether or not the video is precise to the millisecond, isn’t the issue here. The video shows how easily the Apollo feather and hammer experiment can be replicated on earth, but having said this, I admit that the You Tuber didn’t manage to make his feather bounce.

You're finally admitting that the YouTuber couldn't replicate the Hammer and Feather experiment? Good to know.


Quote from: cambo
I don’t believe any of those images are of Apollo craft while in orbit, as if we watch the Apollo launches, we notice that the rockets always level out, and in some cases, they are on their way down again, towards the end of the footage. You could argue that it is just the angle of view, but I prefer to believe my eyes, rather than the BS excuses provided by NASA.

When an observer follows the Moon in its orbit, it heads down towards the horizon, too. Is the Moon fake?
Your paragraph shows me that you either have never seen a spacecraft in orbit (I have), or you have a basic inability to visualize an object orbiting the Earth. Probably both.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on July 07, 2018, 01:46:19 PM
. . . In this case it is my assumption . . . .

And there it is.  That's all that matters, here.

Cambo, your assumptions are worth nothing.  You have no evidence.  You have no education.  All you have is blather, assumptions, and arrogance.

As to your clips about The Shining, thanks--I've seen Room 237, and its problems are exactly the same as your posts.  Everyone talks a lot about their ideas, but no one has any evidence that Kubrick really believed their particular claim, and the movie doesn't show any of the reasons they're wrong.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on July 07, 2018, 08:01:53 PM
[snip BS]
https://sizecalc.com

Well according to this calculator, the earth, seen during the second transmission should have appeared eight times the diameter of what the moon would appear from earth, while in its Apogee which makes the view in this image an impossibility.
(https://i.imgur.com/KoeGkjA.jpg)

And it would be seven times bigger during the third broadcast, which would render this image an impossibility also.
(https://i.imgur.com/bo8WShw.jpg)

I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.


Firstly The Moon viewed from the Earth is approximately 1864 Arc Seconds in diameter.
whereas the Earth viewed from the Moon is approximately 6836 Arc Seconds, so no the Earth is not 8 times the size of the Moon.

Secondly the size of the Earth seen from the second broadcast (~128,000 Miles) has a diameter of ~12755 Arc Seconds (~3.54 degrees)  whereas the diameter from the third broadcast (~175,000) ~9331 Arc Seconds (~2.59 degrees).


Both images appear to be the correct size, both of your Earth images are FAR TOO BIG.
Quote

[snip more BS]
Quote
From molesworth  page 16  reply #233

“It may be that he still hasn't figured out how to use the quote feature, especially for multi-quotes.  The fact that he tends to put quoted text in inverted commas, even within the quote block, kind of implies something like that...”

Although I’ve never tried it, I can see how it works, but I’d rather do it at my own leisure rather than sit for hours trying to do it in one session, which is partly why the intervals between my posts are getting longer.

Quote
From Abaddon  page 16  Reply #239

From cambo
“You can post pictures of landscapes on earth, showing the same effect, but the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots,”

From Abaddon
“Is it? You have ignored the famous house rock. Not only does this sink your "few yards" bollocks, it also illustrates the ridge lines.”

It is no more than seventy yards from the camera to the point where the stage drops down into a pit, judging by the number of steps they take to get there. Then it is another thirty yards to the projected screen. The big rock is a prop in the pit. I thought about drawing a line to show where the edge of the stage drops away, but it’s so obvious that I will decline from insulting your intelligence.

What the hell do you see when you watch these clips? I still find it hard to comprehend how easy it is for some people to succumb to brainwashing. What has been done to you is evil, but as time goes on, more and more people are waking up and realising what a corrupt world we are living in. I am thankful that I never succumbed to this evil affliction which you all suffer from and due to this, I can put up with your ridicule, in the knowledge that I am not conversing with real people, but rather NASA’s stooges.


Up until the last of the post where you refer to individual posters you don't reference anything and that is why I snipped the convo, regardless of what was posted by other members or yourself.

Now if you would kindly post quotes of the other members it would be even better.  Don't know how?  Just open word pad and "quote" a post, copy everything into word pad and edit once you are finished, very easy or just open many instances of ApolloHoax, and then copy/add to your original.  Simple.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on July 09, 2018, 01:09:15 AM
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: benparry on July 09, 2018, 05:34:10 AM
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

that's exactly what i thought lol
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on July 09, 2018, 08:21:31 AM
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

One could use the same phrase concerning manifesto.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: stutefish on July 09, 2018, 01:49:03 PM
And I assume that "thing" has an NDA attached to it.

A truly terrifying one.
<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D

My guess is flyrigs for Disney's new animatronic stuntmen.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on July 10, 2018, 04:20:14 AM
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

One could use the same phrase concerning manifesto.


manifesto is a "true believer" (even if he is dead wrong) and he is quite well researched (although not as well researched as he clams) despite the fact that he draws totally the wrong conclusions from what he sees and reads.

But this guy pretty much told us he was a troll in his opening few posts.

"Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable."

And then there was this post...
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1459.msg46704#msg46704

Once I saw that, I knew what we were dealing with. You could take this guy back in a time machine to 9:32 a.m July 16, 1969, park him inside Eagle and fly him all the way to the moon and back with Mike, Neil and Buzz and he would still claim it was faked. 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on July 10, 2018, 08:13:12 AM
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

One could use the same phrase concerning manifesto.


manifesto is a "true believer" (even if he is dead wrong) and he is quite well researched (although not as well researched as he clams) despite the fact that he draws totally the wrong conclusions from what he sees and reads.

But this guy pretty much told us he was a troll in his opening few posts.

"Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable."

And then there was this post...
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1459.msg46704#msg46704

Once I saw that, I knew what we were dealing with. You could take this guy back in a time machine to 9:32 a.m July 16, 1969, park him inside Eagle and fly him all the way to the moon and back with Mike, Neil and Buzz and he would still claim it was faked.

I have no issue with cambo being called a troll, as his post have indicated.  I'm not as sure about manifesto being a true believer, look at the mannerisms of his posts.  Made to bring forth emotional responses, not just a discussion response.  But we digress and perhaps this might be enough of a thread hijack.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on July 10, 2018, 04:30:25 PM
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

One could use the same phrase concerning manifesto.


manifesto is a "true believer" (even if he is dead wrong) and he is quite well researched (although not as well researched as he clams) despite the fact that he draws totally the wrong conclusions from what he sees and reads.

But this guy pretty much told us he was a troll in his opening few posts.

"Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable."

And then there was this post...
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1459.msg46704#msg46704

Once I saw that, I knew what we were dealing with. You could take this guy back in a time machine to 9:32 a.m July 16, 1969, park him inside Eagle and fly him all the way to the moon and back with Mike, Neil and Buzz and he would still claim it was faked.

I have no issue with cambo being called a troll, as his post have indicated.  I'm not as sure about manifesto being a true believer, look at the mannerisms of his posts.  Made to bring forth emotional responses, not just a discussion response.  But we digress and perhaps this might be enough of a thread hijack.

Agreed

I think cambo's behaviour is one of the worst cases of Dunning-Kruger Effect I have seen in a long, long time.... he thinks his commonsense is a substitute for the scientific method, and therefore trumps the combined engineering and scientific expertise of everyone he disagrees with.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on July 11, 2018, 08:59:51 AM
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: JayUtah on July 11, 2018, 11:02:59 AM
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.

Along with misattributed quotes.  I thought about replying, but I lack the energy to pick apart the wall of text and find where he might have addressed something I said.  And given that all the stuff I've challenged him on already is on my web site (which he either hasn't read or doesn't care to acknowledge), I'm not impressed with his research skills.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on July 11, 2018, 11:14:31 AM
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.

Along with misattributed quotes.  I thought about replying, but I lack the energy to pick apart the wall of text and find where he might have addressed something I said.  And given that all the stuff I've challenged him on already is on my web site (which he either hasn't read or doesn't care to acknowledge), I'm not impressed with his research skills.

I haven't been to the web page in some time.  Is everything working again?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: jfb on July 11, 2018, 11:58:51 AM
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.

Which is pretty much the point.  Gish galloping works by exhausting the opponent to the point that they give up, such that you win by default. 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Zakalwe on July 11, 2018, 01:18:35 PM
Hey Cambo,

I've asked you to post your single, strongest piece of "evidence". How are you getting on with that?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on July 11, 2018, 03:51:03 PM
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.

Which is pretty much the point.  Gish galloping works by exhausting the opponent to the point that they give up, such that you win by default.
… for certain values of "win"  :D

I don't see any point in trying to discuss these claims with Cambo any more.  He's not willing to have a rational debate, and seems to be going out of his way to be as annoying as possible.

I've asked you to post your single, strongest piece of "evidence". How are you getting on with that?
That would be progress and might lead to some results, or at least a single thread of debate, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an answer...
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: raven on July 11, 2018, 04:51:32 PM
Speaking of bravery, how about the Voskhod 1 cosmonauts? They had no ejection seats, no dedicated launch escape system, meaning they'd need to wait until after the payload shroud was jettisoned to escape, three minutes into the flight,and anyone who has seen rocket launch failures knows they tend to happen far sooner than that. Heck, they didn't have pressure suits!
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: jfb on July 11, 2018, 06:42:45 PM
Oh good Lord, how could I have forgotten about this?!

Hey, cambo, the Soviets were in on it too!

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project).
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Abaddon on July 12, 2018, 01:10:43 PM
Cambo last posted 5 days ago and has been lurking since. Presumably to gauge reaction to his posts.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: AtomicDog on July 12, 2018, 02:36:42 PM
That's his usual M.O. Instead of composing individual answers to individual posters, he takes all the replies to his posts and jams them together into one wall o' text Gish Gallop. That's a lot more work, and he does it on purpose to wear us out.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nickrulercreator on July 12, 2018, 05:57:20 PM
That's a lot more work, and he does it on purpose to wear us out.

It seems like we’re doing the same to him. Though all of his posts have been nothing but nonsense, it seems like he is losing composure with each following post and somehow making each post make less sense than the previous ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Obviousman on July 12, 2018, 07:03:48 PM
That's why I like to ask them for their strongest evidence, and just stay with that. And I also prefer to let one person lead the discussion; having six or seven people asking you things and trying to answer them all coherently can be daunting at times.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: molesworth on July 13, 2018, 02:28:23 AM
That's why I like to ask them for their strongest evidence, and just stay with that. And I also prefer to let one person lead the discussion; having six or seven people asking you things and trying to answer them all coherently can be daunting at times.
Very true, and having tried to keep multiple lines of discussion going on other forums myself, I have some sympathy.  However, the way to deal with it, as you say, is to take one topic at a time, and to merge replies where appropriate, with proper quoting so people can follow your line of thought and know when their questions or opinions have been answered.  If you need to have a couple of ideas in flight together, then separate replies on those subjects, and make it clear what you're talking about.

It really isn't that hard, and the tools every forum provides, plus a text editor, are all you need to hold a coherent discussion - even with half a dozen respondents.  Perhaps Cambo is new to the world of internet forums, but reading other discussions, both here and on other forums, should have given him a feel for what's sensible / understandable and what's not.  There are plenty of examples of both.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Zakalwe on July 13, 2018, 03:40:26 AM

It really isn't that hard, and the tools every forum provides, plus a text editor, are all you need to hold a coherent discussion - even with half a dozen respondents.  Perhaps Cambo is new to the world of internet forums, but reading other discussions, both here and on other forums, should have given him a feel for what's sensible / understandable and what's not.  There are plenty of examples of both.

It always amuses me that the very person that talks about science and engineering being incorrect can't or won't figure out how to correctly use a simple tool such as the quote functionality in an Internet  forum.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on July 13, 2018, 12:39:03 PM
I admit it, I'm bored.

Launching a rocket with a small satellite on-board may have been possible, but to launch a rocket of Apollo’s alleged weight and expect it to reach orbit is a very contentious issue in some people’s eyes.

Not to anyone who can actually do the math. Like, I don't know, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Yes, there is more to getting a spacecraft into orbit, but the basic energy requirements are described by the simple and elegant Ideal Rocket Equation.

Oh, and why "alleged?" If you don't agree on the mass, you have no business trying to calculate the launch. Thing is, there are detailed drawings available, and you can cross-check the dimensions against actual space-flown (and non-flown) hardware that are publicly accessible in museums.

No ejector seats for obvious reasons and no emergency services to rescue them, and the only thing they volunteered for was being part of the fraud.

Check the literature again. You are clearly wrong (definitely for pre-launch and early launch phase, then it gets less clear through the flight as there were multiple contingency plans for various aborts).

A flight simulator is modelled from the working plane it is simulating. In the landers case they would only be able to simulate how they assumed it would work in a real environment. They had the tech to do it remotely, so why put lives at risk when it wasn’t necessary? If they had applied a bit of logic to the story they were telling, then it may have been slightly more plausible, but it wouldn’t have mattered either way to Mr Kubrick, as he was only in it for the money and the fame, he knew he would eventually receive.

Are you saying gravity works differently in space? When Konstantin is done with you, I think Sir Isaac would like a word.

Flight Simulators are pilot trainers. They are not the only pre-flight, even pre-build simulations done for aircraft. Ever hear of wind tunnels? When Newton is done talking, there's a couple of bicycle builders from North Carolina that would like a word about testing scale models before building the real thing.

Your complete lack of logic makes you and your fellow NASA followers a difficult bunch to argue with, as only a child would compare an aircraft to a spacecraft, as they are two completely different concepts. Why would they choose military pilots to man these crafts, when it would be logical to employ the very people who designed the craft, as they would know them inside out and would understand the principles of space flight. Who flew the first plane? Who drove the first car? The reason they chose those men is obvious, as it was to instil a sense of bravery, pride and patriotism into a nation that had very little to be proud of at that time.

Bolding mine.

They did. Read about the history of the program again. The Apollo crews had degrees in the appropriate fields and were closely involved with the construction and testing of the craft.

What, are you going to send all the design heads and team leaders? That would be a big spacecraft. Better to send generalists who had been everywhere, talked to everyone, and had the best grasp of pretty much anybody of the whole picture.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: gillianren on July 13, 2018, 12:42:28 PM
And for heaven's sake, why does the profession of test pilot exist if "send the designer" were always the most sensible option?
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on July 13, 2018, 12:44:36 PM

I was merely responding to your assumption that the lander would have blown the dust clear over the horizon, in which case I would assume it was powerful enough to blast away the lunar soil underneath it, leaving nothing but bare rock. On the other hand, if the soil was feet deep rather than inches, then we would see a massive crater.


Why assume? Oh, right. Because you avoided that horrible brainwashing and thus can't do science or math.

Also total fail on lunar geology. This isn't Earth. On Earth, there is air. There is wind. There is a rain cycle. There is liquid water. These are what move and deposit soils. On the Moon, the finely powdered top layer is created in situ. It doesn't lie in thin mobile sheets over impermeable bedrock.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on July 13, 2018, 12:51:23 PM
I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.


I'm isolating this because it so perfectly encapsulates the lack of logic on display. It is a basic flaw of logic to reason without facts.

You "assume" the camera was zoomed out. That is, you admit (without even realizing you admit) you have no idea what the field of view of that shot is.

That means it is fully as reasonable to argue the Earth appears too large in those images. It all depends on your field of view.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: onebigmonkey on July 13, 2018, 01:48:57 PM
I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.


I'm isolating this because it so perfectly encapsulates the lack of logic on display. It is a basic flaw of logic to reason without facts.

You "assume" the camera was zoomed out. That is, you admit (without even realizing you admit) you have no idea what the field of view of that shot is.

That means it is fully as reasonable to argue the Earth appears too large in those images. It all depends on your field of view.

I've lost count of the number of times I've said this to hoax nuts:

See that big old moon shining like a spoon? Go outside and take a photo of it. Now come back and tell everyone how disappointed you are with the result.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: Zakalwe on July 13, 2018, 02:45:38 PM
I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.


I'm isolating this because it so perfectly encapsulates the lack of logic on display. It is a basic flaw of logic to reason without facts.

You "assume" the camera was zoomed out. That is, you admit (without even realizing you admit) you have no idea what the field of view of that shot is.

That means it is fully as reasonable to argue the Earth appears too large in those images. It all depends on your field of view.

I've lost count of the number of times I've said this to hoax nuts:

See that big old moon shining like a spoon? Go outside and take a photo of it. Now come back and tell everyone how disappointed you are with the result.

Very much this.
Our optical system vastly overestimates the apparent size of the moon. Ask anyone to guesstimate the size of the Moon and they'll usually guess about 2 inches across. They are usually shocked when you ask them to compare it to their little finger on their outstretched arm. The Moon's actual apparent visual size is roughly the size of their little finger nail.

To capture images like these I need to use 3 metres of focal length  :o

https://www.closr.it/s/7pd/

https://www.closr.it/s/xih/
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on July 14, 2018, 01:24:56 AM
The Moon Illusion is powerful. I've told people to use the pinkie trick when the Moon is high, and when it is looming near the horizon. They look at me doubtfully and mumble something about it still being larger, somehow.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: raven on July 14, 2018, 08:07:40 AM
The Moon Illusion is powerful. I've told people to use the pinkie trick when the Moon is high, and when it is looming near the horizon. They look at me doubtfully and mumble something about it still being larger, somehow.
When I was taking a train ride that took me from the Rockies through the prairies, I saw the moon at the horizon for the first time, and the seeming size difference it is quite spectacular. Like most optical illusions, knowing it is an illusion does not help with seeing it.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on July 14, 2018, 03:43:04 PM
Its called the Ponzo Illusion. Here is a great example from Phil Plait

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2010/05/13/why_does_the_moon_look_so_huge_on_the_horizon.html

(http://img.slate.com/features/badastronomy_archive/files/2010/05/ponzo_illusion.jpg)

Both red lines are the same length, but even knowing that, and even after putting a ruler on the screen and measuring them, the brain refuses to accept this; the right one still looks longer

Of course, this is science, so cambo will know better and claim its irrelevant.
 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: JayUtah on July 15, 2018, 12:43:00 PM
And for heaven's sake, why does the profession of test pilot exist if "send the designer" were always the most sensible option?

Designing and flying are two different sets of skills.  I'm a skilled designer of flying machines, but I'm a below-average pilot.  The point of Apollo was to put a man on the Moon, not simply to land a spaceship on the Moon.  If the designer can presume that man will be a skilled pilot, his task is that much easier.  Especially when there's an end-of-decade deadline.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on July 15, 2018, 02:25:29 PM
Yeah this. Land a spacecraft on the Moon. Done and done (pretty early on, too, depending on your definition of "land.")

Landing a human is a different goal. And despite Tom Wolfe, the human was never just payload. Engineers don't think like that. That 180 lbs of meat contains a massive parallel processor with a huge memory. (Lousy math co-processor, though!) And forget automation; two hands on two arms are vastly more flexible than the state of the art (and it is still a close race today). So of course you are going to design to use it.
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: smartcooky on July 15, 2018, 06:46:34 PM
Yeah this. Land a spacecraft on the Moon. Done and done (pretty early on, too, depending on your definition of "land.")

Landing a human is a different goal. And despite Tom Wolfe, the human was never just payload. Engineers don't think like that. That 180 lbs of meat contains a massive parallel processor with a huge memory. (Lousy math co-processor, though!) And forget automation; two hands on two arms are vastly more flexible than the state of the art (and it is still a close race today). So of course you are going to design to use it.


As well as intuition and judgement, which are very important as was clearly shown on Apollo 11.

With the automatic landing system, Eagle would have come down in the  boulder-strewn floor of ”West Crater,”  with a high probability of crashing. When Neil Armstrong saw this, he realised the danger, took manual control of Eagle, and landed in the plain beyond. His intuition and judgement probably saved the mission and both their lives.

There are all manner of things which, if it were left to automation, could have resulted in aborted missions

1201/1202 alarms on Apollo 11
The lightning strike on Apollo 12
The 2nd stage inboard J2 two minutes early shutdown on Apollo 13*

* I should note that the reason the engine shut down was pure luck. It was caused by a low chamber pressure sensor and had nothing to do with the problem the engine was really having (a violent 16hz "pogo")
 
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: bknight on July 15, 2018, 09:05:09 PM


As well as intuition and judgement, which are very important as was clearly shown on Apollo 11.



Some people has intuition and judgement
Title: Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
Post by: nomuse on July 16, 2018, 02:27:31 AM
I like the way Hans Morovec put it.

It's basically backwards from intuition. (Almost) anyone can walk, talk, and recognize faces. Even the best of us, though, feel like we are working hard when we are multiplying some big number. It was natural to think that since computers had an easy time with the latter, it would be trivial to teach them to do the former.

Morovec's example; there came a time when a computer could beat the best chess player in the world. But picking up a piece and moving it based just on vision (something a four-year old child can do) was entirely beyond it.