Author Topic: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books  (Read 2927 times)

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2019, 05:43:28 PM »
The hoaxbelievers will answer that with the "whistleblower"-argument - that some of the people working the hoax put clues to the nature of the hoax into the set and pictures.
I've heard it. I find it less than convincing. Why would NASA allow photos to be released with this allegedly 'obvious', unless basically everyone, including the security on the alleged hoax makers to make sure they did a good enough job, was part of this 'whistleblower' conspiracy within the conspiracy, in which case, if things were so lax, why didn't they just come forward normally.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #31 on: August 09, 2019, 06:20:26 PM »
That is exactly the point. The hoax idea is inconsistent, as soon as you look at it in any detail. If you have to expand the conspiracy to encompass more and more people to keep the story consistent, it will fail on sheer numbers.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2019, 09:02:09 PM »
OK here is something with a little more "Meat" to it, I worked in they HVAC industry. And from what they have said the temp on the moon is 250 deg during the day, and drops to minus 250 Deg at night. And from my experience even to this day there is no system available out there that could compensate for such an astronomical swing in temperature 500 Deg. Let alone one that is powered by a bank of car batteries the current draw would be to taxing, and to add to that even if they could and I highly doubt it with no way or source to recharge those batteries it is just not feasible. Then to add even more to this incredible feat of engineering to have a portable version that they can actually wear and prance around on the moon. If such a system was available after 50 years it would have made it's way into the market already, that is just the way things work.

Dean


What does "working in the HVAC industry" mean, or have to do with the point you're making?  Are you trying to suggest you have some relevant expertise?  For that, you'd have to be more specific.  Are you an engineer?  Do you have adjuticated training in thermodynamics and/or thermal design?  Are you a furnace repairman?  A customer service rep who processes service requests?  An accountant or a purchaser who works for Heil Heating & Cooling?  A technician who checks for gas leaks?  A chimneysweep?  "Working in the HVAC industry" is too vague to be a relevant credential.

You work with systems that move, heat, and cool air, right?   The VAC in HVAC doesn't stand for "vacuum", does it?  So how exactly do you apply your background to any of the technical problems you mention above?  And what *specific*, non-gee-whiz-that-sure-sounds-hot problems does that background point to?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2019, 09:08:59 PM by Von_Smith »

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1100
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2019, 09:21:55 PM »
OK here is something with a little more "Meat" to it, I worked in they HVAC industry. And from what they have said the temp on the moon is 250 deg during the day, and drops to minus 250 Deg at night. And from my experience even to this day there is no system available out there that could compensate for such an astronomical swing in temperature 500 Deg. Let alone one that is powered by a bank of car batteries the current draw would be to taxing, and to add to that even if they could and I highly doubt it with no way or source to recharge those batteries it is just not feasible. Then to add even more to this incredible feat of engineering to have a portable version that they can actually wear and prance around on the moon. If such a system was available after 50 years it would have made it's way into the market already, that is just the way things work.

Dean


What does "working in the HVAC industry" mean, or have to do with the point you're making?  Are you trying to suggest you have some relevant expertise?  For that, you'd have to be more specific.  Are you an engineer?  Do you have adjuticated training in thermodynamics and/or thermal design?  Are you a furnace repairman?  A customer service rep who processes service requests?  An accountant or a purchaser who works for Heil Heating & Cooling?  A technician who checks for gas leaks?  A chimneysweep?  "Working in the HVAC industry" is too vague to be a relevant credential.

You work with systems that move, heat, and cool air, right?   The VAC in HVAC doesn't stand for "vacuum", does it?  So how exactly do you apply your background to any of the technical problems you mention above?  And what *specific*, non-gee-whiz-that-sure-sounds-hot problems does that background point to?

I guess it involves moving large volumes of hot air...

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2019, 12:03:18 AM »
OK here is something with a little more "Meat" to it, I worked in they HVAC industry. And from what they have said the temp on the moon is 250 deg during the day, and drops to minus 250 Deg at night. And from my experience even to this day there is no system available out there that could compensate for such an astronomical swing in temperature 500 Deg. Let alone one that is powered by a bank of car batteries the current draw would be to taxing, and to add to that even if they could and I highly doubt it with no way or source to recharge those batteries it is just not feasible. Then to add even more to this incredible feat of engineering to have a portable version that they can actually wear and prance around on the moon. If such a system was available after 50 years it would have made it's way into the market already, that is just the way things work.

Dean


What does "working in the HVAC industry" mean, or have to do with the point you're making?  Are you trying to suggest you have some relevant expertise?  For that, you'd have to be more specific.  Are you an engineer?  Do you have adjuticated training in thermodynamics and/or thermal design?  Are you a furnace repairman?  A customer service rep who processes service requests?  An accountant or a purchaser who works for Heil Heating & Cooling?  A technician who checks for gas leaks?  A chimneysweep?  "Working in the HVAC industry" is too vague to be a relevant credential.

You work with systems that move, heat, and cool air, right?   The VAC in HVAC doesn't stand for "vacuum", does it?  So how exactly do you apply your background to any of the technical problems you mention above?  And what *specific*, non-gee-whiz-that-sure-sounds-hot problems does that background point to?

I guess it involves moving large volumes of hot air...

Aww, man, I really wish I'd thought of that first.

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1100
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2019, 02:56:49 AM »

Aww, man, I really wish I'd thought of that first.
LOL sorry.

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2019, 05:50:56 AM »
The simple fact is, I'd much rather have one solid reprinted book full of facts than any number of original, signed manuscripts full of lies and errors.
Well said.

(or to be more correct in the literal sense, "well written")
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields

"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Online smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1693
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2019, 09:10:24 AM »
That is exactly the point. The hoax idea is inconsistent, as soon as you look at it in any detail. If you have to expand the conspiracy to encompass more and more people to keep the story consistent, it will fail on sheer numbers.

KEEPING THE CONSPIRACY POSSIBLE
Once you are forced to hypothesise whole new technologies to keep your conspiracy possible, you have stepped over into the realm of magic, requiring of you a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know.
- S. G. Collins
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2019, 09:42:30 AM »
5 percent thrust on the descent stage isn't right. It was more like 40%, due to the descent stage having a mass around 6500 kg at landing - which is about 14.500 pounds. In lunar gravity, that is a weight of around 2400 pounds, and the descent engine had a max thrust of 6.000 pounds in the flown configuration.

Many thanks for that. I like being proved wrong about anything (but didn't a few decades ago when my ego was bigger), because it means I can go from being wrong to being right. I remember having one of those little mental pauses at the 5% when I re-read the letter before posting, but carried on without my memory reminding me that that figure referred to remaining fuel, not thrust.

But I didn't know that in the pre-internet days of 1995 and only had Ryan's book to go on, which got it wrong as so many other non-technical people did back in 1969, particularly newspaper reporters who produced some wonderful howlers. However, Ryan's book was actually right most of the time, especially considering I bought my copy in New Zealand in either October or November 1969 -- I've long wished that I had recorded the exact date. In fact it was far more accurate than many of the early and uncorrected voice transcripts of Apollo 11, which have many howlers too and were published on the early internet.

From The Invasion of the Moon 1969 - The Story of Apollo 11, by Peter Ryan, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, England (1969), page 112:--

Quote
112>
...[feet per second]...  33 degrees...  600 feet, down at 19 [feet per second]...  540 feet, down at 30 [feet per second]...  down at 15...  400 feet, down at 9...  8 [degrees, pitched] forward...  350 [feet] down at 4...  330 [feet] 3½ down...  we're pegged on horizontal velocity...  300 [feet], down 3½...  47 [degrees] forward...  1½ down...  got the shadow [of the LM] out there...  down at 2½...  19 [pitch] forward...  altitude velocity lights...  3½ down, 220 feet...  13 [pitch] forward...  11 forward, coming down nicely...  200 feet, 4½ down...  5½ down...  160 [feet], 6½ down...  5½ down, 9 [pitch] forward...  5 per cent [descent engine thrust]...  75 feet, things looking good...  down a half, 6 [pitch] forward...'
   MCC:  '60 seconds.'  Aldrin:  'Down 2½...  forward...  forward...  good...  40 feet, down 2½...  picking up some dust...  30 feet, 2½ down...  faint shadow...  4 [pitch] forward...  4 [pitch] forward, drifting to the right a little...  6 [forward pitch], down a half.'
   MCC:  '30 seconds.'  Aldrin:  'Drifting right...  contact light [landing probes attached to three of the pads of the descent stage had touched the lunar surface, Armstrong counted one second and punched a button to cut the engine]...  OK, engine stop...'
   MCC:  'We copy you down, Eagle.' Armstrong:  'Houston, Tranquillity base here, the Eagle has landed.'  MCC:  'Roger, Tranquillity, we copy you on the ground.  You've got a bunch of guys about to turn blue.  We're breathing again.  Thanks a lot.'
   PAO:  We have an unofficial time for that touchdown: [GET] 102 hours: 45 minutes: 42 seconds [9.18 p.m. BST].
<112

It was an incredible privilege to be listening to that stuff live on the radio as it happened. Most of us were breathing very shallowly during the last few minutes.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2019, 09:46:15 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #39 on: August 10, 2019, 10:29:40 AM »
That is exactly the point. The hoax idea is inconsistent, as soon as you look at it in any detail. If you have to expand the conspiracy to encompass more and more people to keep the story consistent, it will fail on sheer numbers.

KEEPING THE CONSPIRACY POSSIBLE
Once you are forced to hypothesise whole new technologies to keep your conspiracy possible, you have stepped over into the realm of magic, requiring of you a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know.
- S. G. Collins

Not to mention, hypothesizing new technologies eviscerates any argument of "they couldn't do that without six feet of lead shield, etc.".  If NASA has secret magical technology with which to fake the landing, then it has secret magical technology with which to make the landing.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #40 on: August 10, 2019, 11:01:47 AM »
I don't think I ever heard a reference to the thrust setting on the descent engine (which was the only one with throttle control) during the landing phase. It was controlled automatically by the computer, responding to the commander's wishes for vertical velocity.

Only during the initial de-orbit burn, where the engine started out at 10%, to ensure a steady flow of fuel/oxidizer, before being throttled up to full.

And you're welcome.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Spanky

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2019, 08:08:28 PM »
KIWI
Thank you kind sir

Dean

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2019, 04:20:09 AM »
Thanks Spanky.

SECOND LETTER TO RALPH RENE

Only my outward letters from that period are in my computer. Rene's letters are still on paper and I'll try to summarise his most informative replies. Will be unlikely to include anything that particularly shows him in a bad light as he's not here to defend himself so it's unethical to do so, and I believe he already did enough of that to himself with his book and later TV appearances.


[Kiwi]
XX XXXXXXX Street, XXXXXXXXXX, Manawatu 5450, New Zealand
Tel 0-6-324 XXXX

9 November 1995

Mr R Rene
31 Burgess Place
Passiac
NJ 07055
USA

Dear Rene

Thank you for your interesting letter of 13 September.

You and I are certainly similar, as I also suffered for years through having a fairly high IQ (only around XXX or XX% though, on the British Mensa scale).  I came from a poor background too, and was not allowed to think or question as a child.  I left school at age 15, used to think I wasn't very bright, found it hard to get on with lots of people because I was so analytical, and only thought to test my IQ in 1989.  At school I was regularly bullied... [and at 18] had to set about learning a lot which my childhood and schooling didn't teach me.

I'm now 46, and partly disabled... [SNIP paragraphs about self and New Zealand]

Anyway, forgive the provocative style of my last letter -- at least you replied!  Hope you don't mind me discussing a few points.

[Note in the following how I sometimes struggle because of the lack of something we now take for granted – the great mountain of information that is freely available on the internet. Plus, these two letters to Rene are my first attempts at debunking hoax theories.]

I did a couple of experiments.  One was with a curved glass bowl, with background and reflected horizons as in the Conrad/Bean photo.  To align the background with the reflected foreground, I had to have both horizons and my eye nearly on the same level.  Raising my viewpoint raised the rear horizon in relation to the front centre of the bowl, and the reflected horizon stayed in the middle, or went DOWN, depending on the curvature of the bowl and distance of the reflected horizon.  With a straight mirror, the reflected horizon always went UP.  It was only a rough experiment, but indicated that the camera WAS down low, on Conrad's chest.

The other experiment was to ascertain the visibility of stars in a clear, dark sky when my eyes were accustomed to looking at something lit by "sunlight".  Holding a blank sheet of this paper against a 200 watt lightbulb (we're on 240 volts here) and staring at it for a few minutes gave me the same effect as looking at an average-toned object in sunlight (1/125th at f16 at 125 ISO).  On going outside, I could only see the very brightest stars and planets, Achernar, Formalhaut, Altair, Alpha and Beta Centauri, Jupiter, and Saturn.  Had I not known from star maps what I was looking at, or not known which way I was facing, I wouldn't have had a clue which objects I was viewing.  It took over three minutes before I could make out all of Crux (the Southern Cross), about six minutes to recognise the "square" of Pegasus, and 7-8 minutes before I could recognise Pisces.  That was with the benefit of no sun or moon to stop down my iris.

So I feel the astronauts may have been able to see individual bright stars, particularly with a 26-power sextant, but without recognising the fainter ones too, they wouldn't have known what they were looking at.  They could only see the faint stars well when neither sunshine, moonshine, earthshine nor artificial light prevented their eyes dark-adapting, which usually takes at least five minutes.

You mentioned the letter "C" on a rock.  Is that the picture of which I enclose a photocopy?  If so, I saw the "C" long ago and it never bothered me, because in my opinion it's there courtesy of Kodak, on the film.  Mainly because it's almost perfectly aligned between the horizontal registration crosses, although not centered horizontally.  It is also very much on the same plane as the film, but rotated about 10 degrees anticlockwise, whereas the plane of the rock it's "on" looks as if it's tilted backward and toward the right of the camera's axis.  See my estimated grid pattern for the rock's planes.  To have the "C" align between the crosses and appear to be on the same plane as the film would be a stunning coincidence, if it was painted on the rock.

I also have a shot captioned "Charles Duke near Flag Crater.  Stone Mountain in the background, three miles away."  Copy also enclosed.  (Both of these photos came from astronomy magazines, so I don't know the NASA numbers.)  On the very bottom, centered below one set of vertical crosses, is the number "39" in very similar type to the "C", like an old typewriter or a rubber stamp, and again, on the same plane as the film.  It's definitely not painted on the moondust!

I have seen similar things happen to other films throughout my time in photography.  I got caught once by a batch of Ilford film which had patterns like tractor tyre marks on them.  They ruined my photos.

Is it the same photo, with the "C" on the rock, where the white piece on the Rover partly obscures the rangefinder cross?  If so, again it doesn't surprise me.  I don't know exactly how the crosses got on the film, because being transparency film they would be white if put there by a burst of light.  So I guess they are some sort of physical object which partially prevented light reaching the emulsion, or otherwise stopped the developer and/or bleach working, but I most suspect the former.  Anyway, what we're talking about is a highlight bleeding into a shadow, and that is quite common.
 
Will enclose a photo (No 854-2) I took of a friend against a window, with sunlit corrugated iron for a background.  Note the "corrugations" in the window frame on the right, and also that the frame is straight at the top where there is foliage and sky of medium tone.  The highlights actually bleed into the foreground shadows, partially "obscuring" them.  They also bleed into the brown fencepost at bottom left, just as the white bit on the Rover bleeds into the cross.

There are plenty of moon photos where highlights bleed into the crosses, and it also happened to photos taken from Skylab, where sunlit patches or even clouds on earth obliterated parts of the crosses.  For instance, in a shot of Jim Irwin tending the lunar rover with Mount Hadley in the background, five highlights on the Rover's aerial obliterate parts of one cross, and a specular highlight on another piece of the Rover wipes out one arm of another cross.

In the famous photo of Aldrin standing next to the LM with the landing probe in front of him, the large centre cross is just below his right knee and the edge of the picture just touches, or even cuts off, the top of his back pack.  Armstrong nearly screwed up that photo.  In one of my copies, the centre of the large cross is 147mm from the edge of the frame.  Therefore the 56mm square Hasselblad slide has been enlarged 5.25 times to 294mm square.  The centre cross is 22mm from point to point, the others half the size, and their arms are never thicker than half a millimetre.  This means the centre cross is 4.19mm point to point, the smaller ones 2.095mm, and their arms less than one-tenth of a millimetre thick on the film, so it's no wonder that highlights can creep around them.

You said that you don't wish to defend "Moongate" and I respect that, but must make some comments.  On first looking at it I went straight to the photos, and wondered why he printed so many that had in-camera flare because they were taken into the sunlight.

Another of my photos, 838-3, is the full moon over Lake Taupo, with Taupo township lit up at centre left, and the dot in the sky on the right is Jupiter.  Note the flare pattern that is similar to photo No 3 in "Moongate".  Nothing to do with any atmosphere at all -- simply an in-camera effect that almost anyone could produce, with or without an atmosphere.  It even occurs inside my eyeballs now that I'm over 40!  The flare produced by the over-exposed moon at the top bled right over into the film perforations, so the crosses being obliterated is no surprise to me.

Nearly all of William Brian's photos that he claims are evidence of atmosphere are simply examples of flare produced by either direct sunlight reaching the lens; overexposure; or chromatic aberration.

[SNIP technical stuff about lens flare and abberations]

Honestly, Rene, I was astounded at Brian's lack of knowledge of normal, everyday photographic principles, especially considering he's an engineer.  He could so easily learn about them at many camera stores or clubs or public libraries.  I'm not trying to deliberately destroy his work, but only arguing for a little common sense where it should be used.  More realism and less fantasy.  To me, it's idiotic to claim that flare is "proof" of an atmosphere.

Brian says that dust cannot exist in a vacuum, but what then are The Coalsack in Crux, the Horsehead Nebula in Orion, the Cone Nebula in Monoceros, and many other similar things out there?  Great clouds of dust in a vacuum!  What he possibly means is that dust will not float for long in a vacuum where there is gravity, and of course with no atmosphere it sticks together and compacts readily, which explains the footprints on the moon, without the need for moisture.

He makes some real nonsense statements, such as the one about Nansen sailing north for 15 days on page 139.  This means he either sailed a very short distance each day, or there was no pack ice that year, or he sailed towards the magnetic pole but not the north pole.  In fact, he drifted generally north-west and west, and at one stage got out of the "Fram" and walked toward the pole, so he couldn't have possibly sailed past it.  The lone star overhead had to be Polaris, and if Nansen actually sank into an opening in the earth, then obviously Polaris would have started sinking behind him, not staying "straight above."

Brian's "hole in the earth" in photo 17 is positioned over Greenland.  This can be checked on any globe, with your eye above the equator in Brazil.  Isn't Greenland a solid island?  The "hole" is merely an optical illusion.

Brian claims the moon has a dense atmosphere, so how does he account for grazing occultations, where stars blink off and on as they pass behind mountains and become exposed by valleys on the edge of the moon.  If there was an atmosphere, there would be a measurable decrease in the star's brilliance as the moon's limb neared it, but I've never heard of one.  Again, normal phenomena which he fails to explain.  Will enclose a chart of grazing occultations visible from New Zealand in 1994, which shows how common they are.  Track 3 on 4 March passed over us, but I missed it due to a cloudy sky.

I don't have the technical expertise to comment on everything in "Moongate", and it probably sounds quite plausible to many people, but from what I do understand the book seems to be either a hoax or to belong in the libraries of the flat earth folk.

There is a simple explanation for the extremely rounded hills and dust on the moon that I've never noticed in any books:  temperature changes.  Every gardener who has clayey soil knows to dig the garden in autumn and the winter frosts and sunshine will break up the clods.  It happens in areas like ours, where the temperatures only vary from about -3 to +10 degrees centigrade in winter.  So wouldn't the hundreds of degrees variation on the moon break down even rock?  The stresses must be enormous.

In the Nexus article there were two comments I feel are easily answered.  "The camera that recorded the blast-off [of the Apollo 16 ascent stage] panned upward to track the capsule.  Who operated the camera?"  Probably Ed Fendall back at Mission Control, who was responsible for the remote control of the Rover's TV camera.  See "A Man on the Moon", Andrew Chaikin, 1994, pages 487 & 522.  Fendall's camera movements were often about three seconds behind the action on the screen, because of the time it took for the signals to travel to earth then back to the moon, plus his reaction time.

"Many photographers point out the similarity to painted backdrops [in lunar photos]." There is one photo that is definitely airbrushed and that is the panoramic one that includes Schmitt next to the split boulder ("Moongate", photo 15) plus the Lunar Rover on the right.  The two separate frames required airbrushing to make up a single, composite picture.  But there are also reasons for the effect in unpainted photos.  With no recognisable reference points (cars, trees, houses), it's very hard to estimate the distance to the background in two-dimensional photographs.  Apparently Armstrong, Aldrin and others had the same problem, even with the benefit of viewing the real thing with stereoscopic vision.  Therefore, on a distant horizon, fine details such as small craters completely disappear, giving a much smoother "painted" look to the background.  Then there is the same bleeding problem mentioned above, where sunlit moon meets black sky, an in-camera effect which further confuses the eye.  Both of these effects produce many optical illusions where there are distant hills.

To illustrate, how far away is the township in my photo 838-3?  Probably a few miles, but without benefit of prior knowledge or a map, it's extremely hard to tell.  And how far away and how big is the mountain in 839-2?  That's Mount Ruapehu, the one that erupted recently, photographed under the same full moon on a beautiful late-summer evening.  The top is 13.5 km (8.3 miles) from the camera, and at least 1800 metres (5,900 feet) above it.  The left and right snowcapped peaks are about 4.8 km (3 miles) apart.  It looks much bigger in real life, due to my use of a 24mm wideangle lens.  Note the belt and sword of Orion (with the red Orion Nebula in the sword -- dust in a vacuum!) just above the snow, Sirius near top centre, and Procyon top right -- upside down compared with how you see them.

Your arguments about Apollo 13 are interesting.  My understanding of the free-return trajectory is that it was also called the "slingshot maneuver" because it was a fast and furious action carried out close to the moon's surface.  You say in your pamphlet that "...they would have run past the moon tens of thousands of miles before being pulled back."  I've never understood that to be the case.  The ICE craft did five loops around the moon before it went off to investigate Halley's comet, and each lunar flyby increased its velocity and changed its direction.  The last loop, on 23 December 1983, brought ICE within 62 miles of the Moon's surface.

Just before the explosion, Apollo 13 was not on the free-return trajectory but on the hybrid trajectory, because of intending to land in the west of the moon and away from the equator.  It set off from Earth on free return, but changed to hybrid during an early burn.  Much of this is explained on page 298 of "A Man on the Moon", but briefly, they had to do a burn after the explosion to get back onto free return, and therefore back to Earth, but DIDN'T HAVE TO DO A BURN BEHIND THE MOON.  It was called free return because a burn wasn't required.  Your pamphlet implies Apollo 13 had to do a burn to brake into Moon orbit, but it didn't.  According to all the texts I've read, the Moon alone flung it quickly back towards Earth.

In GOTCHA No. 4 you say NASA lied about doing a burn behind the Moon.  Surely they must do a burn BEHIND the Moon because of the craft doing about 5,200 miles per hour in one direction and the Moon doing 2,200 MPH in the opposite direction, otherwise the craft wouldn't be captured by the Moon's gravity and pulled into orbit because of the low escape velocity.  That's why free return is free.  No burn.  If they did a burn well away from the Moon where it would be visible from earth, they might simply crash onto the leading edge of the Moon.  The craft must be travelling nearly perpendicular to the Earth-Moon axis when it meets the Moon, because of their relative speeds in space, therefore it becomes tangential to the Moon BEHIND it along our line of sight.

Anyway, enough for now.  I'd probably buy your book if I was on an income, but about NZ$45 is out of reach right now.  I have to save for the operation to extract the amalgam.

Will also enclose a bit about how it's apparently easy to get NASA photos from Bara Studios in Bladensburg, MD, as long as you know the numbers.  Unfortunately, I've no idea where the article came from -- it was given to me my by a friend who now can't find his source.

Finally, will enclose the names of the craters in photo AS11-37-5437.  It's interesting to know that it's about 150km (93 miles) between Maskelyne on the right and Toricelli C on the left.  Tranquility Base is about 170km (105 miles) from Maskelyne.  Very hard to tell without any frame of reference.

Kind regards
[Kiwi]

Enclosures:
Article about Boron for treating arthritis
Copies of letters to newspapers
Photocopy of photo with "C"
Closeup of "C"
Photo with "39", Charles Duke near Flag Crater
Chart of grazing occultations visible from New Zealand in 1994
Article about NASA photos from Bara Studios
Names of craters in photo AS11-37-5437
Photo 838-3
Photo 839-2
Photo 854-2

« Last Edit: August 11, 2019, 04:32:34 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1508
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2019, 07:17:25 AM »
Anyway, do pay attention to anything old-time regular Jason Thompson says, because (1) he's a walking encyclopedia and (2) he lives in the UK so is much more polite than some members on the other side of the Atlantic. You might have already noticed that he hasn't insulted you in either of his posts.

Thank you, Kiwi, for your kind words. In an interestingly recursive quirk, I have to point out that much of my 'walking encyclopedia' credibility, as you put it, actually has resulted from the years I spent here, learning from, or being pointed to sources by, other regulars and experts such as Jay, sts60, and so on.

Taking this forum in its various forms, and my time on what is now Cosmoquest but was Bad Astronomy when I joined it, I've been doing this for about 17 years now. I've learned a hell of a lot in that time.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Donnie B.

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene books
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2019, 08:02:21 AM »
Quote
112>
...[feet per second]...  33 degrees...  600 feet, down at 19 [feet per second]...  540 feet, down at 30 [feet per second]...  down at 15...  400 feet, down at 9...  8 [degrees, pitched] forward...  350 [feet] down at 4...  330 [feet] 3½ down...  we're pegged on horizontal velocity...  300 [feet], down 3½...  47 [degrees] forward...  1½ down...  got the shadow [of the LM] out there...  down at 2½...  19 [pitch] forward...  altitude velocity lights...  3½ down, 220 feet...  13 [pitch] forward...  11 forward, coming down nicely...  200 feet, 4½ down...  5½ down...  160 [feet], 6½ down...  5½ down, 9 [pitch] forward...  5 per cent [descent engine thrust]...  75 feet, things looking good...  down a half, 6 [pitch] forward...'
   MCC:  '60 seconds.'  Aldrin:  'Down 2½...  forward...  forward...  good...  40 feet, down 2½...  picking up some dust...  30 feet, 2½ down...  faint shadow...  4 [pitch] forward...  4 [pitch] forward, drifting to the right a little...  6 [forward pitch], down a half.'
   MCC:  '30 seconds.'  Aldrin:  'Drifting right...  contact light [landing probes attached to three of the pads of the descent stage had touched the lunar surface, Armstrong counted one second and punched a button to cut the engine]...  OK, engine stop...'
   MCC:  'We copy you down, Eagle.' Armstrong:  'Houston, Tranquillity base here, the Eagle has landed.'  MCC:  'Roger, Tranquillity, we copy you on the ground.  You've got a bunch of guys about to turn blue.  We're breathing again.  Thanks a lot.'
   PAO:  We have an unofficial time for that touchdown: [GET] 102 hours: 45 minutes: 42 seconds [9.18 p.m. BST].
<112

It was an incredible privilege to be listening to that stuff live on the radio as it happened. Most of us were breathing very shallowly during the last few minutes.

I was watching on TV with my family.  I had no idea that the callouts "60 seconds" and "30 seconds" referred to fuel remaining -- I thought they were "time to touchdown".  So I wasn't anywhere near as worried as those guys in the MCC -- to me it sounded like everything was going fine!  I didn't even catch the full significance of the "about to turn blue" remark until later.