Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
So how did all these lunar orbiter data tapes get saved but the Apollo tapes were erased?

Bogus strawman argument.
Nobody is saying that *all* lunar orbiter tapes were saved.
Nobody is saying that *all* Apollo mission tapes were destroyed.

Except you, of course.

reply to post by alfa1


Thanks. I noticed you took a lot of effort to attack me and distort my statements but failed to put effort in offering any kind of useful explanation. I find it difficult to believe that Apollo tapes were recycled while this large quantify of McMoon tapes has been so safely and carefully preserved.

Think of how valuable those Apollo tapes would be today if we had them still to analyze... in the same that lunar scientists have been examining the moon rocks for the last 40 years. The tapes had the best TV quality TV pictures sent directly from the craft to Earth before transfer to Houston.

NASA claims that Lovell was so perfect in flying to the moon there was no need for some course corrections. And the destroyed telemetry tapes would have that information in them... so that astronautic students could re-create the flight path through and trajectory using the telemetry from the original tapes!

But science lost. The tapes are missing. The most valuable tapes in the world

The fact remains that NASA has no records of recycling these tapes so you can't say that NASA recycled them.
They are truly still missing and might actually still exist. Think about it!

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll

Originally posted by superman2012


Nevermind the fact that they achieved something that can't be done again, with today's technology.
Nevermind the fact that NASA Langley's chief scientist admits that, "how little we still know about the effects of cosmic radiation and zero gravity on the human body and mind, how we don't even have spacesuits that protect against radiation."
Nevermind that the astronots (pun intended) didn't even bother to look up at the stars. (as per an interview with them).
Nevermind that the Russians with all their successes, NEVER achieved a circumlunar manned flight.
Nevermind that, and other facts, and you can believe that they did.

Well said!

It seems governments think sheeple will believe anything.

oh and they "lost" the original moonwalk footage too.

how convenient.

maybe they buried it with stanley kubrick.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

The fact remains that NASA has no records of recycling these tapes so you can't say that NASA recycled them.
They are truly still missing and might actually still exist. Think about it!

So what's your point? Oh, have you found any independent third party confirmation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident yet? Remember, it can't come from government sources or the media, as we know everything they say is propaganda.

sayonara, did you click on the link ? what do you make of all of those sources that can independently confirm the apollo manned missions went to the moon ?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

By your argument these lunar orbiter tapes would have been recycled by normal procedures.

I am not stating an "argument". I worked directly with the Skylab downlink data in the form of 9-track masters. I wrote the software to strip data from the masters in order to write secondary masters. Then I ran the extraction process until I couldn't take it anymore. After that, I worked on software to study gyro drift.

Individual laboratories could save what they wanted since their copies were under their control. The analog tapes from the tracking stations were of no further use once they had been digitized and the data written to the masters. The 9-track masters were then used to produce tapes for the individual labs. Those secondary tapes contained only that data of interest to that laboratory. The 9-track masters were then placed in storage for a time in order to be sure the secondary tapes could be assimilated. Then they were taken back to the digitizing center for reuse.

That is where I worked during Skylab. There was no mandate to save those raw masters; and, they were coming in in very large and expensive quantities.

Apollo tapes were handled before I arrived. I am pretty sure there were no mandates to save the analog masters. The digitized tapes were in the hands of interested parties, each with their own rules for preserving originals.

Once the 9-track tape drives on computers disappeared, what would be the need to preserve 9-track tapes? Some have survived merely by chance caused by being locked up in buildings no longer in use.

Bear in mind, in all cases TRACKING data came in directly from the tracking stations. Computations were then performed in ordr to compute the location of the spacecraft. Tracking data from single disk stations had to paired in order to triangulate. Tracking data from dual or triple dish stations came in already correlated. Tracking data was used to compute corrective burns and to verify they were applied correctly. I don't know what the requirements were for saving that information; however, I have seen large "spread sheets" containing tracking points with corresponding "should have been" points.

NASA or the contractors did not destroy anything that was deemed to be important. They all played by the rules. I will attempt to find the retention rules ... but there is no guarentee that even those survived. Sometimes the significance of artifacts becomes apparent only after they have been gone a few years. I know I have thrown stuff away only to lament that years later. Crap! I used to have a Computer Automation LSI-2 and and LSI-4, and even a PDP-11. What I would give to have it now. I was even offered an IBM 1130 to keep. I'd love to have them, but they have all been destroyed.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Think of how valuable those Apollo tapes would be today if we had them still to analyze... in the same that lunar scientists have been examining the moon rocks for the last 40 years. The tapes had the best TV quality TV pictures sent directly from the craft to Earth before transfer to Houston.

Nobody can deny that those tapes would be very valuble right now. That is a problem in hindsight. Engineers and scientists engaged in a particular problem aren't prone to think of the historical value of intermediate works. It never occured to anyone that they'd have to prove that the landings actually occured. For those working on the project it was all so "in your face".

I know for a fact that enourmous amounts of documentation was discarded. I saw a collection of Apollo documentation at Huntsville that was in a room the size of a basketball court; and, the shelves were close together. That material included specifications, requests for proposals, proposals, preliminary designs through mature designs, and pert charts. All of that was just for the Saturn V rocket and did not include the command module, LM, and so on. It was all destroyed later on because there was no mandate to preserve it and the space was needed for new projects. Engineers and scientists rarely think of the historical significance of anything. If some outside authority did not mandate that something be save, it just wasn't.

I haven't been able to find detailed designs of specific vacuum tubes. It seems that such documentation in the US has been destroyed ... and those were made by technical companies just like those that contracted for Apollo.

It is sad, but the data was destroyed. Much of the documentation now displayed on those web sites I linked apparently comes from private individuals who kept copies. More important materials come from NASA archives, such as they exist.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

The fact remains that NASA has no records of recycling these tapes so you can't say that NASA recycled them.

I can say that because I handled them. They were send back for reuse. Have you ever worked in a data center that used 9-track tapes? I surely did: IBM 360/370, Univac 1108, CDC 7600, CDC 8600, SEL 810, SEL 840, XDS Sigma 7, XDS Sigma 9. I worked in both commercial and scientific data centers ... all "hands on". Tapes were routinely reused.

From the NSA and CIA: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

The fact remains that NASA has no records of recycling these tapes so you can't say that NASA recycled them.

How can you say this as "the fact remains"? Did you query NASA in that regard? Please post how you know this is a fact.

If NASA indeed keeps records of recycling tapes, then they would have records regarding the existance of the tapes. Please post the NASA SOP that details retention rules. NASA did have retention rules regarding physical artifacts and retention/recycle records. Even the recycling records had expiration dates.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

The fact remains that NASA has no records of recycling these tapes so you can't say that NASA recycled them.

I found this little gem: NPR: Tapes were reused re NASA

Tapes were often reused based solely on the origination data or the expiration date without regard for content. We stored Skylab tapes in truck trailers for lack of anywhere else to keep them. Tapes really had to be stored under specific temperature and humidity ranges. Any tapes still in trailers or unused buildings are "goners".

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

The fact remains that NASA has no records of recycling these tapes so you can't say that NASA recycled them.

I found this little gem: NPR: Tapes were reused re NASA

Tapes were often reused based solely on the origination data or the expiration date without regard for content. We stored Skylab tapes in truck trailers for lack of anywhere else to keep them. Tapes really had to be stored under specific temperature and humidity ranges. Any tapes still in trailers or unused buildings are "goners".

It's a an excellent article! That articles says "probably destroyed". But this article doesn't mention the effort made by the Australians from Parkes...

No - the tapes were not re-used or re-cycled. Stan Lebar, Westinghouse employee who helped build the lunar camera might believe that. Richard Nafzger, Goddard's Tv expert might believe that.

The tapes are actually STILL MISSING somewhere between the National Archives and Goddard.

7. A subsequent search by Goddard found no record of Goddard having received these tapes back from the National Archives, nor any record of disposition of these tapes or any reference to the subject Accession. However, the National Record Center at the National Archives has formal records that attest to the fact that all of the many hundreds of tape boxes which had been listed in Accession #69A4099 had been returned to Goddard at Goddard's request for permanent retention. Source www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

The fact remains that NASA has no records of recycling these tapes so you can't say that NASA recycled them.
They are truly still missing and might actually still exist. Think about it!

So what's your point? Oh, have you found any independent third party confirmation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident yet? Remember, it can't come from government sources or the media, as we know everything they say is propaganda.

edit on 2-10-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to repair grammar.

Gulf of Tonkin, as you know, was an exaggeration. The judgement and motivations of the government at the time of that incident must be considered objectively. Please refer to Robert S McNamara's mea culpa - The Fog of War. A lot of the people around LBJ at this time were hammering on about the Reds, the Commies, the Domino Effect. Tonkin was the pretext for a massive foreign intervention. What was the objective of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? To give LBJ all the authority he needed for /// military escalation /// on a tiny sliver of the globe located in SE Asia.

Just a few years before Ike left the country a tv message like 'I am trying to warn you all about the Military Industrial Complex' in his farewell speech. I paraphrased. Apparently, LBJ didn't catch that speech.

Even George Washington, US first president, gave a warning in his farewell speech 'do not get embroiled of foreign interventions'. I paraphrased, again.

McNamara lived a long ass life. He lived a lot longer than those names on The Wall. Like Nixon says to Kissinger "Think Big!".

The internet you are typing on today was designed, prototyped and built by the Military Industrial Complex. It represents the power to kill presidents, to assassinate foreign leaders; it represent the moneyed interests determined to exercise that power by dropping more tonnage of bombs on North Viet Nam than was dropped by the Allies throughout the entire 2nd World War.

That's a fact I gathered from Robert S McNamara's Fog of War. I highly recommend this video to anyone interested in the 1960's, Apollo, NASA, Viet Nam, Communism or the Space Race.
It is really required viewing because it is first hand from the man himself.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


In other words, no. Robert MacNamara cannot be trusted. All you're doing is spewing out the Gospel According Ellesberg. No independent third party confirmation; no physical evidence. Not even any photographs. Yet still you believe.

Stanley Kubrick may have directed the faked moon landings. It's evidenced by the use of Front Screen Projection according to the author. It's a must see and must read because there are pictures and information about how to recognize Front Screen Projection (which technology has now eclipsed). See the link below the quoted text for the full article.

Why would Kubrick be willing to do this?

No one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley to cooperate. Kubrick also had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty negotiator. It would have been very interesting to be a fly on the wall during the negotiations between Kubrick and NASA. In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey; and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life. Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted.

Reality Sandwich Article

Originally posted by iNkGeEk
What would TPTB gain by faking the moon landing? I never understood that. Isn't the fact that we have shot people into space on multiple occasions enough proof that we would be able to go to the moon? And if the moon landings were faked, how about the Mars Rover? Do you think that was faked too??

But why fake the moon landings at all? What would be the motivation? Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in order to build these highly advanced flying machines. Furthermore, they believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this technology.

Source

That's a pretty good answer! They extrapolate further in the article....

Originally posted by RainbeauBleu
In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Now this doesnt even make any sense.
Work on the movie started in 1964.
Filming started in 1965.
Initial budget a mere 6.0 million dollars.
Finished and released in 1968.

Moon landings didnt take place until 1969.
How on earth could the movie be regarded as somekind of reward for moon landing work which didnt finish until 1972?

reply to post by RainbeauBleu

Why would Kubrick be willing to do this?

Why would this need to be done? Nobody yet has even postulated on why the landings were not technically feasable. If you can't demonstrate a flaw in the Apollo program that prevented the flights and landings, you have no hoax.

reply to post by alfa1

Initial budget a mere 6.0 million dollars.

It ended up costing 10.5 million and it was one of the more expensive movies made at the time in history.

wow

hoaxers really don't like third party confirmation sources !!!!! it shoots the whole hoax to pieces !!!!

the best part of these moon threads is I actually learn stuff, like the selene mission. the selene mission was able to document the same landscape apollo 15 photographed. that kubrick is a clever fellow !!!

SELENE photographs
In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[20] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3-D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 meters.

The light-coloured area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of manned landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo Program.

.

link to view the photos

Regarding this statement - "No independent third party confirmation; no physical evidence. Not even any photographs. Yet still you believe." You have to wonder just how much anyone does believe it as a fact. Hypotheses lead to theories which suggest a possibility, more belief leads to a minimal probability, and more belief yet again leads to a preponderance of the evidence, which means now your belief has exceeded your doubt - "it is more likely than not", and more belief leads to clear and convincing evidence, more belief leads to "beyond a reasonable doubt" and finally, at some point, you believe beyond all doubt. So, the real question is - how much is your belief that we landed on the moon? If you believe beyond all doubt, you'd bet your life - or your wife or kids life on it. If you believe beyond clear and convincing evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, then you would not take that bet with a life, and by definition, you are a doubter because you don't believe 100%. Believers and non-believers need to start stating just how much each believes we went to to the moon.