Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter

About the "seven Hasselblads". I made that graphic illustration to point out that Apollo Defenders do not know the final disposition of many Apollo Hasselblad cameras.

And neither do you.

All or nothing? Would you mind offering us your humble opinion on the Apollo 12 70mm catalogs? Or will you be relying on expert witness source material for that?

And what would make your opinion on them worth anything?

onebigmonkey

SayonaraJupiter

About the "seven Hasselblads". I made that graphic illustration to point out that Apollo Defenders do not know the final disposition of many Apollo Hasselblad cameras.

And neither do you.

All or nothing? Would you mind offering us your humble opinion on the Apollo 12 70mm catalogs? Or will you be relying on expert witness source material for that?

And what would make your opinion on them worth anything?

As far as i am concerned these are one of the most silly answers i ever watched. Cheers onebigmonkey.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Rob48

 

About the "seven Hasselblads". I made that graphic illustration to point out that Apollo Defenders do not know the final disposition of many Apollo Hasselblad cameras. They try to dispute this, but in actuality, the camera counts are important. The camera counts are important because it illustrates the ignorance of certain Apollo Defenders with regard to provenance of the negatives which are claimed to be taken using some of these missing cameras.

What "missing cameras"?? There is no secret about what cameras were taken on Apollo 12. As I said, four of the seven were fixed as a block to form the multispectral camera experiment. Two were on the LM for surface activities. The remaining one was in the command module and was used to record the TLI, separation and lunar orbit.

Why are you suggesting there is some secrecy or mystery over this? Look here - this is an excerpt of the press kit issued to the media before the damn thing even took off! It was all totally as planned, no secrecy, no cover-up, no confusion:



"Still and motion pictures will be made of most spacecraft maneuvers, crew lunar surface activities, and mapping photos from orbital altitude". Goodness me — that's exactly what the 70mm catalogue contains! It's almost as if the crew followed their mission objectives! Incredible!

So about those 7 cameras. I know that the two LM cameras were left on the surface, as all 12 of them used on the moon were, in order to save weight in the ascent stage. I neither know nor care what happened to the other five camera bodies, because that is not at all relevant to the film magazines that came from them and which are, as you like to remind us, still at the Johnson Space Centre to this day. A little over 10 years ago I went on a six-month trip around the world. I came back with almost 10,000 digital photos. The old digital camera I used to take them broke a few years back, and was horribly outdated anyway. I threw it out. Does that mean all the photos I took are now fake? Does that mean I never saw that total eclipse in Australia, or the temples of Angkor Wat, or whales in New Zealand?

If you are really that bothered about the whereabouts of the four S-158 Hasselblads and the single command module one, then why don't you get in touch with Dave Williams at NASA in Greenbelt, Maryland? I gave you his contact details a page or two back. Frankly, I wouldn't trouble him with a query about some camera bodies which have no relevance to the images themselves, but you knock yourself out and let us know his response.

All or nothing? Would you mind offering us your humble opinion on the Apollo 12 70mm catalogs? Or will you be relying on expert witness source material for that?

I am quite happy to state my 100% confident opinion that every image in said catalogue is 100% genuine. As shown above they are exactly what you would expect to see returned from the planned Apollo 12 mission: "pictures will be made of most spacecraft maneuvers, crew lunar surface activities, and mapping photos from orbital altitude"

If I believed in God then I would swear on the bible like old Bart himself. Instead as a realist/materialist I'll say I would happily bet my house on it. As a scientist I cannot conceive of a method that would produce those images, images that pass every scrutiny and every test even after almost 45 years, without humans flying to the moon. Cannot be done.

Audio feed from Houston control

www.firstmenonthemoon.com...

reply to post by xavi1000


Thanks for that.

While I've heard most of that before, I really liked the way the information was presented on that website. That's really great stuff! I bookmarked that website for my listening pleasure.


I knew the details of the story of the 1202 (and 1201) alarms, but to hear the call-outs for those alarms in real-time and in the context of the entire landing was interesting, especially the apparent confidence in the flight controllers' knowledge of the systems -- which was displayed in how calmly they reacted to the 1202s.

From what I read on the subject, Steve Bales (the flight controller responsible for guidance systems during the landing) trusted in the knowledge of one of his young engineers (24-year old Jack Garman) who said the 1202 was OK, even before Bales himself knew what the 1202 alarm even was.

The alarm was telling them that the guidance computer was experiencing an "executive overflow", which meant it could not keep up with all of the tasks at hand, and was dumping some of those tasks. If the guidance computer got TOO overwhelmed, it may start dropping critical tasks, which may have led to a landing abort (i.e., they would not land on the Moon). It was this 24-year old Garman who recognized that no critical tasks were being dumped, and they were go for landing, despite the alarm.

You could say it was pretty ballsy for a 24-year old, but that apparent "ballsiness" is probably attributable to his knowledge of the system and the potential alarms, and the confidence he had in his own knowledge.

The cause of the alarms was not known by the team at the time, but it seems that the rendezvous radar was on (it didn't need to be -- not during landing) as well as the landing radar. The guidance computer was receiving information from BOTH radars, even though it really only needed to receive information from the landing radar. The guidance computer got a bit overworked while trying to process the information from the two radars, and thus began dumping non-critical tasks. Luckily, the software was smart enough to know that it could dump non-critical tasks, and it was specifically written this way because the software writers knew the guidance computer was not terribly powerful, and may need to dump minor tasks that were not mission-critical.

reply to post by Rob48


You probably missed it but SJ got all excited by a lunar Hasselblad being put up for auction, identified as a lunar Hasselblad used by Jim Irwin because of the number engraved on the glass plate in the back along with the crosses. It was then discovered (by me as it happens) that Dave Scott's camera also made it back from the lunar surface. There is considerable dispute over the authenticity of Irwin's camera, but it still sold for a ridiculous amount of money.

Irwin's camera was instructed to be returned because it malfunctioned. Scott's camera return was unofficial. Alan Shepard's camera was also brought back under instruction. Gene Cernan's camera was also found to have been returned, again identified by the engraved number on the plate on photographs taken after TEI, despite his recollection that he left it on the LRV.

So while officially the majority of cameras were dumped, some astronauts made the executive decision that it would be a shame to leave such a nice souvenir. Personally this doesn't surprise me in the least, nor do I blame them. Anyone who says that they wouldn't at least have been tempted to do the same is a liar.

SJ initially made big strawman capital over the fact that Irwin's camera was missing after its return and examination to see what went wrong with it. This turned into SJ making big strawman capital out of it not being missing. This is a nice twist on the propaganda technique of 'transfer'.

Apparently it is deeply suspicious that there are cameras, whichever way you look at it, but he can not account for the accurate pictures of Earth and moon in the photographs those cameras took.

SJ also likes to make a strawman big deal over Apollo astronauts making money from things. Apparently he objects to people being rewarded for risking their lives. NASA didn't pay that well and the pension isn't great. Again, I defy anyone to say that they would not try and make some money out of doing something remarkable with their lives if they could.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


This is another aspect to the comment made by Mattingly I mentioned earlier. That 24 year old German was trusted in his judgement, He was trusted because everyone in the program knew their job backwards, forwards and sideways, and Flight knew that he was getting the right answer when he asked the question.

Mattingly described how this was all a direct result of Chris Kraft's leadership, who decided after difficulties on John Glenn's historical orbital flight in a Mercury capsule that not knowing all the answers to problems that could have been predicted was a bad thing. He effectively designed mission procedures and control room structures still in use today.

Landing on the moon was not a happy accident, it required huge teams of people to know exactly what they were doing and what that meant for what everyone else was doing. That's why they couldn't have faked it.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

Thanks for all the info - really interesting stuff. Would they really have thought to include all these little facets of human interest in a hoax?

choos
why is that?? you feel good now that you can gloat about how i made a mistake?? well heres your next chance..

show me how slowing down the footage 1.5x can get lunar dust to fall and behave according to lunar gravity.. go on continue to make a fool of me, it will make you feel great..

prove your theory, if you believe 100% that its slowed 1.5x then you should have no problem proving the dust falls too fast to everyone else.. and at the same time make me look more of a fool, i encourage it educate me please.

I'm not gloating about a mistake you made.

I'm gloating about a mistake you made up.


The Mythbusters jump was accepted as 'a jump on Earth, using ropes', within our debate.

You now claim it is not acceptable, which is fine.

The problem - you have not shown any proof whatsoever for that claim.

I see no ropes interfering with his jump.


So far, you have no excuse to dismiss it.

What proof is there, if any?

turbonium1

I'm not gloating about a mistake you made.

I'm gloating about a mistake you made up.


The Mythbusters jump was accepted as 'a jump on Earth, using ropes', within our debate.

You now claim it is not acceptable, which is fine.

The problem - you have not shown any proof whatsoever for that claim.

the mistake i made was assuming the ropes would NOT interfere with the mythbusters jump.. therefore thinking it would be fine comparing john youngs jump at 2.46x with mythbusters at 1x..

after calculating how high the mythbusters should jump at 1x speed showed me that they were in the air for far too long..

i have shown you the calculations for that already.. shall i show you again??



remember this picture?? from 24 time 0.8seconds to frame 38 time 1.267seconds

therefore it takes the mythbusters 0.467seconds to fall from that height.. we can estimate that height by the usual equation

h=0.5 x 9.81 x 0.467^2
h=1.07m

and to me that looks no where near 1m at best its maybe 60cm.. that is when i realised i was wrong with assuming that the ropes did not interfere with the mythbusters jump..

and i have shown you multiple time that john youngs jump is displaying lunar gravity, there would be no reason for NASA not to do this given how much effort they put in to fake it..

so how can i possibly compare a natural jump with a jump that has interference from ropes knowingly??

I see no ropes interfering with his jump.

So far, you have no excuse to dismiss it.

What proof is there, if any?

i already have shown you multiple times but you were too busy trying to sidetrack it.. ive posted it above again anyway..
does the mythbusters jump 1m into the air?? no they dont, therefore it proves the ropes have interefered with his jump..

and yet you STILL continue to ignore the lunar dust.

why dont you ask your hero JW how he explains the dust falling at lunar gravity IF the footage was slowed 67%

reply to post by turbonium1

The problem - you have not shown any proof whatsoever for that claim.

And you have shown no proof whatsoever for this claim. You are not impressing anyone with your gibberish.

Rob48
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

Thanks for all the info - really interesting stuff. Would they really have thought to include all these little facets of human interest in a hoax?

I agree. There is so much to absorb and mull over when it comes to the Apollo narrative.

I have found that for typical hoax proponents, along with many if not the majority of members on this site, the enactment of 'confirmation bias' is a critical driving force in how information is handled. That is, that any and all information not pertinent to, and not supportive of, their stance/worldview/beliefs is summarily dismissed, ignored and considered irrelevant.

For me this is a symptom of the modern internet age we live in. Watching a youtube video is far more attractive than reading a book from cover to cover, in fact, from my own personal experience, the conspiracy prone people that I know personally are people who do not read books, by their own admissions, what does that tell you?

It tells me that the moon hoax myth will probably be around for a long time to come.

seabhac-rua

Rob48
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

Thanks for all the info - really interesting stuff. Would they really have thought to include all these little facets of human interest in a hoax?

I agree. There is so much to absorb and mull over when it comes to the Apollo narrative.

I have found that for typical hoax proponents, along with many if not the majority of members on this site, the enactment of 'confirmation bias' is a critical driving force in how information is handled. That is, that any and all information not pertinent to, and not supportive of, their stance/worldview/beliefs is summarily dismissed, ignored and considered irrelevant.

For me this is a symptom of the modern internet age we live in. Watching a youtube video is far more attractive than reading a book from cover to cover, in fact, from my own personal experience, the conspiracy prone people that I know personally are people who do not read books, by their own admissions, what does that tell you?

It tells me that the moon hoax myth will probably be around for a long time to come.

Theres probably still people that think the earth is the center of the universe as well. Trying to get people to see reality can be a useless endeavor at times. But the trick is not to allow their misconceptions to spread to others precisely because of the internet people are easy to manipulate. I could convince someone the moon is a prop created by aliens through a video and merely an illusion. And of course i would get some to believe me the problem is most people today have a limited understanding of science we consider it normal or mundane it use to interest people. But people arent amazed any more its just now commonplace meaning they dont even take the time to learn about it unless its on TV or a video.

dragonridr
Theres probably still people that think the earth is the center of the universe as well. Trying to get people to see reality can be a useless endeavor at times. But the trick is not to allow their misconceptions to spread to others precisely because of the internet people are easy to manipulate. I could convince someone the moon is a prop created by aliens through a video and merely an illusion. And of course i would get some to believe me the problem is most people today have a limited understanding of science we consider it normal or mundane it use to interest people. But people arent amazed any more its just now commonplace meaning they dont even take the time to learn about it unless its on TV or a video.

Dragon, you said that it's easy to trick people on the internet and then you claimed you could trick people using moon props.
You said that "people today" have "limited understanding of science" and stated that people "learn... on TV or a video."

Welcome to Nixon's Apollo. You have unintentionally discovered the premise of the Nixon-Apollo conspiracy theory... people are stupid and they will believe anything they see on television.

SayonaraJupiter

Dragon, you said that it's easy to trick people on the internet and then you claimed you could trick people using moon props.
You said that "people today" have "limited understanding of science" and stated that people "learn... on TV or a video."

Welcome to Nixon's Apollo. You have unintentionally discovered the premise of the Nixon-Apollo conspiracy theory... people are stupid and they will believe anything they see on television.

he said he could trick some not all ie. the gullible, the stupid

NOT everyone.. you are suggesting that Nixon and Hughes both tricked the entire world every living person for the last 40+ years and counting.. not just the simpletons, but the thousands of engineers and scientists involved in the program and future engineers and scientists that design and build spacecraft

and yet Nixon couldnt even hide a simple break in..

SayonaraJupiter

Welcome to Nixon's Apollo. You have unintentionally discovered the premise of the Nixon-Apollo conspiracy theory... people are stupid and they will believe anything they see on television.

Your argument might make the teensiest shred of sense if it was only shown on TV and there wasn't also great box loads of primary evidence as well. Come on, you're just being silly now. If the only evidence for the moon landings was a few TV broadcasts then nobody would believe it. I certainly wouldn't.

However, once you add in the thousands of photos, hours of video, crates full of rock, independent monitoring of telemetry, the fact that the equipment and soil disturbances are still visible on the lunar surface, not to mention many thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that make use of data gathered on the missions... I think that for anyone interested in the landings above a level of "Oh that's cool... now is the ball game on the other side?" the TV coverage is irrelevant.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


No i discovered some people prefer to believe a video instead of the science involved present company included. You want to attack the videos fine but the problem is theres scientific research been done. All that stuff that went to the moon had to be designed and had to work. Dont you think if NASA truly faked it some really smart scientist would have caught them its been 50 years. The problem is there data checks out including pictures taken on the moon itself.We now have probes that gave us detailed terrain maps of the moon something they couldn't do during apollo. And guess what there pictures exactly match the terrain. You really have to be an idiot not to realize theres no way they could have faked it in fact would have been harder to fake it. Even with todays technology we couldnt fake a moon landing and have it hold up 50 years. Because as they say the devil is in the details.

choos

SayonaraJupiter

Dragon, you said that it's easy to trick people on the internet and then you claimed you could trick people using moon props.
You said that "people today" have "limited understanding of science" and stated that people "learn... on TV or a video."

Welcome to Nixon's Apollo. You have unintentionally discovered the premise of the Nixon-Apollo conspiracy theory... people are stupid and they will believe anything they see on television.

he said he could trick some not all ie. the gullible, the stupid

NOT everyone.. you are suggesting that Nixon and Hughes both tricked the entire world every living person for the last 40+ years and counting.. not just the simpletons, but the thousands of engineers and scientists involved in the program and future engineers and scientists that design and build spacecraft

and yet Nixon couldnt even hide a simple break in..

Choos, you make the same mistake (as many people do) with regard to Richard Nixon... you discount his important role in the Apollo/Space Race narratives. Generally, when people think of Richard Nixon they immediately think about shudder Watergate. You underestimated RN because you don't know anything about him except for the Watergate Affair.

Most people forget that RN was vice-president for 8 years under Ike. Most people forget how quickly RN rose to power '46-'60 and the things he had to do to get that power.



Well, this thread has been a real disclosure for Apollo Defenders, hasn't it? There is more to RN than Watergate... just like there is more to Apollo narrative than meets the eye. There is also more to story of Surveyor than the Apollo Defenders care to admit.

And there is more Alan Shepard, first American in space, also the first American millionaire in space. Look at that. Shepard is a wealthy "investor" who "invests" in banks.

Later, Shepard would have a miraculous, secret operation on his ear canal that would "cure" his labyrinthitis,

the ear syndrome that grounded him 7 years earlier.


Stanley Kubrick had planted this labyrinth in his film adaptation of Stephen King's "The Shining". I think it is a significant metaphor for the to Apollo Narratives... because the Apollo narratives are labyrinthine... the provenance of the evidence is labyrinthine, the procedures for screening astronauts was labyrinthine... and the Howard Hughes production of Richard Nixon's Apollo was not any different.

reply to post by Rob48

Your argument might make the teensiest shred of sense if it was only shown on TV and there wasn't also great box loads of primary evidence as well.

Are you referring to the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes that were assembled into the National Archives on Accession #69A4099. Are you referring to the 700+ boxes of of Apollo telemetry tapes that were requested by Goddard but never made it to Goddard?

SayonaraJupiter

Choos, you make the same mistake (as many people do) with regard to Richard Nixon... you discount his important role in the Apollo/Space Race narratives. Generally, when people think of Richard Nixon they immediately think about shudder Watergate. You underestimated RN because you don't know anything about him except for the Watergate Affair.

Most people forget that RN was vice-president for 8 years under Ike. Most people forget how quickly RN rose to power '46-'60 and the things he had to do to get that power.

if he was so smart and had such an important role that he could hide a hoax that thousands of engineers and scientists are directly involved in, yet were completely oblivious to or were kept silent..

how did the watergate scandal come about??

the scandal has much much much less people involved and therefore much easier to hide much less people to keep silent.. but it still gets leaked??

you are painting two pictures of Nixon.. one with God-like powers and the other a bumbling oaf.. which one is he?