Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Misinformation

Ah, we love YouTube videos posted without comment!

Other than a couple of photographs of astronauts, what on Earth is the relevance of that video of Nixon and Khrushchev speaking in 1959 to Apollo?

Let me guess: because Nixon said in 1959 that Russia was ahead of the USA in rocketry, but the USA was ahead of Russia in colour televsion, that means that 10 years later the USA used TV trickery to fake a moon landing?

Well, you can't argue with logic like that!

Of course, if you look at the three posts directly above yours, you will see lots of photos that were quite clearly taken by astronauts standing on the moon.

At least nobody can accuse you of misleading anyone with your choice of username.

originally posted by: Rob48
...Let me guess: because Nixon said in 1959 that Russia was ahead of the USA in rocketry, but the USA was ahead of Russia in colour televsion, that means that 10 years later the USA used TV trickery to fake a moon landing?...

The U.S. probably was behind the Soviets in rocketry, but rocketry alone is not enough to get someone to the Moon.

The Soviets may have had better German rocket scientists than the U.S. had (overall), which allowed them to get payloads and humans into Low Earth Orbit before the U.S. could do so, but the U.S. had better engineering and better engineering ideas once we get passed the former German V2 Rocket scientists that both sides had.

The U.S. got to the moon first because of better space suits, better guidance computers, and better engineering and fabrication methods that allowed the U.S. to build equipment that would do the job for far less payload weight.

While the Russians were trying to build an N1 rocket that could (with sheer power and force) get their relatively heavy hardware to the Moon, the U.S. was developing ways through better engineering approaches and better ideas, better fabrication methods, and better material science that allowed their hardware (along with the required life-support systems) to be lighter -- which allowed the less powerful Saturn V Launch vehicle to be able to do the required lifting of that hardware.

The Russians, on the other hand, required the more powerful N1 to do the lifting of their Moon hardware -- but they could not perfect the design of that perhaps too-ambitiously powerful N1 rocket. While the Russians were trying to get to the moon through the brute force of a more powerful heavy lift vehicle, the U.S. did so with finesse and a less powerful heavy lift vehicle.

So, yeah -- the Soviet Russians' German V2 Rocket scientists did a better job at getting Russia into space first, but the overall better engineering infrastructure of the U.S. did a better job at getting the U.S. to the Moon first.

originally posted by: Misinformation
Howard Hughes acquired control of TWA in 1939

Very nice I like those posters!

One year before, in July of 1938, Howard Hughes made a world record round the world airplane trip using top secret military navigation equipment, which he referred to as a robot.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

which he referred to as a robot

Did he? I don't see quotation marks round that part of the text, so that is the reporter's description, not Hughes's.

Seems to me that is just a rather quaint description of an autopilot, which was certainly in use in the 1930s. And hardly "top-secret" given that Hughes used basically the same Sperry gyro-pilot system used by Wiley Post seven years earlier! (A fairly detailed description if the system and its history is given in Popular Aviation magazine, May 1939.)


Googling "howard hughes robot" with no idea of the context will get you nowhere.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Wow im impressed i know that took a while so im going to just say wow.

a reply to: dragonridr

Thanks Not why I do it, but it's always nice to get some acknowledgement!

It's worth making a few observations about it - I've made them before but they tend to get lost in arguments about dead presidents.

Firstly, this is all from public domain material, and material that has been in the public domain for decades. I have an actual copy of Apollo 17's Preliminary Science report with these panoramas in. You can see exactly the same rocks in them as you can in the modern scans. Likewise copies of Life Magazine, National Gepgraphic and so on and so on. Because it is all public domain, anyone can prove what I've done to be incorrect. It's a verifiable and repeatable exercise. No-one has ever come forward and said "that rock isn't there" or "that crater is in the wrong place". Why? Because they can't.

Secondly, the science deniers out there who claim that the Apollo hardware and tracks have been somehow photoshopped into LRO images of the landing sites have to come up with some pretty convoluted, not to say stupid, explanations as to how small rocks and craters are visible exactly where they should be. If a feature is big enough to be resolved by the LRO, it will be there in every LRO image, exactrly where it should be.

Thirdly, the Apollo mission planners and astronauts had no idea about these smaller details. Yes on Apollo 17 they had an idea of larger features, and they knew about the boulder trails, but this was mostly thanks to overflights by previous Apollo missions. The lunar orbiter probes did not cover Taurus Littrow in anything like the detail that the LRO now shows. Previous missions are covered in higher resolution by the Lunar Orbiters, but even those aren't good enough to show the same level of detail. So, if it was all some massive sound stage, how did they know where to put the rocks? Hint to science deniers: the second you have to use the words "secret probe", you've lost.

The attention is always on the hardware, and photographs of astronauts and the hardware. Just like the weather satellite photographs I've looked at, the devil for deniers is in the detail of the other things.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
I was also recently looking at this page showing a detailed photogrammetrist analysis of the Apollo 11 landing site.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Yes, it is hosted on the NASA ALSJ website, but it was not created by NASA employees. (And, like OBM's example above, it could be tested and recreated by anybody using public domain data.)

originally posted by: Rob48
Googling "howard hughes robot" with no idea of the context will get you nowhere.

Don't worry Rob. I'll get that for you!

“While the Hughes flight is a remarkable tribute to powerful and reliable motors,” noted the July 23, 1938 Science News Letter, “it is to this robot navigation computer that much of the success of the flight is credited. No matter how well a plane may fly, or how easily, it matters little if the navigators cannot, at all times, exactly fix the plane’s position and plot the proper direction over distances of thousands of miles.”

www.airspacemag.com...

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
That's the navigation system. The "robot control" you mentioned refers to the gyro-pilot system.

(And neither of these are "top secret", given that details of both were published at the time.)

Remind me again what exactly 1930s aircraft equipment has to do with the Apollo programme? Even with Maxson's "ingenious latitude and longitude computer" I'm a bit lost here.

originally posted by: Rob48

Remind me again what exactly 1930s aircraft equipment has to do with the Apollo programme? Even with Maxson's "ingenious latitude and longitude computer" I'm a bit lost here.

it has the words "robot" and "howard hughes" in it..

what this means for sayonara is absolute proof they used super advanced transforming bipedal/tracked mobots with invisibility cloaks to setup the lunar landscape in place of the actual astronauts knowing that the landing sites would be photographed, and come 40 years later to send the LROC up only to photoshop said landscape..

originally posted by: choos

it has the words "robot" and "howard hughes" in it..

Well, quite.

SJ, I think you need to understand that in the 20s and 30s, "robot" was something of a buzzword. Journalists used it to describe all sorts of automated systems. It doesn't mean that Howard Hughes had one of these in the cockpit:

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Rob48

Remind me again what exactly 1930s aircraft equipment has to do with the Apollo programme? Even with Maxson's "ingenious latitude and longitude computer" I'm a bit lost here.

it has the words "robot" and "howard hughes" in it..

what this means for sayonara is absolute proof they used super advanced transforming bipedal/tracked mobots with invisibility cloaks to setup the lunar landscape in place of the actual astronauts knowing that the landing sites would be photographed, and come 40 years later to send the LROC up only to photoshop said landscape..

Da da da. Absolut. Vodka. 100 proof. What is the Russian word for "worker"? eh Choos?

Do you think that history is concrete? It's a common mistake of many of those associated with defending the concrete (sometimes marble) slab of official history. And that's why God made jack hammers AND vodka.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Rob48

Remind me again what exactly 1930s aircraft equipment has to do with the Apollo programme? Even with Maxson's "ingenious latitude and longitude computer" I'm a bit lost here.

it has the words "robot" and "howard hughes" in it..

what this means for sayonara is absolute proof they used super advanced transforming bipedal/tracked mobots with invisibility cloaks to setup the lunar landscape in place of the actual astronauts knowing that the landing sites would be photographed, and come 40 years later to send the LROC up only to photoshop said landscape..

Da da da. Absolut. Vodka. 100 proof. What is the Russian word for "worker"? eh Choos?

Do you think that history is concrete? It's a common mistake of many of those associated with defending the concrete (sometimes marble) slab of official history. And that's why God made jack hammers AND vodka.

Since we cant go back in the past and change it id say its concrete at least until Howard Hughes invents a time machine. Thats part of the problem you have you think by merely making statements based on nothing more than your assertions in some way shape of form changes the past despite all the evidence to the contrary. One thing is always true in life you cant change the past you just have to learn to live with it.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: choos

it has the words "robot" and "howard hughes" in it..

Well, quite.

SJ, I think you need to understand that in the 20s and 30s, "robot" was something of a buzzword. Journalists used it to describe all sorts of automated systems. It doesn't mean that Howard Hughes had one of these in the cockpit:

++ on the image.

We reached 250+ pages of historical review Rob! Yes ,we all probably need to take a big shot of vodka and have a good laugh about it now. It seems that Apollo is a small subject on ATS but it's always good to find excellent posters, like yourself and so many others, who take the time to share what they know.

High Fives all around!

a reply to: dragonridr

One thing is always true in life you cant change the past you just have to learn to live with it.

Very nice Dragon.

You can't change who was at the White House watching movies with Richard Nixon. Apollo 13 happened only 4 months after the crew of Apollo 12 screened "Marooned" (1969)" with Richard Nixon. Let me show you again who was there. You can't change the past.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: dragonridr

One thing is always true in life you cant change the past you just have to learn to live with it.

Very nice Dragon.

You can't change who was at the White House watching movies with Richard Nixon. Apollo 13 happened only 4 months after the crew of Apollo 12 screened "Marooned" (1969)" with Richard Nixon. Let me show you again who was there. You can't change the past.

why do you believe nixons daily diary so much?? isnt it kept by the CIA??

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: dragonridr

One thing is always true in life you cant change the past you just have to learn to live with it.

Very nice Dragon.

You can't change who was at the White House watching movies with Richard Nixon. Apollo 13 happened only 4 months after the crew of Apollo 12 screened "Marooned" (1969)" with Richard Nixon. Let me show you again who was there. You can't change the past.

why do you believe nixons daily diary so much?? isnt it kept by the CIA??

It is yet another example of concrete history under the jack hammer. I take the Nixon Daily Diary as absolute fact. Just like you take NASA SP-368 as absolute fact. Isn't that fair?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

NASA used a modified version of a photograph as a book cover? Oh no, that never happens!

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

NASA used a modified version of a photograph as a book cover? Oh no, that never happens!

Rob, At one point in my research I noticed that the Richard Nixon Secret Service daily diaries were on the internet. I used them quite frequently and made a lot of interesting discoveries.

But that archive went down for a certain period of time, in it's place was a scrubbed version. Most notably, when I looked at he diaries AFTER the archive was restored... I noticed that some of the helicopter manifests had been taken out.

I am not going to make a big deal about it, but, the archives were up, the archives were taken down, the archives came back with a little bit of editing.

Here is the post I made when Richard Nixon's Secret Service diary archive went down
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There were changes made to the diaries.

History is not concrete.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

There were changes made to the diaries.

History is not concrete.

ok.. so whats up with this comment

You can't change who was at the White House watching movies with Richard Nixon. Apollo 13 happened only 4 months after the crew of Apollo 12 screened "Marooned" (1969)" with Richard Nixon. Let me show you again who was there. You can't change the past.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

you are trying to show dragonrdr who was there with Nixon watching marooned 4 months before apollo 13..

how reliable is your diary??