Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

Ask if they know the difference between Gamma Rays and Microwaves or Alpha rays.

 

[pgwenthold]

Apollo was one of the most extensively, meticulously, and publicly documented public projects there ever has been. No matter what level of detail you want or are able to examine, the detail is there. It remains within people's living memory. The artifacts remain for us to examine.

One of the weird things I've discovered in light of this, at least as far as I can tell, is the flag. From what I've seen, the flag on Apollo 11 was a simple nylon version that they got from like Sears Roebuck. This bothers me because I have been wanting to do some investigation of the degradation of the flag, and so wanted to find the original materials (specifically the cloth and dyes). But if this is just an off-the-shelf product, it makes a lot harder to find the specs.

I've always wondered about the claim that I've heard that the colors on the flag have likely faded because they have been in the sun for almost 50 years. That doesn't make sense, because color fading in dyes results from bleaching due to oxidation. Without any oxygen around, the dyes won't bleach. They will still oxidize, but won't become oxygenated. It is my contention that the dyes themselves have crapped out to brown color, from photolytic polymerization. I don't know if the cloth is intact, though. What is the fate of (say) nylon under short-wavelength photolysis?

I want to look at UV photolysis of of colored cloth under vacuum conditions, but I need to know what dyes were are talking about. And I have not been able to find that information.

 

[junkshop]

Ask if they know the difference between Gamma Rays and Microwaves or Alpha rays.

Easy:
Gamma rays are sort of like steroids, and turn you green (or grey, or red).
Microwaves are for softening butter.
Alpha rays shout and get tattooed a lot, and are incapable of forming healthy relationships.

 

[bknight]

I am afraid it is a real phenomenon. The Apollo 11 spacecraft was of mere thin aluminium and the space suit fabric designed to supposedly prevent the astronauts from either boiling or freezing as well as protecting them from the very real Galactic Cosmic Radiation [GCR]. The debunkers will tell you the spacecraft passed through these high GCR Van Allen belts 'very rapidly' and NASA spokespersons - PR - will suggest that why, Van Allen himself, whom the doughnut-shaped belts of especially intense GCR is named after, was on the NASA team*. They will never confirm it but they'll 'suggest' the spacecraft went via the 'safe route' via one of the poles. This of course is mere 'iffing and butting' but not actually verified fact. Whilst orbiting planets is a relative doddle, landing and mucking about with cameras is pure nonsense and then taking off again, based on a closely followed script (there was no software) plus NASA claims to have lost 700 boxes of telemetry and the original film, I do wonder at the general public's gullibility. Given the sheer amount of fuel needed, why, it's a freaking miracle Apollo 11 journeyed 300,000 more miles than the recent Artemis II and NASA never thought shortage of fuel could ever be a problem there.

*This is the laughable standard of 'debunking'.

Some telemetry tapes were really not lost, rather reused these expensive items in a shrinking budget, I'm not sure whether NASA has an oujtdated tape reader for these puppies.
The debunkers didn't just suggest that the Apollo craft passes through the less dense portions of the VARB in about 20-30 minutes. The further belts took s bit longer bit those electrons did little to the crew and electronics. Speaking of which those electronics were not the same types of electronics that are in use today. The electronics and computer had one task and it didn't include running a monitor, just guidance. Those crudes models can withstand the radiation passing through them much better than the ones in use today, isn't progress wonderful?
Yes landing was more challenging, just the challenge that all of them practiced so that the real would be an easier ay at work. The HB are all willfully ignorant individuals, consider yourself in that category.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Easy:
Gamma rays are sort of like steroids, and turn you green (or grey, or red).
Microwaves are for softening butter.
Alpha rays shout and get tattooed a lot, and are incapable of forming healthy relationships.

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[Vixen]

She has pivoted from pretending to think the missions were real to pretending to think they were fake.

The missions were real enough, even if only doing stuff in practical orbit (docking and undocking an' stuff). Problem is, the filming and photography is obviously faked, likely based on numerous simulations. Not so much a 'hoax', more a PR exercise: giving the public a tangible 'commemoration', if you like. When the next guys went up, there was little public interest due to the 'live' part being audio only. Having added it to the history books and encyclopaedic tomes as 'fact', with every school kid in America inculcated with it, the 'oh-oh' problem came because NASA didn't realise there'd be a near sixty-year gap up to today's date of any further sign of the marvellous folding Lunar Rover or photos taken without view finders and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite (really? Look it up!) and then transmitted by pointing a TV camera at the receiving monitor. Compare and contrast 1969 to 2026 in terms of technological advancement, and all we are doing now is sending crews on 'fly-bys'. As Hitler discovered, getting the public to believe a big lie is easy. As from NASA's POV, it'd be disastrous to come clean, so instead, we have a team of 'debunkers' and regular polls to measure how successfully the PR campaigns are working. NASA thinks it's enough to just say 700 boxes of one of the world's biggest historical events, which of course it would have guarded with its life, have 'gone missing'. Whoops! The FBI/CIA are not looking for suspects and the matter is closed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I know this will get moved to AAH and I will probably be sanctioned but.

You are deliberately trolling for attention now.

Pathetic

 

[Thermal]

The missions were real enough, even if only doing stuff in practical orbit (docking and undocking an' stuff). Problem is, the filming and photography is obviously faked, likely based on numerous simulations.

So you proudly have gone from "it is undeniably factual that it all happened" to "they just practiced docking in orbit and faked literally everything else in a studio"?

This is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ embarrasment.

 

[JayUtah]

The missions were real enough, even if only doing stuff in practical orbit (docking and undocking an' stuff).

Asked and answered. The CSM would have been a naked eye object.

Problem is, the filming and photography is obviously faked, likely based on numerous simulations.

Not by any argument or evidence you've shown. All you've shown is that you don't understand how photography works. Your so-called "simulations" are simply graphic depictions of what the conspiracy theorists claim should happen instead, without their having to actually demonstrate that their claims are factually supported.

When the next guys went up, there was little public interest due to the 'live' part being audio only.

Or because it was no longer the first landing. Apollo 13 (which had live telecasts) was even lower rated until the accident. Apollo missions declined in popularity not because of the presence or lack of live television coverage, but because it was no longer a novelty.

Having added it to the history books and encyclopaedic tomes as 'fact'...

...accompanied by a mountain of evidence that it happened. That's what the conspiracy theorists are frantically trying to explain away.

...of any further sign of the marvellous folding Lunar Rover...

There's no mystery about how the LRV was stowed, however few conspiracy theorists are bothered enough to look for it. The LRV was deployed on television.

...or photos taken without view finders...

Asked and answered.

...and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite (really? Look it up!)

Wrong.

No photos were transmitted from the Moon via satellite to Earth because no photos were transmitted from the Moon at all, via any means. All the photos were brought back as film magazines.

The Apollo-era MSFN used commercial telecommunications systems that in turn used LEO satellites for some segments of the linkage. This is the same as your long-distance phone calls at the time also using LEO satellites. A satellite does not need to be in geostationary orbit in order to serve as a communications relay. MSFN carried voice, telemetry, and occasionally live television from the lunar surface. The design and operation of the MSFN is no mystery and presents no technical issue that would suggest a hoax.

...and then transmitted by pointing a TV camera at the receiving monitor.

Correct. How is that proof of a hoax.

Compare and contrast 1969 to 2026 in terms of technological advancement, and all we are doing now is sending crews on 'fly-bys'

Technological advancement is not the sole factor determining a national space policy.

we have a team of 'debunkers' and regular polls to measure how successfully the PR campaigns are working.

You have experts explaining how it was done in the face of ignorant incredulity and deliberate misrepresentation.

NASA thinks it's enough to just say 700 boxes of one of the world's biggest historical events, which of course it would have guarded with its life, have 'gone missing'. Whoops!

Asked and answered.

The FBI/CIA are not looking for suspects and the matter is closed.

There is no evidence of any crime.

 

[JayUtah]

So you proudly have gone from "it is undeniably factual that it all happened" to "they just practiced docking in orbit and faked literally everything else in a studio"?

This is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ embarrasment.

It's actually one of David Percy's positions. When evidence arises that he can't explain, he falls back to the position that the missions themselves may have been real, but the photographic record was faked. He doesn't say why that needed to have happened.

 

[PSXer]

So, NASA faked the moon landings, but they were too stupid to fake anything in more recent times?

Relevant XKCD, as always: https://xkcd.com/1074/

 

[Andy_Ross]

sign of a marvelous folding LRV?

You can go and see one
Do you think they were all used?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Full film of Apollo 15 rover being deployed
Very long full coverage 1 hour 30 minutes

 

[JayUtah]

sign of a marvelous folding LRV?

Conspiracy theorists don't bother to look up how the LRV folded. As a result they can't figure out how it was carried inside the LM, and fail spectacularly to realize it wasn't in the LM so much as attached to the side. They present their own ignorance and laziness as some mystery that NASA has failed to address.

The deck folds into thirds (like a letter) with the control panel detached and packaged separately. Each wheel folds upward to create a sort of tent over the fore and aft thirds. This is then placed in the triangular bay in the descent stage such that the underside of the center portion of the deck appears to form the side wall of that quadrant of the descent stage.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The missions were real enough,

One of my cousins was manager of onboard software for about half of the Apollo missions. It wasn't quite a strict alternation. My cousin always said he was lucky the other guy had to do the missions that became famous.

The missions were real enough, even if only doing stuff in practical orbit (docking and undocking an' stuff). Problem is, the filming and photography is obviously faked, likely based on numerous simulations. Not so much a 'hoax', more a PR exercise: giving the public a tangible 'commemoration', if you like. When the next guys went up, there was little public interest due to the 'live' part being audio only. Having added it to the history books and encyclopaedic tomes as 'fact', with every school kid in America inculcated with it, the 'oh-oh' problem came because NASA didn't realise there'd be a near sixty-year gap up to today's date of any further sign of the marvellous folding Lunar Rover or photos taken without view finders and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite (really? Look it up!) and then transmitted by pointing a TV camera at the receiving monitor. Compare and contrast 1969 to 2026 in terms of technological advancement, and all we are doing now is sending crews on 'fly-bys'. As Hitler discovered, getting the public to believe a big lie is easy. As from NASA's POV, it'd be disastrous to come clean, so instead, we have a team of 'debunkers' and regular polls to measure how successfully the PR campaigns are working. NASA thinks it's enough to just say 700 boxes of one of the world's biggest historical events, which of course it would have guarded with its life, have 'gone missing'. Whoops! The FBI/CIA are not looking for suspects and the matter is closed.

If I were so stupid as to believe what you've written there, I'd be too ashamed to post anything anywhere at ISF.

As Hitler discovered, getting the public to believe a big lie is easy.

As we have discovered, getting @Vixen to believe and also to repeat a big lie is even easier.

 

[JesseCuster]

photos taken without view finders and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite (really? Look it up!) and then transmitted by pointing a TV camera at the receiving monitor.

I have looked it up, clearly you haven't. No photos taken on the moon were transmitted back to earth via any satellite. They took the film back to earth to be developed into photos, such as some that have been posted on this thread. This has all been explained in this thread in detail. How can you not know this?

You've confused TV footage and still film photography and mangled something you read about how the TV images were transmitted into this incoherent mess, haven't you? Not surprising, you really confuse and mix-up an awful of of extremely basic concepts.

Also, you meant to say either geostationary or geosynchronous as opposed to geopositioned, right, and got confused because you can't even get basic terminology correct? Or are you going to bend over backwards to insist it's a valid term and your use of it is valid, because you know an expert in orbital mechanics who used the phrase, or that's how it was taught to you at school, etc?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The missions were real enough, even if only doing stuff in practical orbit (docking and undocking an' stuff). Problem is, the filming and photography is obviously faked, likely based on numerous simulations. Not so much a 'hoax', more a PR exercise: giving the public a tangible 'commemoration', if you like.

You've already demonstrated that your understanding of photography is too deficient to make those claims. You're just repeating the same nonsense, but without making any of the specific technical claims that you've watched shot down in flames previously.

When the next guys went up, there was little public interest due to the 'live' part being audio only.

You mean, except for the parts that were broadcast to earth via the Westinghouse color TV camera, including Conrad and Bean descending the ladder for their EVA, before it's vidicon tube was damaged when Bean accidentally pointed the lens at the sun while moving it.

Having added it to the history books and encyclopaedic tomes as 'fact', with every school kid in America inculcated with it, the 'oh-oh' problem came because NASA didn't realise there'd be a near sixty-year gap up to today's date of any further sign of the marvellous folding Lunar Rover or photos taken without view finders and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite (really? Look it up!) and then transmitted by pointing a TV camera at the receiving monitor.

You're clearly frantically Googling every hoax claim you can find at this point and cramming it all into a gumbo of expired ingredients.

Let's talk about a fact: the worldwide engineering and physics communities have maintained an overwhelming scientific consensus for over half a century that the Apollo Program did exactly what it said it did. It's easy for (and lazy of) you to portray belief in the moon landings as something that resides only among indoctrinated children, i.e. your self-perceived intellectual inferiors. But the truth is that what you and all the other members of this hoax cult are doing is setting yourselves up as being far more clever than the world's scientific and engineering communities, even if you weren't prescient enough to realize that's what you're doing before it became embarrassing to admit.

Compare and contrast 1969 to 2026 in terms of technological advancement, and all we are doing now is sending crews on 'fly-bys'.

The Artemis Program is doing what Apollo did before it. The Artemis II mission is very much what Apollo 8 was. What are you going to complain about when Artemis III does what Apollo 9 did? What are you going to do when they land on the moon again?

As Hitler discovered, getting the public to believe a big lie is easy.

You seem to be having a rather hard go of getting anyone here to believe your lies.

Again, it isn't just NASA, or the U.S. Government - and it sure as ◊◊◊◊ ain't Hitler - saying Apollo landed on the moon six times. It's scientists and engineers everywhere.

If you spent as much time actually learning what real experts have to say about something, instead of flailing about trying to assert that you already know enough to lecture said experts and trying to pepper your posts with terminology that you pick up along the way and usually use in the wrong context, you might genuinely learn something and not make such foolish arguments.

As from NASA's POV, it'd be disastrous to come clean, so instead, we have a team of 'debunkers' and regular polls to measure how successfully the PR campaigns are working. NASA thinks it's enough to just say 700 boxes of one of the world's biggest historical events, which of course it would have guarded with its life, have 'gone missing'. Whoops! The FBI/CIA are not looking for suspects and the matter is closed.

See, there you go again parroting ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ without looking into it. What's next, the "fake 'moon rock' given to Willem Drees? Should we start a game of Conspiracy Theory BINGO?

None of the valuable scientific data, none of the photographs, none of the TV broadcasts -none of what they actually went there to get - have been lost or disposed of. The original tape of the slow scan TV broadcast from the Apollo 11 EVA may be lost, but it wasn't originally thought to be as important as the tape of the NTSC conversion made for worldwide broadcast. NASA did record over thousands of hours of Apollo telemetry data on Ampex tapes during part of the Landsat Program. Look up sticky-shed-syndrome. New magnetic tapes were suffering from a problem caused by a change in the binder formula for the oxide. NASA needed to reliably record massive amounts of data from the very expensive Landsat satellites in orbit, so they elected to reuse older tapes in storage that didn't pose the sticky-shed problem. These tapes included a great deal of Apollo telemetry, which was only recorded in case it needed to be consulted in an engineering investigation (like the Apollo 13 investigation). It consisted of thousands of hours of nothing but systems telemetry - tank pressures, component temperatures, voltage levels, environmental systems cycling on and off... All stuff they monitored closely for the safety of the missions, but which had no real scientific or historical value years later.

 

[Foster Zygote]

sign of a marvelous folding LRV?

You can go and see one
Do you think they were all used?

View attachment 71612

I love how hoax cultists are so desperate to maintain their incredulity that they act like hinges and locking pins are this esoteric technology that no one can adequately explain, like Star Trek transporters.

 

[Foster Zygote]

One of my cousins was manager of onboard software for about half of the Apollo missions. It wasn't quite a strict alternation. My cousin always said he was lucky the other guy had to do the missions that became famous.

But Vixen has assured us that there was no software.

Here, by the way, is Margaret Hamilton with... something or other. Probably the master list of everyone they need to convince to commit to maintaining the hoax.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The missions were real enough, even if only doing stuff in practical orbit (docking and undocking an' stuff). Problem is, the filming and photography is obviously faked, likely based on numerous simulations. Not so much a 'hoax', more a PR exercise: giving the public a tangible 'commemoration', if you like. When the next guys went up, there was little public interest due to the 'live' part being audio only. Having added it to the history books and encyclopaedic tomes as 'fact', with every school kid in America inculcated with it, the 'oh-oh' problem came because NASA didn't realise there'd be a near sixty-year gap up to today's date of any further sign of the marvellous folding Lunar Rover or photos taken without view finders and directly transmitted to Earth via a non -Geopositioned satellite (really? Look it up!) and then transmitted by pointing a TV camera at the receiving monitor. Compare and contrast 1969 to 2026 in terms of technological advancement, and all we are doing now is sending crews on 'fly-bys'. As Hitler discovered, getting the public to believe a big lie is easy. As from NASA's POV, it'd be disastrous to come clean, so instead, we have a team of 'debunkers' and regular polls to measure how successfully the PR campaigns are working. NASA thinks it's enough to just say 700 boxes of one of the world's biggest historical events, which of course it would have guarded with its life, have 'gone missing'. Whoops! The FBI/CIA are not looking for suspects and the matter is closed.

None of this made any sense.

Clearly, the photography isn't "obviously" fake if you can't find better arguments against it than you have already presented.

Others have already shown how ignorant your "any further sign of the...lunar rover" talking point is.

I'm just waiting for you to start picking up Anders Bjorkman's talking points about Apollo.