Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Pixel42]

And this is because the Apollo Hoax nonsense didn't take hold until the early 21st Century. You, and I, and others in our age bracket remember the Apollo missions, and how the technology progressed for each landing as the mission designers updated the parameters as new information came in telling them what was possible.

I worked at GCHQ 1970-1981, I and my colleagues followed the Apollo missions avidly. I never heard the slightest doubt expressed that it was unfolding exactly as appeared, and I was in the best place to hear any such rumours. I marvel at the wilful ignorance being displayed in this thread.

 

[steenkh]

Why would the FBI investigate if no crime has been committed?

Well, at this point in history, we hear about FBI investigating where no crime has been committed all the time, as long as it's about political opponents of the president, and no investigations when it's about political loyalists.

 

[catsmate]

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.

More of your rubbish and lies.

 

[JesseCuster]

Someone mentioned Frank Borman earlier in the thread and I had to Google it, I thought wasn't that the name of one of the astronauts in 2001. However, Frank Poole and Dave Bowman were the names of the astronauts. Frank... Borman/Bowman... hmmm? 2001 came out earlier in the same year of the Apollo 8 mission that Frank Borman was on. Hmmm...? Clearly Kubrick was trying to send a message about the whole Apollo program.

 

[Mojo]

She seems to be implying that the Hasselblad photographs were directly transmitted to earth?

Well, that's how it works when Vixen takes photos with her phone.

 

[JesseCuster]

Well, that's how it works when Vixen takes photos with her phone.

Transmitted via satellites in non-geopositional orbits.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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

Gamma Rays make you into the Hulk, Alpha waves make you Strontium Dog and X-Rays are for those glasses with bits of feather on the lenses. Duh!

 

[JayUtah]

Why would CIA investigate anything related to NASA?

The CIA cannot lawfully investigate anything domestically anyway. They are an intelligence-gathering agency, not a law-enforcement agency. And they are forbidden by their charter to gather intelligence within the U.S.

Why would the FBI investigate if no crime has been committed?

Agencies are required by federal law to preserve quite a lot of records. However, the requirement is generally limited to "public operations," which translates to things like policy. And there are provisions for "transcription." So, for example, if a meeting is recorded onto audio tape and the audio recording is later transcribed in writing, the written record may be considered sufficient and the audio recording may be destroyed without violating the law. Finally, ephemera may be legitimately destroyed or reused according to NARA-dictated schedules. You don't have to retain the break-room snack shopping list in perpetuity.

This is essentially how NASA addresses the 700 missing boxes of tapes. The tapes contain raw telemetry. But they can be transcribed by, say, reading them out on paper strip charts. The charts contain all the information from the tapes, and exist in a more practical and usable form. They satisfy the agency's mission to retain a record of their operations. This is what was done with the Apollo telemetry. Similarly the television signal was transcribed onto standard NTSC videotape and retained in this format.

Once such stabilization and transcription has taken place, original media is eligible for destruction, disposition (i.e., sale to other parties), or reuse. Since NASA was constrained by circumstances outside their control, the proper and lawful decision was to reuse the telemetry tapes for new incoming data. Failure to record incoming data would actually put NASA in danger of violating records-retention laws.

Inspectors General of federal agencies have inherent law-enforcement authority. When an agency uncovers evidence of criminal activity, it may conduct its own investigation and on its own refer matters directly to the Dept. of Justice for possible prosecution. There is no requirement to involve the FBI, although that is available when an agency's investigative resources are insufficient, and indicated when an agency's investigative process itself becomes suspect. In the latter case, the FBI does not need any additional authority.

The missing 700 boxes matter was properly investigated by a NASA engineer with the approval of the NASA Inspector General and a public report was produced. Everyone was satisfied that no law had been broken. This is not a case of multiple government agencies scrambling to cover something up. It's an example of a proper investigation having been carried out and reported through normal public channels.

 

[Vixen]

I wonder if you are talking here about converting slow-scan tv pictures to domestic broadcast tv.

The slow scan pictures were coming back at ten frames per second. US domestic TV ran at 29.97 frames per second.

It's 1969 so obviously you don't have a computer. Tell me how you would convert one video frame rate to another, live on TV, other than by simply pointing an NTSC camera at a 10 fps monitor and relying on the persistence of the screen's phosphor glow to smear over the flicker?

A more pressing difficulty is how you get a non-Geopositioned satellite (i.e., one whose orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet) to be in the right place at the right time.

You first.

 

[JayUtah]

A more pressing difficulty is how you get a non-Geopositioned satellite (i.e., one whose orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet)

The word is geostationary.

...to be in the right place at the right time.

You launch it into the correct orbit.

You first.

No.

Not only do you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, you haven't even articulated any nexus between satellite communications as they existed in 1969 and some reason to believe Apollo was fake. You simply state a wrong allegation of fact and insinuate that there is something suspicious about it without saying what.

How does the use of satellites in Apollo communications equate to evidence of a hoax? Explain it to us like you're five.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, and NASA never even suggested that they went "via one of the poles". That's just you getting your terminology all wrong again and fundamentally misunderstanding concepts.

The S-IVB, the third and final stage of the Saturn V, entered low earth orbit on a plane inclined to the plane of the VARB. When the S-IVB was restarted for the TLI (Trans Lunar Injection) burn, it flew a trajectory that carried it through the outer regions of the belts, where the flux is considerably lower. Contrary to your claim, NASA has never been vague about this at all.

View attachment 71616

Well, OK, it was one of the NASA apologists, Amy Teitel*, of several, who put forth the 'they went via the poles' explanation.

To explain away the very real and serious dangers of GCR, she seems to have referred to a comment by Dr. James Van Allen himself, who wrote in 1958 that 'any human exposed to even 10 roentgens per diem would only have an even chance of survival'. He then suggests future manned spacecrafts take off via 'the radiation-free zone over the poles'. Which of course Apollo did not do but which the 'debunkers' like to er, suggest they did

Van Allen stated that the 'maximum radiation level as of 1958' in entering the radiation belts is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour. Your exact same diagram, as used by the 'debunkers', shows a thick black line, implying this is the route the Apollo 11 travelled but there is zero confirmation it travelled this 'safe route' at all. The aim of your hypothetical diagram is to 'show' Apollo missed the most dangerous inner belt (as is thought) but this is completely fabricated PR. NASA itself has never confirmed it. In fact, if anything, its records shows the spacecraft travelled right through the inner belt.

But not to worry, it went through 'very rapidly' so no worries, there, is the back up argument.

*Teitel's first book was based on research for her master's degree thesis. Breaking the Chains of Gravity (2015) tells the story of America's nascent space program.The book describes the early pioneers of rockets in the late 1920s, up to the formation of NASA. wiki

 

[Andy_Ross]

A more pressing difficulty is how you get a non-Geopositioned satellite (i.e., one whose orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet) to be in the right place at the right time.

You first.

Transmission to and from the moon was direct line of sight.
Satellites weren't involved.
Reley from some ground stations around the globe to NASA used satellite links. Are you doubting satellite communications work?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, OK, it was one of the NASA apologists, Amy Teitel*, of several, who put forth the 'they went via the poles' explanation.

To explain away the very real and serious dangers of GCR, she seems to have referred to a comment by Dr. James Van Allen himself, who wrote in 1958 that 'any human exposed to even 10 roentgens per diem would only have an even chance of survival'. He then suggests future manned spacecrafts take off via 'the radiation-free zone over the poles'. Which of course Apollo did not do but which the 'debunkers' like to er, suggest they did

Van Allen stated that the 'maximum radiation level as of 1958' in entering the radiation belts is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour. Your exact same diagram, as used by the 'debunkers', shows a thick black line, implying this is the route the Apollo 11 travelled but there is zero confirmation it travelled this 'safe route' at all. The aim of your hypothetical diagram is to 'show' Apollo missed the most dangerous inner belt (as is thought) but this is completely fabricated PR. NASA itself has never confirmed it. In fact, if anything, its records shows the spacecraft travelled right through the inner belt.

But not to worry, it went through 'very rapidly' so no worries, there, is the back up argument.

You have ignored all the detailed replies haven't you?

 

[JayUtah]

To explain away the very real and serious dangers of GCR, she seems to have referred to a comment by Dr. James Van Allen himself...

I'll save you some time. James Van Allen is on record as saying the hoax claims and their radiation claims are nonsense. I corresponded with him personally to confirm this. What someone else says trying to interpret him is irrelevant. Your source says you're wrong. Full stop.

 

[Thermal]

I mean, it's one thing to say "oh yeah, I think people putter around in their garages converting their factory diesel SUVs to hybrid EVs". That's just being woefully ignorant of basic auto mechanics. But moon hoax believer? This is just sad.

 

[Vixen]

The word is geostationary.


You launch it into the correct orbit.


No.

Not only do you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, you haven't even articulated any nexus between satellite communications as they existed in 1969 and some reason to believe Apollo was fake. You simply state a wrong allegation of fact and insinuate that there is something suspicious about it without saying what.

How does the use of satellites in Apollo communications equate to evidence of a hoax? Explain it to us like you're five.

I haven't said it was a 'hoax'. You know perfectly well the mechanics of a geopositioned satellite. The fact the Apollo missions did not utilise one should make you wonder at the miracle of the live transmission to earth.

 

[JayUtah]

Which of course Apollo did not do but which the 'debunkers' like to er, suggest they did.

Why are you insisting upon secondary sources when there are excellent primary sources that are, in fact, quite extensive and complete?

...there is zero confirmation it travelled this 'safe route' at all.

Wrong. The orbital elements of the transfer orbits are published. The spacecraft were directly tracked according to these. Comparing the trajectory to the trapped radiation environment has been possible for decades. "Zero confirmation" is just, "I didn't bother to check."

NASA itself has never confirmed it.

Factually false.

In fact, if anything, its records shows the spacecraft travelled right through the inner belt.

None of the trapped radiation belts constitutes a homogeneous radiation environment. You can't infer exposure from a single, two-dimensional diagram.

 

[Vixen]

I mean, it's one thing to say "oh yeah, I think people putter around in their garages converting their factory diesel SUVs to hybrid EVs". That's just being woefully ignorant of basic auto mechanics. But moon hoax believer? This is just sad.

Citation, please.

 

[JayUtah]

I haven't said it was a 'hoax'.

You've explicitly said the photography is fake.

You know perfectly well the mechanics of a geopositioned satellite.

Far better than you. Why are you mentioning "geo-positional satellites" in the context of a paragraph clearly trying to argue Apollo was fake?

The fact the Apollo missions did not utilise one should make you wonder at the miracle of the live transmission to earth.

Apollo communications did use geostationary satellites. But the Apollo spacecraft did not transmit directly to them or to any satellite. Instead they transmitted to ground stations specifically suited to send and receive those signals. There's no miracle. It was all well-defined and well-publicized at the time.

 

[Thermal]

Citation, please.

That it's sad? Read the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thread.